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

citizen perception farmer perception free elicitation narrative interviews qualitative research

Journal

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
Titre abrégé: Animals (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101635614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 Apr 2019
Historique:
received: 04 03 2019
revised: 20 03 2019
accepted: 01 04 2019
entrez: 17 4 2019
pubmed: 17 4 2019
medline: 17 4 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30987330
pii: ani9040147
doi: 10.3390/ani9040147
pmc: PMC6523948
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division
ID : 2.2.7

Références

Health Educ Behav. 2000 Feb;27(1):82-95
pubmed: 10709794
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Feb;86(2):205-18
pubmed: 14769079
Physiol Behav. 2007 Oct 22;92(3):375-97
pubmed: 17428510
Vet J. 2008 Mar;175(3):293-300
pubmed: 17613265
Equine Vet J. 2010 May;42(4):285-6
pubmed: 20525043
N Z Vet J. 2011 Nov;59(6):263-71
pubmed: 22040330
Anim Sci J. 2014 Mar;85(3):323-9
pubmed: 23981006
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44
pubmed: 24193818
N Z Vet J. 2015 Jan;63(1):17-23
pubmed: 24875152
N Z Vet J. 2015 Jan;63(1):3-8
pubmed: 24875268
Animals (Basel). 2013 Jul 05;3(3):584-605
pubmed: 26479523
Animals (Basel). 2016 Mar 14;6(3):null
pubmed: 27102171
PLoS One. 2016 May 31;11(5):e0154733
pubmed: 27243965
Animals (Basel). 2018 Jan 24;8(2):null
pubmed: 29364860
Animals (Basel). 2018 Dec 22;9(1):null
pubmed: 30583499
Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8
pubmed: 7455683
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998 Nov;76(2):149-188
pubmed: 9831520

Auteurs

Belinda Vigors (B)

Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3RG, UK. belinda.vigors@sruc.ac.uk.

Classifications MeSH