How do people feel about the impact of the animal protection movement and its long-term goal to eliminate animal suffering? We have the data.

I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being. ~ Abraham Lincoln

As researchers for the animal protection movement for more than 15 years, Faunalytics has had a long-term interest in monitoring changes in attitudes and behavior relating to animals. We designed the Animal Tracker nearly a decade ago as the only longitudinal survey dedicated to animal issues.

This year, we are sharing the Animal Tracker results through a series of blogs. The first blog covered the overall results and our study methodology. Our second installment focused on self-reported knowledge, and the third examined perceived importance of protecting animals when engaging in specific behaviors. Our most recent blog looked at rates of agreement and contradictions in public opinion.

In this post, we cover the remaining two questions that were included in the Animal Tracker 2016 survey. They relate to the perceived impact of the animal protection movement and support for the goal of animal advocates. Below is the actual wording we use for each of these survey questions.

Regardless of your personal opinion about the animal protection movement, how much of an impact do you think it has had on our nation’s policies? Significant Impact

Moderate Impact

Very Little Impact

No Impact

Do Not Know Do you personally support or oppose the animal protection movement’s goal to minimize and eventually eliminate all forms of animal cruelty and suffering? Strongly Support

Somewhat Support

Somewhat Oppose

Strongly Oppose

Do Not Know

For the two questions above, the proportion of U.S. adults saying they “do not know” was 15% and 18%, respectively, in the 2016 survey results. This is a meaningful percentage of the population that does not know what impact the movement is having or how they feel about the movement’s goals. For analysis purposes in the following sections, we exclude those who responded “do not know.”

The question about perceived impact has consistently produced mixed results, with approximately half of respondents saying the impact has been “significant” or “moderate” and about half saying there has been “very little” or no impact. There have been some interesting changes in the response to this question over time (see below). On the other hand, support for the movement’s goals has remained both strong and steady.

In the following sections, we explore the demographic differences when it comes to perceived impact and support for the movement’s goals. We also take a look at trends by comparing our latest results with past years of the Animal Tracker, going back to 2008. The complete details for all years and demographic groups will be released along with the last blog in this series. We will also be updating our graphing tool with 2016 data and releasing the full dataset combining nine years Animal Tracker results for others to analyze.

Demographics

Below we focus on the most recent Animal Tracker results (from May 2016) and differences by gender, age, level of formal education, ethnicity, geographic region, and whether or not people have companion animals in the household. To simplify our analysis, we converted each question’s responses into a binary variable. For impact, we combined significant/moderate and very little/no impact. For the goals-related question, we combined strongly/somewhat support and strongly/somewhat oppose. We excluded those who said “do not know.” This approach simplifies things, but also obfuscates some of the more granular (but significant) findings.

The table below shows the demographic differences for the questions relating to perceived impact and support for goals. The values shown indicate the percentage differences in responses for that demographic subgroup compared to the overall U.S. adult population. The highlighted values are larger than the margin of error for that subgroup.

Gender

Impact: Slightly more women than men think the animal protection movement has had a significant or moderate impact, but the difference is within the margin of error.

Goals: Women are more likely than men to support the overarching goal of the animal protection movement as stated in the survey. Specifically, 84% of women and 78% of men support the goal. The gender disparity is modest, but significant.

Age

Impact: Respondents in the youngest (18-29) and oldest (60+) age groups are slightly more likely to say the animal protection movement’s impact has been significant/moderate. However, when comparing specific age groups to the overall population, the differences are all within the error margin.

Goals: Support for the movement’s goal generally increases with age. Specifically, 78% of 18-29 year olds support the goal compared with 80% of 30-59 year olds, and 86% of those age 60 and older. Again, the differences are modest and only significant when comparing the youngest and oldest age groups.

Education

Impact: The perceived impact of the animal protection movement decreases as one’s level of formal education increases. For instance, 52% of those with less than a high school education say the impact has been significant/moderate, versus 36% of those with Bachelor’s degrees or more education.

Goals: Support for the movement’s overarching goal also decreases as level of formal education increases, but only modestly. While 85% of those with less than a high school education support the goal, compared with 78% of those with Bachelor’s degrees or more education support the stated goal.

Ethnicity

Impact: White respondents are less likely to say the animal protection movement has had a significant or moderate impact on the nation’s policies than other ethnic groups. Four in ten White people (40%) say that the movement’s impact has been significant/moderate, compared with 53% of Hispanic/Latino respondents and 55% of Black respondents who say the same.

Goals: White people are also less likely to support the overarching goal of animal advocates, though the differences are less stark. The support rate among white respondents is 80%, versus 86% for Hispanic/Latino respondents and 85% for Black people. Due to the relatively small sizes of some ethnic groups, however, these differences generally fall within the error margin.

Region

Impact: Regional differences in perceived impact are modest and within the margin of error for the survey. Consistent with other Animal Tracker results, there is some indication that those in the U.S. West think the movement has had more impact, while those in the Midwest think the impact has been lower.

Goals: Differences by region are also very slight when it comes to support for the movement’s goals. While 84% of those from the Northeast and West regions support the stated goal, 79-80% of those from the South and Midwest regions say the same. These differences are also within the error margin.

Companion Animals in Household

Impact: There is only a one percentage point (non-significant) difference in perceived impact when comparing those who live with companion animals and those who do not. Interestingly, those without companion animals are more likely to say the movement’s impact has been “significant.”

Goals: Those who live with companion animals are slightly more likely to support the movement’s overarching goal than those without companion animals. Specifically, 83% of people with companion animals support the goal, compared to 78% of those without companion animals.

Trends

These two Animal Tracker questions covering perceived impact and support for the movement’s goals have been asked four times, most recently in 2016, but also in 2013, 2010, and 2008. To simplify our analysis of the trends, we again converted each question’s responses into a binary variable. Overall, the trends indicate declining belief in the impact of the animal protection movement, but steady support for its overarching goal.

Regardless of your personal opinion about the animal protection movement, how much of an impact do you think it has had on our nation’s policies?

Movement Impact: Over the course of the Animal Tracker, the perceived impact of the animal protection movement has decreased considerably. Those saying the movement has had “significant” or “moderate” impact was exactly half of U.S. adults (50%) in 2008. The proportion increased slightly in 2010 to 53%, but has since declined to 49% in 2013 and 44% in 2016. A clear majority (56%) now believes that the moment has “very little” impact or none at all. This excludes those saying they “do not know,” which has ranged from 12-16% of the responses.

Do you personally support or oppose the animal protection movement’s goal to minimize and eventually eliminate all forms of animal cruelty and suffering?

Support for Goals: Public support for the overarching goal of the animal protection movement (“to minimize and eventually eliminate all forms of animal cruelty and suffering”) is quite strong, at 81% for all U.S. adults. That level of support has remained essentially unchanged over the course of the Animal Tracker. While the numbers have declined very slightly over time – from 83% support in 2008 to 82% in 2010 to 81% in both 2013 and 2016 – these very modest declines are well within the survey’s margin of error.

Next Steps

In our next and final blog in this series covering the 2016 Animal Tracker results, we’ll provide our analysis of the overall findings and what they mean for animal advocates. We’ll also share the full results for all years of the Animal Tracker in a public spreadsheet so that you can see and analyze the results for yourself. And we’re working on updating our graphing tool so you can easily visualize and explore the latest results, plus we are planning to provide the full results for all years in SPSS and/or R format.

Stay tuned in the next week or two for the analysis and detailed results!