What we learnt from public opinion research with people who have animal companions vs people who don't
Our insights map the journey toward supporting animal freedom and show how to build messages that move people forward by meeting them where they are.
Most people aren’t firmly for or against animal freedom — they’re somewhere in the middle. At Animal Think Tank, we call them the ‘persuadables’: people who are unsure, conflicted, or haven’t thought deeply about the issue, but might be open to change…
We wanted to know: Do people who live with animals think differently about animal freedom than those who don’t? And what can that tell us about how to communicate more effectively?
Key takeaways for engaging the ‘persuadables’:
Understand the journey. The journey to supporting animal freedom involves three interconnected aspects: hearts (empathy), mindsets (attitudes and beliefs), and actions (behaviours).
One size doesn’t fit all. What works for someone just starting out may alienate someone further along, and vice versa. Tailor messages to their position on the journey.
Build momentum, not backlash. Creating emotional or cognitive tension can spark change — but only if we offer motivating next steps that avoid triggering shame, defensiveness or disengagement.
For those at the start, avoid graphic or shame-based content. Instead, use positive stories that build familiarity, spark curiosity and normalise change, featuring trusted voices and relatable experiences.
For those feeling stuck in the middle, recognise the caring choices they’ve already made. Gently shift their focus from personal responsibility to systemic injustice, and offer a new, empowering identity as citizens shaping a fairer future for all.
In a previous survey that we conducted with active members of the animal freedom movement, many cited their relationship with another animal as the primary inspiration for getting involved.
This raised an important question about engaging the persuadable middle: how might people with animal companions respond to messages about animal freedom compared to those with little or no interaction with other animals?
To explore this, we ran focus groups with members of the public who either lived with animal companions or did not, aiming to understand how these experiences shape people’s empathy, attitudes and actions.
Which group has travelled the furthest?
We found that, overall, people who share their homes with animal companions tend to be further along in all aspects of their journey towards supporting animal freedom.
This aligns with the findings of other research. For example, one study found that adults with animal companions identified more with other animals and ate less 'meat' compared to those without animal companions (Amiot et al., 2023).
It’s obviously not as simple as 'get a dog and you’ll care more about animal freedom', or vice versa. We saw plenty of overlap: some participants without animal companions were actually more empathetic or further along in changing their behaviour. And it may be that those who already care deeply about other animals are more likely to share their home with one.
What’s key is that these two groups map onto different positions along the journey, offering useful insights into how people think and feel at each stage, and how we can communicate with them more effectively when they’re there.
The beginning of the journey
Participants without animal companions have generally taken fewer steps towards supporting animal freedom.
The meat-eater identity
Being a 'meat-eater' is a big part of their identity, at least in the context of talking about our relationship with other animals, and many unapologetically place themselves in the 'pre-contemplative' stage of the action journey.
They enjoy the taste of ‘meat’ and see it as a normal part of life, closely tied to belonging. They feel strongly that what people choose to eat is a personal choice that should be respected.
"...when it comes to food, I mean, I love meat. I'm a real meat-eater... I can't see me ever changing that."
‘Ignorance is bliss’ mindset
A key barrier to progression for people in this group is the 'ignorance is bliss' mindset. They know engaging with content that sparks sympathy or empathy will make them feel uncomfortable about their role in animal suffering, so they actively avoid it.
Even when confronted with misinformation from Big Animal Ag, they acknowledge their complicity.
"I don't think it's just the industry... me personally, I'm to blame as well. I don't really want to know."
As a result, those without animal companions tend to know less about animals used in the food system and rarely consider how other animals experience the world. Some even admit to fearing other animals.
This distance seemed to make them more likely to view humans as superior, reinforcing a sense of separation from other animals and making empathy, respect and curiosity harder to access.
"...human beings are not animals, we may be animals, but we're more evolved animals, we're back at the top of the food chain."
Connection with other animals can increase our likelihood to support animal freedom
People with animal companions tend to be more aligned with the idea of animal freedom, having progressed further in all aspects of their journey compared to those without animal companions.
‘I'm an animal lover’ identity
Living with other animals creates a daily connection that helps people consider them on a deeper level. Many participants drew comparisons between their animal family members and the experiences of other animals, which made those issues feel more personal.
They showed greater awareness of animal issues and spoke out against factory farming, often choosing ‘high welfare’ options and reducing consumption.
People with animal companions were also more likely to question human superiority, reflecting critically on war, violence and human impact on the planet, and asking how we can see ourselves as superior while causing so much harm.
"... it makes me feel really angry that we have people [who] think we have this right to rule over another species when really we've got a lot of faults with us... like all these wars are going on purely for greed."
However, despite their empathy, reflective mindset and initial behaviour changes, many in this group have hit a wall. They’ve stopped progressing because they don’t see a need to — held back by deeply ingrained narratives that keep them stuck.
The 'good' meat-eater identity
A big barrier to progress is the deep-rooted belief that eating ‘meat’ is essential, a message picked up in childhood and reinforced by culture. The belief that it's an unfortunate but unavoidable part of life.
"...we've always eaten meat for a reason. There must be a nutritional reason for it as much as anything."
Eating other animals is not the problem, for them — it’s about how we do it. Messages about cutting back on 'meat' for the planet tend to frame the issue as one of scale, mass production and over-consumption.
Meanwhile, Big Animal Ag’s heavily promoted 'high welfare' narrative reinforces the belief that it's possible to eat other animals while still caring for them.
"Like I said, you can eat meat... but not so much of everything. It's just too much. People eat too much meat."
As a result, they aim to be the most ethical 'meat-eater' possible. They believe cutting down on 'meat' and buying 'high welfare' products is enough, leaving them stuck halfway along their journey to supporting animal freedom.
"I'm thinking much more about how I shop locally and where the food has come from and how it's being produced. I think I've made that little bit of a difference."
A lack of momentum
A lack of momentum was evident in both groups. For those without animal companions, there was little motivation to begin their journey.
Their distance from other animals, combined with a deliberate avoidance of learning more, keeps them at the very start. They don't see a problem with the status quo, let alone a need for change.
Those with animal companions believe they’re sufficiently aware of the problems and trust they’re making the ‘right’ choices.
This confidence keeps them operating within the system of harm, rather than questioning whether it should exist at all. It prevents further progress and leaves them ‘settled’ midway through the journey.
Creating cognitive dissonance
Taking part in the focus groups nudged participants out of alignment between their hearts, minds and actions. This created discomfort or cognitive dissonance, but the non-confrontational tone of the conversations also opened up space for honest reflection.
Some began to question their assumptions, while others acknowledged they might need to know more or rethink their position.
"...the primary thing that I'm thinking about [now] is how, as a consumer, can I get more educated? Because I clearly need to be."
"I feel like we've really pulled apart some really big ethical considerations and it's been interesting because it's made me stop and think 'I'm part of the problem'."
Key takeaways to inform our communications:
Keep the tension, but offer a way forward
When we create cognitive dissonance in a non-threatening way — i.e. create tensions between people’s hearts, mindsets and behaviours — they naturally look to realign and restore a sense of comfort.
Our challenge is to make sure they realign in a way which moves them forward on their journey, not backwards into defensiveness, disengagement, or a sense of futility.
What ‘forward’ looks like, though, will differ depending on where someone is starting from. So it’s crucial we understand their position in order to offer effective, motivating next steps.
At the start of the journey
By listening to those without animal companions during the focus groups, we gained valuable insight into how curiosity begins and what might help people take their first steps toward animal freedom.
Early on, many people avoid making the connection between their food and animal suffering, finding it too uncomfortable.
Graphic content risks pushing them away, so messaging may be more effective when it builds positive connections and familiarity with other animals and gently challenges mindsets.
At Animal Think Tank, we found that the animal abilities narrative, which highlights animals’ uniqueness as well as the traits we share with them (like playfulness, emotions and close family bonds) can be persuasive to many and could be an effective narrative our movement can utilise more.
For those at the very start of their journey, choice and autonomy really matter, so telling them what to feel, think or eat probably won’t land well. Instead, storytelling that normalises change may be a more effective and engaging approach.
Starting with relatable moments like 'I never thought I’d change my mind about food' helps avoid shame or judgement, and builds connection with the storyteller — creating a sense of 'this person is just like me'.
Respected voices, like chefs and athletes, can show that plant-based food is tasty, healthy and aspirational. While personal benefits can play a role in the story, framing change within a broader narrative of social progress may be more powerful.
This kind of framing, which has tested well at Animal Think Tank, can help position animal freedom as part of our shared journey towards a fairer, kinder society. Reinforcing that many others already care can reduce defensiveness and support their need to belong.
Keeping momentum
Insights from the Animal Companion group can guide how we connect with people who are stuck on their journey — those who’ve come a long way, but find themselves swayed by industry messaging and held back by harmful narratives.
Being a ‘good’ person is a big part of how they see themselves and it’s helped drive the changes they’ve made so far. So, it’s important to acknowledge the caring choices they’ve already made.
When people feel seen for their good intentions, they’re less likely to get defensive — and more likely to take the next step.
To help nudge them forward, we can gently reintroduce tension by shifting the focus away from individual actions and onto the bigger picture. The system that exploits other animals is the real villain here, one that simply can’t meet other animals’ best interests by design.
Whistle-blower (like vets, farmers and slaughterhouse workers) who have changed their views can help make that message land.
Alongside that, we can offer a more inspiring path forward: inviting people to move beyond just being ethical consumers and step into a new identity as active, values-led citizens, helping to shape a fairer future for all. This is an approach that Animal Think Tank is continuing to test…
These in-depth focus groups with ‘persuadables’ gave us valuable insight into the journey towards supporting animal freedom and the different positions people hold along the way. One thing is clear: there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to communication or engagement.
Comparing those with and without animal companions shows that what resonates with one group may miss the mark with another. When our messaging meets people where they are — whether they’re just beginning or feeling stuck halfway — we’re more likely to move them forward.
For more insights from this study, you can download our report for free here.
Interesting question! In our 2024 Bryant summer survey we asked whether people had companion animals, alongside a ton of other stuff.
The data is open access:
https://osf.io/m7nzb/
Id love if ATT or anyone reading this wants to analyse our data (we're really short on time these days) and write a blog seeing how our data might build on your work 💚
This is really interesting and fits with research I read years ago about changing behaviours for the environment. I turned vegetarian at 16 after meeting a pot bellied pig! But it wasn’t till we got our dog 20 plus years later that I really truly saw other animals as not here for us. I turned vegan a few years later. I now adopt and foster hamsters and they remind me every day that keeping another being in captivity is fundamentally wrong, even if we do love them and care for them.