Higher for Animals: The Proof Behind Investigations

12 minute learn

Higher for Animals: Background

Animal Charity Evaluators’ Higher for Animals: Proof-Based mostly Insights for Efficient Animal Advocacy useful resource is an ongoing challenge during which we distill key analysis on totally different animal advocacy interventions to assist us consider their affect in numerous contexts. We’ve got made this analysis publicly out there to help knowledgeable choice making about tips on how to assist essentially the most animals. You possibly can learn extra in regards to the methodology right here.

It is a dwelling doc and we wish to make it as useful, accessible, and up-to-date as attainable, so please be happy to attain out with suggestions! To maintain updated with ACE’s analysis and the work of the superb organizations that we help, you should definitely join our mailing listing.

Whereas we hope advocates discover this useful resource useful for his or her strategic and tactical choices, it’s topic to varied limitations. Particularly:

• This isn’t a scientific evaluate. Attributable to capability constraints, we had been unable to conduct a full and complete literature evaluate and as an alternative used our greatest judgment to pick out research for inclusion.
• We’re working with a restricted proof base. For some interventions, we needed to depend on lower-quality proof or much less related proof from adjoining fields. Proof on the long-term or oblique impacts of interventions is especially restricted.
• It isn’t absolutely complete. Our Menu of Interventions captures the interventions the charities we consider for suggestion or assess as potential grantees use mostly, but it surely doesn’t seize each method that exists within the motion.
• Interventions don’t function in isolation. The out there proof largely evaluates interventions independently, however their real-world effectiveness is formed by the broader ecosystem of actors, complementary interventions, and contextual components. This limits how a lot findings might be generalized to particular advocacy environments.

As such, we encourage advocates to think about the proof offered alongside their on-the-ground information of how interventions perform and complement each other in particular contexts.

To assist share our Higher for Animals findings extra broadly, we’re spotlighting one intervention every month by a collection of social media and weblog posts. This month we’re specializing in the proof round investigations.

Intervention Highlight #6: Investigations

What is that this intervention?

This class refers to conducting investigations to doc animal welfare violations and expose the mistreatment of animals on farms, in transport services, and in slaughterhouses. It will probably additionally embody the event and implementation of instruments and programs to make it simpler for people to report animal welfare violations, corresponding to on-line reporting platforms. Amongst different issues, investigation footage is commonly shared (by social media, tv, or different channels) to encourage individuals to scale back their consumption of animal merchandise, signal petitions calling for improved animal welfare requirements, and help different animal advocacy efforts. It is usually used as proof in authorized proceedings. As such, it may be used to enrich lots of the different interventions listed within the Higher for Animals useful resource.

What’s our general evaluation of this intervention? How assured are we on this evaluation?

• The proof that we discovered is topic to varied limitations. A lot is theoretical or subjective, and the empirical research are sometimes over 5 years previous, have small pattern sizes, or present correlation with out having the ability to show causation. Most proof pertains to the U.S., with questionable generalizability to different areas. Proof additionally sometimes focuses on the impact of investigations used for vegan outreach, somewhat than, e.g., legislative change or company campaigning. As such, our confidence in our evaluation is low.
• Total, our proof evaluate means that investigation footage is more likely to elicit constructive modifications in attitudes towards animals, at the very least within the quick time period, however much less more likely to elicit significant behavioral change, corresponding to dietary change or lively pro-animal engagement. Public attitudes towards investigations seem like constructive, particularly when abuse is uncovered, property harm is restricted, and the footage highlights each the plights of particular person animals and the systemic cruelty of intensive animal agriculture.
• We anticipate the effectiveness of this intervention to fluctuate considerably relying on the context and the method taken. We consider it’s possible stronger when:
  • Investigations spotlight systemic abuse and clearly present that cruelty is widespread, whereas telling particular person animal tales to maintain the struggling private.
  • Footage is produced or supported by skilled organizations, with investigators’ bravery emphasised and customary business rebuttals (for instance, claims of deception or “dangerous apples”) anticipated.
  • Campaigns goal areas with much less prior publicity to investigation footage and align releases with different pro-animal media protection.
  • Proof is gathered by authorized and different strategies corresponding to drones, cell surveillance, or whistleblowers, permitting use in court docket instances or legislative efforts and decreasing threat of prosecution.

• Conversely, the intervention is probably going weaker, or could have unintended destructive penalties, when:
  • Footage is framed as a uncommon incident, is overly repetitive, or depends on outdated techniques that face tighter safety and viewers fatigue.
  • Investigators use unlawful strategies, creating authorized threat and public mistrust.
  • Releases fail to counter business narratives or lack recent, campaign-relevant materials, resulting in diminishing media affect.

• Investigations are additionally incessantly utilized in tandem with different interventions listed within the Higher for Animals useful resource, corresponding to company welfare campaigns and social media outreach, so for context, we suggest additionally studying the summaries for these interventions.
• We might welcome extra empirical analysis that assessments the affect of investigations on public attitudes towards animals and dietary habits, particularly well-designed research that present dependable proof of causation (or lack thereof), somewhat than merely correlation. We might additionally welcome analysis testing how investigation footage impacts the effectiveness of different interventions. Additional case research of the affect of particular investigations and analysis into the affect of direct rescue work are additionally warranted.

What does the analysis say about how efficient this intervention is?

• Empirical proof means that publicity to footage of undercover investigations has a constructive affect on individuals’ attitudes towards animals. Indications of constructive behavioral change are much less sure. For instance, a 2016 examine by Mercy for Animals discovered some indicators of constructive medium-term attitudinal change towards animals following publicity to footage of farmed animal cruelty, however the modifications detected had been small and the generalizability of those findings is restricted by a slim demographic group.¹
• A randomized managed trial (RCT) by Animal Equality and Faunalytics that used a bigger, extra consultant pattern discovered that individuals who watched footage of pigs being confined and slaughtered in intensive farms expressed stronger anti-pork attitudes instantly after watching and one month later, relative to the management group.² The group that seen the footage additionally reported consuming marginally much less pork one month after the intervention. Nonetheless, the follow-up response charge amongst individuals was solely 58%, which might have skewed the survey’s findings by selective attrition, and different sorts of meat consumption weren’t measured, so it’s unknown whether or not some individuals elevated consumption of different meats to make up for lowered pork consumption. This may very well be significantly problematic if individuals switched from larger-bodied animals corresponding to pigs to smaller-bodied animals corresponding to fishes or chickens, resulting in greater general animal struggling related to their weight loss plan.³ Typically, dietary self-report can also be topic to limitations corresponding to recall bias (problem precisely remembering consumed meals and quantities) and social desirability bias (the tendency to report consuming habits in a manner that’s perceived as extra socially acceptable).⁴
• A 2024 examine discovered that individuals confirmed elevated concern about welfare-washing and the credibility of welfare certification schemes after watching an undercover video exhibiting animal abuse at an RSPCA Assured farm. 28% of viewers said that they had been contemplating eliminating meat from their weight loss plan after watching the video, in comparison with 22% earlier than.⁵
• Two research from 2012 and 2015 (each by the identical researchers) discovered that media protection of farmed animal cruelty elicited a robust destructive emotional response in most viewers, however that solely a really small proportion took motion corresponding to contacting politicians or writing to newspapers.⁶ In distinction, one 2024 examine of over 3,000 French residents discovered that viewing an undercover video of animal abuse led to a 23% enhance in charitable donations to animal advocacy organizations.⁷ Nonetheless, this examine befell in a extremely managed surroundings utilizing very small quantities of cash (with every participant in a position to donate at most one euro).
• A lot of the public seem to help undercover investigations. A 2023 on-line survey of 292 German residents discovered most of the people accepting of undercover investigations, significantly when animal abuse was uncovered and investigators didn’t trigger any property harm.⁸ A 2016 survey of 716 U.S. residents signifies that most individuals are unaware of so-called “ag-gag laws” (legal guidelines designed to stop the documentation of circumstances and practices on farms, usually by penalizing undercover investigators or whistleblowers), however are against such laws as soon as made conscious of it. Respondents additionally expressed decrease belief in farmers and stronger help for animal welfare laws after studying about ag-gag legal guidelines.⁹
• Investigations have been cited as an essential issue within the success of historic company outreach efforts, as they assist prime firms and the general public to be receptive to such campaigns.¹⁰ Investigators whom we consulted highlighted that investigative footage is beneficial for validating claims made by activists about poor animal remedy, supporting authorized actions and public outreach, and refuting fraudulent claims made by animal agriculture firms.¹¹ We aren’t conscious of any research immediately testing the additional advantage of utilizing investigations to help different campaigns.
• A 2024 Faunalytics report lists a number of examples of authorized victories that had been reportedly supported by undercover investigations.¹² These embody: an E.U. ban on rabbit cages; the closure of a U.Okay. pig farm and a Spanish foie gras farm; and a ban on sex-selective chick culling in Italy. Investigative footage has additionally been utilized in numerous civil lawsuits and legal prosecution instances, in addition to the Supreme Courtroom amicus transient submitted by Harvard’s Animal Legislation and Coverage Program (ALPP) in help of California’s Proposition 12.
• A 2016 report by ACE, based mostly on conversations with leaders within the animal advocacy motion, highlighted the chance of diminishing returns if the general public turns into desensitized to footage of farmed animal cruelty. The report famous that Mercy For Animals capped the variety of investigations launched in 2015 for that reason, and in 2016 was engaged on enlargement into different nations the place saturation is much less of a priority.¹³ We didn’t discover any empirical proof that immediately examined this assumption.

Value effectiveness

• Whereas we didn’t discover any cost-effectiveness estimates for investigations, a number of research highlighted the comparatively excessive price of undercover investigations within the U.S.¹⁴ This utilized particularly to people who contain investigators gaining employment at animal agriculture services (that are the investigations that seem to realize essentially the most media protection within the U.S.).¹⁵ Nonetheless, one U.S.-based group that we consulted reported that top prices are avoidable, noting that smaller teams (corresponding to their very own) are in a position to perform investigations for beneath $10,000. In follow, prices rely upon the expertise of the investigation group, whether or not there’s a want for coaching previous to getting into the sector, the size of the investigation itself, and the variety of help employees assigned to the investigation.
• Consultants based mostly outdoors the U.S. additionally reported that assumptions of excessive prices don’t essentially apply to the identical extent elsewhere, provided that employment-based investigations are pretty unusual in e.g. Europe, Asia, and Australia, the place investigations are sometimes a lot shorter.

Energy of proof

• Proof on the effectiveness of investigations is topic to varied limitations. A lot of the proof is theoretical or based mostly on subjective opinion somewhat than empirical proof. The empirical research are sometimes over 5 years previous and/or topic to limitations corresponding to small pattern sizes or failure to offer proof of causation (somewhat than simply correlation).

Below what circumstances is that this intervention kind of efficient?

• The 2016 ACE report famous numerous components, based mostly totally on subjective reasoning and conversations with others within the motion, which will enhance the affect of investigations. This contains:
  • Specializing in systemic abuse within the farming system to keep away from footage being dismissed as an excessive, uncommon incident (and when publishing cases of utmost cruelty, emphasising that such cruelty is extremely frequent all through the business)
  • Telling tales of particular person animals, to keep away from individuals turning into desensitized to the animals’ struggling and depersonalizing them
  • Making certain that investigations are carried out by, or with the help of, skilled organizations
  • Emphasizing investigators’ bravery and preempting any accusations of deceit
  • Finishing up investigations in areas the place there was much less of a “saturation” of investigation footage
  • Aligning with different pro-animal messaging presently within the media.
• A 2020 Farm Ahead report additionally highlighted frequent business methods to dismiss the significance of any footage, together with framing the footage as misleading and blaming particular person employees as “dangerous apples”, and in some cases; firing them.¹⁶ Making efforts to preempt such methods, by emphasizing the cruelty inherent to routine animal practices (somewhat than highlighting unlawful welfare violations) might assist to extend the effectiveness of such footage.
• Investigation footage could also be significantly highly effective when used as proof in authorized motion: Investigation footage has supported legal prosecutions, civil lawsuits, and legislative wins, together with bans on chick culling and rabbit cages, and protection of Proposition 12.¹⁷
• The U.S.-based group that we consulted cautioned towards a “rinse and repeat” mentality (corresponding to persevering with to make use of employment-based investigations regardless of harder safety and hiring protocols inside the business), as this might quickly face diminishing returns. To keep away from media fatigue, they emphasised the necessity to use different techniques for gathering proof to make sure that footage stays provocative, related for particular campaigns, and well-suited to collaboration with legislation enforcement. In addition they inspired the usage of authorized investigation strategies (corresponding to cell surveillance, drone work, and dealing with whistleblowers), as unlawful strategies (corresponding to open rescues) threat resulting in prosecutions and creating public mistrust in animal advocacy organizations.
• A 2018 report additionally highlighted the comfort of utilizing drones to report investigative footage, though the authors famous they aren’t appropriate for gathering in-depth footage or footage of indoor actions.¹⁸

Our priorities for enhancing this proof evaluate

• We plan to enhance future iterations of this proof abstract by together with extra exploration of:
  • Proof outdoors the U.S. (as this proof evaluate is presently extremely U.S.-centric)
  • The precise methods during which investigations can help different interventions, corresponding to authorized work for animals
  • The overlap with the effectiveness of documentaries
  • The state of play with ag-gag legal guidelines and to what extent they’ve hindered an organizations’ capability to conduct investigations
  • Case research of particular investigations and direct rescue work, and their effectiveness
  • Any points with recruitment and retention of undercover investigators, and the most effective methods to deal with these points.

1. Cooney (2016) 

2. Anderson (2018) 

3. Bryant Analysis (2024) 

4. See, e.g., Rothgerber (2019) 

5. Udale (2024) 

6. Tiplady et al. (2012); Tiplady et al. (2015) 

7. Espinosa et al. (2024) 

8. Schulze et al (2023) 

9. Robbins et al. (2016) 

10. Bollard (2017) 

11. Skilled testimony 

12. Nilsson (2024) 

13. ACE (2016) 

14. Farm Ahead (2020) 

15. ACE (2016) 

16. Farm Ahead (2020) 

17. Nilsson (2024) 

18. McCausland et al. (2018) 

---

---

---

About Max Taylor

Max joined ACE in October 2022. He beforehand headed the U.Okay. authorities’s Animal Welfare Market Interventions group, the place he explored choices for welfare labeling on animal merchandise. He’s devoted to utilizing his profession to reduce animal struggling and exploitation.

ACE is devoted to making a world the place all animals can thrive, no matter their species. We take the
guesswork out of supporting animal advocacy by directing funds towards essentially the most impactful charities and packages,
based mostly on proof and analysis.

167
Recipients engaged on promising tasks

42
Nations throughout six continents.

$68M
Donations inside the animal advocacy motion.

$58,000,000+
in donations already made to our beneficial charities between January 2019 and March 2025

Trying to make your first donation? We’re joyful to assist

Be taught extra

Donate now