Narrative Sneak Peeks: Why convincing the public is more than simply showing them the facts...

The stories we tell ourselves and the biases that support them - a cognitive psychologist's perspective.

When engaging in street outreach, animal freedom advocates often encounter a familiar frustration: resistance and excuses from people confronted with the realities of animal exploitation. Many of us have shared this experience and wondered: Why do people cling to their beliefs despite clear evidence of cruelty in animal industries? What prevents them from embracing the facts, acting with intellectual honesty, and opposing animal abuse?

In this article, we will explore some of the reasons why people maintain harmful mindsets that uphold the status quo of animal oppression and also suggest some strategies for addressing these challenges effectively.

The beliefs and attitudes we hold are often less about representing objective reality and more about how those beliefs benefit us.

When it comes to our beliefs, we all like to think that we have arrived at the correct conclusions about how the world works. However, the multitude of conflicting beliefs and ideologies around the globe demonstrate that this is not always the case. Nearly 70 years of psychological research on motivated reasoning and cognitive biases have shown that the beliefs and attitudes we hold are often less about representing objective reality and more about how those beliefs bolster our self-esteem and benefit us materially and socially.

Functional Attitudes Theory, developed in the 1950s and 1960s by psychologists Daniel Katz and Martin Fishbein, posits that people accept or reject beliefs based not solely on how accurate they seem in reality, but also because these beliefs serve specific social and emotional functions. These functions help individuals maximize rewards, minimize punishments, connect with social groups, and protect their self-esteem.

Understanding how the public's attitudes serve specific functions can help us, as animal freedom advocates, communicate in ways that resonate with people's underlying motivations. This approach can encourage support for animal freedom or, at the very least, explain their resistance to change.

We hold onto beliefs that are useful to us.

Some attitudes serve a 'utilitarian' function - that is, they help people get what they want, and avoid things they don't like. For example, someone might support animal freedom because they believe it leads to a healthier environment and personal well-being. They might perceive benefits such as improved public health and reduction in zoonotic diseases.

Conversely, the utilitarian function can also maintain the status quo. For instance, people might fear the personal inconvenience of changing their dietary or lifestyle habits, such as giving up meat or finding alternatives to animal-based products. Or individuals who work in industries reliant on animal exploitation may oppose animal freedom to avoid economic loss.

We hold onto beliefs that help us fit in.

Social-adjustive attitudes help individuals connect with appropriate social groups or impress others. For example, someone might initially feel indifferent about animal freedom. However, after joining a community or group that actively advocates for animal rights, their attitude may begin to shift. To fit in and gain the approval of the group, they might start eating plant-based foods, avoiding products tested on animals, and supporting legislation that promotes animal welfare.

However, the social-adjustive function can also maintain the status quo. Individuals might resist supporting animal rights if they fear it will alienate them from their social group or attract negative judgment from peers who do not share their values. For example, someone might prefer to remain part of the meat-eating majority rather than join a minority (vegan) group that is often vilified and portrayed as radical, militant, or extreme.

We hold onto beliefs that protect our sense of self.

Introduced by Leon Festinger, Cognitive Dissonance Theory describes the discomfort people feel when they hold conflicting beliefs or engage in behaviour that contradicts their beliefs. This discomfort can be a powerful motivator for change. For instance, if someone who considers themselves compassionate realises that their dietary choices harm animals, they may experience emotional discomfort, and be motivated to change their behaviour to align with their values - or conversely, they may ignore or discredit the new information in order to alleviate the discomfort.

Ego-defensive attitudes protect individuals from both internal and external unpleasantness. These attitudes allow people to avoid accepting unpalatable or objectionable aspects of themselves or their environment. For instance, a person might oppose animal rights because they have been confronted with the uncomfortable truth about their role in animal exploitation. By adopting attitudes that support animal freedom, they can resolve the cognitive dissonance, and therefore protect their sense of self as a good person.

Confirmation bias further reinforces these attitudes by filtering the information people are exposed to. For example, someone might only ever see cows in large, open fields as they drive through scenic countryside, rather than the harsh realities of intensive factory farms and slaughterhouses. This selective exposure helps maintain a comforting, yet inaccurate, perception of farming animals, thereby supporting the status quo and reducing cognitive dissonance.

Attribution: Wikimedia Commons

What can animal advocates do with this knowledge?

By understanding and utilising the reasons people hold onto their attitudes, we can effectively influence and change those attitudes. By aligning our advocacy with the underlying motivations that drive beliefs—such as social acceptance, and self-protection—we can create compelling messages that resonate on a deeper level.

For example, by creating inclusive communities that support animal freedom and which are open to all, we can offer people a compelling alternative to the harmful attitudes upheld by their current social groups. Additionally, showcasing role models who advocate for animal freedom can demonstrate that these values are socially accepted and admired. In addition, we can use social proof by showcasing the growing number of people and communities supporting animal rights can create a sense of momentum and normalise compassionate choices.

To counteract ego-defensive attitudes and cognitive dissonance, it's important to encourage self-reflection. Gently challenge conflicting beliefs by offering solutions that align actions with values. We can also counter confirmation bias by actively sharing diverse and accurate representations of farming animals to challenge comforting yet inaccurate perceptions. Sharing positive narratives that frame adopting animal-friendly practices as a positive and empowering choice further supports this change.

By leveraging these psychological theories, animal advocates can craft messages that resonate deeply with people's motivations, encouraging support for animal freedom and addressing resistance to change.