Success Stories

The success stories below are from users of Effective Thesis services that wrote a thesis on or related to animal advocacy and plant-based food systems. Vegan Thesis was co-founded with the support of Effective Thesis in a mission to inspire, connect, and support students globally to conduct research with real-world impact for a more ethical and sustainable future. The vision is a world where every motivated student contributes to impactful research that accelerates plant-based food system transitions for the betterment of all living beings.

Rakefet Cohen Ben-Arye

Giving Lucky a Name and a Face: Increasing Animal Advocacy Activism Among Meat-eaters Using the Identifiable Victim Effect

Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 93, 2024, 102193, ISSN 0272-4944, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.102193. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494423002414)

Rakefet pursued a master’s degree in Social and Organizational Psychology at Bar-Ilan University and is now on a Ph.D. track where she continues to work on the identifiable animal victim effect. rakefetc.biu@gmail.com

  • What was your thesis topic?

    Diets based on animal products are costly to our health and the planet and often inflict suffering on animals. In this study, we aimed to elicit animal advocacy among omnivores using the identifiable victim effect, a well-documented phenomenon in which presenting an identifiable victim, compared to anonymous or statistical victims, evokes greater caring and helping behavior. We explored whether this finding extends to farm animal victims, particularly among omnivores who may have a material interest in the outcome (i.e., the slaughter of farm animals). Consequently, due to their dietary lifestyle and consumer support of the meat industry, they may be perceived as complicit in the victimization. In Experiment 1, omnivore participants indicated a greater likelihood to sign and share a petition to save an identified runaway calf (presented with a name and a picture) from slaughter than several unidentified runaway calves. In Experiment 2, we extended these findings to actual petition signing, along with reporting support of the petition. In Experiment 3, we further replicated the identifiability effect using real donations to save the runaway calf (calves) from slaughter and demonstrated it is limited to a single-identified victim. Additionally, we found that feelings of sympathy (Experiment 1) and ambivalence towards meat (Experiment 3) mediated the effect, whereas concern, empathy, identification with animals (Experiment 2), and ecological identity (Experiment 3) moderated it. Omnivores who scored high in concern and ecological identity, and low in empathy and identification with animals were more susceptible to the effect. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

    What do you think the stronger and weaker parts of your thesis are?

    The strength of our research lies partly in its practical applicability. It provides clear insights into real-world applications and potential impacts.

    However, a limitation is that it relied on self-reported online questionnaires.

    In future studies, I would like to see an emphasis on measuring actual behavior, particularly in terms of buying habits. Additionally, it would be beneficial to include smaller farm animals like chickens and fish, which are consumed in larger numbers, to broaden the scope of the research.

    In what ways do you think your topic improves the world?

    While this effect has been extensively studied, our research is among the few that specifically explore its benefits for farm animal victims.

    Additionally, it is the first study to successfully elicit animal advocacy among non-vegan and non-vegetarian individuals using the identifiable victim effect.

    These insights could lead to more effective strategies in animal advocacy.

    In what ways have you changed your mind since writing it?

    Since completing my thesis, my views on leveraging people’s irrationality have shifted.

    As an Effective Altruist, I initially found it almost painful to observe even rational people succumbing to common fallacies and biases, including the identifiable victim effect.

    However, I’ve come to realize that if we want to make impactful changes without facing an uphill battle, it can be more effective to work with certain biases rather than against them

    This includes using the identifiable victim effect strategically to elicit support for all victims in similar situations, not just him or her.

    What recommendations would you make to others interested in taking a similar direction with their research

    • Congratulations on Your Achievements: Celebrate your progress in both career and activism

    • Work Hard: Understand that research is highly competitive. It’s a “publish or perish” environment, and most papers don’t get cited even once. Be the one who publishes! Push yourself more than 99% of other hard-working researchers.

    • Commit to Lifelong Learning: Take courses on platforms like Udemy, LinkedIn, Coursera, and others. Study hard skills, such as R programming, as well as soft skills, like networking, teamwork, and communication

    • Stay Updated with AI: Use the latest versions of AI tools like Chat GPT, Jenni AI, and Penelope AI for research assistance. However, always adhere to the journal’s guidelines regarding AI and double-check your sources for facts.

    • Be Willing to Pay for Knowledge: Recognize that the internet is moving towards a paid model. Knowledge is power now more than ever. It’s not spending – it’s an investment.

    • Join The EA Community: Get involved with communities like Effective Altruism, which are likely to engage with your research.

    • Utilize All Connections: Capitalize on both strong and weak ties in your professional network, as both groups were shown to be crucial.

    • Maintain a To-Do List: Write down all the people and organizations you want to share your papers with.

    • Self-Advocate: Remember, if you don’t promote your work, no one else will. Write detailed thank-you emails to researchers you cited and include a link to your paper.

    • Seek Varied Advice: Get advice from professionals as well as family and friends. Trust other scientists and focus on collaboration.

    • Share Resources: Eventually, it doesn’t matter for the animals if you are the one publishing a novel study or another researcher you helped. Sharing with others encourages you to advance further since it levels the playing field in terms of knowledge.

    • Grab the Opportunity: This is your chance to make a difference while expanding your knowledge and skills. Grab it!

    For any inquiries about my research or any other question in your career, you are more than welcome to reach out to me at rakefetc.biu@gmail.com

Adéla Novotná

The Influence of Movies on Behavioural Change in Individual Meat and Dairy Products Consumption

Adéla completed a bachelor’s degree in Psychology at Masaryk University. She has continued to pursue a master’s degree in psychology at the same university. amaanovotna@gmail.com

  • What was your thesis topic?

    My thesis explored the influence of animal advocacy movies on behavior (i.e. change in meat and dairy products consumption), attitudes (i.e. carnistic defense) and emotions. For this purpose, I conducted a quasi-experiment with two experimental groups (a fictional movie and a documentary), and a control group. The data on animal products consumption were collected prior to and one month after watching the movie/documentary and the data on attitudes and emotions were collected prior to, right after the movie and in one month. This design should resolve some of the uncertainties of previous cross-sectional studies by producing more reliable data enabling testing causality. I have found no effect of watching either a fictional movie or a documentary on any outcome (animal products consumption or carnistic defence) in one month’s time after watching the movie.

    In what ways do you think your topic improves the world?

    Meat production is increasing rapidly every year. Today’s meat production is almost five times higher than in 1961. Currently, over 70 billion animals are slaughtered and eaten every year, which causes a lot of animal suffering, contributes to global greenhouse emissions and increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases in the population. For further discussion please continue to this post or my thesis.

    One strategy to alleviate the above mentioned problems is decreasing individual animal products consumption and changing people’s attitudes towards animals.. This advocacy strategy is used by many animal advocacy charities and includes interventions like leafleting and online ads (Animal Charity Evaluators, 2018).

    Documentaries are one of the most commonly used interventions in the animal rights/welfare movement. There are many ‘must-see lists’ with animal rights documentaries and movies on personal blogs but also animal advocacy organizations’ websites. For example, PETA published a list of Top Animal Right Movies to Show in Class which should change students’ thinking and motivate them to take action for animals.

    Although there is some cross-sectional evidence that many vegans and vegetarians say they reduced their meat and dairy products consumption and became veg*ns after watching a movie (Humane League Labs, 2014), there are no experimental studies supporting, describing or explaining the process of this behavioral change. Without such studies, we can not be sure this intervention works as suggested and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on animal advocacy documentaries might thus not bring about the desired societal change.

    Researching effects of advocacy movies is also one of the most recommended research projects by Animal Charity Evaluators.

    What do you think the stronger and weaker parts of your thesis are?

    The main strength of this thesis is its experimental design which allows testing for causality. It also provides long-term data, by tracking changes in behaviors and attitudes one month after watching the movie. The results provide new information about predictors of change in meat and dairy products consumption and about the process of this change, suggesting that movies and documentaries seem less effective intervention. There are also some benefits stemming from testing this hypothesis on a sample from the Czech Republic, as to allow for that, I had to translate The Speciesism Scale and The Carnism Inventory to Czech language and partially test its validity in Czech context. This will allow researchers to use these scales on Czech samples in the future and will contribute to research on how these concepts are perceived in various cultures and countries.

    The largest weakness of this thesis is its inability to detect smaller effect sizes due to modest sample size (N=99) This study was powered to detect 27% and higher difference between the groups (d=0,38) in their meat consumption. I have found no differences between groups, suggesting that the effect of movies/documentaries is likely not that high. However, even a smaller effect than this (e.g. 15 %) might still make this intervention worthwhile. Future researchers should thus aim to collect large samples, enabling them to detect even smaller effects.

    Another problem might be the use of self-reported measure of meat consumption. Although this measure seems to be one of the best of self-reports and was used in other influential studies (e.g. Humane League Labs, 2014), using more objective measure of meat consumption (e.g. tracking amount of animal products on the receipts, measuring what customers purchase using for example customer loyalty card data) provide more reliable results.

    Finally, another important factor is the choice of movies. I have used only two kinds of movies (documentary and fictional), both with minimal violence displayed and mentioning only ethical arguments to reduce meat consumption. I can not rule out those same kinds of movies with more drastic/violent scenes would have stronger effects on reduction in animal products consumption or attitudes towards animals. Similarly, if those same kinds of movies used arguments other than (or in addition to) ethical considerations of animal welfare, the effects of such movies could also be different. The optimal approach in movie choice would probably be choosing a type of movie which is most popular (according to the most recent analyses by Kieran Grieg the most viewed documentaries in US in 2019 were Forks Over Knives, What the Health, Cowspiracy and The Ghosts in Our Machine) and addressing the ethical or health arguments for meat reduction (according to this Faunalytics summary majority of current vegans and vegetarians are motivated by ethical or health arguments).

    In what ways have you changed your mind since writing it?

    I started to believe that changing eating habits is a more complex issue than I originally thought. It seems to me that no single factor (e.g. watching a movie) could make the change alone – there have to be more factors involved to allow for a change of eating habits to happen. This kind of thinking is well described by Theory of Planned Behavior, in which the final behavior only appears after factors like personal attitudes, social norms, perceived behavior control, emotions, personal problems and problem awareness work in conjunction. Another potentially important factor which isn’t included in this theory is the price and taste of plant-based substitutes.

    Overall I believe that research exploring the effect of movies on meat consumption is difficult to conduct (requires big sample size, it is financially and technically challenging) and it is sensitive to many variables (e.g. the choice of the movie). Also, watching a movie is highly dependent on people’s will to do so (in contrast to, for example, public ads). Further, I think that watching a movie can motivate mostly people already reducing their meat consumption to continue doing so or maybe it can motivate people who are already thinking about reducing their meat consumption to give it a try.

    What recommendations would you make to others interested in taking a similar direction with their research?

    Doing this research for my bachelor thesis was quite a challenge from its very beginning but it taught me some lessons which might be helpful to other researchers thinking about using similar research design.

    To all future researchers I would recommend following:

    During choosing a movie, think carefully about its messaging, popularity, availability of subtitles and possibility to stream the movie publicly (for example, Netflix doesn’t allow it). I would also recommend searching for impact analyses which are sometimes available (for example The Ghost in Our Machine Impact Report)

    Using objective methods is always better than using self-report methods when measuring meat consumption. Even though objective methods might be more complicated to carry out, they provide more reliable results. What I consider as the worst choice is the self-identification questionnaire (“Which of the following best describes your diet: vegetarian, flexitarian, omnivore,…”). For more information about measuring the diet and the consumption, please follow the Faunalytics or The Humane League Labs.

    One of the biggest problems with conducting RCT design of this kind is getting enough participants – especially when you ask for about 3 hours of their time. But it is especially important for reliability of the results to get big enough sample size. From many ways of attracting and motivating people to take part in my study (sharing the screening invitation as a facebook event and offering free entry and refreshments), one thing which worked the best was cooperation with local movie clubs (situated at universities or cities). Those clubs usually have some network of fans, they use their own equipment and space so they can help you a lot with attracting participants and solving the practical challenges (e.g. where and how to do the screenings). Plus they are really nice because they are (usually) very interested in research related to movies. Potentially beneficial can also be cooperation with local animal advocacy groups, which are already organizing public movie screenings.

    It is very important to get a big control group (bigger than experimental groups), if you conduct an experiment with time lagged measures. People in the control group have a lower motivation to complete the whole experiment (for example answer the last questionnaire in a one months’ time) than people from experimental groups so you can expect bigger drop out in the control group.

    The most important experience was that doing interesting and altruistically-motivated research really pays off. I didn’t receive any grant and I invested a lot of my time and my own money to conduct this research. But I received a lot of support from many people who were really excited about the topic of this study. All professional translators and all movie clubs helped me for free and one anonymous donor even offered me financial help because he was excited about this study.

    In case you are interested, all data is free to download at the Open Science Framework.

    If you have any questions about this thesis or if you are planning similar research project and struggling in any phase, please, feel free to reach out to me on – amaanovotna@gmail.com. I would be happy to help.

Chloe Dempsey

Cultured Meat: Do Chinese Consumers have an Appetite?

Chloe Dempsey has a Masters in Economics & Management (China Studies) from Yenching Academy of Peking University. She is currently working at Boston Consulting Group and is a Director of Cellular Agriculture Australia. You can read Chloe’s thesis below and you can reach out to her at chloe.dempsey1@gmail.com

  • What do you think are the stronger and weaker parts of your thesis?

    The mixture of quantitative (large-scale survey) and qualitative (interviews with a range of stakeholders) research methods made the thesis both enjoyable to write and more interesting to share with others. Although there may not be easily verifiable value in qualitative research, it also adds value to the analysis and discussion of the quantitative results.

    If I was doing this thesis again, I would broaden the survey and more deeply explore the psychological perspectives underpinning responses. I would also potentially do some data collection through small focus groups that allow for more organic exploration of key themes.

    What recommendations would you make to others interested in taking a similar direction with their research?

    Since doing this thesis, I have maintained a deep interest in the broad area of alternative protein, and had considerable interest in my results and my experience/knowledge. For others considering researching this area, I would highly recommend doing so! I would suggest doing a comprehensive review to understand where there has been little research done e.g. exploring attitudes to cultured dairy products (perfect to explore in China).

    In what ways do you think your topic improves the world?

    I think at the lowest level, this contributes to a greater body of research on the impact of industrial agriculture and potential solutions to it – as that body of research grows, so does public interest and coverage of it, initiating discussions on how this should have ‘real’ impact. More specifically, China is a key country to focus on for the movement of improving environmental, health, and welfare impacts on meat consumption – I have had a lot of interest in my thesis, which I believe has spurred further research and investment.

Tomáš Petr

The Effect Of Global Poverty Reduction On Wild Animal Welfare

Tomáš studied bachelors in sociology at the Charles University in Prague and now switched to studying masters in zoology at the same university. tomass.petruu@gmail.com

  • The aim of this thesis is to interface two concepts: wild animal welfare and human poverty. The primary objective of the thesis was to find an economic model that would explain a correlation between these two parameters. Such a model doesn’t seem to exist in the current literature. I found only the GDP per capita-based environmental Kuznets Curve, which, however, in many studies did not bring stable results, and its derivative Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve. This type of Curve tries to explain the relationship between the welfare of domestical animals and the development of the country economy. No Kuznets Curve in conjunction with wild animals was established yet. Thus, the benefit of this thesis might rest in revealing the requisite for future efforts to explore and implement the Wild Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve, which would distinctly explain the relationship between the welfare of wild animals with GDP per capita increase.

    The second, qualitative, approach used in this thesis is based on a case study which, however, due to the character of the bachelor thesis, was modest in scope. In this section of the thesis, I did an analysis of the legislation of four states based on their economic development. Future and more rigorous research in this direction (ie. involving more countries) might provide stronger conclusions.

    In the theoretical part of my thesis, I have relied on the assumption that the lives of wild animals are always positive and therefore habitat destruction and decreasing wild animal populations are negative. However, on reflection, this is still an open question to debate and although recent research suggests that the lives of animals in the wild might be net positive, other authors have suggested the opposite. I specify this epistemological problem in my thesis on p. 14 (the last paragraph): “Phenomena reducing animal welfare considered to be a “naturally” bound to ecosystems such as predation, starvation, diseases, excessive cold or heat, or natural disasters are not considered in this thesis, as these are not directly caused by human activities or lack predictability. For animal suffering concerning causes not rooted in human activities, we could refer to Delon & Purves (2018); Sözmen (2013) or Tomasik (2017).”

    You can find the original thesis, review by the thesis supervisor and opponent and the final grade at https://dspace.cuni.cz/handle/20.500.11956/108622

Dimitri van Capelleveen

Normative Uncertainty and Wild-animal Suffering

Dimitri completed a Bachelor Philosophy (at the Free University of Amsterdam) and is doing a Research Master Philosophy at the same university, with ethics and epistemology as main topics. Dimitri focuses on ethics, specifically, on issues within normative ethics with seeming relevance for Effective Altruism.

  • What is the impact of normative uncertainty on the prioritization of wild-animal suffering? This is the initial research question of my thesis, posed by Wild-Animal Suffering Research. I address it by framing the question of whether we should or should not intervene in nature to reduce wild-animal suffering as a decision under normative uncertainty. Someone has to make such a decision if and only if she gives credence to at least two normative theories that prescribe multiple options. I apply two theories for decision-making under normative uncertainty to the decision, “My Favourite Theory” (MFT) and “Maximize Expected Choice-Worthiness” (MEC), which I both also evaluate.

    The second, qualitative, approach used in this thesis is based on a case study which, however, due to the character of the bachelor thesis, was modest in scope. In this section of the thesis, I did an analysis of the legislation of four states based on their economic development. Future and more rigorous research in this direction (ie. involving more countries) might provide stronger conclusions.

    In the theoretical part of my thesis, I have relied on the assumption that the lives of wild animals are always positive and therefore habitat destruction and decreasing wild animal populations are negative. However, on reflection, this is still an open question to debate and although recent research suggests that the lives of animals in the wild might be net positive, other authors have suggested the opposite. I specify this epistemological problem in my thesis on p. 14 (the last paragraph): “Phenomena reducing animal welfare considered to be a “naturally” bound to ecosystems such as predation, starvation, diseases, excessive cold or heat, or natural disasters are not considered in this thesis, as these are not directly caused by human activities or lack predictability. For animal suffering concerning causes not rooted in human activities, we could refer to Delon & Purves (2018); Sözmen (2013) or Tomasik (2017).”

    You can find the original thesis, review by the thesis supervisor and opponent and the final grade at https://dspace.cuni.cz/handle/20.500.11956/108622