Insight For Advocates: The Latest Animal Tracker Results

As those of us at Faunalytics mention regularly, the purpose of conducting research is often to overcome (or validate) our own assumptions and biased viewpoints. It can be difficult for advocates who feel strongly about animal protection to understand the attitudes and behavior of those who are less moved by the suffering of animals. To really know what non-advocates think – and why – it is essential to ask them directly and then filter their responses through rigorous analysis. You may be surprised by the answers and how different they can be from the beliefs of animal advocates.

Faunalytics’ Animal Tracker survey is designed to provide animal advocates with this kind of unbiased insight. It is a collaborative longitudinal study that accurately measures the attitudes and behavior of U.S. adults and evaluates changes over time. The recently completed Wave 3 of the Animal Tracker provides an update on five important topics including knowledge of animal issues, support for animal protection when making personal choices, and the perceived impact of animal advocates.

Do you think you already know the answers? Why not find out? First, ask yourself if you agree or disagree that some animals are capable of thinking and feeling emotions. Once you have your own answer, think about how many U.S. adults would agree with this statement. Try to come up with a number on your own or select from the multiple choices below.

What percent of U.S. adults agree with the statement, “Some animals are capable of thinking and feeling emotions?”

• • 47%
  • 57%
  • 67%
  • 77%
  • 87%

The answer is on page 2 of the latest Animal Tracker report covering Wave 3; the data for this most recent wave was collected in March 2010. The report and past results are available for free to registered users of Faunalytic’s HumaneSpot.org, the world’s most comprehensive database of attitude and behavior research relating to animal protection. We provide the kind of research that advocates can use to better understand and persuade non-advocates.