Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: Results from a telephone survey of US households
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [4]
Cites
The Measurement of Values and Individualism-Collectivism
Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672982411005 · Cited by 327 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare
Sherwen, S. L., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2019) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani9060366 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
An animal welfare risk assessment process for zoos
Sherwen, S. L., Hemsworth, L. M., Beausoleil, N. J., Embury, A., & Mellor, D. J. (2018) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani8080130 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
- Authors
- Prickett, R., Norwood, F. B., & Lusk, J.
- Affiliations
- Oklahoma State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Norwood, F Bailey
- ORCID
- Norwood, F Bailey
- Venue
- Animal Welfare
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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