Research In Progress | Completed Projects | Potential Projects | Legacy Projects | Prioritization
These are the main projects currently underway at Faunalytics.
Twitter Trends: #CageFree, #Vegan, #AnimalRights, and More!
Faunalytics has been collecting data from Twitter for tweets that include keywords related to plant-based diets, cultured meat, animal welfare and intensive agriculture, effective animal advocacy, and other topics. Once we have a full year of data, we intend to examine trends over time and make this dataset publicly available.
International Beliefs About Chickens And Fish: China, India, Brazil, and Canada 
Small-Bodied Animal Research Program
Small-Bodied Animal Research Program
The first study in this line of research is now published and provides key information about how members of the U.S. public see chickens and fish, as well as how those beliefs are related to their behavior. In the next stage, we are taking the study international, using the same methodology to investigate beliefs and behavior in China, India, Brazil, and Canada.
This study will be pre-registered on the Open Science Framework once design is complete.
Longitudinal Study of Veg*n Retention
Four years ago, Faunalytics conducted ground-breaking research showing that there are far more former vegetarians and vegans than current ones. Thanks to generous funding from VegFund and the Animal Advocacy Research Fund, we are now conducting a longitudinal study looking at how new veg*ns transition to and maintain their new diets in the crucial early months. In partnership with Carleton University (Ottawa, ON, Canada), we recently launched a six-month longitudinal study looking at which habits, tools, and resources help people stick with the diet over time, so that advocacy groups can target their messages effectively and retain as many as possible.
This study is pre-registered on the Open Science Framework.
Cultural Barriers and Supports to the Reduction of Animal Product Consumption in China
When considering animal suffering from a global perspective, it is clear that current resources are disproportionately allocated to Western countries, yet production and consumption are on the rise elsewhere. The majority of farmed animals live and suffer in low- and middle-income countries.
In partnership and consultation with local animal advocacy groups, we will conduct foundational research in China. The goal is to learn about the barriers and supports for specific advocacy methods before testing them experimentally, because the movement does not currently have enough information to design a successful experiment. Effective research–just like effective advocacy–will require a sensitive understanding of the cultural associations and traditions around meat, dairy, and egg consumption in the country of interest.
This study will be pre-registered on the Open Science Framework once design is complete.
This project is made possible thanks to generous funding from ProVeg, the Culture & Animals Foundation, the Centre for Effective Altruism, and two anonymous donors.
Relative Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Advocacy
There are many different approaches to advocacy in the movement, and it is both important and difficult to test their relative impact on public attitudes and behavior. In this study, we will examine attitudes toward advocacy issues and pro-animal behaviors, then ask about which types of advocacy people have been previously exposed to (e.g., seeing graphic material with and without consent, receiving a leaflet, etc.). We will use regression to examine how current attitudes and behavior are predicted by a wide range of past experiences with advocacy, which will provide an estimate of each strategy’s unique impact over the long-term.
We will also include an experimental manipulation to measure participants’ current reactions to the same range of advocacy strategies, presented as hypothetical encounters. This will provide information about the strategies’ immediate impact as well. Therefore, this study will combine retrospective survey and experimental methods to provide initial evidence directly comparing advocacy strategies to one another in both the short- and long-term. Neither method is perfect, but together they compensate for one another’s limitations and allow for the first direct comparison of a wide range of advocacy techniques. This research will provide valuable information to guide independent advocates, new groups, and prospective funders about which types of advocacy to support.
