Putting a face on animal suffering: Part II

Last time I wrote about Paul Slovic's work on human empathy in the face of mass suffering, I tried to generalize his findings about human suffering to that of other animals. What does a human bias to respond to the plight of one or two mean for activism? Do the reasons for the bias matter?

Even if we don't have a full understanding of the reasons for this human bias to respond to the plight of a few but not the plight of many, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of the bias and an implicit awareness of it. I think the advent of the "poster child" by certain charities may be a response to the bias - which I'm going to call the JustOne bias.

Is it that the suffering of one inspires action, or that the suffering of many discourages it? If people fail to respond to mass crises, like Darfur or the plight of so many hens in battery cages, could it be because they don't think they can make an impact? On the other hand, do we naturally have an easier time putting ourselves in the shoes or paws of just one being? Or do the numbers put us off? Do the same constraints on our cognition that make the size of the Earth or its population difficult to comprehend make the millions upon millions of animals imprisoned in laboratories hard to comprehend?

Each of these limits suggests a strategy for coping.

1. Help people appreciate that even small actions can help. I think the 34 million friends campaign is a good example of this. This grassroots campaign tells supporters explicitly that they are seeking a specific, small contribution. They also use concrete illustrations of the good that the collective donations can do. Other calls to action use similar strategies. "For the price of a cup of coffee you can XYZ..." It seems to me that microfinance operations embody this principle through their very existence.



2. Identify a "poster animal" who represents the issue. I think it's a fine idea to have that one poster animal as a representative for others who share his or her plight. I do this when I talk about the devastating legacy of maternal deprivation by sharing stories about one particular monkey who I knew personally - AB. Who is that individual? Does he or she have a story? The individual might be one who is doing well and the call is to keep it that way. It can also be an animal who is suffering and in need of help. People have visceral and emotional reactions to pictures and videos of a terrified animal or an animal in pain. The goal is to help people empathize, not to overwhelm.



3. Help people visualize and empathize with the experiences of an animal. One of my favorite examples of helping people identify with an animal is a brochure about the suffering of laying hens, which when unfolded displays text that remind readers that hens are kept in cages roughly the size of the paper in their hands. When I talk about the chair restraint commonly used with monkeys in laboratories, I use the analogy of an airplane seat on short flight and then ask others to imagine with me how that would feel if it lasted for days...or if it never ended. Granted, the coach seat is a cake walk by comparison, but since most people have experienced it at one itme or another, it's a place to start.



4. Facilitate the appreciation of scale. The best example of this that I have ever seen is the video version of "If the world were a village" at http://www.miniature-earth.com/. I've watched it many times, asked students to watch it for classes and know exactly why it won so many awards. Watching it once again now, after finding the link for this entry, I can say it still stirs my emotions.

Tom Regan speaks eloquently about how we can be affected by that one animal, and by the the suffering of the masses. It seems an important challenge, then, is finding the balance between the two. Given the JustOne bias, we have to be careful to address scale in ways that don't overwhelm or reverse the effect of the other approaches mentioned above.

For a brief summary of Slovic's recent research findings, see "How do we stop genocide when we begin to lose interest after the first victim?"