How visual stories of animal freedom make messages more persuasive

A closer look at the research: Why does combining images of the 'dream' and the 'nightmare' work?

Persuading people to care about animal freedom is tough. So how do we raise awareness without triggering shutdown or despair? We know it’s vital to expose the cruelty behind closed doors – in farms, labs and zoos – because if people don’t recognise the harm and injustice, what would motivate them to change? But, many people instinctively shutdown when confronted with reality. Deep-rooted psychological defences help them avoid the discomfort of recognising the harm they support, sometimes as often as three times a day. Even when people do learn the facts, a common reaction is a sense of futility: the feeling that the system is too big to fight, or that changing their own behaviour is just too difficult.

But what if we meet futility with hope? What if we show a future where fellow animals are free and thriving? Could this vision help dissolve that sense of helplessness, increase support, and inspire people to act?

To answer this question, we’ve been exploring how different images, and the slogans that accompany them, influence people’s emotional responses. We've been looking at how clearly the message comes across, and how motivated the audience feels to take action. In particular, we’ve been measuring reactions to adverts that focus either on the ‘dream’ (fellow animals living freely and thriving), the ‘nightmare’ (the harsh reality of life trapped on farms), or a combination of both, showing the cruelty that exists alongside the world we could create.

We briefly touched on the findings in a recent blog post – but this is the science bit, where we roll up our sleeves, get a bit nerdy, and look at the details…

Trigger warning: This article contains distressing imagery of animals suffering in farms.

The study

Across four experiments, we tested 90 different message designs advocating for the freedom of either chickens or pigs. Over 7,500 UK participants were recruited to rate the messages, which varied in imagery, slogans, and calls to action. If you would like to explore the methods and results in greater detail, the full report is available here.

Examples of some of the message designs we tested

The results

The effect of specific slogans or calls to action was minimal¹. We found that the largest differences between the messages were due to the imagery, which we will focus on here.

Messages depicting the harsh reality farmed animals endure elicited the strongest emotional reactions

Across the four experiments, we consistently found that messages depicting the harsh reality elicited the strongest emotional reactions, such as higher levels of empathy, sadness and disgust. These images were also rated as clearer, more motivating, and more effective than messages featuring only positive or peaceful scenes. This can be seen in the figure below, which shows that the overall measure of effectiveness was consistently higher for nightmare images than dream images.

Juxtaposing nightmare imagery with dream imagery revealed the potential to create even more powerful visuals

Contrasting nightmare imagery with dream imagery also revealed the potential to create even more impactful visuals. However, the results were mixed: in some cases, the combination was less effective than nightmare imagery alone. But in others, certain pairings proved more motivating than the nightmare images on their own.

The graph below shows responses to five nightmare images of pigs, each paired with five different dream images. We measured self-reported motivation to support the cause. Values below the red line indicate combinations that were less effective than the nightmare image alone. In this experiment, four combinations produced a stronger motivational effect than the nightmare image on its own.

What is the story being told?

The key seems to lie in the story being told by the pairing, as well as the accompanying text, which helps bring that story to life and guide the interpretation. For chickens, the most effective juxtapositions were those that highlighted the deceptive practices of large-scale animal agriculture, reinforcing a narrative of industry lies.

In the messages about pigs, the most effective combinations told the story of an individual escaping cruelty and finding a better life. The viewer could easily imagine that the pig joyfully bathing in the mud at the bottom of the images was the same one suffering at the top, creating a narrative of hope alongside the depiction of cruelty.

Some of the lowest-performing combinations paired a single free pig with images of many pigs still trapped on farms. The contrast may have reinforced the reality that most remain confined, evoking a sense of futility. Similarly, when nightmare and dream images were less connected, like a pig and a piglet, the emotional impact was weaker, possibly because it was harder for participants to see them as one coherent story.

As our experiments tested every possible combination of dream and nightmare images, many pairings didn’t make much sense, and this might be why they were less persuasive than the lone nightmare images. But when the images were well connected, they were much more effective.

These results suggest that, while distressing imagery can be persuasive, combining them with hopeful visuals can deepen emotional engagement and, in some cases, spark even stronger motivation. However, it’s clear that this strategy needs to be carefully crafted, as the ‘wrong’ combination can dilute the message or even alienate the viewer. The most effective combinations occur when the images tell a coherent story, linking the harsh reality with the hopeful vision in a way that feels natural and compelling.

Caveats and considerations

It’s worth noting that the imagery used in these studies didn’t include graphic gore. The images, while distressing, were arguably on the milder end of the spectrum: showing suffering, neglect and confinement rather than overt violence or blood. This may have made the content more palatable, allowing participants to stay engaged and respond emotionally without turning away. If the imagery had been more graphic, the results could have been different; either intensifying emotional responses or potentially triggering avoidance and disengagement. This raises the question about where the line exists between impactful and overwhelming, and how far is ‘too far’ when aiming to motivate, not alienate. This is something Animal Think Tank intends to test in the future.

These four experiments also do not address the fact that the continuum between dream and nightmare is just one way of approaching the issue of what makes an effective message. Many animal advocacy messages don’t fit neatly into either category, yet they can still be incredibly effective. These four studies represent only the tip of the iceberg. A blank sheet of paper offers near limitless potential for combining imagery and text in ways that resonate with different audiences. The possibilities for creative and impactful campaigns are vast, and we’ve only just begun to explore them.

What have you found helps or hinders effective communication in your advocacy? We would love to hear about it!

1. In one study, we compared three calls-to-action ("Go vegan", "Support a transition away from farming animals", or "Support a plant-based future”). While agreement with the messages was about the same for all three (around 47%), the specific call-to-action had small but significant effects on motivation: Supporting a transition away from farming animals had the lowest motivation (24.49%), followed by "Go vegan" (26.97%), and then "Support a plant-based transition" (29.46%).