The legacy projects presented here are older but may still hold value for advocates. Although generally well designed, they have not been subjected to the same degree of methodological scrutiny as Faunalytics’ more recent work. Please interpret the results a bit more cautiously, and within the context of the methodology notes provided for each below.
Young Women’s Attitudes Towards Veg*nism (2013)
In 2013, Faunalytics (then called the Humane Research Council), along with Mercy For Animals, conducted an online survey with a nationally representative sample of 1,053 young women, between the ages of 13 and 21. The results provide data about young women’s attitudes toward animals, veg*nism, and related issues.
Methodological notes: This survey used a representative sample so the percentages reported are as reliable as in any of Faunalytics’ recent work. The reader should simply bear in mind that the results may be out of date and are susceptible to the usual biases of self-report.
Video Comparison Study: Youth Response to Four Vegetarian/Vegan Outreach Videos (2012)
Faunalytics (then HRC) and VegFund examined reactions to four pay-per-view videos with different approaches to veg*n advocacy. This was done via an online survey with a sample of approximately 500 people aged 15 to 23. Across the full sample, 29% of participants reported that they were considering reducing their consumption of animal products, and 8% reported that they were considering eliminating animal products. Few differences between the videos emerged.
Methodological notes: This study has two main limitations: a small sample size for the number of conditions and significance tests, and no control group or baseline measure of dietary intentions. The small sample means that small differences between videos may have gone undetected but also that the few differences that did appear to be significant may have emerged by chance. Having no control group or baseline measure means that we can’t tell whether the people who say they intend to reduce or eliminate their consumption of animal products were motivated to do so by the videos or would have said the same thing even if they hadn’t watched the videos.
Semi-Vegetarianism and Meat Reduction (2007)
In 2007, Faunalytics (then HRC) employed quantitative and qualitative research methods to collect data on the meat consumption habits of U.S. adults. The report concluded that, in 2007, the “critical mass” needed for veg*nism was far off, with only about 1% of U.S. adults saying they were actual vegetarians or vegans and the vast majority resistant to veg*n diets. Just as more recent studies have replicated, adults interested in reducing or eliminating meat are motivated primarily by health reasons. The findings suggested that a modest, incremental approach to advocacy would be more effective, despite conflicting with some advocates’ ideals, such as the pursuit of long-term goals (e.g., animal liberation) over short-term goals (such as meat reduction). In the years since this report, its conclusions have been widely adopted by the effective animal advocacy movement.
Methodological notes: This survey used a large, representative sample so the percentages reported should be very accurate to the time period. The survey questions were a little more subjective than Faunalytics would use today, but they still provide a good overview of 2007 attitudes. The focus groups provide some of the earliest and richest insight into the barrier and motivations of meat reducers and semi-vegetarians, but should not be taken as generalizable to any demographic or region.
What Do People Think of Animal Advocates? (2004)
In one of our earliest efforts, Faunalytics (then HRC) conducted a comprehensive research study for the National Council for Animal Protection (NCAP), a coalition of U.S. animal protection groups. Before this research was conducted, animal advocates often used the terms “activists” and “animal rights” to describe themselves and their activities. This research found that these terms were off-putting to a large segment of U.S. adults and suggested that it would be better to use the terms “advocate” instead of activist and “animal protection” instead of animal welfare or rights. Since the NCAP study was released to its members, which included most of the major national groups in the U.S., the language and tone of the animal protection movement has changed.
Methodological notes: This survey used a large, representative sample so the percentages reported should be very accurate to the time period. However, differences between groups are likely more often significant than they are reported, because only the 95% confidence interval of the estimates was used to determine significance. As described in articles like this one, confidence intervals can overlap by a substantial amount while still being significantly different.