Thanks for taking the time to post a summary, even if the full article didn't make it to the Forum!

For reasons related to this study's findings, I was very happy when GFI published its "cultivated meat" announcement. As a phrase, it doesn't sound wholly natural, but I do think it would sell better with a general audience than most other ways of talking about AFFT. (That said, I haven't seen any actual studies to this effect.)

Excellent and important, if sobering, work! I've gotten the sense that very general social psychology arguments about animal advocacy strategy can go either way (foot in the door vs door in the face, etc.), so it's refreshing to see specific studies on this that tell me something not at all obvious. I like the preregistration and use of FDR control. Some minor remarks:

• "the power (the risk of false negative results)" - I believe this should be the complement of that risk
• "If the AFFT articles encourage the view that animal-free alternatives are unnatural, they could strengthen one of the key justifications for animal product consumption." - Seems like your results for the model with an interaction between reading about AFFT and preference for naturalness have some implications for this. In that model reading about AFFT is no longer significant, nor is the interaction. But I suppose under this hypothesis you'd expect a noticeable negative interaction: the stronger one's preference for naturalness, the more strongly reading about AFFT decreases their AFO.