Worth A Thousand Words? Emotional Responses To Pictures Of Farmed Animals

Much of animal agriculture has changed dramatically from the green, sprawling pastures people might imagine when they hear the word “farming.” Characteristic of extensive systems, only a small percent of farmed animals are still raised in these healthier, more natural environments. Unfortunately, intensive farming, characterized by high density and productivity, has become much more common to meet the growing demand for animal proteins. While studies have shown people prefer extensive farming for various reasons, most interest nowadays may be driven by its perceived higher animal welfare — an opinion cultivated by photographs circulated in mass media.

A group of Italian researchers wanted to study how different people felt seeing animals under both intensive and extensive farming conditions. They aimed to understand how these emotional responses related to how people perceived the welfare of the animals pictured, as well as the relationship between their responses and choices in consuming animal products.

A sample of 835 Italian adults completed a short questionnaire that asked for their demographic information, animal product consumption habits, and personal importance of animal welfare when purchasing animal products. The survey was distributed electronically via social media and email, as well as physically through various university departments, community centers, and seniors facilities. Most participants were women (57%), under 25 years of age (29%), had a high school diploma (43%), and lived in villages (45%). Most were students (39%) and had a companion animal at home (76.5%). Only 8% were veg*n.

To test emotional responses and perceptions of welfare by the type of farming system, the survey presented 11 photographs of farmed animals (cows, chickens, pigs, and rabbits) under intensive or extensive farming conditions. For each picture, participants reported how intensely they felt each of 10 emotions and their opinion on the welfare of the animals shown. The emotions included:

• Anger
• Joy
• Sadness
• Surprise
• Shame/disappointment
• Resignation
• Hope
• Nostalgia
• Remorse/guilt
• Contempt/disgust

The researchers ended up excluding surprise and nostalgia from the analysis because there was little correlation between them and the other emotions. Thus, their final model contained six negative emotions (anger, sadness, shame/disappointment, resignation, remorse/guilt, and contempt/disgust) and two positive emotions (joy and hope). Higher scores indicated more positive emotions, while lower scores meant more negative emotions.

Some of the study’s results may be unsurprising. Participants, especially women, were more negatively affected by photos of animals under intensive farming conditions, and they associated intensive farming with lower welfare. On the other hand, photos of animals under extensive farming elicited more joy and hope. Participants who reported that animal welfare was “very important” when deciding what animal products to purchase also reacted more negatively to photos of the farmed animals as a whole.

Within the intensive and extensive farming photograph groups, the researchers observed some species-specific differences. Participants felt more negative seeing pigs and rabbits being farmed intensively compared to cows under similar conditions. They also felt most positive seeing chickens versus other species being farmed extensively.

The study’s results revealed more differences related to other demographic factors. For instance, participants with a university degree viewed extensive farming more positively than those with lower levels of education, and participants living in cities had a less negative perception of intensive farming compared to those living in villages. Having a companion animal at home was associated with more negative emotions towards intensive farming, and veg*ns reacted more negatively to both types of farming systems than non-veg*ns. Other demographic factors, including age and job, had no effect on emotion scores.

While it yielded many interesting findings, this study has several limitations. It didn’t measure whether seeing the photos of farmed animals influenced people’s consumption behaviors, as it only asked about their existing habits. The results shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that showing people pictures of animals in either intensive or extensive farming conditions will affect people’s decisions to buy fewer or more humanely produced animal products. Also, because all participants were Italian, the results of this study may not reflect how people from other cultures would react. The people surveyed also chose to participate in the study, rather than being randomly selected. For example, most participants were under 25 years old and had companion animals at home, which means that results of the study could be biased towards young people and companion animal guardians and not representative of how the general public feels.

Lots of animal advocacy campaigns use images, and advocates could refer to this study alongside other existing research to reflect on their communication strategies. This study showed that different types of people respond differently to seeing animals farmed both intensively and extensively. Understanding that people may also have stronger reactions to certain farmed animals, advocates might first think about what type of reaction they hope to create with their campaigns and what audience they are trying to reach, then choose photos accordingly. In cases where an emotional response might be weaker, as suggested in this study (e.g., when the audience is primarily male or when advocating for cows), advocates may consider supplementing images with other methods. They could also look into how other factors like the perspective, colors, or style of a picture impact its effectiveness.

Ultimately, this research reminds us that not all images are created equal when it comes to advocacy, and people will react differently to them depending on who they are.