What Do Americans Think About Animal Protection Policies?

A recent study provides valuable data on human attitudes toward animals.

Reviewed by Margaret Foley

Key points

• A recent study suggests that the public's attitudes toward animal protection are changing.
• The majority of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that there is a need to reduce animals' suffering.
• Results indicated particular concern about animals used for research purposes or in zoos.

Many studies have shown that the public's attitudes toward animals and wildlife are changing, and this is leading to more policy initiatives focused on animal protection. However, few studies have examined U.S. public perspectives on an array of key potential animal protection policies or the public’s perceived importance of considering animal protection in policy and governance more broadly. Understanding the views of the public can ensure policies are developed that reflect the priorities and views of all Americans when it comes to animal protection. Here's what Colorado State University professor Rebecca Niemiec had to say about a new and landmark study she and her colleagues conducted called the United States Resident Survey on Animal Protection Issues and Policy Solutions.

Marc Bekoff; Why did you and your research team conduct this comprehensive study?

Rebecca Niemiec: The focus of this research was to understand U.S. public perceptions of the importance of animal protection in federal- and state-level policy. We also looked at what groups of animals the public is most concerned about and how support for animal protection varies by demographics and political affiliation. Our sample consisted of 2,074 U.S. residents recruited via Prolific survey company, weighted to ensure results were representative of the U.S. public’s demographics and political affiliation.

MB: How does your research relate to your background and general areas of interest?

RN: I direct the Animal Human Policy Center at Colorado State University. This work directly supports the mission of the Center, which is to synthesize socio-ecological information and bring diverse perspectives together to help policymakers and government agencies facilitate positive relationships between animals and humans. This work also fits within the overall arc of my career, as I've been working on animal-human issues as a social scientist and manager for over 10 years. For example, I was the manager of the Bureau of Animal Protection for the state of Colorado, where my team and I developed and began implementing a three-year strategic plan to address domestic animal mistreatment throughout the state.¹

MB: Who do you hope to reach in your interesting and important work?

RN: There are two main audiences for this work. First, we hope to reach those involved in developing and advocating for policy focused on animal protection. We hope our data can be helpful to these individuals in showing the level of public support for animal protection more broadly in policy and governance as well as for five specific animal protection policies currently being discussed by stakeholders and policymakers (i.e., policies addressing cruelty toward wildlife, unlimited hunting of carnivores, extreme confinement of chickens and pigs in factory farms, octopus farming, and boat collisions with endangered whales). Our second audience is the general public—we want to show people what all Americans think about these issues and animal protection more broadly.

MB: What are some of the major topics you consider?

RN: Our results indicated that U.S. residents are most concerned about the suffering of animals used for research purposes, in shows and rodeos, and in zoos and aquariums. They were least concerned about the suffering of invasive wildlife.

Most respondents did not feel knowledgeable about state or federal laws focused on animal protection, and most believed that farmed animals and animals used in research were not living a good life.

For all five policy case studies examined, the majority of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with all potential proposed state or federal policies to reduce animal suffering caused by humans.

We found the following level of support (percent that were somewhat or very supportive) for proposed federal policies:

   •  85.8 percent support a federal law specifying cruelty toward wildlife is a criminal violation;
   •  77.5 percent support a federal law requiring states to limit the number of carnivores that can be killed by a hunter in a year;
   •  78.2 percent support a federal law banning wildlife killing contests;
   •  88.1 percent support a federal law requiring that all farming operations provide sufficient space, at the minimum, for pigs to stand up, turn around, and stretch their legs;
   •  81.2 percent support a federal law banning the production and sale of eggs from hens confined in battery cages;
   •  66.8 percent support a federal law banning octopus farming;
   •  85.5 percent support NOAA’s proposed changes to the vessel speed rule to reduce the likelihood of mortalities and injuries to the North Atlantic right whale from boat collision.

We found strong evidence for what is called "pluralistic ignorance" with regard to animal protection policy in the United States: Specifically, for all animal issues examined, actual public support for policy was higher than the perceptions of others’ support.²

MB: How does your work differ from others that are concerned with some of the same general topics?

RN: When studies have examined public perspectives on animal welfare policy before, they have typically focused on one or two animal issues at a time (e.g., farmed animal welfare or human-carnivore coexistence), preventing comparisons of perceptions across types of animals/policy issues. We address this gap by looking at the level of support for animal protection across a range of different types of animals and types of policies.

Also, our study differs in that it is the first examination of "pluralistic ignorance" across animal protection issues. Pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly believe that others have different opinions, feelings, or actions than they do; pluralistic ignorance has been found to drive people’s actions and beliefs related to climate change, as people tend to underestimate others’ support for climate change action.

Studies have found that these misperceptions of others can reduce people’s own willingness to engage in discussion and civic action around climate change and other environmental issues. However, pluralistic ignorance has not been examined in the context of animal protection issues. We found that pluralistic ignorance is occurring across a wide range of animal protection issues.

MB: Are you hopeful that as people learn more about animal protection they will themselves do more to help other animals?

RN: One of the things we found is that the U.S. public in general is incredibly supportive of animal protection policies and wants to see our state and federal governments protecting animals. However, people really underestimate how much other Americans care about animals. What I think is an essential next step is to help all people know that they are not alone in their concern and passion about animals—in fact, our survey show that most of everyone else in the U.S. has this same concern and passion!

I hope that as people realize they are not alone, more people will begin to speak up—to their friends, family, social networks, and policymakers—to ensure that the actions that we take toward animals reflect the values that most Americans have towards animal protection.