Some Biases That Can Influence the Choice of Strategies and How the Public Receives Them

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume X, p. 70 of the PDF edition · English translation

6.1. Introduction

In chapter 4 we discussed how various biases influence our beliefs concerning nonhuman animals and our decisions that affect them. These biases also influence animal advocates when they decide which problems to give more or less attention to and when they plan their advocacy strategies. That is what we will talk about now.

The biases we will address in this chapter do not fit into any of the categories discussed in chapter 4, but they can also influence both advocates' choices and the degree to which the public accepts or rejects their message. Thus, the following biases may be present in advocates and also in the public. Trying to find out whether this is the case can help advocates plan their advocacy strategies better.

6.2. Biases to watch for in ourselves when planning advocacy strategies

Below is a list of biases that can influence advocates when they choose advocacy strategies. Investigating whether they are influencing us is an important thing to do if our aim really is to have the greatest impact we could in terms of improving the situation of animals.

G. I. Joe fallacy. The tendency to think that knowing that a cognitive bias exists is enough to overcome it⁷².

Exaggerated expectation. The tendency to expect or predict more extreme outcomes than those that actually occur.

Optimism bias. The tendency to overestimate the probability of positive events and underestimate the probability of negative events⁷³.

Pessimism bias. The tendency to overestimate the probability of negative events and underestimate the probability of positive events.

Zero-sum bias. Occurs when a situation is incorrectly perceived as a zero-sum game (that is, one in which a gain for one individual necessarily implies an equivalent loss for another). This bias can lead advocates to overlook possibilities for mutual compromise between people who think differently about other topics, and to think that the disagreement is greater than it really is.

Shared information bias. The tendency of group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all members are already familiar with, compared with information that only some members are aware of. Shared information bias is an example of the law of triviality, which describes our tendency to devote a disproportionate amount of time to trivial matters and little time to important ones.

Illusory correlation. Occurs when we see an association between two variables (events, actions, ideas, etc.) that are not really associated. This bias can incline us to think, for example, that a positive or negative outcome occurred because of a strategy we used (when in fact it occurred because of other factors).

Response bias. The tendency to give inaccurate or even false answers so that they conform to social norms or to what we think the questioner wants to hear. This bias occurs in everyday life and is also common among research subjects. It is important to keep this in mind when analyzing statistics (at least statistics that depend on what participants report). Checking how the research was conducted and the methodology used can help determine how likely it is that the subjects gave insincere answers.

False consensus effect. Occurs when we overestimate the extent to which others share our beliefs, values, and behaviors. This bias leads people to project their personal attitudes and ideas onto others (for example, thinking “I wouldn't be interested in this; therefore, nobody will be”).

Availability heuristic. The tendency to think that the information we remember most easily or are most familiar with is necessarily more representative of what happens most of the time.

In strategic planning, the false consensus effect, together with the availability heuristic, can incline us to think that everyone else has the same tendencies, values, and character traits as the people we have the most contact with. Because of this, we may become excessively pessimistic or excessively optimistic about how our message will be received, depending on the profile of the people we have the most contact with. For short, we can call this the bubble bias, since it is the tendency to think that everyone else is like the bubble of people we have the most contact with.

In section 2.8 we discussed how the false consensus effect specifically influences advocates' beliefs about how receptive the public is to the proposal to help wild animals.

6.3. Biases that can influence how the public receives our message

The following biases can influence the way advocates' message will be received by the public. Whether this influence will facilitate or hinder acceptance of the message depends on which bias is exerting influence and on how the message is presented. This is explained more fully in the following sections.

6.3.1. Biases that affect the ability to understand and recall information

The levels-of-processing model challenges the idea that mere repetition helps us retain information in the long term. Instead, it suggests that information understood at a deeper level, through meaningful associations, is easier to remember. The effects listed below are associated with this phenomenon.

Processing difficulty effect. Information that takes longer to read and that one spends more time thinking about is more easily remembered later. For this reason, oversimplifying the message is not ideal.

Picture superiority effect. Concepts learned by viewing pictures are remembered more easily and more often than concepts learned through writing.

Spacing effect. Shows that learning is more effective when repeated in spaced sessions. By repeating and spacing out information, individuals tend to recall it better in the future⁷⁴.

Lag effect. Suggests that we retain information better when there are longer intervals between repetitions of that information.

Testing effect. Suggests that we will remember information more easily if we rewrite it instead of rereading it.

Google effect. The tendency to forget information available through internet search engines because we know it will remain easily available⁷⁵.

Humor effect. Humorous messages tend to be more easily remembered. This can be explained by: (1) the distinctiveness of humor; (2) the increased cognitive processing time needed to understand humor; and (3) the emotional arousal caused by humor. Given this, one possibility is to use humor in advocacy. However, this needs to be planned carefully because, since the situation of animals is terrible and we want people to realize that it is terrible, using humor in advocacy may have the effect of people not realizing how serious the issue is. Another possibility is to use humor to question arguments and attitudes in the face of the terrible situation of animals.

6.3.2. Individual cases versus general situations

Consider the following effects:

Identifiable victim effect. The tendency to feel greater empathy and a desire to help in situations where the tragedy concerns a specific, identifiable individual, compared with situations in which the victims are a larger, anonymous group of individuals.

Collapse of compassion. The tendency to behave more compassionately toward a small number of identifiable victims than toward a large number of anonymous victims.

Given the existence of these biases, one strategic option would be to publicize stories of individual cases of animal suffering (whether in the wild or in exploitation) to draw attention to the problem as a whole (emphasizing, for example, that the general situation is not mere numbers, but this individual case that moved us so much, repeated many times over). However, there is another bias suggesting that this needs to be done very carefully so as to highlight the general case, because if this is not done, showing the individual case tends to contribute to people continuing to neglect the general situation:

Base rate neglect. When we receive information about specific cases along with general, objective statistical information (the base rate), we tend to attach greater value to the specific information and often ignore the general information completely⁷⁶.

6.3.3. The impact of negative and positive messages

Consider the following biases:

Negativity bias (regarding recall): the tendency to recall unpleasant memories more than positive memories of equal intensity.

Negativity bias (regarding impact): negative events have a more significant impact on our psychological state than positive events of the same magnitude.

Given these biases, it seems that showing the reality in which animals suffer (whether regarding wild animals or exploited animals) would be a good strategy.

However, negativity bias does not apply at all ages. For example, according to socioemotional selectivity theory, older adults favor positive over negative information in their memories. See also euphoric recall. However, it is important to note that this concerns the recall of information, not its impact.

Another related effect is loss aversion⁷⁷, the finding that the pain of losing is psychologically twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining. This may suggest that negative reinforcement can be more effective than positive reinforcement in giving a message impact. For example, instead of saying that rejecting speciesism is doing the right thing, it will probably have a greater impact to say that not rejecting speciesism is doing the wrong thing.

6.3.4. Biases centered on who presented the information

The following biases influence the likelihood that a message will be accepted or rejected depending on the characteristics of whoever presented it. These biases have an influence both on whether we regard a piece of information as true or false and on whether we accept or reject an argument about what we ought to do.

Authority bias inclines people to accept information or follow instructions without critically evaluating the content, simply because that information and those instructions came from someone they regard as an authority on the subject. Important: for this bias to have an influence, it is enough that people regard the messenger as an authority on the subject, even if he or she in fact is not one. Authority bias is a particular case of the messenger effect, explained below.

The messenger effect inclines us to judge the validity or relevance of information on the basis of its source (whether a person, a media outlet, an organization, etc.). Instead of objectively analyzing the content of the message, our opinions about the person conveying the information affect our judgment of the information. If we trust the

messenger, we tend to accept what they tell us; if we do not, we tend to reject it. In both cases, the bias inclines us to accept or reject an idea without stopping to evaluate the idea itself.

A classic example of the messenger effect is the following hypothetical scenario (which happens often in real life): one person presents an idea and nobody takes it seriously; shortly afterward another person presents exactly the same idea and most people accept it, often enthusiastically.

In a 2019 study entitled Who we listen to, who we don't and why Stephen Martin and Joseph Marks discuss the kinds of factors that most influence how someone is perceived as one or another kind of messenger, whether in positive or negative terms. Among these factors, the authors cite as the main ones: socioeconomic position, competence, dominance, attractiveness, warmth, vulnerability, trustworthiness, and charisma. Again, it is important to remember that these factors exert their influence depending on how the public sees the messenger, regardless of what the messenger really is. Take the competence factor as an example. If the public sees the messenger as someone competent in the area they are talking about, it will tend to accept their message more readily, even if that person is not in fact competent in that area.

The messenger effect produces other secondary effects. Two examples follow.

The halo effect occurs when positive impressions of something (whether a person, an organization, a brand, a product, etc.) in one area positively influence our impressions in another area⁷⁸. A classic example is assuming that a physically attractive individual is probably also a good person.

The noble edge effect, in turn, makes our perception of whether or not a company's social responsibility is genuine depend on the source from which we hear about that responsibility. If we hear about it from the company itself, we tend to see it as a

marketing ploy. If we hear about it from the charity that benefits from the company, we tend to interpret it as genuine generosity.

6.3.5. Biases centered on how the information was presented

Unlike the biases we discussed in the previous section, which are based on who presented the message, the following biases influence the acceptance or rejection of a message depending on how the message itself was presented (again, regardless of whether or not the idea the message communicates is plausible).

The framing effect occurs when our decisions are influenced by the way information is presented⁷⁹. Usually this has to do with the message highlighting the positive points of what is being advocated and hiding the negative points, and vice versa. The classic example is the following: suppose disinfectant A promises to “kill 95% of germs,” and disinfectant B promises that “only 5% of germs survive.” Although both advertise exactly the same effect, disinfectant A is more likely to be chosen, since it highlights the part in which it is effective, while B highlights the part in which it is ineffective.

In fact, many positions (whether regarding values, goals, strategies for achieving a goal, etc.) “survive” in this way: they are accepted only because they highlight only their positive effects and hide their negative effects (while at the same time highlighting only the negative points of the opposing position and hiding its positive points).

Another similar effect occurs when we accept an idea only because we do not understand it well. For example, there are people who accept environmentalism because they mistakenly believe that it aims to secure the good of the animals living in the wild. Likewise, there are people who accept the criterion of biological life as the criterion for moral consideration only because they mistakenly believe that, if they agree that animals are harmed by death, then they must reject the sentience criterion. Again, there are views that “survive” in this way: by being presented to the public in such a way that the public misunderstands them, since this increases the chances that the public will accept them.

Other effects that depend on how information was presented are the following:

Choice overload: we find it harder to choose when we have more options.

Nostalgia effect: feelings of nostalgia lead us to value social connection more and to spend more money.

Bye-now effect. This effect concerns the influence on attitudes of associations between words that are unrelated but have a similar sound or spelling. The classic example is the following. Imagine you are reading a magazine whose editorial ends with a big “bye” (bye). You then turn the page and see an ad for a product. The bye-now effect suggests that you are more likely to buy the product because you have just read bye (which is similar to buy, a homophone).

6.3.6. The order in which ideas are presented influences how well they are remembered

The following biases influence the recall of information (not necessarily its acceptance) depending on the order in which the information was presented:

Serial position effect: describes how our memory is affected by the position of information in a sequence. Items near the end of a sequence are the easiest to remember, followed by items at the beginning of a sequence. Items in the middle are the least likely to be remembered⁸⁰.

However, the effect of more easily remembering items near the end of a list can be diminished by the suffix effect, which occurs when an irrelevant item is added after the end of the list. This happens because the mind will fix on the item at the end of the list, even if it is not part of the list (the irrelevant item). This suggests that it is important to end texts, talks, and videos with the main conclusion we want people to retain, without adding irrelevant comments afterward.

Primacy effect: the tendency to remember the first information we encounter better than information presented later.

Recency effect: the tendency to remember better the information that was presented to us most recently.

In this section we have confined ourselves to discussing how the order in which information is presented influences the recall of that information. Next we will talk more about how the order in which information is presented influences the acceptance or rejection of what it proposes

6.3.7. The order in which ideas are presented influences their acceptance/rejection

The order in which ideas are presented also contributes to their being more easily accepted or rejected, and not just to their being remembered or forgotten.

Below are some personal accounts of experiences of this kind in talks on animal ethics. They are not data from statistical research. However, this is something also observed by other authors, such as Vinding (2020b) and Horta (2013).

In talks on animal ethics, if it is argued right at the outset that we should be vegan, and arguments for consideration for animals are presented afterward, the audience tends to reject these arguments strongly and to try to raise objections, with a view to rejecting veganism. However, if the opposite is done, that is, when the talk begins by discussing the arguments for the moral consideration of animals, acceptance of them is usually high and, consequently, if at the end of the talk it is mentioned that one implication of these arguments is that we should be vegan, the resistance is much smaller.

In cases like this, perhaps this is not even the result of a bias. It is not that there is anything magical or irrational about one idea being presented before another or vice versa. What happens is simply that, if the arguments grounding the moral consideration of nonhuman animals are presented first, people can clearly understand the basis on which the idea that we should be vegan rests (as well as other ideas, such as the