Summary: Anthropomorphism—the tendency to see animals as having human-like thoughts, emotions, or intentions—has long shaped public interest and funding for conservation. A new cross-cultural study published in the journal iScience shows that social, cultural and religious contexts strongly influence how people attribute human qualities to animals, with implications for targeted conservation outreach.
The researchers report that people who are socially isolated or who grow up in urban environments are more likely to perceive animals as conscious or emotional. By contrast, higher levels of formal education and adherence to monotheistic religions were associated with a reduced tendency to attribute free will, complex emotions, or consciousness to animals.
Key Facts:
- Social isolation: Individuals with lower social integration tend to anthropomorphize animals more often.
- Urban experience: Pet ownership, visits to zoos and animal-focused media exposure are linked to stronger human-like perceptions of animals.
- Religious differences: Monotheistic faiths were associated with lower attributions of animal autonomy and consciousness compared with some non-monotheistic traditions.
Source: Cell Press
From iconic, emotive imagery—like vulnerable polar bears—to beloved species such as giant pandas, conservation campaigns frequently rely on anthropomorphism to attract public support. This new study explores which personal and cultural factors make people more or less likely to view animals as similar to humans, and how those tendencies might influence conservation behavior.
Published June 18 in iScience, the study examines how upbringing, education, religion, and everyday experiences with animals shape anthropomorphic beliefs. The international team surveyed 741 adults across five countries—Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Malaysia and Spain—and measured perceptions of animals’ physical resemblance to humans, as well as beliefs about animals’ capacity for emotion, consciousness and free will.
Across the sample, lower levels of social integration predicted greater tendencies to attribute human-like emotions and physical similarity to animals. The authors suggest that people who feel lonely or lack strong human connections may seek social fulfillment by perceiving human qualities in animals or other non-human entities. The pattern aligns with prior work showing that chronically lonely individuals often treat companion animals as if they possess human thoughts and feelings.
Urban experiences with animals—such as owning pets, visiting zoos and consuming animal-centered media—showed the strongest association with anthropomorphism. Participants with more of these urban interactions were more likely to ascribe consciousness, emotions and intentionality to animals than participants with fewer such experiences.
Education also played a role. The study found that higher formal education was linked to a decreased tendency to grant animals autonomy or free will. Religious upbringing further shaped responses: participants raised in monotheistic traditions such as Islam and Christianity were, on average, less likely to attribute consciousness or free will to animals than those from certain non-monotheistic backgrounds, including Hinduism and Buddhism. Agnostic and atheist participants scored similarly to the monotheistic group on measures of animal free will.
Lead author Federica Amici of Leipzig University emphasizes the conservation relevance of these findings. “Species that appear more human-like or display behaviors we interpret as human often draw greater public interest and support,” she notes. “That preference can eclipse the ecological importance of less charismatic species, which may undermine comprehensive conservation goals.”
Amici cautions that while anthropomorphism can be an effective tool in conservation communication, it should be used judiciously. She recommends balancing emotional appeals with clear information about a species’ ecological role to avoid biasing support toward charismatic animals alone. Understanding the social and cultural roots of anthropomorphism, she adds, can help conservationists tailor outreach to communities where human-like portrayals are most likely to resonate.
The researchers also note limitations: although the study identifies broad trends across five countries, it does not capture the full diversity of beliefs and experiences worldwide. Specific taxa and local cultural contexts can modulate anthropomorphic tendencies, and further research is needed to map those nuances more precisely.
About this anthropomorphism and psychology research news
Author: Jordan Greer
Source: Cell Press
Contact: Jordan Greer – Cell Press
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Open access. “Experience with animals, religion and social integration predict anthropomorphism across five countries” by Federica Amici et al., iScience
Abstract
Experience with animals, religion and social integration predict anthropomorphism across five countries
Public support for conservation often depends on how people relate emotionally and cognitively to wildlife. Anthropomorphism—attributing human traits to non-human animals—consistently predicts willingness to back conservation initiatives. To investigate the drivers of individual variation in anthropomorphism, this study administered questionnaires to a cross-cultural sample (N = 741) from Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico and Spain.
The analysis found higher anthropomorphism among participants with more urban contact with animals, lower social integration, stronger allocentric tendencies and lower formal education. Greater exposure to certain taxa, such as monkeys, also influenced specific attributions—for example reducing the likelihood of ascribing pain perception while increasing perceptions of accountability. Religious traditions that emphasize human similarity and interconnectedness predicted higher anthropomorphic responses, although effects varied by species and trait considered.
Overall, the study clarifies social, experiential and cultural factors that shape how people perceive animals and highlights pathways for more effective, context-sensitive conservation communication.