How Animal Advocates Approach Moral Shocks
Moral shocks refer to vivid and disturbing content that triggers a shock response for the audience. Animal advocates have used moral shocks to inform the public about the reality of animal suffering and to recruit and retain activists in the movement. However, the author of this paper points out that exposure to moral shocks could lead to compassion fatigue or burnout for existing advocates.
Research suggests that individuals try to manage their emotions to reduce the negative effects of moral shocks. While previous scholars have argued that animal advocates use moral shocks as a way to stay motivated in the movement, it’s possible that they instead avoid them to protect their emotional well-being.
This study explored the above hypothesis through a series of email interviews with 25 animal advocates recruited through Facebook and Twitter. Most advocates had been involved for over 5 years, with an average career length of 13 years. Furthermore, most considered themselves “independent” advocates or volunteers. Participants were asked to weigh in on how often they’re exposed to graphic material, how they use it in their activism and how they engage with it themselves.
Overall, 22 participants indicated they couldn’t avoid exposure to moral shocks. Common methods of exposure included conducting research for campaigns, everyday navigation of activist spaces, and outreach efforts (e.g., screening films and handing out flyers). Six respondents reported direct exposure through vigils at slaughterhouses or live export stations and four through rescue efforts or hunting and fishing sabotages.
Most participants indicated that they avoided or limited their exposure to moral shocks — the two who regularly exposed themselves to graphic content identified as new advocates, suggesting that new and existing advocates may rely on such content differently. Among those who avoided or limited exposure, only six respondents said that frequent exposure to moral shocks was useful for maintaining their advocacy motivation.
Although most respondents were hesitant to expose themselves to graphic content, 13 respondents reported that, if necessary, they would do so for educational purposes (e.g., to prepare for outreach events). In line with the hypothesis, 15 respondents indicated that managing their exposure to moral shocks helped buffer them from psychological distress. When describing the psychological distress resulting from seeing such graphic content, respondents used words such as traumatic, overwhelming, helplessness, misanthropic, depressed, and panic.
Out of the 25 respondents, six regarded moral shocks as an effective outreach tool. A further six indicated they often use it as an outreach tool, but that they had concerns about its appropriateness in every situation. Some advocates raised concerns regarding the importance of tailoring content to the audience, the need to get prior consent before exposing people to morally shocking content and the suggestion that moral shocks may actually turn away the public. Seven participants regarded other outreach tactics as more effective, such as emphasizing nonhuman individuality, having rational discussions and presenting scientific data.
It’s important to note several limitations to this study. Because the respondents answered via email, it’s possible they were able to skew their responses in a certain light. Furthermore, the researcher relied on a small convenience sample, including a number of participants who were following them on Twitter (and thus potentially familiar with their work). There is also the possibility of selection bias, where those with an especially strong opinion on moral shocks wanted to participate in the study. As a result, it’s important to approach the results with caution, and the author calls for additional research on moral shocks using other methods.
Contrary to previous research, this study found that moral shocks may not be necessary to maintain one’s motivation in the animal advocacy movement. As many respondents noted the trauma caused by viewing graphic content, organizations need to prioritize their staff and volunteer well-being when moral shocks are used in campaigns. Furthermore, given the disagreement over the effectiveness of moral shocks as an outreach tool, the author highlights the need for further research in this critical area.
While there has been some research on the use of graphic imagery in our movement, understanding its impact in different contexts (e.g., how it’s perceived by former advocates and different demographics) can help strengthen advocacy campaigns and advocate retention initiatives.