Cited by 124Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal Law and WelfareConsumer behavior in food and health

Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: Results from a telephone survey of US households

Prickett, RW, Norwood, F Bailey, Lusk, JL·2010·Animal Welfare

Abstract

As animal industry and animal advocacy groups debate how farm animals should be treated, little research has focused on the attitudes of consumers in the United States. This study utilises results of a representative telephone survey to measure consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare, and investigates how these attitudes vary across individuals. The survey finds that consumers desire high standards of animal care, even if it raises food prices and involves government regulation. Support is particularly strong from females, Democrats, and residents of the Northeastern United States. To provide high standards of animal care, consumers as a whole perceive allowing animals to exhibit natural behaviours and exercise outdoors to be more important than protection from other animals, shelter, socialisation, and comfortable bedding. Consumers vary in their perceptions though, and are divided into three classes: Naturalists, Price Seekers, and Basic Welfarists. Naturalists place great importance on allowing animals to exhibit natural behaviours and exercise outdoors, and comprise 46% of the sample. Price Seekers, comprising 14% of the sample, are primarily concerned with low prices. Basic Welfarists make up 40% of the respondents, and value animal welfare but perceive it can be achieved by simply providing food, water, and treatment for injury and disease. This last group perceives amenities, such as access to outdoors and ability to exhibit natural behaviours, unimportant for t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0962728600001731

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A social movement has led to increased public concern and interest in the welfare of animals in captivity.

    “Although personal and community views vary worldwide, it is well recognized that there is a social movement emerging that has led to increased public concern and interest in the welfare of animals in captivity [1,2,3,4,5].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prickett, R., Norwood, F. B., & Lusk, J.
Affiliations
Oklahoma State University (US)
Corresponding author
Norwood, F Bailey
Venue
Animal Welfare
Published
2010-08
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
335-347
ISSN
  • 0962-7286 (ISSN-L)
  • 2054-1538
OpenAlex
W2279711537
Cited by
124
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
8.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Animal Welfare (publishedVersion)
  • SHAREOK (University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; Central Oklahoma University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Animal Law and Welfare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Consumer behavior in food and health
Keywords
livestock welfare, consumer attitudes, animal welfare standards, natural behavior, outdoor access, food prices, price sensitivity, partisanship, gender differences, regional variation, animal welfare legislation, United States households

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review