For two decades, I did a lot of public outreach: talking with people from the broad or general public (on the streets,…) to persuade them to do something good. Now I believe that most of such public outreach is not so effective, with one or a few exceptions. Here I want to give a concrete example of a public outreach that I believe to be one of the most cost-effective, generating the highest impact at the lowest costs: small-farmed-animal reducetarian deep questioning. This involves asking specific questions to make people think more deeply about the welfare of (small) animals used for food in order to encourage them to reduce their consumption of animal products (primarily from small animals such as chickens, fish and shrimp). I’ll first discuss why I think this is a top-effective strategy, and then present a specific example of a list of questions that I ask people on the streets.
Why is small-farmed-animal reducetarian deep questioning a top-effective public outreach?
The term ‘small-farmed-animal reducetarian deep questioning’ has three parts. First, the focus area or problem that we want to tackle: the suffering and rights violations of small farmed animals. Second, the objective or personal choice that we want people to make: a behavior change that involves reducing the consumption of specific food products. Third, the method or approach that we want to apply: conversations with people on the street where we ask them deep questions.
Concerning the focus area: probably the largest contributor to global suffering and loss of welfare, is the farming of small animals such as chickens, fish and shrimp. Evidence from a survey shows that most people already have opinions and judgments that lead to this conclusion. This focus area is also closely connected to the public, because it is the result of the personal behavior (consumption choice) of members of the public. Consuming animal products is not far from their bed. That makes it a good candidate for public outreach.
Concerning the objective: there are many things that we can ask people on the streets to do. We can ask them to reduce eating some products, to boycott some companies, to reduce flying, to lower the personal carbon footprint, to install solar panels, to donate blood, to sign petitions, to join protest marches, to donate to charities, to switch their careers towards high-impact jobs, to vote for the best political candidates, and many more. I think most of these objectives are not so effective for public outreach.
Boycotting a company, flying less, lowering one’s personal carbon footprint, installing solar panels and donating blood have a relatively low impact compared to reducing meat consumption.
Public outreach to sign petitions and join protest marches requires coordination: their effectiveness depends on what other people do. If other people do not collect signatures, you will end up with a petition that has only a few signatures and hence a low impact. Also, petitions and protest marches have a low success rate. They can have a high impact when successful, but the probability is high that they achieve nothing. That means these strategies are less suitable for public outreachers who have a difference making risk-aversion, i.e. a preference for actions that are more likely to make a difference.
Donating to top-effective charities does have a huge impact, but based on my experience in public fundraising (I worked as a charity fundraiser for a few months) and deep questioning, I think this objective is less suitable for deep questioning public outreach. I didn’t find a good conversation approach, with the right questions to ask, that motivates people to donate to top charities. Such fundraising requires a lot of effort and involves a lot of rejections, which is demotivating for volunteers. There is also some competition with professional fundraisers asking people on the streets to donate to their charities. That could result in a zero sum game: the more you start fundraising, the more other charities decide to increase their fundraising efforts.
The same goes even more for giving career advice and persuading people to move towards high-impact jobs. A deep questioning conversation with general people on the streets, done by a volunteer, is not a suitable method for such career advice, because it is difficult. Suppose one in thousand people would be persuaded by your public outreach to switch career towards a high-impact job. If you talk to a random person, with a probability of 0.999 your outreach will achieve nothing. With a probability of 0.001 your outreach will have a huge impact. This means giving such career advice is less suitable for public outreachers who have a difference making risk-aversion. Career advice is more suitable for other approaches than public outreach (for example targeting specific audiences, as done by 80.000 Hours).
Asking people to vote for a candidate is only suitable at a few moments, before important elections. And at those moments, there is a huge competition. Having a deep questioning conversation to influence people to vote for a specific political candidate, is also difficult.
That leaves us with asking for a personal behavior change, in particular reducing the consumption of products that cause a lot of suffering. Especially a behavior that is performed frequently (such as eating meat), and by many people, lends itself ideally for a reducetarian behavior change. If you ask a random person on the streets, that person is likely to eat meat regularly (at least once a week). Hence, most people can meaningfully change that behavior and reduce their meat consumption. Asking people to reduce their meat consumption is more feasible than asking them to go vegan. Only a few people will be convinced by public outreach to go vegan. And asking people to reduce specific animal products that cause the most suffering, in particular the food products from small animals, is even more feasible than asking them to reduce meat in general. Reducing consumption of small-animal products has low opportunity costs (we don’t ask people to donate money or spend time) and low transition costs (learning how to replace a few animal products by other, animal-free products and trying some new meat alternatives is not so difficult).
Concerning the method, deep questioning is the most effective strategy for personal behavior change. There is convincing evidence that this method, which strongly relates to deep canvassing, street epistemology, motivational interviewing and the Socratic method, is one of the most effective to change a person’s behaviors, beliefs and attitudes (see David McRaney’s book How Minds Change). The example below includes the questions that I think work best, generate the most positive and short conversations, based on a few hundred deep questioning conversations I had over the past 10 years. For an older example of a deep questioning conversation (2017), see here. Those older conversations had positive results, but generally took longer. With asking the right questions, you can also learn what are the person’s most important obstacles to move to the next stage of behavior change, and you can specifically help the person to find solutions to overcome that obstacle.
On busy shopping streets, it is easy to invite people for conversations. The best target group is young couples or members of the same household. If they are young, they are more open to behavior change and they have a longer future to perform that new behavior. And if you talk to couples or members of the same household, they can both reflect on the questions and continue the conversation afterwards (at home, where they have to decide what to eat). If you only talk to one member of a household, and that person becomes convinced to decrease personal meat consumption, what happens if that person comes home? One faces the challenge of convincing the other household members. And that person most likely does not have the deep questioning skills to effectively persuade the other members. In contrast, if you have a conversation with both household members, during the conversation both people learn from each other’s answers and become more supportive of each other’s choices. The public outreacher can also learn which member of the household is most aversive to the behavior change, and decide to guide that person to overcome the hurdles.
Deep questioning is different from other public outreach by activists, because the interlocutors do not have the impression that the public outreacher is from an organization and tries to persuade them of something. The public outreacher does not wear clothes from an organization, neither shows banners nor signs. As the interlocutors have the impression that they are allowed to express their personal opinions freely without being judged or persuaded, they allow themselves to become persuaded when they think about the deep questions. This feeling of self-persuasion gives a stronger persuasion effect and a more sustainable behavior change.
Deep questioning has several advantages. First, it is fully additive: if you don’t have that conversation with a person on the street, no-one else is jumping in for you to have that conversation with that person. Second, it has low costs. It doesn’t require any preparation, money, material or logistics. You can do it at times when you are not able to earn some extra money (which you can donate to top-effective charities), for example on a free day or when you go shopping in town, so it has a low opportunity cost. Third, no coordination is required. The impact does not depend on what other people do. Deep questioning has an impact no matter how many other public outreachers are doing it. More complex outreach formats, such as organizing a big public event, requires cooperation with other activists. These low opportunity costs and low coordination requirements mean that deep questioning can be done complementary to other activities.
An example of deep questioning outreach
Here I present a list of questions that often work pretty well in a deep questioning conversation.
“Excuse me, can I ask you a something? I am interested in what people think about animal welfare, so your opinion about animal welfare. Do you have a few minutes for a short interview?”
“I’m Stijn. I used to work for an animal rights organization, but now I’m not doing an action to convince you of something. I just want to hear your honest opinion, how you think about animal welfare. Okay? So as a first question, let’s start with your welfare. If you consider your past month, how high was your welfare over that month on average, on a scale from minus ten, which means the worst suffering you can imagine, to plus ten, which means the happiest month that you can possibly experience? And a zero means a neutral month, as if nothing happened.” [Almost all people give a positive number.]
“Now let’s consider the animals that we use for food. Most of those animals are chickens. A meat chicken lives a bit longer than a month before it goes to slaughter. So consider an average meat chicken in an average chicken farm. On that same scale from minus ten to plus ten, how high would you estimate the welfare of that chicken on average over that month?” [Most people give a negative number. If the respondents give a positive number, you can ask whether they have seen footage from a chicken farm or are willing to see such footage. I also keep a short video ready on my smartphone with some footage from poultry farming, which I sometimes show to people after I ask them whether they would like to see it. Most people are not willing to see the footage, so then you can ask why not. If they still believe that chickens have a positive welfare, you can ask about the dog meat questions below.]
“I don’t want to judge you of anything, but do you eat meat?” [Most people say yes, but many people quickly add that they eat less meat than before. If they say they don’t eat meat, you can ask whether they eat fish, eggs or shrimp, and then talk about those products from small animals, whether those animals also have a negative welfare.]
“What was the reason for you to reduce your meat consumption?” [Many people say “Because of the environment, but also animal welfare.”, after which you can confirm those values by asking: “So animal welfare is important to you? Does that mean you also sometimes decide not to eat an animal product that is not produced according to your values (like say foie gras)?”]
“When I asked you about the chicken welfare, you probably had a picture in mind about a chicken that suffers. If you are in the supermarket and you want to buy a piece of chicken meat, does it happen that you have that picture in mind? Would you still want to buy it if you think about that chicken?”
“So is it possible that you eat meat from a chicken that had a negative welfare according to you? How do you feel about that?” [If the people say they only buy meat from a butcher where the animals are treated well, you can ask how confident they are that those chickens have a positive welfare, how much they trust that butcher, whether they have seen the chicken farm where the chickens come from. If they have high confidence that the meat they consume is fine, you can ask about the dog meat questions below.]
“Almost everyone that I spoke with says that most meat chickens have a negative welfare, but many of them still eat meat. And just like you, they claim they are not thinking about the animal suffering when they eat meat. What do you think is the main reason why those chickens have a negative welfare?” [Most people say that it is because of bad regulation, corruption,… You can then ask: “Could it also be because people buy the meat?”]
“Have you tried animal-free meat substitutes, such as plant-based burgers or no-chicken nuggets that taste like chicken nuggets? Do you know where the shelf with the meat alternatives is in the supermarket?” [Many people say they have tried some vegetarian products, like tofu, but not yet the new meat alternatives.]
“Are you willing to try new meat alternatives? Can you imagine the next time you go shopping, to go looking for the shelf in the supermarket with the meat alternatives, to see what they have there? What products do you expect to find there?”
“Suppose it would be forbidden for you to eat meat. What is the first thought that would come to mind, like “Damn it, that means…”?” [Here you can address the major obstacles why people are reluctant to decrease their meat consumption. If for example they say they are concerned about their health, you can ask them how confident they are about that belief, how they got to that belief, what they think of people who do not eat meat. Or you can tell them your personal story, that you also believed that but then changed your mind because of something you learned that convinced you.]
“Do you see improvements in the quality (taste, nutrition value) and price of meat alternatives?”
“Most people are like you, they care about animals, believe most farmed animals that they eat have a negative welfare, and are willing to try meat alternatives or vegetarian and vegan meals. Are you open to trying new products or take the vegetarian or vegan dish in the restaurant?”
“On a scale from zero to ten, where a zero means what you currently eat is fine and you don’t want to change anything, a ten means you now immediately decide to stop eating meat, and something in between means you see yourself reducing your meat consumption in the future, where would you be on that scale?” [Most people give a non-zero answer, so you can confirm: “That means you are willing to reduce your meat consumption?” Most people say yes. This is often the concluding question, but you can ask them if they have further questions or concerns or things they want to say.]
“Do you see a difference between dogs and cats on the one hand and chickens and cows on the other? Suppose I breed dogs, treat them just like meat chickens you had in mind, then slaughter them in order to sell their meat. Would you be okay with that? Would you condemn me?” [Most people say that is not okay and they would condemn me, even if the dog would have a positive welfare.]
“Even if I give those dogs free range or a larger cage and all, would you still condemn me?” [Most people still say they would condemn me.]
“Why is it okay to eat chickens but not dogs?”
“Doesn’t that seem arbitrary, to eat chickens but not dogs, just because people have dogs as pets? It seems unfair to me, that those chickens have bad luck. I know some people who have chickens as pets, and they think it is not okay to eat chickens. What if more people had chickens as pets? What if I breed dogs for food, not as pets?”
“Suppose you are in the supermarket, and you see a new product: dog meat, such as labrador nuggets. What would you think? Would you have a picture in mind about a dog? But when you buy chicken nuggets, you don’t have a chicken in mind?”
“In the past, people ate dogs (from time to time). There were butchers in Paris who sold dog meat a hundred years ago. Now people removed dogs from their menu. The same we see happening with horse meat nowadays: many people no longer want to eat horses. Do you see that as a positive trend?” [Most people say yes.]
“Now imagine in the future, over 100 years, our grandchildren will no longer eat chickens, cows and pigs. Suppose they have cheap, tasty and nutritious meat alternatives without animals. Do you see that as a positive trend as well? Would you support that trend by reducing your consumption of chickens?” [Most people say yes.]
I think this is a great thing to do, and have a general policy of approving of net positive actions. I also think that there are several convincing claims about why this is potentially tractable, including the arguments that it is fully additive, and that it avoids the need for coordination. Unfortunately, I also think that it fails to clear the bar for what we should expect in effective altruism in a couple ways.
First, I remain unconvinced that it's a "top-effective" intervention. It's unreasonable to say that it is cost-effective when there are opportunity costs which are not explored, and the actual impact is not quantified. As Vasco lays out below, there should be a stronger case that this is better than alternatives, or a clearer case that it should be done as an effective but ancillary activity which people can do in their free time, rather than as something that is as effective as the human league or other campaigns. To change that, I think that there should be a clear explanation of what is required for this to succeed in individual cases (training, experience,) an estimate of the time required, and an estimate of the actual impact (what proportion of people change their behavior, how much does it change, how long does the change persist,) and a exploration of how and when this could be net-negative (if done poorly, if it generates pushback when done at scale, etc.)
Second, I also think that it's not ambitious enough on its own terms; if it is as effective as claimed, how can it be scaled up effectively? Should there be volunteer training groups to teach people to do this more widely? Can this be done via existing networks? Could there be a trial designed to measure impact?
To conclude, overall, I think that this is admirable and a potentially tractable, but presented with misleadingly strong claims, and as I outlined above, neither as clear on several points as it could be, nor as ambitious as would be beneficial.
What I meant was that from all public outreach, this deep questioning is one of the most cost-effective. If deep questioning is much less cost-effective than other strategies, then surely public outreach in general does not belong to the top effective strategies.
Which opportunity costs were not explored?
I think deep questioning should be done as an ancillary activity which people can do in their free time
Some grassroots animal rights organizations that do a lot of public outreach with volunteers, could perhaps switch to deep questioning, or encourage their volunteers to do so.
If the claim was that this is best among public outreach interventions, the title is misleading. The post also doesn't really compare deep questioning to other public outreach methods, just justifies it on its own terms.
Opportunity costs for attention and time are the other things people could be doing, and it it common and I think basically justifiable to value people's time at a level similar to their work salary. The reasoning is that typically, even if you can't make money during your free time, people are willing to spend money and give up other opportunities to get free time - if they want to use that time to do deep questioning, that's great, but if and when they do, they are explicitly valuing that use of their time over other options.
And I agree that some grassroots organizations could push this forward, but I worry doing it on behalf of an organization with an explicit agenda, even as a volunteer, might undermine the personal connection of deep questioning. As you said, "the interlocutors do not have the impression that the public outreacher is from an organization and tries to persuade them of something." If they are, in fact, coming from an organization, that seems to be deeply deceptive.