ASSIGNMENT
Over the past years, consumers’ concern about the welfare of farm animals increased (Alonso et al., 2020; EC, 2016). As a result, companies bring more products with higher animal welfare standards on the market (e.g., Esbjerg et al., 20222). Companies, however, also respond to this increased concern by boosting the attractiveness of their products using misleading information about animal welfare. This ‘welfare washing’ (occasionally also referred to as humane washing) is defined as “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present a public image in which the organization appears to take responsibility for animal welfare” (Bjørkdahl & Syse 2021, p. 3). This can be done via information presented on product packages, via advertisements, and via the website and other forms of communication by the company and by using misleading quotes, terms, and labels (e.g., humanely raised, natural) as well as imagery (e.g., showing happy animals having ample space outside). An example of an existing welfare washing practice is a cheese package showing a cow with her calf enjoying the grass outside while in reality the product company separates the calf from his mom and they both never see daylight, nor grass. Misleading welfare information is often disseminated, including by major companies (Borkfelt et al., 2015; Thibault et al., 2022). Research showed that even among the certified meat welfare label claims, 85% lack substantiation (Sutherland et al., 2023). Welfare washing has detrimental consequences as companies are 1) misleading consumers, 2) at the cost of animal welfare, 3) while unfairly competing with companies that do produce with higher animal welfare standards. Given these harmful consequences, we are in great need to understand the cues from which consumers can spot whether welfare messages are deceptive or acceptable.
The internship student will start by getting acquainted with the existing literature on welfare washing and related areas. The internship task will consist of gathering products which have been proven to misinform concerning animal welfare and then classify those products on types of welfare washing and the type of cues used. Identifying the possible cues at which you can detect deception is very helpful to inform consumers and help them spot washing.
KEYWORDS
Welfare washing; animal welfare; deception.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ORGANIZATION
The section Psychology of Conflict, Risk and Safety at the University of Twente has a distinctive and unique profile in the areas of risk perception and risk communication, conflict and crisis management and the antecedents of risky, antisocial and criminal behaviour. It currently includes 15 research staff members and 6 PhD students. We work from both a psychology and an engineering perspective and cooperate with other scientific disciplines, based on the “high tech, human touch” profile of the University of Twente.
AVAILABILITY
Usually anytime. This internship is open for 1 student.
INTERESTED?
Please contact the PCRS internship coordinator Miriam Oostinga (m.s.d.oostinga@utwente.nl).
LITERATURE
- Bjørkdahl, K., & Syse, K. V. L. (2021). Welfare Washing: Disseminating Disinformation in Meat Marketing. Society & Animals, 32(1), 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-BJA10032
- Kühl, S., Bayer, E., & Schulze, M. (2023). The role of trust, expectation, and deception when buying organic animal products. Animal Frontiers, 13(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac080
- Thibault, M., Pailler, S. & Freund, D. (2022). Why Are They Buying It?: United States Consumers’ Intentions When Purchasing Meat, Eggs, and Dairy With Welfare-related Labels. Food ethics 7, 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-022-00105-3