Better for Animals: Background
Animal Charity Evaluators’ Better for Animals: Evidence-Based Insights for Effective Animal Advocacy resource is an ongoing project in which we distill key research on different animal advocacy interventions to help us evaluate their impact in different contexts. We have made this research publicly available to support informed decision making about how to help the most animals. You may read more about the methodology in our recent announcement.
This is a living document and we want to make it as helpful, accessible, and up-to-date as possible, so please feel free to reach out with feedback! To keep up to date with ACE’s research and the work of the amazing organizations that we support, be sure to sign up for our mailing list.
To help make this information more accessible to a wide range of audiences, we are spotlighting one intervention each month through a series of social media and blog posts. This month we are focusing on the evidence for books, documentaries, and podcasts to influence values or behavioral changes.
Intervention Spotlight #8: Books, Documentaries, and Podcasts
What is this intervention?
This category refers to books, documentaries, and podcasts intended to spread anti-speciesist values, promote behavioral change, or increase public support for and engagement in animal advocacy initiatives.
Tactics can include, e.g., collaborating with authors to publish books that highlight animal welfare issues; producing and distributing documentaries that raise awareness of animal welfare issues; or producing or appearing on podcasts that feature discussions with experts and advocates.
Summary: What is Our Overall Assessment of This Intervention? How Confident Are We In This Assessment?
Note that assessing the impact of this intervention as a collection of many activities is particularly challenging, as effectiveness is likely to vary substantially across individual books, documentaries, and podcasts. Some publications may achieve an outsized impact by reaching large audiences or shifting public discourse, while others may have negligible effects. A related challenge is that findings from any single book, documentary, or podcast are unlikely to generalize to others. For these reasons, we think future research would be most valuable if it focused on identifying the factors that distinguish successful publications from unsuccessful ones, rather than attempting to estimate an overall average effect for this category of intervention.
Books
We found a very small amount of evidence on the effects of books in animal advocacy. The scarce evidence comes from a few surveys asking veg*ns what interventions were the most influential in their behavior change, and results are mixed. In one survey, books are one of the interventions most-commonly cited, and in the other two surveys they were one of the least-commonly cited. These surveys are based on self-report data and caution is therefore needed when interpreting results, and they cannot establish causality. We also found a few peer-reviewed articles on the effects of books in changing attitudes toward animals, with results again mixed. Two studies (one in Poland and the other in Japan) showed positive effects while a U.K. study found null results.
Overall, the literature is so scarce that we do not feel confident enough to provide an assessment of how promising this intervention is.
We expect the effectiveness of this intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken. The relatively weak and limited evidence suggests this intervention may be stronger when animal welfare themes are woven into the narrative rather than stated explicitly.
Our confidence in this assessment is low due to the lack of methodologically-rigorous studies measuring effects on behavior, and the lack of agreement between studies.
Because of the limited evidence available, we think that further research is warranted, especially experimental and longitudinal studies testing the causal effects of books on animal product consumption and other types of pro-animal behavior change, the factors that can increase book success for different audiences, and cost-effectiveness analyses.
Documentaries
We found mixed evidence on the effectiveness of documentaries. In surveys asking veg*ns what interventions were the most influential in their behavior change, veg*ns generally report documentaries as more influential than books and most other interventions. However, experimental research in the short term generally suggests that while documentaries can significantly affect intentions to reduce meat consumption, they don’t seem to reliably lead to actual behavior change.
We think that documentaries appear to be a moderately promising intervention: While they can influence attitudes and possibly consumption, the best experimental evidence shows effects that are inconsistent and often limited to intentions.
Our research indicates that there is currently a moderate evidence base regarding documentaries relative to other animal advocacy interventions. Note that a very large body of evidence in animal advocacy may still be much smaller than what is available for human interventions. Most evidence we found consists of surveys and experimental studies about their influence on behavior change and intentions to reduce meat consumption.
We expect the effectiveness of this intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken.
Documentaries appear to be more effective when they are emotionally engaging, supported by well-funded promotional campaigns, released at strategic times, and supported by major distribution channels.
Conversely, documentaries are likely to be less effective when there is disproportionate expenditure on production value rather than strategic audience reach, or when they do not align with local cultural norms, which can lead to backlash.
Our confidence in this assessment is moderate due to the lack of agreement between studies and the lack of generalizability of findings due to differences in methodology, outcome measures, documentaries studied, and cultural contexts—combined with small samples and self-report biases.
Podcasts
Research on this intervention is very scarce, with publications generally limited to opinion pieces and just one peer-reviewed article suggesting that horse caretakers adopted more animal-friendly behaviors after tuning into an animal welfare science podcast. While not about animal advocacy specifically, we found a couple of scoping reviews on health podcasts that suggest they can be a promising intervention to improve awareness and knowledge of health improvements, yet there remain uncertainties on whether they are effective at promoting behavior change, especially in the long-term.
While the literature we found can provide some insights about the effectiveness of podcasts, the literature is so scarce that we do not feel confident enough to provide an assessment of how promising this intervention is.
We expect the effectiveness of this intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken. The relatively weak and limited evidence suggests this intervention may be stronger when podcasts:
Include specific calls to action
Are authentic and relatable, including personal stories and lived experiences through narrative-based approaches.
Feature hyper-targeted niche audiences and involve relationship building with the host before recording.
Use nonpartisan voices and credible experts, which can build trust more effectively than overtly partisan content.
Our confidence in this assessment is low due to the lack of empirical studies available related to podcasts and animal advocacy.
Future research should prioritize conducting empirical studies on the effectiveness of podcasts in animal advocacy on changing podcast listeners’ behavior—such as reducing animal product consumption, donating to animal charities, or volunteering—and should focus on identifying the specific factors that distinguish successful podcasts from unsuccessful ones.
In Depth
What does the research say about how effective this intervention is?
Books
We found scarce evidence on the effectiveness of animal advocacy books. A small number of survey studies show mixed results:
A report1 by Faunalytics found that 72% of respondents who remembered reading a book on animal agriculture or ethics said it led them to reduce their animal product consumption, making books the most commonly selected intervention in that study. However, overall they concluded that there is insufficient information about books’ potential and emphasized the need for further research.
Results of a 2019 survey2 of vegans showed that 3.4% of respondents first seriously considered going vegan after reading a book, placing it among the less commonly cited influences compared to other interventions (including documentaries, conversations with friends, online videos, social media posts, and online articles).
Another survey3 of veg*ns in the U.S. found that 2.1% of participants reported books as the first influence in their behavior change, again making them one of the less commonly cited interventions.
The main limitation of these findings is that they are based on self-report data, drawn from surveys of veg*ns about the role of books in their past behavior change. As a result, the findings may be subject to recall bias and cannot provide evidence of causality.
The results of a small number of peer-reviewed studies on the effects of books in changing attitudes are also mixed:
A 2013 study4 examined whether reading Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma could shift college students’ attitudes toward food production and consumption—and whether those shifts would last—by comparing 594 freshmen who were assigned the book to non-freshmen controls, then re-surveying a year later. The authors found that the book produced significant, broad attitude changes (toward organic/local foods, meat, food-supply quality, distrust of corporations, and environmentalism), but most effects faded within a year, with only opposition to government subsidies and concern about declining food-supply quality remaining elevated—suggesting books can meaningfully change attitudes, but lasting impact is limited and selective.
A 2016 experimental study5 conducted in Poland tested whether reading literary fiction with an animal abuse motif affects attitudes toward animal welfare. An experimental group (N=921) read a fragment of an unpublished novel involving animal abuse, while a control group (N=912) read an unrelated passage. The experimental group showed significantly greater concern for animal welfare after the intervention, suggesting that literary fiction can influence attitudes toward other species. However, there are short-term self-reported effects that may or may not reflect true attitudinal shifts. Additionally, the authors acknowledge that the impact of animal-focused fiction on reader attitudes is likely not universal, and the specific characters and circumstances within a story likely play a significant role in determining its effectiveness.
A 2022 article6 reports three pre-registered experiments conducted in the U.K. examining whether reading narrative fiction about an animal’s plight increases concern for animal welfare and willingness to donate to animal charities. Results were largely null: Narrative fiction did not consistently increase concern for animal welfare or pro-social behavior on behalf of animals, though one experiment found greater reported concern (but not greater willingness to donate) in the fiction condition compared to the non-fiction text.
A study7 conducted in Japan examined the effects of reading a science picture book about guinea pigs on 81 five-year-old children’s knowledge of and attitudes toward animals. After reading, children’s animal knowledge significantly improved, and more children came to believe that all animals, including guinea pigs, have emotions. Results held regardless of whether children had experience keeping companion animals. However, it is again unclear whether these short-term effects translated to longer-term attitudinal shifts, and whether they generalize to other animal species or other audiences.
Some opinion pieces argue in favor of the effectiveness of books, but do not provide rigorous empirical evidence:
A 2023 review article8 by Simon Coghlan (University of Melbourne) discusses Peter Singer’s updated book Animal Liberation Now (2023). The piece reflects on the original Animal Liberation as a foundational text for the animal rights movement—one of Time magazine’s all-time top 100 nonfiction books—while noting Singer’s own acknowledgment that his call for a boycott of meat has been a “dismal failure,” illustrating both the book’s enormous cultural influence and the limits of its impact on behavior change.
A 2022 post9 on the Effective Altruism Forum argues that animal advocacy lacks comprehensive books comparable to those in other EA cause areas (e.g., Doing Good Better by William MacAskill or The Precipice by Toby Ord). The author proposes a writing contest to incentivize the publication of books making the case for corporate animal welfare campaigns, arguing that books project authority, allow an in-depth discussion of topics, and create compounding effects through media and academic citations.
Although not related to animal advocacy directly, a blog post10 provides a broad overview of how literature has historically promoted social change, citing examples including Voltaire’s Candide, Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own, Alan Paton’s Cry, the Beloved Country, and works by James Baldwin and Audre Lorde. The post argues that literature serves as a vehicle for collective grievances, raising awareness of social injustices and contributing to movements for civil rights, gender equality, and anti-apartheid activism.
Documentaries
We found mixed evidence on the effectiveness of documentaries in reducing animal product consumption.
Some retrospective surveys suggest that documentaries can reduce animal product consumption:
A report11 by Faunalytics found that 56% of survey respondents who remembered watching a documentary on animal agriculture said it caused them to reduce animal product consumption, making it one of the most frequently cited interventions (after books, meat-free challenges, and classroom education). However, due to the limitations outlined above related to self-reported recall, Faunalytics recommends additional experimental studies.
Results from a 2019 survey12 of vegans show that 21.9% of respondents first seriously considered going vegan after watching a feature-length documentary, making it the most commonly cited intervention compared to others (such as conversations with friends, internet videos, online posts, and books).
According to another survey13 of veg*ns in the U.S., 8.8% of participants reported that documentaries were one of the first influences on their behavior change, making them one of the most commonly cited interventions.
A study14 based on a broader online survey in Europe also suggests that documentaries lead to proactive behavior change in around one in five people and affect most viewers’ emotions and thinking:
97% had been affected by watching documentaries in some way
77% had seen a documentary that had emotionally affected them
60% had seen a documentary that had changed the way they think about certain issues
25% had seen a documentary that had encouraged them to take action
19% had seen a documentary that had encouraged them to change their lifestyle or behavior.
Note that these surveys are based on self-report data, and therefore can be subject to biases such as social desirability and recall bias. It is possible, for example, that participants most easily recalled documentaries due to their stark emotional impact and cultural visibility, but this does not prove a causal effect on behavior change.
Experimental studies suggest that documentaries increase intentions to reduce meat consumption, but do not produce behavior change:
A study15 that included three RCTs in the U.S. found that a 20-minute documentary, Good For Us (produced by The Humane League) did not reduce reported animal product consumption two weeks after viewing, but did increase intentions to reduce consumption. The study concluded that the evidence does not support informational documentaries as effective tools for changing eating habits, as they may not lead to actual behavior change.16 Note that the studies had relatively small sample sizes, one study suffered from low retention, and all measured only relatively short-term effects (after two weeks) using self-report data, which can be prone to bias.
A study17 in the U.S. found robust effects of three documentaries (What the Health, The Game Changers, and You Are What You Eat) on Google search interest for plant-based food, but found no effects on food consumption or demand, measured using publicly available sales and demand data from Information Resources, Inc., Nielsen, and USDA.
An RCT18 found that the 2014 documentary Cowspiracy increased meat-eaters’ knowledge of the environmental consequences of meat consumption and their intention to eat less meat. Note that this study did not measure actual or self-reported meat consumption, had a very small sample size (26 participants), and focused on the effects of just one documentary, which makes it difficult to generalize results.
A 2021 study19 in China found a predominantly negative response to a documentary (called Vegetarian) among internet users after analyzing 26,000 related comments. Commenters used a number of strategies to justify meat consumption, including rationalization of meat eating, skepticism towards vegetarianism, and resistance to the documentary’s advocacy message.
Although not related to food consumption specifically, a study20 about Blackfish suggests the documentary caused a change in attitudes and behaviors. Based on an analysis of stock market data and semi-structured interviews with 26 key stakeholders, the study concludes that Blackfish induced negative publicity for SeaWorld, changing people’s perceptions of captivity, decreasing attendance at the park, and reducing the market value of the company. The financial difficulties created structural changes at SeaWorld, including a cessation of their orca breeding program.21
Podcasts
The global podcast industry has experienced rapid growth, reaching 4.58 million podcasts and 584.1 million listeners as of January 2026, which represents a 6.83% increase from 2024.22 This rise is highly evident in the United States, where a 2023 digital media consumer behavior survey found that 31% of Americans age 12 and older listened weekly—a significant jump from just 8% in 2014.23 By January 2026, U.S. engagement climbed even further, with over half the population (55%, or roughly 158 million people) tuning in on a monthly basis.24 Ultimately, while individual podcasts now have a massive and growing pool of potential listeners, they also face intensifying competition within an increasingly crowded field.
There is precedent for impact through podcasting: In 2025, a single episode of the popular Dwarkesh podcast raised over $2 million for FarmKind.25 Note that this podcast usually focuses on AI, and therefore has an audience that may be less familiar with animal welfare issues.26
A peer-reviewed article found evidence of pro-animal behavior change among people with horses who listened to an animal welfare science podcast.27 The authors used an online survey of listeners of the Conversations in Equine Science podcast to examine how science-based “edutainment” influences equine husbandry decisions. They found that 74% of respondents reported making changes to their horse’s management or training, suggesting podcasts may be an effective tool for promoting evidence-informed husbandry practices. However, because this is just a preliminary analysis that lacks a control group, the results can’t establish causality.
Although related to health promotion rather than animal advocacy specifically, two reviews suggest that podcasts can promote attitude change, but evidence is more mixed when it comes to behavior change and long-term outcomes:
A 2024 scoping review28 synthesized 50 articles reporting on 38 unique studies to evaluate the effectiveness of podcasts in promoting health-related behaviors. The review found significant improvements in health monitoring, knowledge, behaviors, attitudes, chronic disease management, and maternal health, with podcast engagement rates between 62% and 83%. Results were mixed for physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption, and weight outcomes, and there was no significant effect on depression or anxiety. The authors conclude that podcasts appear to be a promising medium for promoting health, generating high listener engagement and producing meaningful changes in both knowledge and behavior. The main limitations of this review include its restriction to English-language and published studies and the reliance on a small, heterogeneous evidence base of mostly single-group studies and small RCTs.
Another scoping review29 examined the role of podcasts in shaping health engagement among young people (aged 14–26), focusing on four dimensions: awareness, knowledge, behavior change, and health outcomes. Findings indicate that health-related podcasts offer young listeners an accessible and engaging format, with evidence indicating they help boost both awareness and knowledge of health topics. However, findings on their impact on behavior change and long-term health outcomes remain mixed.
Other opinion pieces provide some arguments in favor of the effectiveness of podcasts, but do not provide rigorous empirical evidence, for example:
A 2025 blog post30 argues that podcasts are emerging as a leading channel for persuasive communications and public influence. It notes that with over 100 million monthly American listeners and a $2 billion industry, podcast audiences demonstrate higher engagement and deeper trust than traditional media consumers, creating opportunities for policy experts and advocates to explain complex issues in depth and build authentic credibility.
Cost effectiveness
We did not find any cost-effectiveness estimates for animal advocacy books, documentaries, or podcasts.
We found a single cost-effectiveness estimate by Rethink Priorities of Animal Equality’s video of farmed pigs, rather than a documentary.31 Based on the results of an experimental study by Animal Equality and Faunalytics suggesting that the video reduced pork consumption,32 Rethink Priorities estimated that the video’s cost-effectiveness was $150 per pig saved (90% interval: $23 to $560) or $310 per pig year saved, which seems to be a low cost effectiveness.33
However, documentaries are both much more costly to produce, but also require longer and deeper engagement than single videos. The results therefore cannot be generalized to documentaries. Additional limitations include selective attrition (i.e., differing dropout rates between program and control groups), overrepresentation of veg*ns in the sample, and reliance on self-reported data.34
Generally, we think the cost-effectiveness of books, documentaries, and podcasts is likely to be highly variable—some may have an outsized impact if they reach large audiences or shift public discourse, while others may have negligible effects.
Strength of evidence
The overall strength of evidence is low to moderate, with evidence for podcasts being the weakest and for documentaries stronger.
For documentaries, most research consists of survey data and some RCTs testing the efficacy of certain documentaries.
For books, most research consists of survey data, opinion pieces, and a few peer-reviewed experimental studies on the effects of books on changing attitudes.
For podcasts, research is limited to opinion pieces and a few scoping reviews about health podcasts.
Under what conditions is this intervention more or less effective?
Books
A 2017 blog post35 on the literary magazine Ploughshares’ blog argues that “stealth” framing—embedding animal rights themes within popular genres like sci-fi, mystery, or family drama—is more effective at reaching non-sympathetic audiences than overt advocacy fiction. The piece highlights that novels like Under the Skin and We Are All Completely Beside Ourselves avoid the “preaching-to-the-choir effect” because readers engage with the story before recognizing the animal welfare message.
This “stealth” effect is supported by broader research in persuasion psychology. For example, this article36 on transportation theory shows that when readers become absorbed in a narrative world, they devote cognitive resources to following the story rather than critically evaluating its message, making them less likely to generate counterarguments and more likely to shift their beliefs in line with the embedded themes. Building on this, an article37 explains why entertainment-education formats reduce resistance to persuasion: narrative engagement lowers reactance (the defensive response triggered when people feel someone is trying to change their mind), decreases counterarguing, and increases identification with characters—all of which make audiences more receptive to messages they would otherwise reject. Together, these frameworks help explain why embedding animal welfare themes in compelling fiction may move non-sympathetic readers in ways that overt advocacy cannot.
Documentaries
A newsletter by Coefficient Giving argues that because few documentaries get seen by many people and many documentaries get seen by few people, promotion campaigns may be especially effective at expanding a film’s reach.38 According to the newsletter, using a professional production company and having a director who had previously secured a distribution deal can also contribute to the success of the documentary. They also favor cheaper documentaries, since there is high variance in the production cost of documentaries, and the cost doesn’t necessarily correlate with success.
According to the study about Blackfish, there were three key factors that affected its impact: the support from major distribution channels which allowed it to reach major audiences, the emotional impact of the content, and timing of its release, with the documentary coming out amidst a climate of growing public concern about captivity of marine mammals.39
According to an online survey in Europe, the documentaries most likely to encourage respondents to change their behavior were emotionally engaging documentaries that deal with the exploitation of animals or the natural world (e.g., Earthlings) or the environmental and social impact of modern consumer behavior more generally (e.g., Food, Inc.).40 They also found that those most likely to be affected by documentaries in this way were young people and those without a university degree.
The study in China suggests that to be more effective, vegetarian advocacy should align with local cultural norms.41
According to a survey in the U.S., documentaries and other modern media appear more effective than books and other traditional formats in influencing people’s behaviors.42 Modern media seems to have a stronger effect on vegans than vegetarians.43
A U.S. study of national-level impacts of media advocating plant-based diets produced similar findings, with films showing the greatest popularity.44 Further, health-focused media were disproportionately popular.
Podcasts
A master thesis suggests that success factors of podcasts include: a host with a distinctive, appealing voice, showing vulnerability, addressing the listener directly, and using a conversational/informal tone who builds a relationship with the audience.45
In terms of driving behavior change, a subjective assessment of three climate podcasts notes the importance of including specific calls to action.46
Regarding health podcasts, a peer-reviewed scoping review47 suggests that podcasts are more valued and effective when they are authentic and relatable, and blend personal anecdotes with reliable medical information—narrative-driven, experience-focused content enhances perceived authenticity and relatability.
Similarly, another scoping review48 suggests that health podcasts featuring interactive components, expert contributions, or relatable storytelling seemed better at maintaining listener engagement and helping (young) audiences retain information. Differences in episode length, content style, and delivery format may also shape how effective a podcast is, but these aspects have received little research attention so far.
A blog post49 suggests that host endorsement transfers credibility to guests in ways traditional endorsements cannot match. Hyper-targeted niche audiences are a major advantage: Matching the message to a podcast with the right demographic is key. The post also emphasizes relationship-building with the host before recording to facilitate rapport and audience trust.
Another blog post50 identifies conditions from a policy influence perspective. Nonpartisan voices and credible experts build trust more effectively than overtly partisan content. Values-based content that appeals across political lines is recommended.
Our priorities for improving this evidence review
For future versions of this evidence review, we plan to explore specific case studies of successful books, documentaries, and podcasts.
We are considering combining this topic with other informational interventions into a broader category.
We would like to examine evidence of these interventions in the context of wild animal welfare.
We will look for meta-analyses and systematic reviews from adjacent fields, such as public health (e.g., anti-smoking or vaccination campaigns) and climate change communication, as well as behavior change theories that can help explain when and how content-based interventions change attitudes and behaviors.
Last updated April 27, 2026
Leave a comment