EA - Does the US public support radical action against factory farming in the name of animal welfare? by Neil Dullaghan

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Does the US public support radical action against factory farming in the name of animal welfare?, published by Neil Dullaghan on November 9, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum.SummarySurveys from Sentience Institute (2020, 2017) and Norwood & Murray (2018) showed substantial levels of support in the US for banning slaughterhouses (~39-43% support when including those who chose no opinion/don't know). Evidence of this considerable public support for radical action has been suggested as a reason for animal advocates to push stronger messages and bolder proposals against animal agriculture.A preregistered study that we present here casts doubt on how substantial support for such radical action against factory farming actually is. In an experiment of 700 US survey respondents, we found 7.85% support (95% CI [4.3% - 14%]), when arguments framed around animal welfare for and against are presented, and respondents are asked to explain their reasoning. We also found 20.41% support (95% CI [11%-34.7%]) in the control condition when respondents were not asked to explain their reasoning.In the second survey of 2,698 US respondents, the weighted results show 15.7% (95% CI [13%-18.8%]) support for a policy banning slaughterhouses, when arguments framed around animal welfare for and against are presented, and respondents are asked to explain their reasoning.The attitudes expressed by poll respondents in response to broad questions may not be reliable indicators of actual support for specific policies or messages. It would be better to test people's responses to more detailed messages and policy proposals, paying special attention to how radical messages compare to counterfactual moderate messages.Results: Attitudes towards a proposal to ban slaughterhousesIn July and August of 2022, we ran two online surveys, one with an experimental design. In both, respondents were presented with a proposal that included a definition of slaughterhouses and arguments framed around animal welfare for and against the proposal. In the survey experiment, the treatment condition asked respondents to explain their reasoning, with this prompt removed in the control condition. In the second survey, only the treatment condition was presented. The question wording was as follows:Supporters of this policy say that slaughterhouses should be banned because it is wrong to kill animals. There is no way to kill animals for their meat which is “humane,” so this should be banned.Opponents of this policy say that people have a right to eat meat if they choose. The practices in place are humane and produce quality meat for consumers at an affordable price. It is possible to prevent animals being killed inhumanely without banning slaughterhouses.Do you support or oppose this proposed policy? [Support/Oppose/Don’t Know][Treatment condition] Please explain your reasons for the answer you gave aboveIn the survey experiment, with a sample of 700 US respondents:We found much lower levels of support in both control (20.41%, 95% CI [11%-34.7%]) and intervention (7.85%, 95% CI [4.3% - 14%]) conditions compared to the Sentience Institute (2020, 2017) and Norwood & Murray (2018) studies (43% when including “No Opinion” responses). (More results in the appendix.)In both the unweighted and weighted analyses, support was lower in the intervention condition than in the control condition. The share of “Don’t Know” respondents increased in the intervention in the unweighted analysis, while in the weighted analysis, the lost support seems to come directly from people choosing to oppose instead.Weighted results for a proposal banning slaughterhouses (control and treatment)The second survey had a sample of 2,698 US respondents (after filtering based on an honesty check and a basic attention/comprehension check). We pr...