Social media has become a significant conduit for sharing animal content, with billions of views on platforms like YouTube and TikTok. However, the line between harmless entertainment and potential animal abuse is often blurred. Previous research has shown that seemingly cute or funny animal behaviors can actually be signs of stress or discomfort. This study highlights the need for a better understanding of how users interact with and interpret these videos.

The researchers employed a quantitative approach using an online survey aimed at German speakers. The survey had 30 questions, some of which asked participants to assess their ability to recognize animal suffering and well-being. Five different types of video content were described (not shown) to participants, all focused on companion animals:

• Animals who have been trapped
• Animals and their guardians doing a challenge
• Animals wearing human clothes or costumes
• Animal mishaps
• Animals doing something extraordinary (e.g., facial expressions, gestures, vocalizations)

Participants were asked about their emotional responses to these types of videos, as well as the kinds of actions they take with animal videos, such as liking, sharing, commenting on, or reporting them.

The survey was distributed through various channels, including social media platforms, flyers in public places, and university mailing lists, to capture a wide demographic range in German-speaking countries. A total of 3,246 participants completed the survey, most of whom (86.5%) were female. They ranged from 10 to 88 years of age, though most (50%) were between 20 and 35 years old. They came from various educational backgrounds, with just under half (46%) having a university degree. Almost all participants (97%) were current or former companion animal guardians.

Analysis of the survey results confirmed that virtually all participants (98.5%) had watched animal videos on social media, usually through the platform’s algorithm or from being shared by other users rather than actively searching for videos themselves. Emotional responses tended to correspond with the type of content. For instance, “anger/fright” was most associated with videos of trapped animals, while “fun/amusement” was most associated with videos of animals doing something extraordinary.

However, the majority of participants weren’t necessarily attuned to the welfare of the animals in the videos. Less than half (46%) had often or very often recognized signs of animal suffering (e.g., freezing). Female participants, those without a university degree, and participants who worked with animals were more likely to notice signs of suffering. Yet, participants still rated their ability to recognize animal suffering fairly high: around 70% on a scale from 0 to 100%. Only 30.5% had often or very often recognized signs of animal well-being (e.g., playing). Male participants, those with a university degree, and participants who didn’t work with animals were more likely to notice signs of well-being. Interestingly, behaviors such as an animal not trying to escape were interpreted as suffering by some and well-being by others.

Despite this relative inattention to animal welfare, 62.5% of participants had disliked or left a critical comment on a video with animal suffering, and about half (51%) had reported a video with animal suffering to the platform. Moreover, most participants (92%) expressed that they would like to receive warning notices for videos that contain animal suffering, and agreed that animal welfare on social media should be given more importance.

The authors acknowledge several limitations of the study, including potential selection bias due to the online nature of the survey and overrepresentation of younger and female participants. In addition, 43.5% of participants identified themselves as having contact with animals in either their current or aspired profession. It’s possible that recognition and understanding of animal welfare in videos, as well as concern about it, is lower among the general population. It’s also important to highlight the fact that participants responded to descriptions of videos and situations rather than to the videos and situations themselves.

The study reveals a significant gap between the popularity of animal videos and users’ ability to recognize potential animal suffering. This discrepancy suggests a need for increased awareness and education about animal behavior and welfare. The study also found that demographic factors, such as gender, educational background, and occupation, influenced participants’ perceptions of animal videos. Female respondents, respondents without a university degree, and respondents who worked with animals were generally more aware of potential animal suffering, suggesting that targeted education efforts might be beneficial.

The researchers also highlight several concerning trends, including the potential normalization of harmful practices and the spread of misinformation about animal behavior. They argue that social media platforms have a responsibility to address these issues and suggest implementing warning labels and educational content as potential solutions.

Given the demonstrated need and appetite for increased education about animal behavior and welfare, efforts to produce and distribute such resources on social media could be very effective. There’s great potential for advocates to influence a more conscious audience for animal videos whose improved knowledge of animal welfare could have ripple effects beyond social media.