Detailed Results For Russia From Faunalytics’ Study Of BRIC Countries

Faunalytics recently completed a cross-national comparative study of attitudes toward farmed animals in the U.S. and the BRIC countries: Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

A summary of the comparisons between the five countries is available here. This follow-up report provides full tables of results for Russia. It includes:

• Tables 1-6: An overall breakdown of survey responses for people from Russia (these can also be found in the main report, but more detail is included here);
• Tables 7-12: A breakdown of survey responses for people from Russia by gender;
• Tables 13-18: A breakdown of survey responses for people from Russia by age; and
• Tables 19-24: A breakdown of survey responses for people from Russia by region.
• Table 25: Survey items in English and Russian.

Key Findings

Some of the most noteworthy findings from the results for Russian respondents include:

1. Russian respondents were moderately pro-animal relative to the other countries surveyed: By comparison, Brazilian respondents were typically more pro-animal, whereas Indian and Chinese respondents were typically less so than Russians. Russia scored comparably to the U.S. on several items. (See main report for details comparing the countries.)
2. Russian respondents were split in their willingness to attribute animal suffering to eating meat. About a third agreed with the idea that eating meat directly contributes to animal suffering, but another third disagreed, and the rest remained neutral. This item showed less consensus than those assessing the importance of animal welfare. Thus, it appears that while many Russians are willing to say that farmed animal welfare is important, far fewer see it as their personal responsibility. Similar to the U.S., this will pose a challenge for advocates, who may use corporate or government lobbying to complement individual advocacy.
3. Just over half of Russians (53%) would support a law that would require farmed animals to be treated more humanely. The same number indicated that they did not think low meat prices are more important than the well-being of farmed animals. Together, these two points suggest that Russians may be willing to move in the direction of welfare reform, even when they consider potential costs associated with it. Importantly, only 14% of Russian respondents said they would oppose such a law—the rest remained neutral.
4. Very few Russians are vegan or vegetarian, and Russian respondents were among the least likely to say they were reducing their meat consumption. This may reflect that animal advocacy in Russia has not attained a strong foothold yet. Advocates may note that almost all Russians eat chicken, and nearly as many eat fish, eggs, and dairy products. Targeting one or more of these high-impact animal products for reduction or elimination could substantially reduce animal suffering.
5. Women in Russia are substantially more pro-animal than men (as are women across all the surveyed countries). For instance, they are more likely to hold pro-animal attitudes and beliefs, to support a welfare reform law, and to reduce their meat consumption. Therefore, advocacy targeting women may be more successful in changing behavior.

Methodology

The study methodology is described in more detail in the main report. Data were collected in May and June of 2018 from an urban representative sample of 1,002 Russians. The data were weighted to improve their representativeness.

For the results by demographic group, it is important to remember that small differences between groups are likely not meaningful, because they could occur by chance. Estimates of statistical significance—indicating which differences are large enough to be meaningful—are not provided in this report.

In each demographic section, we provide a rule of thumb for interpreting which differences are meaningful, which should be sufficient for most purposes. However, if exact information about significance is required, please contact Faunalytics.

Participants were presented with nine survey items as part of this study. These items, which are shown in English and Russian at the end of this report, were carefully designed, translated, back-translated, and checked by native speakers to maximize equivalence between countries and languages.

Overall Results for Russia

The tables below show the results for all Russian respondents.

Table 1. Beliefs about Animal Suffering in Russia

Table 2. Attitudes toward Farmed Animal Welfare in Russia

Table 3. Perceived Social Norms in Russia

Table 4. Support for Welfare Reform in Russia

Table 5. Diet in Russia

Table 6. Diet Change in Russia

Results by Gender in Russia

The tables below show the results for Russian respondents by gender. Note that small differences between men’s and women’s responses may not be meaningfully different. In particular, differences of less than 5% are likely due to chance.

Table 7. Beliefs about Animal Suffering by Gender (Russia)

Table 8. Attitudes toward Farmed Animal Welfare by Gender (Russia)

Table 9. Perceived Social Norms by Gender (Russia)

Table 10. Support for Welfare Reform by Gender (Russia)

Table 11. Diet in the Past Year by Gender (Russia)

Table 12. Diet Change in the Last Three Months by Gender (Russia)

Results by Age in Russia

The tables below show the results for Russian respondents by age group. Note that small differences between age groups’ responses may not be meaningfully different. In particular, differences of less than 10% may be due to chance.

Table 13. Beliefs about Animal Suffering by Age (Russia)

Table 14. Attitudes toward Farmed Animal Welfare by Age (Russia)

Table 15. Perceived Social Norms in Country by Age (Russia)

Table 16. Support for Welfare Reform by Age (Russia)

Table 17. Diet in the Past Year by Age (Russia)

Table 18. Diet Change in the Last Three Months by Age (Russia)

Results by Region in Russia

The tables below show the results for Russian respondents by region. Note that small differences between regions’ responses may not be meaningfully different. In particular, differences of less than 10% may be due to chance.

There were fewer than 50 respondents from the Far Eastern Federal District and North Caucasian Federal District so these regions are excluded from the tables. Such small samples do not represent a wide enough cross-section of the population to be considered statistically reliable.

Table 19. Beliefs about Animal Suffering by Region (Russia)

Table 20. Attitudes toward Farmed Animal Welfare by Region (Russia)

Table 21. Perceived Social Norms in Country by Region (Russia)

Table 22. Support for Welfare Reform by Region (Russia)

Table 23. Diet in the Past Year by Region (Russia)

Table 24. Diet Change in the Last Three Months by Region (Russia)

Survey Instrument

The table below shows the nine items included in the survey as they were written in Russian.

Table 25. Survey Items in English and Russian