Hypotheses on how we can mobilise people for animal welfare
Summary: I argue that EA supported animal advocacy is failing in building deeper forms of engagement with its supporters. I hypothesise 1. adherence to professional norms in community building and 2. predominance of single issue communication might be some of the reasons behind this problem.
EA supported animal advocacy has been very successful with certain forms of mobilisation. End The Cage Age petition in Europe got 1.4 millions signatures from real EU citizens. Referendums to ban cages were won with very large margins. Corporate cage-free petitions get hundreds of thousands of signatures from time to time. Compassion in World Farming reports they had 90.000 individual donors in 2023/2024 period. These are very serious numbers.
On the other hand, when it comes to other deep forms of engagement, I fear we are not growing our numbers. Mercy for Animals’ largest demonstration ever in their history seems to be 140 people. Other protests for cage-free and broiler work don’t seem to be significantly larger either.
When there are significant threats to our work, like the possibility of overturning Prop 12 or the EU dropping its cage ban plans; I don’t see many influential people speaking up and making a noise. There were very few tweets when the EU broke its promise to announce a date for banning cages.
It seems that we are failing in cultivating deeper engagement. We can get people’s shallow one-off support. They will consent to what we do, they will sign our petitions, they will vote in our favour in the referendums. But they won’t sustain continuous engagement, and won’t be willing to make significant sacrifices to protect our work.
My own organisation hasn’t been very successful in cultivating this form of deep engagement either. Addressing that segment of the supporter funnel is my focus this year. I’m hoping that thinking publicly might also help in making progress. This essay will be weak in evidence because it’s mainly for generating hypotheses to design new approaches.
Here are two hypotheses on what might be preventing deeper engagement.
Professional boundaries
EA-supported animal advocacy organisations enforce mainstream professional norms. These norms go against some of the common practices in successful community-building in other areas.
For example:
Many successful community builders treat movement members as friends. They don’t maintain the usual professional distance.
They are willing to interact with movement members any time of the week.
They also spend time with movement members in private spaces like their own houses or the houses of movement members.
My observation is that many successful social movements from all ranges of the political spectrum had a lot of intimate social bonding especially in the early stages. I think we are missing that partially because it’s hard to ask your hires to treat supporters as their friends.
Professional boundaries also exist for a reason. So we should be tactful about how we relax them. But when I read biographies and memories of movement leaders I can’t help but notice the significant amount of time spent in other people’s houses.
Some actions I’m considering:
-Switching to a physical office and using it as a community space. Maybe even sharing space with a vegan restaurant.
-Spending more time in-person with our supporters myself.
Predominance of single issue communication
Many EA-supported animal advocacy orgs refrain from commenting on issues outside their focus areas. The priority is to make progress on what we all already agree on and leave the disagreements for later. I fear this might be preventing deeper engagement. I think many of our supporters had experiences like the following:
a. Through seeing a viral and powerful content on the suffering of caged hens, Deniz is deeply touched. She is shocked about what happens to animals. After an epiphany, she decides to make big changes in her life. She researches content on animals deeply. Decides to go vegan to put her passion into action.
She realises that she had been blind to animals in so many ways in her previous life. She feels like her perspective on things needs a comprehensive overhaul. She needs guidance on how she should speak with her social circles, what she should do on edge cases in her new lifestyle, how she should reshape her thinking on politics etc.
Yet the organisation she got into contact with is still working on cage-free campaigns and doesn’t have answers to her questions about how her commitment to animals should affect other aspects of her life. Unable to find moral leadership she needs, she disengages.
There is another failure scenario like the following:
b. Eda cares deeply about political issue A and she has so many strong emotions around it. She naturally desires people around her to share her emotions. She looks at her beloved animal advocacy organisation to see how they are reacting. They are not reacting to the topic. She feels an emotional gap and disappointment. She disengages.
One way to address this problem is to have more thought leaders and organisations that don’t attempt to be catch-all brands and offer more holistic ideologies in different flavours. These thought leaders and organisations can preserve their own specific identities and also join together for common welfare campaign goals under umbrella platforms/organisations. Currently everyone seems to be trying to offend no one, which doesn’t seem to be optimal.
Some actions I’m considering:
-Writing a personal blog that will detail my thinking on many issues
-Encouraging our supporters to write more blogs and become thought leaders for people similar to them
Many thanks to Jakub Stencel and Haven King-Nobles for their helpful comments on the draft. Errors remain my own.
Love that you wrote this up and shared Emre! I definitely think we need more people having this kind of discourse publicly so appreciate you contributing.
I wanted to share some mostly anecdotal things from my experience in AR and XR in what seems to have worked for building deep/committed engagement from volunteers & activists:
I definitely resonate with the importance of social connections for building engagement. I thought XR and AR did this very well with things like: spending time together in an office, hanging out after work, shared housing[1], encouraging people to get to know each other more deeply (e.g. via check-ins, emotional sharing, etc) and more. I think this really builds the commitment of activists to not just the mission but also to not letting their friends in the movement down. We’re doing more in-person things with UK Voters for Animals and definitely think focusing on in-person organising is where you build the greatest depth (and lots of people crave it now!).
Some useful books on the importance of social activities for organising
How Organisations develop activists by Hahrie Hahn—also a very good review on the EA Forum here.
The Making of Pro-life activists by Ziad Munson. There are some especially interesting things from the pro-life movement e.g. apparently 50% of people who join initially don’t believe in pro-life as an issue but they attend social events and essentially become conditioned over time via social norms. Similar to the NRA, the key thing is making fun, enjoyable events which bring people and the advocacy follows on from that naturally once they develop a stronger view on the issue.
It’s touched on by the book by Hahrie Han but something that I think XR was also really good at was building commitment & empowering people by giving them significant responsibility. For example, when I first joined XR, my first role was to help build XR in 4 countries, which is an insane responsibility to give someone who just joined and is 22 years old. But I found this very inspiring and tried to step up to the plate to deliver. Lots of other people did similar things and it really is inspiring when people believe in you.
I think this is a huge difference from the very understandable method of activism which says “we need to make it as easy as possible for people to engage” and only sends people 1-click campaigns to contact companies, etc, without giving them any meaningful responsibility.
I really do think the animal movement could do with a bit more of this “empowerment” mindset rather than just giving people very small discrete tasks.
On your point of single-issue organisations: I actually don’t perceive this as an issue and think it might be more damaging if we try to take a position on all things. If we do, I think we could risk becoming very politically homogenous (even more so than we already are!). When I think of some other successful movement organisations (e.g. XR, ActUp!, SNCC), there wasn’t necessarily a coherent worldview shared by all members and these organisations didn’t (I think) discuss lots of issues outside of their core focus.
Which also has a bunch of downsides but more on that another time..
Seems important, thanks for raising! Your first suggestion seems very plausible to me, your second seems somewhat plausible but less likely/important.
My first reaction is that animal advocacy orgs should consider optimising for community building and mobilisation (as an interim goal). My impression (which may be wrong) from my involvement with the movement was roughly that orgs were usually optimising for mobilisation around specific objectives rather than actually trying to set up a long-term community and strong activist base. I expect a simple mindset shift from “my job is to generate progress on our campaigns” to “my job is to grow a community of sustained and dedicated activists” would unlock a bunch of options. E.g. it probably means more things like meetups, reading groups, etc.
Second reaction: I believe there’s a rich academic literature on mobilising supporters and sustaining engagement in social movements. So I asked Claude for a summary which I’ll post as a reply to this comment. There’s some empirical support for your suggestions!
Social Movement Mobilization: Literature Review
Collective Identity and Community Building
Core concepts: Shared identity formation, in-group solidarity, boundary maintenance
Key findings:
Strong collective identities significantly predict sustained participation
Communities that balance inclusivity with distinctive identity markers show higher retention
Regular face-to-face interaction strengthens commitment beyond digital-only engagement
Evidence strength: Strong. Multiple longitudinal studies across diverse movements consistently show correlation between identity strength and participation persistence.
Notable research:
Polletta and Jasper’s (2001) review found identity processes central to all stages of activism
Snow and McAdam (2000) documented how “identity alignment” precedes sustained activism
Blee’s (2012) ethnographic studies showed how white supremacist groups use identity work to maintain commitment despite social stigma
Resource Mobilization
Core concepts: Organizational infrastructure, resource acquisition, professional vs. grassroots structures
Key findings:
Professionalized organizations excel at policy advocacy but often struggle with deep engagement
Hybrid structures combining professional leadership with grassroots participation demonstrate better long-term mobilization
Material and non-material resources both matter, but emotional resources become increasingly important for sustained involvement
Evidence strength: Moderate to strong. Comparative organizational studies show clear patterns, though causal mechanisms remain debated.
Notable research:
McCarthy and Zald’s (1977) foundational work showed how resource availability shapes movement trajectories
Staggenborg’s (1988) comparative study found professionalized organizations survived longer but mobilized fewer committed activists
Ganz’s (2000) research on the United Farm Workers demonstrated how strategic capacity depends on leadership structures and insider/outsider combinations
Framing and Messaging
Core concepts: Diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing; frame resonance; frame alignment
Key findings:
Single-issue framing simplifies messaging but limits identity commitment
Holistic frames connecting multiple issues create stronger commitment but reach narrower audiences
Progressive frame alignment over time builds deeper engagement than immediate ideological purity tests
Evidence strength: Moderate. Experimental and observational studies show consistent effects, though context-specific factors introduce variability.
Notable research:
Benford and Snow’s (2000) synthesis showed how framing shapes mobilization potential
Bail’s (2012) computational analysis demonstrated how emotional resonance predicts frame adoption
Jasper’s (2011) work on moral emotions highlighted how different framing strategies activate different types of commitment
Biographical Availability and Networks
Core concepts: Social ties, movement socialization, biographical constraints
Key findings:
Pre-existing network ties remain the strongest predictor of initial movement participation
Sustained engagement correlates with integration into movement-related social networks
The “biographical availability” (free time, minimal competing commitments) affects participation levels
Evidence strength: Very strong. Consistent findings across movements, methodologies, and time periods.
Notable research:
McAdam’s (1986) study of Freedom Summer showed network ties predicted high-risk activism
Passy and Giugni’s (2001) work demonstrated how networks both recruit and socialize members
Corrigall-Brown’s (2012) longitudinal research identified how life transitions affect continued participation
Emotional Dimensions
Core concepts: Moral shock, collective emotions, emotional energy, affective commitment
Key findings:
“Moral shocks” drive initial mobilization but rarely sustain long-term commitment
Positive emotions from collective action (solidarity, hope, pride) better predict sustained engagement
Groups that provide emotional rewards alongside instrumental goals show higher retention
Evidence strength: Strong and growing. Initially understudied, emotional factors now recognized as crucial through both qualitative and quantitative research.
Notable research:
Jasper’s (2018) work on “the emotions of protest” showed how different emotional processes operate at different stages
Collins’ (2001) interaction ritual theory demonstrated how emotional energy from successful collective actions fuels continued participation
Goodwin et al.’s (2009) edited volume synthesized evidence on how emotional processes function in movements
Application to Your Colleague’s Concerns
Your colleague’s observations align with several empirical findings:
On professional boundaries: The research strongly supports the importance of social bonds and informal connections. Corrigall-Brown found that when activism becomes integrated into participants’ broader social lives, persistence increases significantly. Their suggestion of physical community spaces aligns with findings from Haunss and Leach (2007) on the importance of “free spaces” for movement culture.
On single-issue communication: The framing literature confirms the trade-off they identify. Snow and Benford’s work on “frame bridging” suggests organizations might develop ways to connect animal issues to other concerns without requiring complete ideological alignment. Their idea of different “flavors” of thought leadership is supported by research on “multi-organizational fields” (Curtis and Zurcher, 1973).
Recommendations Based on Evidence
Hybrid engagement models: The strongest evidence supports creating tiered engagement opportunities with different commitment levels—from single-petition signers to core organizers—with pathways between levels.
Community-building infrastructure: Physical spaces, regular gatherings, and shared rituals consistently show high impact on commitment. Putnam’s (2000) work on social capital confirms the value of their community space idea.
Frame diversification: Research supports developing multiple frames for different audiences while maintaining coalition coherence, similar to their suggestion about diverse thought leaders.
Emotional cultivation: Strong evidence indicates that organizations should intentionally cultivate positive emotional experiences alongside instrumental campaigns.
Life-course integration: Help supporters integrate their animal advocacy with other life domains rather than treating it as a separate activity.
Appreciate you thinking about and giving this thought publicly Emre.
A colleague shared a model of three concentric circles representing engagement, attributed to M. Bauman, but I’ve yet to see the original source. The model categorises engagement as follows:
External Partners: “How can I benefit?”
Members: “How can I contribute?”
Core: “How can I serve?”
If I understand correctly, your concern is that the core segment isn’t expanding sufficiently within EA-supported animal organizations. My interpretation of this model is that there should always be an invitation to engage more deeply. The changes you are considering for yourself seem to align with this principle, and I would be very interested to hear about your experiences if you implement them.
I’m not sure whether the issue lies in the prevalence of single-issue communication or in the belief that organisations must embody people power to drive change. If our focus is on achieving quick wins in animal welfare, there might be less emphasis on harnessing people power. Similarly, if an organisation is predominantly funded by a small group of major donors, it may not feel the need to cultivate a large supporter base.
I think growing people power is important and perhaps the strongest tool to do this is local volunteer groups. An example comes to mind of an org that has their flagship campaigns as a cage-free, broiler work and had a local volunteer group run their own campaign to ban pony rides at a local fair. The volunteer campaign used generally the same approach of a pressure campaign that would be used on cage-free and broiler work and gave the volunteer group an up close look at the strategies and allowed them to see and create change that was more tangible and personal to them. I saw this have the effect of deepening the engagement of many of the volunteers to do more of their own work and also engage on bigger asks on the organisations flagship campaigns.
What you propose as your actions on single issue campaigns, I think can happen at local group gatherings where people have space to discuss, and see the variety and nuance in others thinking and importantly take action that drives work forward which I think helps with that engagement. In person informal discussions can also feel like lower stakes in expressing a dissenting view vs sharing on a public forum.
Thanks a lot for your comments Alex. I really appreciate it as I want to develop my thinking on topic. Thanks a lot for the suggestions as well.