Speciesism is a commonly held belief that humans are superior to other species — a belief that can lead to a greater willingness to use animals for food and other purposes. However, using animals for human benefit is problematic in several ways, including harmful impacts on the environment, personal and global health, and, of course, animal welfare.

Most interventions that aim to reduce the use of animals attempt to change individual behaviors such as meat consumption. For this study, however, researchers focused on speciesism, exploring whether a change in attitude would also lead to a change in behavior. To test this idea, they designed two experiments to measure the impact of:

• Taking the perspective of an animal being used by humans
• Being made aware of one’s own bias against animals
• Being made aware of the consequences of one’s own bias against animals

The first experiment tested three different versions of an intervention program to determine how much each component of the program contributed to an overall effect on participants’ speciesism and behavioral intentions. A total of 603 participants between the ages of 18 and 79 were recruited online, roughly half (51%) of whom were female. They were assigned to one of four groups:

• One-step group: Participants watched a video of real-life practices in animal farming and other industries.
• Two-step group: Participants watched the same video, but were also asked to take the perspective of the animals.
• Three-step group: Participants completed the same steps as the first two groups, but also took a bias test with a bogus, pre-determined outcome that suggested they were biased towards harming animals.
• Control group: Participants received no intervention.

All participants completed a survey to measure their level of speciesism and intention to change their behaviors, such as reducing animal product consumption or refusing to visit zoos.

The results revealed that the interventions caused no significant change in participants’ speciesist attitudes, and had only a small to medium effect on the two-step and three-step groups in terms of behavioral intentions. Given similar findings for both these groups, this suggests that perspective-taking played a role, whereas awareness of one’s own bias against animals wasn’t as relevant.

However, as intentions alone aren’t enough to guarantee a behavior change, the researchers took the results of the first experiment and designed a second to measure not only intentions but actual changes in behavior. A total of 600 participants between the ages of 18 and 85 were recruited online, over half (60%) of whom were male.

The second experiment used only the three-step intervention to compare against a control group. Before the intervention, participants were asked about their consumption of eggs, dairy, and meat over the past week. Then, one week after the intervention, they reported on their consumption of animal products again. As in the first experiment, all participants completed a survey to measure their level of speciesism and intention to change their behaviors. This time, they were also asked about perspective-taking, feelings of injustice, and awareness of common animal practices to help the researchers understand what might drive changes in behavior.

The findings showed that the intervention group reduced their consumption of animal products by about 16% more than the control group, which amounts to almost one day a week. This suggests that the intervention not only changed intentions but also behavior. The researchers note that while participants ate less meat and dairy, they didn’t lower their egg consumption. This might be because the video included fewer scenes from the egg industry. There was also a small effect on speciesist attitudes this time, possibly because the second experiment was designed to better detect smaller effects than the first.

As for what could be driving these changes, the results showed that feelings of injustice and perspective-taking had a strong effect, whereas awareness of how animals are routinely treated showed no significant effect.

It’s important to note that the study only measured a one-week change, which is very short-term and doesn’t capture whether the reduction was sustainable. Nonetheless, the findings are quite useful for animal advocates, especially those who do outreach and frequently talk to non-vegans about animal farming. A focus on taking the perspective of the animals and imagining themselves in their position could help spark change.