The Effects Of Digital Advocacy: What A Single Exposure To Digital Animal Advocacy Can (And Can’t) Do
Background
The animal advocacy landscape has gone digital over the last couple of decades with the rise of social media: 84% of adults in the U.S. use YouTube, 71% use Facebook, and 50% use Instagram. Platforms like TikTok, WhatsApp, and Reddit have continued to grow, with TikTok nearly doubling its adult user base since 2021. The way people consume content on these platforms has also shifted. Specifically, short-form videos, or “reels,” have become one of the dominant formats on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, making them an increasingly common vehicle for animal advocacy.
There is growing evidence that digital campaigns may be effective at reducing animal product consumption. For example, one cost-effectiveness analysis estimated that digital meat-reduction ads have a 45% likelihood of sparing roughly 3.7 animals per dollar spent. However, significant uncertainty remains, and the same analysis noted that these campaigns have a 40% likelihood of not working (i.e., not reducing the demand for animal products). This underscores the need for rigorous experimental research to better understand what digital advocacy can and cannot achieve.
In 2022, Faunalytics ran an experiment that tested the impact of 10 different advocacy tactics, including news articles, videos, and static social media posts, on people’s willingness to sign a petition and their attitudes towards farmed animals immediately after exposure. We also looked at people’s self-reported animal product consumption two weeks later. While there was no impact of any tactic on our measures across the full sample, our exploratory analyses found that static social media posts, such as a standard Facebook post with no video, and news articles about farmed animal suffering reduced animal product consumption in meat-avoiders including reducetarians and vegetarians. Protest videos, however, had backfire effects among both meat-eaters and meat-avoiders. This led us to recommend social media posts and news articles.
Given the rise of social media use, particularly short videos, and the fact that our original experiment only looked at the immediate and short-term effects of advocacy, we wanted to investigate both the short- and long-term effects of digital advocacy on newer outcomes, representing a substantial expansion of our original experiment.
In this experiment, we focused specifically on short videos or “reels” and articles posted on social media (see Table 1 for the specific content). And beyond animal product consumption, we also tracked people’s moral concern for farmed animals (i.e., a moral obligation to care about farmed animals and their welfare), their support for different farmed animal policies (e.g., a cage ban), and their engagement in advocacy and information-seeking behaviors (e.g., searching online for vegan recipes), both two weeks and three months after exposure to animal advocacy.
Table 1. Types of Animal Advocacy Included
Key Findings
- A single exposure to an animal advocacy video or article was successful in moving people emotionally. Compared to neutral materials, almost all videos or articles that discussed farmed animal suffering resulted in significantly higher feelings of anger, disgust, fear, anxiety, and sadness (p < .05). Videos depicting farmed animal sanctuaries were the only tactic to significantly increase happiness, while recipe videos were the only tactic to significantly increase feelings of desire compared to the control group (p < .05).
- Some groups of people had stronger emotional reactions than others to animal advocacy content. Women/non-binary participants reported significantly stronger negative emotional reactions, including anger, disgust, fear, anxiety, and sadness, than men in response to undercover videos, educational videos, and news articles (p < .05). Meat-avoiders and Democrats also reacted significantly more negatively (e.g., anger) in response to undercover videos than meat-eaters and Republicans, respectively (p < .05).
- Across the full sample, a single exposure to animal advocacy content did not significantly change people’s behaviors or attitudes two weeks and three months later. On average, no advocacy tactic produced statistically significant effects on animal product consumption, policy support, moral concern, or advocacy engagement and information-seeking behaviors. This was true at both the two-week and three-month follow-ups.
- Reading a news article about animal advocacy positively impacted Democrats’ moral concern three months later. Compared to Republicans, Democrats reported significantly more animals in their moral circle three months after reading a news article about a lawsuit involving animal welfare violations, compared to those who saw a neutral article or video (p < .05). A similar effect was found for Independents, although this was marginally significant (p < .10). At the three-month follow-up, Democrats also included more animals in their moral circle compared to Republicans after reading a protest article versus a control article or video, but this result was marginally significant (p < .10).
- Street outreach videos and disruptive protest news articles had a significantly more negative effect on moral concern for meat-avoiders than for meat-eaters, and for women/non-binary respondents than for men. In other words, meat-avoiders and women/non-binary participants showed a more negative shift in how many farmed animals they morally considered compared to meat-eaters and men, respectively, two weeks after watching a street outreach video or reading a news article about a disruptive protest versus a neutral video or article (p < .05). Most of these effects were found three months later as well.
- Some preliminary patterns emerged that warrant further investigation, including both potential positive effects and backfire effects. Before correcting for multiple testing, news articles showed some signs of increasing moral concern and policy support for a higher-welfare farm transition two weeks after exposure, and op-eds showed some signs of increasing moral concern three months after exposure — but these effects did not remain statistically significant after correction for multiple tests. In contrast, participants who saw undercover, educational, or Dodo/sanctuary videos or read a protest article were preliminarily less likely to talk to friends and family about farmed animal welfare two weeks later, and participants who saw undercover videos were less likely to search for facts about animal agriculture at both follow-ups. These patterns are not confirmatory and may reflect the limited statistical power of our analyses to detect small or subtle effects across a large number of simultaneous tests. Thus, these preliminary patterns should be treated as hypotheses for future research to test more rigorously.
- Advocacy engagement and information-seeking behaviors were low in our sample, ranging from 1% to 25% at both the two-week and three-month follow-ups. The three most prevalent behaviors at both follow-up surveys were ordering a vegan or vegetarian meal (20% to 25%), searching for vegan or vegetarian recipes (18% to 22%), and searching for “how-to” guides (e.g., “how to go vegan”: 16% to 17%). The least common behaviors were attending a protest (1%), volunteering at a farmed animal charity (1% to 2%), and donating to a farmed animal charity (2% to 3%). If most participants were not engaging in these behaviors to begin with, then such low rates may have made it difficult to detect any subtle increases after exposure to animal advocacy.
Recommendations
A Note On These Recommendations
Before diving in, it is worth keeping a few things in mind when applying these findings.
First, our study intentionally excluded a call to action so that we could isolate the effects of different digital advocacy tactics on their own. As such, our results likely underestimate what advocacy can achieve in the real world, where a clear ‘ask’ is typically included. Second, our study tested a single exposure to advocacy, whereas real-world advocacy typically involves repeated exposures over time. Third, following best practices in the social sciences, we applied statistical corrections to the numerous tests we ran, but this also means that some real effects may have gone undetected.
These caveats do not undermine the findings, but they do mean the recommendations below should be treated as informed guidance rather than definitive rules, and that continued research and testing in real-world advocacy settings remain important.
For Advocates
- Be mindful of who you’re trying to reach, especially if you focus on more confrontational tactics that feature animal advocates interacting with the public. Street outreach videos and protest articles were the only tactics to significantly reduce moral concern for both meat-avoiders, defined here as vegetarians, pescetarians, and reducetarians, and women/non-binary participants across both follow-up periods. These are two groups that are typically regarded as animal allies or “low hanging fruit” given that they tend to be more sympathetic to the cause and/or more likely to engage in pro-animal actions than meat-eaters and men, respectively. If your content is likely to reach these audiences, then consider whether street outreach or protest-style content is the right choice, or consider pairing it with a clear call to action to help offset moral reactance.
- Share recipe and Dodo/sanctuary content online to reach animal allies. Across the sample, Dodo/sanctuary videos were the only tactic to increase happiness and recipe videos were the only tactic to increase feelings of desire. Meat-avoiders and women/non-binary respondents reacted more positively than meat-eaters and men to recipe videos. Positive, food-forward content could be a lower-risk option for engaging audiences already sympathetic to the cause without triggering moral reactance.
- Consider sharing news articles with Democrats or politically liberal audiences. This was the only tactic to show a positive effect on moral concern at three months among Democrats and Independents versus Republicans. However, there were no significant differences between the control group and the news article group when examining political subgroups separately, which may reflect small sample sizes. Further testing is necessary to confirm that litigation-focused framing used in our news article condition may be a particularly effective format for this audience.
- Include a call to action that offers practical next steps and resources. Our experimental design purposely removed a call to action, such as asking people to reduce or eliminate animal products from their diet, to better understand the impact of digital formats on people’s behavior and attitudes. While none of the tactics we tested produced any significant behavioral or attitudinal changes across the whole sample, all tactics that featured farmed animal suffering caused stronger negative emotional reactions than the control article/video, including anger, disgust, anxiety, and sadness. Advocates can guide these emotional reactions more effectively into behavior change by providing viewers with next steps (e.g., how to transition to plant-based eating), so that people feel empowered after seeing animal suffering rather than just sitting with the negative emotions. Previous research has found that specific and achievable asks, like signing a diet pledge or committing to a meat-free challenge, are more realistic for people than asking them to switch their lifestyle overnight. Similarly, while awareness campaigns are important, consider addressing common barriers to vegan diets to avoid relapse by providing people with easy, tasty recipes and social support. Although advocates cannot directly control tactics like articles because they’re not the authors, they can still reshare the article on social media, but with a clear call to action attached to it, rather than simply resharing it.
For Researchers
- Investigate the preliminary patterns observed in this study as hypotheses for future research. Before correcting for multiple testing, we found some signs that certain tactics (e.g., news articles) may increase moral concern and policy support, while other tactics (e.g., undercover videos) may reduce engagement and information-seeking behaviors. These patterns did not survive correction for multiple testing, which may reflect limited statistical power rather than a true absence of effects. Future studies with larger samples, fewer statistical tests, or designs focused specifically on capturing these outcomes would be better equipped to detect whether these patterns are robust and if so, to understand why certain tactics may backfire.
- Investigate the negative effect for moral concern among animal allies. We hypothesize that such negative effects occurred for animal allies, including women and meat-avoiders, because they could be more at risk than men and meat-eaters of experiencing empathy burnout or activism fatigue. Likewise, animal allies could be more likely than non-allies to experience the “bystander effect,” believing another person is already intervening, which causes moral responsibility to shift away from them. However, these are just educated guesses to help explain why some tactics reduced moral concern among specific groups in our study, and they require actual hypothesis testing, or even qualitative studies that interview these segments.
- Test the effects of multiple exposures to advocacy over time. This experiment tested a single exposure, which is a necessary first step but an incomplete picture of how advocacy works in the real world. Researchers could consider an experimental design where people are randomized to receive one versus several touchpoints of the same or different tactics over weeks or months, which would more closely approximate real advocacy conditions.
Applying These Findings
This report can be used to help select or improve digital animal advocacy tactics. To these ends, here are some additional resources from Faunalytics:
Social Media
- Tactics In Practice: The Science Of Social Media Advocacy
- Planting Seeds: The Impact Of Diet & Different Animal Advocacy Tactics
Video And Documentaries
- Tactics In Practice: The Impact Of Vegan Documentary And Video
- How Does Video Outreach Impact Pork Consumption?
- The Value Of Undercover Investigations In Aiding Legal Victories For Animals
- The Role Of Emotional Reactions To Undercover Videos
News Articles
- Media Narratives And Public Opinion On Animal Cruelty
- Negative Media Events & Public Attitudes Towards Animal Welfare
- Research Round-Up: A Guide On Engaging The Media For Writers And Communicators
Protests
- Tactics In Practice: The Science Of Protests And Demonstrations
- The Challenges Of Researching Animal Advocacy Protests
- The Long-Term Impact Of A Disruptive Animal Rights Protest
Additionally, advocates may find value in reviewing our study detailing demographic segments most receptive to specific advocacy actions, along with our AI-powered tool designed to summarize findings and resources across our website.
We understand that reports like this have a lot of information to consider and that applying research findings can be challenging. Faunalytics is happy to offer pro bono support to advocates and nonprofit organizations that would like guidance applying these findings to their own work. Please visit our virtual Office Hours or contact us for support.
Behind The Project
Research Team
The project’s lead author was Dr. Andrea Polanco (Faunalytics). Dr. Allison Troy (Faunalytics) reviewed and oversaw the work.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank several advocates who provided valuable input about this research throughout the process. We would also like to thank our funder, the EA Animal Welfare Fund, for their generous support of this research.
Research Terminology
At Faunalytics, we strive to make research accessible to everyone. We avoid jargon and technical terminology as much as possible in our reports. If you encounter an unfamiliar term or phrase, check out the Faunalytics Glossary for user-friendly definitions and examples.
Research Ethics Statement
As with all of Faunalytics’ original research, this study was conducted according to the standards outlined in our Research Ethics and Data Handling Policy.
Generative AI Statement
Data analysis: Claude was used for assistance in creating R code for data analysis. Final code was checked and verified for accuracy by the authors.
Report editing: This report was written by Andrea Polanco with editing and support from Allison Troy. We also used Claude as a grammar-editing tool for writing, but not to generate information. All language in this report was reviewed and checked for accuracy by the authors.
Let us know what you think!
We conduct research to help advocates like you, so we really value your input on what we’re doing well and how we can do better. Take the brief (less than 2 min) survey below to let us know how satisfied you were with this report.
Citations:
Polanco, A., & Troy, A. (2026). The Effects Of Digital Advocacy: What A Single Exposure To Digital Animal Advocacy Can (And Can’t) Do. Faunalytics. https://faunalytics.org/the-effects-of-digital-advocacy/
