Why does comparing speciesism to human oppression shut people down?
What our latest research reveals about the ideas that connect, and the ones that backfire
Have you ever tried talking about animal freedom at the dinner table?
Maybe you’ve tried explaining to Uncle Graham that it’s hypocritical to love some animals while exploiting others. Or maybe, in conversation with a friend, you’ve compared speciesism with racism or sexism, hoping the comparison would help them see the issue more clearly.
You probably found this didn’t seem to help people understand speciesism in a broader way; instead, it likely shut the conversation down, with the moment for deeper connection passing.
At Animal Think Tank, we wanted to understand why, and what actually happens when people who eat animals hear messages like this. So, in recent public testing, we asked participants to respond to different narrative prompts.
The first compared humans’ inconsistent treatment of animals (speciesism) with systems of human oppression, such as racism and sexism. The result? Participants rejected the comparison outright. One said:
“It’s ridiculous that someone would compare sexism and racism to speciesism. I think that’s far-fetched. I think it’s outlandish.”
While another insisted:
“Human beings are not animals. We may be animals, but we’re more evolved. We’re at the top of the food chain.”
Moments later, we introduced a different narrative prompt, this time highlighting the psychological harm animals can experience when they are exploited and confined. In their responses, there was a clear shift in tone.
One participant reflected on their own choices, saying:
“For many years now I will not even go to a zoo. I do not want to pay money to encourage animals being kept in enclosures.”
Another drew a direct parallel with human experiences, noting that:
“Animals who have been mistreated would have the same worries as a human who has had harm caused to them. They would feel the same way.”
Faced with the first speciesism narrative, participants rejected the message and stressed a clear separation between humans and animals.
Faced with the second narrative about psychological harm, they engaged emotionally, reflected on their own behaviour, and talked about animals and humans sharing similar feelings.
Same group. Two very different responses, minutes apart.
So what changed?
These participants were part of a study comparing the attitudes of people who live with animal companions and those who do not.
At Animal Think Tank, we had a hunch that those with animal companions would be more empathetic and more likely to recognise other animals as individuals, and our findings so far suggest that this is the case.
People with animal companions are notably further forward on every aspect of their journey to supporting animal freedom with their hearts, minds and actions.
This focus group study also included people who do not have animal companions. They do not have daily interactions with animals and are generally further back on that journey.
But as the quotes above show, they still express concern for animals’ emotions, show empathy and have the capacity to reflect on their own behaviour.
They are part of the moveable middle: a key part of the public who feel conflicted about animal freedom (rather than outright opposed), and therefore could be a crucial audience for our movement.
Who are the moveable middle?
The very nature of being in the moveable middle is that you have not fully made up your mind about an issue.
Throughout the study, participants from both groups drew on both harmful and helpful ideas about animals, often at the same time. On one hand, they repeated industry ideas about ‘high welfare’, the belief that eating animals is ‘necessary’, and human ‘superiority’.
On the other, they spoke about other animals as sentient, emotional individuals, emphasised kindness and fairness, and believed that change is possible.
Different narrative prompts brought different responses to the surface.
What does this mean for how we communicate?
It can seem baffling that the same people respond so differently to two different narratives, minutes apart, without appearing to notice the shift in themselves. But it’s because people do not come to our communications with a blank slate.
They already hold a mix of helpful and harmful ideas about other animals, shaped by personal experience, culture, industry messaging, and the wider fabric of society.
Helpful ideas keep animals in view as thinking, feeling individuals with lives of their own. Harmful ideas pull people back towards ideas that animals exist ‘for human purposes’, or that the current system is basically ‘high welfare’ already, so there’s really nothing wrong with it.
The different ways we communicate about other animals can bring up either of these ideas. Some spark empathy, while others prompt defensiveness and the justifications that go with it.
So why, in this focus group, did people reach for harmful ideas when the comparison between speciesism and human oppression was introduced?
A quote from one participant helps us understand what was happening. They said:
“You’re saying that because I know that animals have been killed to go on my plate, that I could have racist views or be against certain cultures or races.”
In other words, they felt the message was not about how animals were treated, but about whether they are a good person. Along with a set of pre-existing ideas about animals, people are also bringing ideas about themselves.
As Animal Think Tank’s wider research also suggests, when people feel personally attacked or villainised, they are more likely to shut down and reach for dominant harmful ideas – such as “humans and animals are different” – to protect their identity as decent and fair-minded.
Animal advocate or not, most people want to see themselves as a good person. People also want to feel like they have the ability to make choices. When our communications respect those core psychological needs, people are more likely to stay open and reflect. When they feel judged, shamed, or told what to do, defensiveness can arise quickly.
If we want to persuade or inspire the moveable middle, our communications need to ignite the helpful ideas as often as possible. We want people to hear themselves saying thoughtful, compassionate things about other animals, not digging their heels in and reinforcing harmful ideas.
Through our research, we are learning that persuasion depends not just on the ideas we share, but on what those ideas stir up in the people who encounter them.
Why can talking about speciesism be problematic?
The speciesism example shows what can happen when an idea moves faster than an audience is ready for.
Our research has found that speciesism is still an unfamiliar term for most people. Moving quickly into direct comparisons with racism and sexism often creates confusion and a defensive backlash. Without a shared understanding of speciesism as a system, people tend to hear the comparison not as a structural critique, but as a personal accusation.
That is especially risky because feeling judged or criticised is one of the fastest routes to defensiveness, across both groups we studied. When people feel their good person identity is under attack, they move quickly to protect themselves.
That is exactly what we saw. In trying to protect their identity, people started drawing on more dismissive ideas about animals to justify their position. Rather than engaging with the underlying point, they rejected the comparison, emphasised human superiority, or doubled down on the differences between humans and other animals.
… And why does talking about psychological harm connect better?
Talking about psychological harm did something different. It kept the focus on animals and gave people a more emotionally accessible place to begin.
Across both groups, we found that ideas centring on animals’ abilities, emotions, minds, and experiences were among the most consistently helpful. Talking about psychological harm lowered the barrier to empathy by inviting people to think about emotions they already understand – sadness, distress, frustration, fear. And because it allowed people to reach their own conclusions rather than being told what to think, it felt far less like an attack on their identity.
When people hear themselves saying thoughtful, compassionate things about animals, they are reinforcing helpful ideas. They are moving closer to animals – towards curiosity, concern, and reflection – rather than away from them.
That does not solve everything at once. But it is a much stronger place to begin.
The relationship people already have with animals shapes how they respond to our communications
In our research, people with animal companions tended to have stronger empathy towards animals, developed through daily connection. They were more likely to talk positively about animals’ emotions, personalities, and social lives. They were also more likely to see themselves as animal lovers and caring people, to feel they were already ‘doing their bit’, and to question the status quo – even if they often stayed within high-welfare thinking rather than questioning the system more fundamentally.
People without animal companions were more likely to maintain emotional distance, to avoid thinking about the impact of their choices, to hold tightly to a meat-eater identity, and to rely on stronger justifications about why things are the way they are.
These are not rigid categories, but they do point to different starting points. And recognising where an audience is on their journey influences how we tailor our communications so it lands better.
The same idea can land very differently with different audiences
Because people bring different things to a conversation, the same narrative can connect in very different ways.
If someone already feels a connection with animals, questions the status quo, and is emotionally open, there are more inroads to connect with them. If someone feels more distant from animals, is more invested in the normality of eating meat, and rarely thinks about what animals experience, the same idea may activate very different responses.
Take the idea of a shift towards plant-based eating. For people in the animal companion group, this idea seemed persuasive. It prompted strong rejection of factory farming, got people talking with pride about changes they were making to their diets, and opened up hopeful discussion about what change could look like.
As one participant put it: "I think it could slowly be turned around, with more fruit and vegetables produced on a far cheaper scale."
For people without animal companions, the same idea worked very differently. It triggered a predominantly human-centred discussion, a strong identity-based pushback around eating meat, and criticism of the messenger rather than reflection on the message.
As one participant put it: "You're limiting someone's choice, their natural way of life, if you're forcing someone to just go plant-based …"
This matters enormously when designing communications, outreach, or campaigns.
If people do not yet feel connected to animals, or understand why change is needed, ideas about a plant-based future can feel like pressure, loss, or a threat to their identity and freedom of choice. If that groundwork is already in place, the same idea can feel hopeful, constructive, and genuinely motivating.
A practical guide for advocates
At the heart of our latest research is a simple traffic-light system.
It shows which narratives seemed persuasive, which needed careful handling, and which were risky or best avoided for each group. It is designed to be a practical reference you can return to when planning outreach, content, campaigns, or conversations.
Either start with your audience and ask which ideas are more likely to connect with where they are. Or start with a narrative you are thinking of using and explore what kinds of responses it brought out in different groups.
Key takeaways for animal freedom communicators
Choose narratives that strengthen helpful ideas. People already hold a mix of helpful and harmful ideas about animals, and different narratives bring different ideas to the surface.
Match the narrative to the audience. The same narrative can land very differently depending on who is hearing it and what is already close to the surface for them.
Protect identity and agency. When people feel shamed, blamed, or stripped of choice, defensiveness comes quickly. Communications are more effective when they keep those core needs intact.
Keep animals in focus. Ideas that centre animals’ inner lives, emotions, and experiences were among the most consistently helpful across both groups.
Build the why before the what next. If people do not yet understand why change is needed, ideas about change can feel like pressure or threat. Once that groundwork is there, those same ideas can feel hopeful and constructive.
Use the guide to make strategic choices. The traffic-light system can help you judge which ideas are likely to be persuasive, risky, or in need of careful handling for different audiences.
If we want to shift public understanding over time, we need communications that help people stay open, feel a genuine connection with animals, and reinforce the most helpful beliefs they already carry.
We hope this guide makes those choices a little clearer, and we would love to hear whether it feels useful in your work.
Where next?
See the findings of all 13 narrative interventions in the Narrative Interventions report.
At Animal Think Tank, we’re continuing to explore different segments within the moveable middle, including attitudes to food and ethics.
If you’re running your own public testing and would like to compare notes, we’d love to hear from you at narrative@animalthinktank.org or via the Ask ATT Slack channel.
It appears to me that speciesism and oppression are negative terms. The same message can be framed in a hopeful and positive way - that our consciousness as humanity is expanding. We earlier treated some humans as slaves, women as inferior and LGBT as abnormal. Now it is no longer acceptable though we may not have completely addressed these yet. Hence our consciousness is now beginning to include non human animals also. I have found this line of argument to resonate strongly.
Incredibly useful post, thank you. As a long-time advocate for animals, I was particularly struck by the participant quote you shared around the speciesism argument ("You’re saying that because I know that animals have been killed to go on my plate, that I could have racist views or be against certain cultures or races.”).
This reminds me of subtext in human communication, what is implied or unsaid. Your naming it is helpful in my thinking through future frameworks. People want to be thought of as good, as you've said. Finding common ground (psychological harms narrative) is so helpful.
Kind of similar to when someone says they are only buying "humane" meat, I first express appreciation that they care about animals (rather than launching into why it's not actually humane, etc). Anyway--thank you again!