Animals matter - Do people want to know about farm and lab animal welfare?

The purpose of this study is to examine awareness, demand for, and avoidance of information related to the treatment of animals used for food production, clothing, and product testing. The scope of the study covers animals farmed for food and clothing, as well as animals used in pharmaceutical and cosmetic testing. While we recognise the ethical relevance of recreational animals (e.g., animals in zoos or circuses), animals hunted for leisure, and pets (Sunstein, 2026), these domains are excluded for practical reasons, given the multi-country design of the study. Using a survey design that will be piloted prior to full implementation to assess feasibility and behavioural responsiveness of the survey mechanism, we examine (i) whether individuals wish to receive or prefer to avoid animal-welfare-related information (WTK/WTKn), and (ii) their willingness to pay to obtain or to avoid such information (WTP/WTPn). The survey mechanism links respondents' stated preferences to hypothetical monetary trade-offs. Participants in several countries are asked whether they wish to receive specific animal-welfare information or prefer to avoid it, followed by a valuation task in which they indicate how much of a potential bonus they are willing to give up either to obtain or to avoid the information. The exact survey structure and payment-related parameters are finalised prior to fieldwork. To identify the psychological mechanisms underlying information preferences, we measure anticipated cognitive, affective, and instrumental evaluations of the information prior to the information decision. Specifically, participants indicate (i) their curiosity and interest in the information (cognitive value), (ii) their anticipated emotional response, such as discomfort or distress (affective value), and (iii) the perceived usefulness of the information for their purchase decisions (instrumental value). To assess whether prior measurement of these anticipated evaluations influences information decisions, a pretest includes an experimental comparison in which a subset of participants complete the component measures before the information decision, while others make the information decision without prior component measurement. The results of this pretest will determine whether the component measures are administered before the information decision in the main study. This design allows us to test whether measuring anticipated components influences information-seeking behaviour, and to use the component measures as predictors of WTK and WTP if no substantial priming effects are observed. To ensure informational validity while capturing meaningful variation in affective and instrumental responses, the animal-welfare information presented to participants is based on established, reputable sources (e.g., FAO, OECD, European Commission, World Animal Protection) but deliberately varies in evaluative valence. Across contexts, participants are exposed to information framed as relatively positive, neutral, or negative with respect to animal treatment. This variation is implemented in a controlled and standardised manner across countries (in structure, length, and tone) and is intended to reflect realistic heterogeneity in animal-welfare conditions, thereby allowing us to identify how anticipated affective and instrumental considerations shape information-seeking and avoidance behaviour. We analyse how information preferences and valuations vary across countries with different animal-welfare contexts and regulatory environments, and across consumer segments defined by lifestyles, values, psychographic traits, political orientation, and socio-demographic characteristics. In addition, we examine heterogeneity in preferences across animal domains, reflecting a hierarchy of moral concern in which greater perceived closeness or moral relevance of animals is associated with higher demand for information. In addition, we explore at a descriptive level how stated information preferences relate to observed behaviour in contexts where animal-welfare information is already available, in order to provide indicative evidence on potential intention–behaviour gaps.