Comparing Beliefs About Fishes And Chickens & Their Relation To Animal-Positive Behaviors Across Countries

Background

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, nearly 69 billion chickens were slaughtered in 2018 alone. That same year, the fishes slaughtered worldwide weighed nearly 100 million tons. Many of the countries we have surveyed in this line of research—which includes Brazil, Canada, China, India, and the United States—contribute in huge quantities to the enormous suffering of chickens and fishes. For example, China, the United States, and Brazil slaughtered more chickens than any other countries in 2018, with India not far behind. In terms of tons of fishes slaughtered, China ranked first in the world, while India was fourth and the U.S. was sixth. In total, the five countries considered in this research account for over 40% of the global chicken slaughter and more than a quarter of global fish slaughter.

Across the world, advocates are working to improve the welfare of animals and to reduce the consumption of animal products. Because of cultural differences across different regions, it is important that advocates understand the context in which they are working rather than assuming that lessons from one part of the world can be applied to audiences in another. Despite the massive quantities of chicken and fish slaughter committed by each of these countries, it is not necessarily the case that their residents share similar beliefs about these animals. By comparing the country-level findings described in other sections of this report, we can observe similarities and differences in beliefs across countries. This information may be helpful for animal advocates working in an international context.

Key Findings

1. Base rates of pro-animal behavior are higher in India, China, and Brazil than the U.S. and Canada. Participants from the U.S. and Canada took the diet pledge and signed the welfare petition at much lower rates than participants from other countries. In Brazil, China, and India, at least half of participants were willing to take pro-animal actions.
2. Many beliefs are consistent across countries, but important differences remain, underscoring the need for careful consideration of local contexts in animal advocacy campaigns. Some beliefs, including “fish are beautiful,” “chickens can feel pain,” and others, were common in all countries. Other beliefs were only frequent in some countries, such as the belief that fish are loving in India and Brazil, or that many chicken farms have horrible living conditions in the U.S. and India.
3. Even when beliefs are similar across countries, correlations between beliefs and pro-animal actions may not be. U.S. participants’ beliefs had the strongest average associations with pro-animal actions compared to participants from other countries, while Indian participants had the weakest associations. Brazilian, Chinese, and Canadian participants’ associations fell in between. The stronger the association between beliefs and actions, the more likely it is that advocates working to influence beliefs will have a positive effect on the behaviors we want to shift.
4. Beliefs about fishes and about chickens were similarly associated with pro-animal actions. In other words, beliefs may be equally important in people’s minds when deciding whether or not to take pro-animal actions, regardless of whether they are considering chickens or fishes. 

Research Team

This project is a collaboration between researchers at Faunalytics and Mercy For Animals (MFA): namely, Zach Wulderk, Jo Anderson, and Tom Beggs of Faunalytics and Courtney Dillard, Walter Sanchez-Suarez, and Sebastian Quaade of MFA. We are indebted to Meredith Hui, Rashmit Arora, Diogo Fernandes, and Vitor Clemente for their assistance with linguistic and cultural translation, and to Cristina Mendonça, Meredith Hui, and Nikunj Sharma for their invaluable feedback.

We’d like to thank the CEA Animal Welfare Fund, the Culture and Animals Foundation, and an anonymous donor for funding this work, and the Tipping Point Private Foundation for funding the report translations.

Study Design

Including the first report in this line of research, we surveyed over 1,000 adults each in Brazil, Canada, China, and the U.S., and nearly 900 in India. Within each country, these participants were split into two groups and asked to provide information on their beliefs about either fishes or chickens. Respondents were then asked if they would take a diet pledge to reduce their consumption of this animal, and if they would sign a petition calling for improved living and slaughter conditions. The sole exception to this approach was China, where instead of being offered a petition, participants were asked whether they support these welfare reforms. 

In addition to determining the commonality of each belief at the country level, we also calculated correlations between each belief and the pro-animal actions participants were offered—that is, taking a diet pledge or signing a welfare petition. 

More information on the results for participants from each country, as well as recommendations for animal advocates, can be found in the country-specific reports.

Results

Because each of the countries we surveyed is a unique environment, comparisons between them may be limited in what they can reveal to animal advocates. Rather than performing statistical analyses on groups of people who may differ considerably in a number of ways, we have examined a handful of high-level trends that show potential similarities and differences that advocates—especially those working across borders or hoping to apply non-domestic findings—can use to inform their work. By comparing animal-positive behaviors, common beliefs, and the correlations between them across countries, we can better understand which types of messages may resonate with many populations and which may only apply to some. 

Animal-Positive Behaviors

Table 1: Animal-Positive Behaviors by Country

Notes. Chinese participants were asked about their support more generally due to the unlikelihood of a petition being used in the Chinese political context.

A majority of Indian, Chinese, and Brazilian participants expressed a willingness to take pro-animal actions. Across the countries surveyed, Indian and Chinese participants consistently had the highest levels of animal-positive behavior. In India and China, more than two-thirds of participants took the diet pledges, and about three out of four Indian participants were willing to sign the welfare petitions. Over two-thirds of Brazilian participants were willing to sign the petitions, with fewer—but still a majority—willing to take the diet pledges. 

Participants from Canada and the U.S. were less likely to show animal-positive behaviors than those from India, China, or Brazil. Although Canadian participants were more likely to take each action compared to U.S. participants, fewer than half of all respondents in both countries signed a petition or took a diet pledge. 

Given the considerable proportions of participants who took diet pledges, advocates working in Brazil, China, and India may find a considerable amount of openness to reducing chicken and fish consumption among the general public. The same is true for advocates in Brazil and India who are seeking welfare petition signatures. Advocates in the U.S. and Canada may have a more difficult time generating these behaviors, but could emphasize the key beliefs discussed in the respective country-level reports to get more buy-in. 

Beliefs About Fishes

Several beliefs about fishes were consistently held across all five countries, while others were typical in some countries but atypical in others. 

In each of the countries surveyed, “Fish is a good source of protein” was one of the two most commonly held beliefs. Other common beliefs include fishes’ beauty, their ability to communicate, and their ability to feel pain. Table 2 shows where each of these beliefs ranked in terms of agreement for each country surveyed.

Table 2: Most Common Beliefs About Fishes

Several beliefs were consistently rare. Foremost, few participants believe that water quality is unimportant to fishes. This belief was one of the two least commonly held in every country. Other uncommon beliefs were that fish are gross, never find it stressful to be picked up or handled, don’t care for their young, and don’t care about being overcrowded. Table 3 displays the ranking of each of these beliefs in terms of agreement for each country surveyed. 

Table 3: Least Common Beliefs About Fishes

A few beliefs about fishes were common in some countries, but less common in others. The beliefs that “Fish need room to explore and exercise” and “Fish act mostly out of instinct” were commonly held in every country except India. In both Brazil and India, many participants believed that fish are loving, but participants from China, Canada, and the U.S. were much less likely to hold this belief. 

Table 4: Beliefs with the Most Variation by Country

Beliefs About Chickens

The belief that chicken is a good source of protein was one of the two most commonly held beliefs in every country. The beliefs that chickens can feel pain, communicate with each other, feel negative emotions like fear, and feel stress were all also among the most commonly held beliefs in each country surveyed. Table 5 shows a selection of chicken beliefs that were commonly held among participants from each country and where those beliefs ranked for participants from each country.

Table 5: Most Common Beliefs About Chickens

Regardless of country, the belief that chickens don’t care for their young was rare. Other uncommon beliefs include that air and water quality aren’t that important to chickens, chickens never find it stressful to be picked up or handled, chickens are gross, and chickens have no personality. Table 6 shows a selection of chicken beliefs that relatively few participants from each country agreed with.

Table 6: Least Common Beliefs About Chickens

While there is a general consensus across countries about certain chicken-related beliefs, this is not the case for every belief we asked about. For example, “Individual chickens don’t have unique characteristics” was more common among Indian participants than it was for participants from other countries. Conversely, “Chickens need room to explore and exercise” was one of the most commonly held beliefs in every country except for India. 

Even though these findings might suggest that Indian participants have lower opinions of chickens than participants from other countries do, Indian participants were also less likely to believe that chickens act mostly out of instinct than other countries were. Along with U.S. participants, they were also more likely to agree that many chicken farms have horrible living conditions compared to participants from other countries. Some possible explanations for this difference are explored in the Conclusions section. 

Table 7: Beliefs with the Most Variation by Country

Associations Between Beliefs and Actions

All of the individual beliefs about chickens and fishes can be organized into categories: consumption, emotions, intelligence, personality, social nature, suffering, and other beliefs. For example, “Chickens are more intelligent than people give them credit for” is an intelligence belief, “Many fish farms have horrible living conditions” is a suffering belief, and “Fish is a good source of protein” is a consumption belief.

In this section, we look at the average correlations between belief categories and pro-animal behavior, with the goal of providing insight into areas advocates could focus on when designing asks for their campaigns. 

We can also add more context to our understanding by considering these results together with each country’s average correlation between beliefs and actions. The strength of each country’s average correlation between their beliefs and pro-animal actions can provide insight into the tractability of focusing on beliefs to encourage these actions. In other words, residents of countries with higher correlations may show a greater willingness to sign a petition or take a diet pledge when they encounter messaging emphasizing some of the beliefs discussed in this report when compared to residents of countries with lower correlations, where additional obstacles may prevent these actions. 

Fish Diet Pledge

Figure 1: Average Correlations of Beliefs with Fish Diet Pledge

On average, participants from the U.S. had the strongest relationships between beliefs and diet pledge commitments: having pro-animal beliefs tended to go more hand-in-hand with behavior than in the other countries. Indian participants generally had the weakest associations, while those from Brazil, Canada, and China were all similar in their average correlation strength. 

These results suggest that advocates working in India may not see much difference in fish diet pledge uptake based on the beliefs they highlight, while advocates working in other countries, especially the U.S., may be able to secure more commitments by leveraging beliefs. 

Table 8: Rankings of Average Belief Category Correlations with Fish Diet Pledge

At the category level, beliefs about fishes’ emotions, personalities, and suffering frequently had the strongest average correlations with willingness to take the diet pledge. Consumption beliefs consistently had one of the weakest average correlations with the fish diet pledge, with the exception of India. However, it is worth noting that none of the categories of belief had strong correlations for Indian participants. Because pro-animal behaviors were common among Indian participants, advocates in India may not need to allocate resources to specific messages in order to secure diet pledge commitments or petition signatures. 

Fish Petition Signatures

Figure 2: Average Correlations of Beliefs with Fish Petition

Notes. Chinese participants were asked about their support more generally due to the unlikelihood of a petition being used in the Chinese political context. The average correlation for this support measure was 0.05.

Participants from Canada and the U.S. had stronger average correlations between their beliefs and fish welfare petition signatures, while Brazilian and Indian participants had weaker relationships. In other words, advocates working in Canada or the U.S. may see bigger changes in the number of fish welfare petition signatures they are able to get when emphasizing fish-related beliefs compared to advocates in Brazil or India.

Table 9: Rankings of Average Belief Category Correlations with Fish Petition

Notes. Chinese participants were asked about their support more generally due to the unlikelihood of a petition being used in the Chinese political context. From strongest to weakest average correlation, the belief categories for fish support among Chinese participants were Personality, Suffering, Emotions, Intelligence, Other, Social, and Consumption. 

At the category level, beliefs about emotions had the strongest average correlations with fish welfare petition signatures in Brazil and Canada, but were less strongly correlated in the U.S., where “other beliefs” and personality beliefs had stronger associations. Focusing on these types of beliefs may help advocates in these countries obtain signatures on petitions to improve fish welfare. Beliefs about consumption had the weakest average correlation in each country except India, where correlations were consistently weak. 

Chicken Diet Pledge

Figure 3: Average Correlations of Beliefs with Chicken Diet Pledge

U.S. participants had the strongest average correlation between their beliefs about chickens and their willingness to take the chicken diet pledge, followed by participants from Brazil and Canada, and then by participants from India and China. Highlighting certain beliefs about chickens when seeking diet pledge commitments may result in more success for advocates in the U.S. in particular. 

Table 10: Rankings of Average Belief Category Correlations with Chicken Diet Pledge

Beliefs related to chickens’ emotions had one of the highest average correlations with willingness to take the diet pledge in each country except India. In Canada, the U.S., and China, personality beliefs were also among the most correlated belief categories, while suffering-related beliefs had the strongest correlation in Brazil. 

With the exception of India, advocates working in the surveyed countries may be able to design similar campaigns that use beliefs about chickens’ emotions to reduce chicken consumption. However, advocates should also keep in mind that different individual beliefs, discussed in the country-specific reports, may have stronger associations with pro-animal behavior in certain countries. 

As was the case with the fish diet pledge, Indian participants had the strongest association between beliefs related to consumption and taking the chicken diet pledge, although correlations were similar and weak across belief categories. 

Chicken Petition Signatures

Figure 4: Average Correlations of Beliefs with Chicken Petition

Notes. Chinese participants were asked about their support more generally due to the unlikelihood of a petition being used in the Chinese political context. The average correlation for this support measure was 0.07.

Canadian and U.S. participants had the strongest average correlations between their beliefs about chickens and willingness to sign the chicken welfare petition while Brazilian and Indian participants had lower average correlations. Advocates in the U.S. and Canada may wish to consider emphasizing beliefs such as those related to chickens’ emotions in messaging that promotes petitions for improved chicken welfare.

Table 11: Rankings of Average Belief Category Correlations with Chicken Petition

Notes. Chinese participants were asked about their support more generally due to the unlikelihood of a petition being used in the Chinese political context. From strongest to weakest average correlation, the belief categories for chicken support among Chinese participants were Emotions, Social, Personality, Intelligence, Other, Consumption, and Suffering. 

Mirroring the chicken diet pledge correlations, Brazil, Canada, and the U.S. all had emotions-related among their strongest average correlations with signing the chicken petition. Advocates in these countries who are seeking signatures for petitions focused on improving the welfare of chickens may benefit from emphasizing chickens’ emotions in their messaging. In Brazil and the U.S., beliefs about chickens’ suffering had the strongest average correlation, which advocates may also wish to consider when designing campaigns. By contrast, Indian participants’ strongest associations with chicken petition signatures were with the “other beliefs” category and consumption-related beliefs. Though the average correlations in India tended to be weaker than those in other countries, beliefs about consumption consistently had one of the strongest relationships with Indian participants’ willingness to take pro-animal actions.

Conclusions

In general, advocates can expect that most people hold certain beliefs about chickens and fishes. Most people across countries believe that fish are beautiful, can communicate with each other, and feel pain. Chickens are also largely viewed as being capable of pain, communication, and negative emotions. 

There are also beliefs that differ widely across countries, such as the belief that fish need room to explore and exercise, which was less common in India than in most of the countries we surveyed. Considering which beliefs a particular population holds should be a key consideration for any animal advocate.

Beliefs also have different relationships with action across countries. Participants from Canada and the U.S. had the highest average correlations between beliefs and pro-animal behavior. In other words, people from these countries may be more likely to take animal-positive actions based on their beliefs. 

U.S.-Canada Comparison

Beliefs may not be a critical factor for advocates to focus on in the Indian context for the reasons described above. However, for participants from Canada and the U.S., rates of animal-positive behaviors were lower than the other countries we surveyed and their average correlations were often highest. While advocates from these countries may not get as many petition signatures or diet pledges as in Brazil, China, or India, they may be able to lessen the gap by using messaging that incorporates beliefs with the strongest correlations. 

Although the results from these two countries often resemble each other, advocates working on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border should take note of some key differences. For instance, beliefs about fish suffering were more strongly correlated with commitments to reduce fish consumption in the U.S. than they were in Canada, suggesting that advocates may see higher uptake in fish diet pledges in the U.S. than in Canada even when using the same messaging. (Additional information about the strengths of correlations can be found in Tables 12-15 in the Supplementary Materials or in the country-specific reports.) 

Overall, average correlations between beliefs and petition signatures were very similar among participants from the U.S. and Canada. However, Canadians’ average correlations for diet pledges are weaker than those of U.S. participants, and instead more closely resemble the correlations of Brazilian participants. This suggests that advocates may see similar uptake of petition signatures in these neighboring countries, but that the same may not be the case for diet pledges. In other words, advocates should be careful not to assume that the same strategies will always have the same results in both countries. 

What Weak Correlations Mean For Indian Advocacy

Participants from India consistently had weaker average correlations than residents of other countries. Because about three-quarters of Indian participants were willing to take a diet pledge or sign a welfare petition, advocates working in India could consider simply asking for a commitment or signature rather than investing large portions of their resources into messaging particular beliefs.

Welfare Petitions Versus Diet Pledges

In each country in which the petition question was asked, fish petition signatures were more common than fish diet pledges. The same is true for chicken petition signatures and pledges, with the exception of India, where the chicken pledge was slightly more common. This overall trend suggests that people are more willing to take a few seconds to sign a petition than they are to make a broader lifestyle change. In Brazil and the U.S., average correlations were slightly stronger between beliefs and diet pledges than petition signatures, which could mean that emphasizing beliefs would yield better results for advocates focusing on reducing chicken and fish consumption in these countries. 

Pro-Fish Actions Versus Pro-Chicken Actions

Although pro-chicken actions had very slightly stronger average correlations than pro-fish actions in each country, these differences are probably negligible. In other words, beliefs have similar associations with actions that benefit both fishes and chickens. One exception to this is diet pledges in China, where participants had stronger associations between beliefs for the fish diet pledge than for the chicken diet pledge.

Diet Pledge Differences

In Brazil, reduction of chicken consumption was the pro-animal action with the least uptake by far. In Canada and the U.S., similar proportions of the participants committed to chicken and fish diet pledges. In China and India, slightly more participants were willing to take the chicken diet pledge than the fish diet pledge. These findings are just one example of why advocates working in an international context should consider cultural and dietary differences between countries when determining which campaigns they will run: openness to certain ideas may vary greatly from country to country. Differences in correlations between beliefs and pro-animal actions underscore this point by demonstrating how similar behaviors can be associated with very different beliefs.

Barriers to Animal-Positive Behaviors

Barriers to pro-animal actions also exist across countries and should be considered when designing advocacy campaigns. Though an imperfect measure, GDP per capita is one way of quantifying the average citizens’ wealth, and is considerably higher in countries like the U.S. and Canada than in countries such as Brazil, China, and India (CIA, 2020). Correlations between beliefs and actions may be higher in wealthier countries because their populations have access to resources that may not be as common in less wealthy countries. For example, a resident of the U.S. may be able to make dietary choices based largely on their beliefs about animals because alternative protein sources are widely available. This may not be the case in all countries. Similarly, backyard chicken farming may be more common in certain countries and residents may be wary about petitions that could result in changes to the regulations around this type of practice. In other words, advocates should not only consider which messages could generate more pro-animal action, but also what barriers may exist for certain populations.

Future Directions

There are several directions future research on this topic could take. Researchers could explore additional countries and identify additional trends across them. Investigations about different animals or different sets of beliefs could also be beneficial to advocates. Greater cultural context for these beliefs and how they can affect pro-animal behavior is also critical to ensure that advocates are able to be as effective as possible. On an even broader scale, the results of this research highlight the need for country-specific research in order to ensure that animal advocacy campaigns are as effective as possible.

Supplementary Materials

Detailed Belief Category Results

Tables 12 through 15 contain the average correlation coefficients and standard deviations between belief categories and pro-animal actions by country. The results are ordered from strongest association to weakest.

Table 12: Detailed Rankings of Average Belief Category Correlations with Fish Diet Pledge

Table 13: Detailed Rankings of Average Belief Category Correlations with Fish Petition

Table 14: Detailed Rankings of Average Belief Category Correlations with Chicken Diet Pledge

Table 15: Detailed Rankings of Average Belief Category Correlations with Chicken Petition

Distribution of Correlation Coefficients

Figure 5 through Figure 8 show the distribution of correlations coefficients between individual beliefs and diet pledge or welfare petition uptake, with wider parts of each distribution indicating more responses at that level of correlation. The shapes in each figure reveal differences in the consistency of correlation coefficients across countries. Participants from India, for example, tended to be consistently low in the strength of correlation between their beliefs and behavior, especially when compared to participants from Canada and the U.S. 

Figure 5: Distribution of Correlation Coefficients with Fish Pledge by Country

Figure 6: Distribution of Correlation Coefficients with Fish Petition by Country

Figure 7: Distribution of Correlation Coefficients with Chicken Pledge by Country

Figure 8: Distribution of Correlation Coefficients with Chicken Petition by Country