Attitudes Toward Fur: Fur Owners And Fence-Sitters
Seven focus groups were conducted in the Philadelphia (2), Chicago (3) and Dallas (2) areas. In each city, on group was conducted among women who owned furs and another among women who did not own furs but would consider buying them (fence sitters.).
Women who own or would consider buying furs associate fur clothing with positive tactile feelings, and do not usually relate fur and animal cruelty without prompting.
Participants were opposed to inhumane treatment of animals and expressed affection for animals but felt that fur harvesting was similar to killing animals for leather or meat.
Participants in both groups expected fur industry to treat animals humanely and thought that cruelty was rare.
Participants were not knowledgeable about fur ranching and trapping and assumed the government would regulate the fur industry to prevent inhumane treatment.
There were few differences in attitudes by region, although those in Chicago were more pro-fur than the other areas and considered fur to be more practical because of the cold weather.
The “Does Your Mother Have a Fur Coat” message had the greatest anti-fur impact among participants.
The “Freedom of Choice” ad had the strongest and most consistent ad, which was related to beauty, comfort, warmth, family and freedom. This message associated the fur industry with the abortion issue, which could cross-pressure pro-choice women.
Advertisements featuring celebrities scored poorly with all groups.