Citizens’ and Farmers’ Framing of ‘Positive Animal Welfare’ and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication

Abstract

Human perception can depend on how an individual frames information in thought and how information is framed in communication. For example, framing something positively, instead of negatively, can change an individual’s response. This is of relevance to ‘positive animal welfare’, which places greater emphasis on farm animals being provided with opportunities for positive experiences. However, little is known about how this framing of animal welfare may influence the perception of key animal welfare stakeholders. Through a qualitative interview study with farmers and citizens, undertaken in Scotland, UK, this paper explores what positive animal welfare evokes to these key welfare stakeholders and highlights the implications of such internal frames for effectively communicating positive welfare in society. Results indicate that citizens make sense of positive welfare by contrasting positive and negative aspects of welfare, and thus frame it as animals having ‘positive experiences’ or being ‘free from negative experiences’. Farmers draw from their existing frames of animal welfare to frame positive welfare as ‘good husbandry’, ‘proactive welfare improvement’ or the ‘animal’s point of view’. Implications of such internal frames (e.g., the triggering of ‘negative welfare’ associations by the word ‘positive’) for the effective communication of positive welfare are also presented.

Positive Welfare and the Like: Distinct Views and a Proposed Framework

“…For instance, lay people and experts systematically disagreed on what a good animal life is ( 18 ), as lay people referred to a broader concept of animal welfare encompassing “living a natural life,” while experts focused on the animals' subjective experiences. This finding has been supported by other studies ( 15 , 19 ) and links to the different ethical concerns regarding animal welfare ( 10 ), namely “biological functioning,” “affective states” and “natural behavior.” Consequently, it is not surprising that there are multiple co-existing concepts and definitions of positive welfare (as for animal welfare in general) that are influenced by ethical views from different interest groups including the scientific community, animal users, and society ( 18 ). Nevertheless, discriminating between the many uses of the term “positive welfare” is crucial for science to make meaningful contributions ( 17 ).…”

“…Positive welfare fits with how the public conceptualizes animal welfare. Lay people generally associate animal welfare with the provision of opportunities for positive experiences with an a priori assumption that one should not inflict pain or suffering on an animal ( 14 , 15 ). This contrasts with the bulk of the scientific research on animal welfare, which is to date largely concerned with the alleviation of suffering.…”

Optimising the Efficacy of Equine Welfare Communications: Do Equine Stakeholders Differ in Their Information-Seeking Behaviour and Communication Preferences?

“…Another important consideration is the language and tone used in equine welfare communications. Indeed, it is widely recognised that human perception of information is influenced more by how something is said than it is by exactly what is said [42]. Consequently, the way that information is framed can profoundly impact its uptake.…”

Comparison of Norwegian health and welfare regulatory frameworks in salmon and chicken production

“…The way in which things are said or phrased matters, as it may affect our attitudes to and understanding of the welfare concept (Vigors 2019). Although many rules in the two regulations for keeping salmon and chicken are analogous, some of the more positive phrasings concerning welfare needs from the Animal Welfare Act (Dyrevelferdsloven, LOV‐2009‐06‐19‐97) are reused in the regulation for chicken, but are lacking in the regulation for salmon, for instance, ‘wellbeing’ and ‘psychological needs’.…”