Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Discourses of Animal-Welfare NGOs

Last registered on February 19, 2019
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Discourses of Animal-Welfare NGOs
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0003868
Initial registration date
February 11, 2019

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
February 19, 2019, 6:17 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country
France
Region

Primary Investigator

Name
Romain Espinosa
Affiliation
CNRS - Université Rennes 1
Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Name
Nicolas Treich
PI Affiliation
INRA - TSE
Contact Investigator

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2019-02-14
End date
2019-06-30
Keywords
Environment & Energy, Welfare
Additional Keywords
Animal-based diets, Plant-based diets, Animal welfare, Meat
JEL code(s)
Q5, C91
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Reducing the consumption of animal products is an increasingly recognized public policy objective. With its health, environmental and ethical stakes, the transition to plant-based diets is now emerging as a major challenge for the public authorities. The means implemented to promote this transition have in recent years been mainly the work of associations towards consumers and producers, which is sometimes referred to as private politics. The work of raising awareness on these issues has mainly been led by two types of associations: associations adopting a reformist / welfarist discourse, ie, which aims to improve farming conditions and reduce meat consumption, and associations adopting an abolitionist discourse, ie, aimed at stopping the exploitation of animals and, thus, at the end of meat consumption. The effectiveness of these two types of speech is central to understanding how to achieve a significant decrease in meat consumption. Thus, we propose to measure experimentally the impact of welfarist and abolitionist discourses in the laboratory.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Espinosa, Romain and Nicolas Treich. 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Discourses of Animal-Welfare NGOs." AEA RCT Registry. February 19. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.3868-1.0
Former Citation
Espinosa, Romain and Nicolas Treich. 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Discourses of Animal-Welfare NGOs." AEA RCT Registry. February 19. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/3868/history/41755
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
In this laboratory experiment, we consider the propensity of individuals to (i) give money to associations promoting animal-welfare, (ii) sign petitions promoting vegetarian diets and the improvement of farming conditions, (iii) subscribe to a newsletter to help to adopt a plant-based diet.
We compare three treatment conditions: (i) no intervention (BASELINE / CONTROL), (ii) when participants are exposed to a welfarist discourse (WELF) and (iii) when participants are exposed to an abolitionist discourse (ABOL).
Intervention Start Date
2019-02-24
Intervention End Date
2019-06-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our primary variable of interest is the "engagement for animal-welfare".
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
The variable "engagement for animal-welfare" is a variable that results from a dimension reduction process based on the four decisions made in the experiment (dictator game, 2 petitions, newsletter). It is positively associated with the amount of money given to the unknown association, with the probability to sign each petition, and the probability to subscribe to the newsletter.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Our secondary variables are first the four variables of interest used to construct the "engagement for animal-welfare" (dictator game, 2 petitions, newsletter). Our secondary variables also include a pro-meat index.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
The pro-meat index is constructed based on the answers to the pro-meat justification questions. It is equal to the sum of all the answers.
The (translated) questions are:
Please indicate to which extent you agree with the following statements. Your answers can take values between 1 (totally disagree) and 7 (totally agree) :
1) It is acceptable to eat meat because animals bred for our consumption do not really suffer.
2) It is acceptable to eat meat because animals killed for our consumption have lower cognitive skills than we have.
3) It is acceptable to eat some animals because they have been bred for this purpose.
4) God created animals for us to eat them.
5) Eating meat is good for health.
6) It is natural to eat meat, it's written in our genes.
7) It is normal to eat meat.
8) I enjoy meat too much to stop eating it.
9) Eating meat is necessary to be in good health.
10) Eating meat is maybe damaging for the environment but not more than eating vegetables or cereals.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
In this laboratory experiment, we consider the propensity of individuals to (i) give money to associations promoting animal-welfare, (ii) sign petitions promoting vegetarian diets and the improvement of farming conditions, (iii) subscribe to a newsletter to help to adopt plant-based diets.
We compare three treatment conditions: (i) no intervention (BASELINE / CONTROL), (ii) when participants are exposed to a welfarist discourse (WELF) and (iii) when participants are exposed to an abolitionist discourse (ABOL).
Experimental Design Details
Our experiment consists of an online questionnaire prior and a laboratory experiment. The online questionnaire must be answered a few days before participating in the experiment.

The online questionnaire contains a series of questions that address (i) the participants' alimentation, including animal-based products, (ii) pro-meat justifications, (iii) trust in public and private institutions, (iv) political views, (v) political activism.

The laboratory experiment consists of two phases. In the first phase, participants play a public good game in groups of 3. The second phase of the game consists of treatment exposure. In the Baseline / Control treatment, participants are told they are going to take a series of decisions on the coming screens. In the WELF and ABOL treatments, participants are told that they are going to read a text that was published online by an association (they know the title of the text and the objective of the association). Then, participants are exposed to the text (one for each treatment). These texts were written by the team using scientific-based knowledge on the topic and also contained some elements promoting either the reduction of meat consumption (WELF) or the abolition of all meat consumption (ABOL). Although the two texts contained the same information, they differed in the associated type of discourse. The welfarist text was published online by a welfarist association (Welfarm), while the abolitionist text was published online by a French abolitionist association (L214).
Participants were then presented with a dictator game where the receiver was an "association promoting animal-welfare" (participants were not given further details). Participants had then the possibility to sign two petitions: one asking the government to develop vegetarian meals in public institutions, one promoting the improvement of animal welfare in farming. Third, participants had the possibility to subscribe to a newsletter to help them switch to plant-based diets. After this, participants were asked their pro-meat justifications in the same way as the online questionnaire. Half of the participants were asked to report their pro-meat justifications just after reading the text, and the other half after taking the three series of decision (dictator game, petitions, newsletter subscription).
Randomization Method
Randomization in the experiment is computer-based.
Randomization Unit
Individual.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
9 sessions: 3 sessions per treatment.
Sample size: planned number of observations
24 participants per session, 3 sessions per treatment, 3 treatments : 216 observations in total.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
24 participants per session, 3 sessions per treatment, 3 treatments : 216 observations in total.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number
Analysis Plan

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials