What Really Shifts Speciesist Thinking?

What happens when we flip the roles, when humans are farmed, hunted, skinned, experimented on, and paraded around for entertainment, while other animals run the world? It's a question animal rights activists have posed countless times, often through powerful artwork and provocative videos. But does it work? Does showing people a parallel universe where they’re the product finally push them to confront their supremacy?

A new study has tried to find out.

Researchers tested whether a widely used activist video, depicting humans as the victims in common scenarios of animal exploitation, actually reduces speciesist attitudes or behaviours. Two trials. Over 600 participants. Controlled conditions. Measured outcomes. The verdict? A mixed bag that tells us more about how deeply human supremacy runs than it does about the power of cartoons.

What Is Speciesism?

Speciesism is the default mindset that says some animals matter more than others, and humans matter most. It's the ideological scaffolding propping up every form of animal exploitation: farming, vivisection, zoos, leather, eggs, milk, fur. Without the belief that humans are more important, the entire system collapses.

This isn’t just a philosophical curiosity. Speciesism enables and excuses the commodification of sentient lives. It turns someone into something. So if we want to end the use of animals, we have to take aim at the root, the belief that justifies it all.

Role Reversal As a Mirror

The intervention video used in the study was something many activists will recognise: a short, art-driven clip where humans are depicted as victims in real-life practices animals endure, being trapped in cages, electrocuted, worn as fashion, used for entertainment and testing.

It’s a classic tactic. If people won't empathise with other animals, show them what it would look like if the roles were reversed. Use horror, shame, and discomfort to bypass denial and drive home the injustice. At least that’s the theory.

So, what happened?

Attitudes? No Change.

First, researchers measured speciesist attitudes directly using a validated “Speciesism Scale.” The result? No meaningful difference between the group that saw the video and the one that didn’t. If anything, in the second study, attitudes were slightly worse in the intervention group.

It didn’t matter how disturbing the imagery was or how uncomfortable the message, seeing humans strung up like chickens or hunted for trophies didn’t significantly shift people’s underlying beliefs about human dominance.

And here’s the thing: that shouldn’t surprise us. You can’t dislodge supremacy with a cartoon. People don’t give up power that easily. Speciesism, like racism and sexism, isn’t just ignorance, it’s identity. It’s ideology. And you don’t undo ideology with a single nudge.

Intentions? Yes, Some Change.

Next, the researchers looked at behavioural intentions, did people intend to reduce their use of animals?

Here, the video had more impact. Participants who watched the intervention were more likely to say they intended to stop eating animals, avoid animal-tested products, or boycott industries that use animals.

But before we celebrate, there’s a catch: people in the control group also said they intended to change. Almost everyone, video or no video, claimed they’d reduce their harm. That tells us two things:

1. The message is already out there. Cultural momentum is shifting, and people are aware that animal use is ethically loaded.

2. Intentions are cheap. Saying you plan to change isn’t the same as changing. Especially when there’s no real cost involved.

Actual Behaviour? No Change.

And when it came to actual, observable behaviour, like signing an animal rights petition, the video made no difference. No boost in support. No uptick in action.

The majority of people in both groups signed it. But the petition wasn't a high-bar ask. There was no sacrifice, no commitment, no confrontation with daily habits. Just a click. And if a click doesn’t increase after being shown graphic injustice, what does that say?

So What Did Work?

The only real mediating factor was emotion. Not awareness. Not knowledge. Not even empathy. What moved the needle, slightly, was injustice.

Participants who watched the video and felt angered or alarmed were more likely to say they intended to change. The more people felt wronged on behalf of the fictionalised humans, the more they considered altering their own actions.

This is important. Because for decades, animal advocacy has relied on information. Education. Awareness. But these findings echo what activists already know on the streets and at the slaughterhouse gates: data doesn't break delusion. Emotion does. People already know animals are harmed. They just don’t feel it yet.

What Doesn’t Work

It’s tempting to believe that showing someone a powerful video is enough. That a light will go on and the walls of denial will fall. But this research confirms what abolitionists have been saying for years:

You don’t undo a worldview in under three minutes. You don’t dismantle supremacy with a sketch. You don’t stop injustice with implication, you have to confront it head-on.

And if we’re still relying on euphemisms like “harm” and “use,” or sanitised cartoon metaphors to deliver our message, we’re softening the blow that needs to land.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The authors of the study suggest future interventions need to be ongoing and multifaceted. One video won’t cut it. Repetition, intensity, and clarity are key. That means:

Stop sugar-coating oppression. Stop hiding behind aesthetics. This is about slavery, supremacy, and exploitation. Say so.

Target belief systems, not behaviours. We don’t need people to buy oat milk if they still believe in human superiority. We need them to reject the idea that animals are property.

Use real footage. The authors speculate that cartoon images may not be disturbing enough. No kidding. Sanitised suffering doesn’t evoke real reaction. Show people what’s actually happening, if they turn away, they’re not ready to change.

Understand cultural context. This study didn’t include huge parts of the world. Beliefs are shaped by religion, education, trauma, economics, and these factors need attention, not generalisations.

Injustice Is the Spark

If there’s a lesson here, it’s that feeling injustice is the starting point. It opens the door. But we need to walk people through it. We need follow-up, confrontation, reinforcement. We need movement-building, not just moment-making.

Because here’s the truth: almost everyone claims to love animals. But love without justice is meaningless. And justice without action is just theatre.

It’s not enough to show someone a video and hope they change. We have to keep showing up. Keep speaking out. Keep turning the mirror on the speciesist logic that allows babies to be taken from their mothers, bodies to be torn apart, and sentient individuals to be reduced to skin, taste, and tools.

The cartoon world may be fictional, but the suffering it reflects is very real. And if we want people to see it, we need to do more than entertain their empathy. We need to confront their beliefs.

Because speciesism isn’t a mistake. It’s a mindset. And mindsets don’t shift gently. They shatter.