Why factual appeals about the abilities of sheep may fail

Marino & Merskin (2019) express hope that providing people with positive information about the abilities of sheep (factual appeals) will improve perceptions of them and thus improve their welfare. However, these factual appeals can, and do, fail to change perceptions of animals. This commentary considers why and when factual appeals fail, and with whom they may be effective

Toward a non-anthropocentric view on the environment and animal welfare: Possible psychological interventions

Treves, Santiago-Avila, and Lynn (2019) argue for adopting a non-anthropocentric worldview to prevent further environmental damage and lack of consideration for animals. We discuss psychological interventions that might help achieve this

Cultivating a non-anthropocentric worldview in aid of the environment and animal welfare: Possible psychological interventions

Treves, Santiago-Avila, and Lynn (2019) argue for adopting a non-anthropocentric worldview to prevent further environmental damage and lack of consideration for animals. We discuss psychological interventions that might help achieve this

Why factual appeals about the abilities of sheep may fail

Marino & Merskin (2019) express hope that providing people with positive information about the abilities of sheep (factual appeals) will improve perceptions of them and thus improve their welfare. However, these factual appeals can, and do, fail to change perceptions of animals. This commentary considers why and when factual appeals fail, and with whom they may be effective

Farmyard Animal or Best Friend? Exploring Predictors of Dog vs. Pig Pet Speciesism

Despite dogs’ and pigs’ shared similarities, previous research indicates people favor dogs over pigs (known as “pet speciesism”). While pet speciesism has been empirically sup-ported, little is known about its predictors. This gap in the literature is problematic as urgent requirements to decrease meat consumption emphasize the pressing need to develop interventions to reduce pet speciesism and thus reduce meat consumption. However, to develop these interventions, we must first identify why people view pigs (vs. dogs) negatively. To begin addressing this gap, the current study utilized the stereotype content model to uniquely explore pet speciesism’s predictors. We recruited participants via social media, posters, flyers, and the university’s Sona system, resulting in a total of 232 participants (all 18+; Mage = 28.57, SDage = 10.74; 61.2% meat consumers; 78.4% female; 45.3% British). Behavioral and subjective self- relevance, familiarity, similarity and pet status of an animal, alongside overall empathy toward animals, differentially predicted dogs’ and pigs’ perceived warmth and competence and may usefully explain pet speciesism. These predictors should be investigated causally in experiments. Both the current study and later experiments could explain why people exhibit prejudice in favor of dogs and against pigs, with unique theoretical implications for pet speciesism literature and practical implications for meat consumption, policies, and public perceptions of pigs

Farmyard Animal or Best Friend? Exploring Predictors of Dog vs Pig Pet Speciesism

Despite dogs’ and pigs’ shared similarities, previous research indicates people favor dogs over pigs (known as “pet speciesism”). While pet speciesism has been empirically sup-ported, little is known about its predictors. This gap in the literature is problematic as urgent requirements to decrease meat consumption emphasize the pressing need to develop interventions to reduce pet speciesism and thus reduce meat consumption. However, to develop these interventions, we must first identify why people view pigs (vs. dogs) negatively. To begin addressing this gap, the current study utilized the stereotype content model to uniquely explore pet speciesism’s predictors. We recruited participants via social media, posters, flyers, and the university’s Sona system, resulting in a total of 232 participants (all 18+; Mage = 28.57, SDage = 10.74; 61.2% meat consumers; 78.4% female; 45.3% British). Behavioral and subjective self- relevance, familiarity, similarity and pet status of an animal, alongside overall empathy toward animals, differentially predicted dogs’ and pigs’ perceived warmth and competence and may usefully explain pet speciesism. These predictors should be investigated causally in experiments. Both the current study and later experiments could explain why people exhibit prejudice in favor of dogs and against pigs, with unique theoretical implications for pet speciesism literature and practical implications for meat consumption, policies, and public perceptions of pigs

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.publishedVersio

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: a global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors

Addressing climate change with behavioral science:A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.</p