Why do some messages inspire change while others shut it down?
Small shifts in wording, big differences in response – what helps and hinders our communications
If you’ve ever tried talking to someone about the cruelty of farming animals and watched the conversation turn defensive before you’ve even finished your sentence, you’re not alone. A new Animal Think Tank study tested 22 different ways of framing the problem of animal use with 2,117 UK participants.
The results? While some frames nudge people towards change, others easily backfire by triggering identity-threat and shutdown. Below are some examples of what framings to use, and what to avoid.
What we tested, and why it matters
Each participant read one short paragraph about the problem of farming animals (kept general – not only focused on factory farming) with no call to action. We kept the content neutral so we could isolate the effect of the frame rather than a specific ask.
Note: These message frames were tested to explore what resonates – they’re not intended for public use as they are, but instead can guide and inspire how we shape our own communications.
We measured attitudes before and after message exposure:
support for abolishing the farming of animals
speciesism
whether animal freedom felt like social progress
worries about negative impacts
and preference for the status quo.
Then we gathered immediate reactions to the message:
clarity
agreement
motivation
interest in learning more
likelihood to talk to someone about the issue.
Effects were modest (as you’d expect from a single short exposure), but reliable: the strongest average shifts were around a quarter of a point on a 7-point scale – about 3.5%. For campaigners, that could be the difference between a door left ajar and one slammed shut.
We found four frames that performed best
1) Subverting Tradition: question harmful traditions without attacking identity
Messages that honour people’s attachment to tradition while still inviting us to change harmful norms increased support for abolition and reduced preference for the status quo. This frame lets audiences keep valued identities (‘good neighbour’, ‘respect traditions’) while choosing a kinder future.
"Respect for our traditions and values guides us as a society, steering our moral compass and shaping our culture. Yet when traditions and practices cause harm and suffering, it's our moral duty to question and redefine them."
2) Harmful Status Quo: name the ‘normal’ that clashes with our values
Pointing out that ‘what’s normal’ is not always ‘what’s right’ boosted support for abolition and interest in learning more. And it trended towards reduced speciesism and increased the perception that moving towards animal freedom is positive social progress. This frame surfaces the cognitive dissonance gently: “We inherited a system; we didn’t choose it. We can choose differently now.”
"It is considered normal and natural to use, trade and kill animals, and is seen as a 'necessary' part of human life. However, much of our relationship with animals is harmful and not aligned with our values as a society."
3) One Health: connect human, animal and planetary wellbeing
Linking animal treatment to public health and the health of our shared home increased support for abolition, raised perceptions of animal freedom as social progress, and grew interest in learning more, while lowering concern about potential negative impacts. It also nudged recognition of animals’ cognitive and emotional capacities.
"Humans and animals share the same home, and our planet is a life-support system to all of us. Therefore, what happens to some of us indirectly impacts all of us. The mistreatment of animals is not just a moral failing of our societies, it's a direct threat to all of our shared wellbeing and the health of our planet... Harming animals also harms humans and the planet, creating a cycle of suffering that affects us all."
4) Care: align with people’s self-image as kind and fair
Appeals to compassion scored highest on agreement and motivation, and lowered concern about negative impacts overall. But there were hints of backfire on speciesism for some audiences, so we need to be careful to avoid over-moralising or framing society as complicit. Keep it invitational, not accusatory: “This is about living up to the kindness we already believe in.”
"Humans' natural kindness and compassion is often in contradiction to how our societies treat animals. The pain and harm animals endure in industries like farming and experimentation is not just about their suffering, it's a reflection of our society's failure to truly care about others who are different from ourselves."
Frames that backfired (and why)
Several framings, however, backfired. After reading these messages, participants had higher speciesism scores, increased fears about change, or lowered support for abolition. In particular, messages that framed the reader as morally complicit backfired. Examples of messages that backfired:
direct comparisons between speciesism and racism or sexism
messages that emphasised betrayal, oppression, harm, trauma or deceit.
Participants who read these messages reported lower support for abolition than those who had not seen any message at all.
For many people, such messages likely land as a character attack. These messages frame the audience as the villain, either directly or indirectly, by participating in the system. There is a huge body of evidence showing that we are all biased to protect our self-identity and to maintain our sense of self as a good person, especially when that conflicts with new information. Messages that threaten this self-image lead to the predictable response of reactance: reject the message to reduce discomfort and double-down on pre-existing beliefs.
Takeaway: avoid messages that frame the reader/society as the villain or problem. It’s more persuasive to focus on agency (how people can and are changing/taking action etc) rather than blame. Place responsibility on harmful industries and harmful systems we inherited, and show how people can help fix them.
Key takeaways from this study
The study’s clearest lessons translate into four ideas to test in campaigning:
For most people, try to avoid triggering defensiveness. If a line could be read as ‘you’re a bad person’ or ‘you’re to blame’, consider a different approach. The villain should always be the industry/system, not our audience. We want our audience to feel like they’re on the same side as us.
We’re not to blame for the world we inherited, but we don’t have to accept it. Name the system as at fault, not the individual. But also speak to their sense of agency and ‘good person’ identity, whether through showing how many people are choosing to boycott that industry or take another form of action.
Reinforce shared values. Lead with kindness, fairness, responsibility; these are already part of how people see themselves.
Speak to a ‘bigger us’. Emphasise connection – human, animal, planet.
What this looks like in practice
Instead of: “If you care about justice, you must reject speciesism.”
Try: “Most of us try to be good neighbours. We keep the noise down, look out for each other, and try not to cause harm. A lot of people are starting to extend that same care a little further – to the animals around us. They avoid supporting industries that harm them, choose kinder products, and speak up when something feels wrong.”
How to use these kind of frames across channels
In a petition: Try leading with a values-first line → name the violation of those values → and present the solution/vision as benefitting everyone.
For example: “Most of us want to live in a society that’s fair, and where no one is treated as if they don’t matter. But factory farming treats animals like they’re nothing more than unfeeling objects. Shifting away from factory farming is a way to live up to our values and build a kinder, more decent society.” (Care, Harmful Status Quo, Subverting Tradition + Care)
In an interview: Try using the ‘bigger us’ bridge.
For example: “This is about public health and shared wellbeing. When animals are confined in conditions like this, it’s harmful for everyone.” (One Health)
In a 30-second reel: Test pairing a compassionate opener with a simple next step.
For example: “We teach kindness and sustainability in our schools. Let’s make school meals reflect that – more animal-friendly, plant-forward choices as standard.” (Care + Agency)
In coalition comms: Try emphasising common ground.
For example: “Whether it’s health, climate or fairness, people everywhere are pushing for change – updating old systems so they work better for us, for animals, and for the planet.” (Authority vs Subversion + One Health)
Want to read the full report?
You can read the full details of the report here.
What messages have you tested that have worked well? Please share your examples in the comments so others can see them too…
I really love these posts. I always learn so much and finish feeling optimistic.
Not so much a specific message, but I find that honestly speaking from my own experience seems to have a better impact than trying to explain anything else. However this requires that someone is curious enough to ask me about my choices.
Thank you very much for this research. Most interesting. Much to consider.