Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Apr 4;9(4):147.
doi: 10.3390/ani9040147.

Citizens' and Farmers' Framing of 'Positive Animal Welfare' and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication

Belinda Vigors  1
Affiliations

Citizens' and Farmers' Framing of 'Positive Animal Welfare' and the Implications for Framing Positive Welfare in Communication

Belinda Vigors. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Human perception can depend on how an individual frames information in thought and how information is framed in communication. For example, framing something positively, instead of negatively, can change an individual's response. This is of relevance to 'positive animal welfare', which places greater emphasis on farm animals being provided with opportunities for positive experiences. However, little is known about how this framing of animal welfare may influence the perception of key animal welfare stakeholders. Through a qualitative interview study with farmers and citizens, undertaken in Scotland, UK, this paper explores what positive animal welfare evokes to these key welfare stakeholders and highlights the implications of such internal frames for effectively communicating positive welfare in society. Results indicate that citizens make sense of positive welfare by contrasting positive and negative aspects of welfare, and thus frame it as animals having 'positive experiences' or being 'free from negative experiences'. Farmers draw from their existing frames of animal welfare to frame positive welfare as 'good husbandry', 'proactive welfare improvement' or the 'animal's point of view'. Implications of such internal frames (e.g., the triggering of 'negative welfare' associations by the word 'positive') for the effective communication of positive welfare are also presented.

Keywords: citizen perception; farmer perception; free elicitation narrative interviews; qualitative research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Peden R.S.E., Akaichi F., Camerlink I., Boyle L.A., Turner S.P. Factors influencing farmer willingness to reduce aggression between pigs. Animals. 2019;9:6. doi: 10.3390/ani9010006. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bracke M.B.M., de Lauwere C.C., Wind S.M.M., Zonerland J.J. Attitudes of dutch pig farmers towards tail biting and tail docking. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 2013;26:847–868. doi: 10.1007/s10806-012-9410-2. - DOI
    1. Entman R.M. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun. 1993;43:51–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x. - DOI
    1. Druckman J.N. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit. Behav. 2001;23:225–256. doi: 10.1023/A:1015006907312. - DOI
    1. Chong D., Druckman J. A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. J. Commun. 2007;57:99–118. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources