Human-animal Similarity Research Articles

Identifying with other animals and human well-being: Extending perspectives on the social cure and human-animal relations

Prior research has uncovered a beneficial role for social identities in promoting human well-being. Whether these benefits also arise from the tendency to identify with a highly superordinate category that includes other animals, has never been examined. Building on theories of social and superordinate identification and prior research on human-animal interactions, we explore the associations between the dimensions of identification with animals (solidarity with animals, human-animal similarity, animal pride) and psychological well-being. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted among a representative sample of Canadian adults (N = 2,424). Controlling for sociodemographic variables, animal pride played a particularly clear role in predicting higher psychological well-being (higher vitality, life satisfaction, presence of life meaning; lower stress, loneliness, psychological inflexibility). In contrast, solidarity with animals predicted lower well-being (lower life satisfaction; higher search for meaning). Our findings provide a nuanced understanding of how the social cure perspective may be extended to highly inclusive superordinate categories.

Human-Animal Similarity and the Imageability of Mental State Concepts for Mentalizing Animals

AbstractThe attribution of mental states (MS) to other species typically follows ascala naturaepattern. However, “simple” mental states, including emotions, sensing, and feelings are attributed to a wider range of animals as compared to the so-called “higher” cognitive abilities. We propose that such attributions are based on the perceptual quality (i.e.imageability) of mental representations related toMSconcepts. We hypothesized that the attribution of highly imaginableMSis more dependent on the familiarity of participants with animals when compared to the attribution ofMSlow in imageability. In addition, we also assessed how animal agreeableness, familiarity with animals, and the type of human-animal interaction related to the judged similarity of animals to humans. Sixty-one participants (19 females, 42 males) with a rural (n = 20) and urban (n = 41) background rated twenty-six wild and domestic animals for their perceived similarity with humans and ability to experience a set ofMS: (1) Highly imageableMS: joy, anger, and fear, and (2)MSlow in imageability: capacity to plan and deceive. Results show that more agreeable and familiar animals were considered more human-like. Primates, followed by carnivores, suines, ungulates, and rodents were rated more human-like than xenarthrans, birds, arthropods, and reptiles. HigherMSratings were given to more similar animals and more so if theMSattributed were high in imageability. Familiarity with animals was only relevant for the attribution of theMShigh in imageability.

“Yesterday You Slaughtered Animals, Today You Pity Them”: Ambivalence and Resolution Among Jewish Israeli Slaughterers

ABSTRACT This study explored the ambivalence influenced by emotional and moral concerns experienced by Israeli Jewish slaughterers regarding their everyday practices. The findings were based on 35 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with Jewish workers in the kosher slaughter industry in Israel. The manifestations of ambivalence found in the interviews were divided into three categories: between action and meaning, between emotions and religious rationality, and between human–animal similarities and differences. I concluded that, while Jewish slaughterers in Israel displayed ambivalent views about nonhuman animals, they had clear resolutions for these inner conflicts based on available moral and religious justifications for animal slaughter.

Strategies for the promotion of humanity attribution to outgroups

ABSTRACT Outgroup dehumanisation, the denial of full humanity to outgroups relative to ingroups, is pervasive in many contemporary societies. The aim of the present work is to review effective strategies aimed at fostering outgroup humanity attribution. After presenting the main models of humanity attribution, we differentiate two types of strategies. Outgroup-specific strategies are focused on a target outgroup, therefore their effectiveness is more dependent upon the specific intergroup relationship. These include intergroup contact, meta-humanisation, and social categorisation. Outgroup-independent strategies are not inherently linked to a target outgroup, implying that their effectiveness is less dependent on the specific intergroup dynamics under consideration. These involve human-animal similarity and secure relationship attachment. We provide evidence for the effectiveness of these strategies and their underlying processes, showcasing our research programme within the larger literature. In so doing, we take into account the distinction between blatant and subtle dehumanisation, and conclude with suggestions for future research.

The Effect of Animal Bipedal Posture on Perceived Cuteness, Fear, and Willingness to Protect Them

Human–animal relationships have long been the subject of controversy because they are shaped by several cultural, inter-individual, and evolutionary factors. Understanding these relationships, however, is important to optimize conservation efforts. There is agreement that perceived similarity between animals and humans is associated with more positive attitudes. The human–animal similarity could be caused by phylogenetic closeness. We hypothesized that the bipedal posture of an animal may be perceived as a cue of phenotypic similarity with humans. We examined this topic by comparing perceived cuteness, fear, and willingness to protect animals differing in body posture, body size, and phylogenetic closeness with humans on a sample ofN= 349 Slovak participants. We found that the bipedal posture enhanced perceived cuteness, but this effect was most pronounced in small-bodied animals, particularly those with direct eye contact. Phylogenetically close and small-bodied species (e.g., small mammals) received greater conservation support than phylogenetically distant species (e.g., invertebrates). However, anthropomorphic-looking animals received greater conservation support, suggesting that pictures of animals that more closely resemble humans can be used in conservation campaigns.

Social identification with animals: Unpacking our psychological connection with other animals.

Our relations with other animals are ubiquitous in human life, yet the psychological structure of our connection with animals is just beginning to receive empirical attention. Drawing on theories of social identification and intergroup relations, we investigate the various ways that people identify with animals. Across 7 studies, we introduce the Identification with Animals Measure (IWAM) and uncover 3 dimensions by which humans identify with animals as a group: solidarity with animals, animal pride, and human-animal similarity. First, we establish the reliability, factorial structure, and predictive validity of the 3-factor IWAM. Next, we find that these factors predict a distinct set of attitudes and behaviors toward animals. Solidarity with animals is defined by feeling connected to other animals and is associated with more contact with animals (i.e., pets) and a greater desire to help animals and to engage in collective actions on their behalf, even if this implies withdrawing privileges to humans. Human-animal similarity is defined by the perception that animals share similarities with humans; this dimension is associated with increased moral concern for their welfare and a greater attribution of typically human traits to other animals. Finally, animal pride is defined by a direct recognition and positive endorsement of the social category that includes all animals, and is associated with viewing humans as more animal-like, and with more competitive and instrumental intergroup relations. The findings confirm that identification with animals is a multidimensional construct that is colored by the unique and complex nature of our relations with nonhuman animals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Emerging Attitudes towards Nonhuman Animals among Spanish University Students

AbstractAttitudes towards nonhuman animals remain an interesting area of study, especially in non-English-speaking countries in which little research has been conducted. The present paper examines the attitudes of Spanish university students (n = 481) towards 21 nonhuman animal uses and practices as well as attitudes towards human-animal similarities. To determine which variables might underlie those attitudes, this paper analyzes individual correlations and differences based on 11 psychosocial-demographic factors. Highlights from the results are as follows. First, not all animal uses and not all human-animal attributes are perceived equally. Second, there are minor but significant associations between attitudes towards animals and psychosocial- demographic factors. Lastly, the study identifies three clusters of tendencies of animal attitudes: “reckless-speciesist” (28.6%), “caress-speciesist” (45.8%), and “non-speciesist” (25.6%). The findings suggest a need to segment the target audience, to differentiate between goals, and to adapt messages accordingly when designing more effective strategies intended to foster a pro-animal ecosystem.

Does Human–Animal Similarity Lower the Need to Affirm Humans’ Superiority Relative to Animals? A Social Psychological Viewpoint

ABSTRACTThis research integrates different social psychological theories to test whether human–animal similarity promotes affiliation with animals and lowers the need to affirm humans’ superiority relative to animals. On the basis of theories of intergroup relations, terror management theory, and work conducted in the field of human–animal relations, we expected that higher human–animal similarity would decrease the need to affirm humans’ superiority relative to animals, by triggering a greater sense of shared social identity. Two correlational studies (ns = 187 and 191) tested a mediation model whereby perceived human–animal similarity was expected to predict a lower need to differentiate the perceived status of humans from animals through a process of social identification with animals. Mediated regressions provided support for these associations. A repeated-measures experiment (n = 176) replicated these findings by systematically comparing objectively (phylogenetically) more vs. less similar animals and assessing perceived status and identification. Results are discussed in light of theories of intergroup relations, terror management theory, as well as recent advances in the field of social psychology and self and identity processes.

Anthropomorphism and anthropectomy as friendly competitors

Principles help comparative psychologists select from among multiple hypotheses that account for the data. Anthropomorphic principles select hypotheses that have the most human–animal similarities while anthropectic principles select hypotheses that have the most human–animal differences. I argue that there is no way for the comparative psychologist on their own to justify their selection of one principle over the other. However, the comparative psychologist can justify their selection of one principle over the other in virtue of being members of comparative psychology as a community. As it turns out, though, this justifies both competing principles: the community benefits most from competition between the two principles so comparative psychologists are justified in implementing the principles by which they can best contribute to the competition. Thus, I argue that common arguments to unify principle implementation in comparative psychology are defeated by the conservative arguments to preserve and foster competition.

The Evil Animal: A Terror Management Theory Perspective on the Human Tendency to Kill Animals.

This research tested whether support for the killing of animals serves a terror management function. In five studies, death primes caused participants to support the killing of animals more than control primes, unless the participants' self-esteem had been elevated (Study 4). This effect was not moderated by gender, preexisting attitudes toward killing animals or animal rights, perceived human-animal similarity, religiosity, political orientation, or by the degree to which the killing was justified. Support for killing animals after subliminal death primes was also associated with an increased sense of power and invulnerability (Study 5). Implications and future directions are discussed.

Solidarity with Animals: Assessing a Relevant Dimension of Social Identification with Animals.

Interactions with animals are pervasive in human life, a fact that is reflected in the burgeoning field of human-animal relations research. The goal of the current research was to examine the psychology of our social connection with other animals, by specifically developing a measure of solidarity with animals. In 8 studies using correlational, experimental, and longitudinal designs, solidarity with animals predicted more positive attitudes and behaviors toward animals, over and above existing scales of identification, and even when this implied a loss of resources and privileges for humans relative to animals. Solidarity with animals also displayed predicted relationships with relevant variables (anthropomorphism, empathy). Pet owners and vegetarians displayed higher levels of solidarity with animals. Correlational and experimental evidence confirmed that human-animal similarity heightens solidarity with animals. Our findings provide a useful measure that can facilitate important insights into the nature of our relationships with animals.

Childhood pet ownership, attachment to pets, and subsequent meat avoidance. The mediating role of empathy toward animals

Researchers studying childhood pet ownership outcomes do not typically focus on measures of adult diet, and those studying the psychology of meat consumption do not normally consider early experiences with companion animals. The present research sought to integrate these two areas by examining relationships between childhood pet ownership, pet attachment, empathy toward animals, belief in human–animal similarity, meat avoidance, and justifications for eating meat. Results from 273 individuals responding to a survey on an internet platform revealed that participants with greater childhood attachment to a pet reported greater meat avoidance as adults, an effect that disappeared when controlling for animal empathy. Greater childhood pet attachment was also related to the use of indirect, apologetic justifications for meat consumption, and this effect too, was mediated by empathy toward animals. Child pet ownership itself predicted views toward animals but not dietary behavior or meat-eating justifications. The authors propose a sequence of events by which greater childhood pet attachment leads to increased meat avoidance, focusing on the central role played by empathy toward animals.

A comparison of attitudes toward meat and animals among strict and semi-vegetarians

A number of studies have documented a phenomenon whereby individuals self-identify as vegetarians but then simultaneously acknowledge that they eat red meat, chicken, and/or fish. Despite being a consistent and fairly robust effect, there has been little attempt to explain these semi-vegetarians, why they would define themselves in a category whose membership criteria they violate, and ways they might differ from strict vegetarians. The present research highlights possible reasons for the discrepancy and focuses on several dimensions that may demarcate semi-from strict vegetarians: belief in human–animal similarity and liking of and disgust toward meat. Survey results indicated that semi-vegetarians (n=57) were less likely to dislike meat and to find meat disgusting than were strict vegetarians (n=157), even accounting for diet motives. There were no differences between the groups in their beliefs about human–animal similarity although semi-vegetarians who consumed a wider range of animal products perceived marginally less human–animal similarity than those who consumed only fish. The results suggest that semi-vegetarians are distinct from strict vegetarians primarily in their evaluation of and disgust toward meat, likely as a cause or consequence of their occasional consumption of animal flesh.

Darwin on the Treatment of Animals: His Thoughts Then and His Influence Now

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution has seriously challenged traditional religious views on the origins of life, as well as on our human-animal similarities. Darwin is often referenced in literature on animal ethics with regard to his contention that the difference between humans and other animals is one of degree rather than of kind. This paper posits that Darwin’s writings and theory make more positive contributions to the contemporary debate on animal ethics than for which he has previously been given credit. This paper addresses important aspects of Darwin’s theory for understanding our relationship with other animals and the implications for their subsequent treatment. First, this paper considers themes in Darwin’s original writings regarding relationships among different species; second, enhancements to his theory in support of these themes; and third, recommendations for how these themes can and should inform our moral reasoning and successive treatment of other animals.

Who defines humanity? Psychological and cultural obstacles to omniculturalism

In this article we discuss the social-psychological limitations of using omniculturalism as a tool to improve intercultural relations between majority and minority groups. The omnicultural imperative suggests that intercultural interactions be framed in terms of human commonalities. This strategy might face severe psychological and cultural obstacles. Due to automatic mechanisms of ingroup projection, such framing might have adverse effects: People tend to construe their concepts of “humanity” based on their impressions about their own group. Such projection has been shown to have detrimental effects on intergroup relations, especially between groups differing in status (such as minority–majority relations). Psychological and anthropological evidence is provided to argue that the lay concept of “humanity” is often used as a tool of ingroup favouritism and discrimination. An extension of the omnicultural imperative is proposed—based on the indefinable character of humanity (inspired by Jahoda’s remarks on the definition of culture and Wittgenstein’s concept of family resemblance) and humananimal similarities.

Creatureliness priming reduces aggression and support for war

Terror management theory (TMT) posits that humans distance themselves from, or elevate themselves above, other animals as a way of denying their mortality. The present studies assessed whether the salience of aggressive tendencies that humans share with other animals make thoughts of death salient and whether depicting human aggression as animalistic can mitigate aggressive behaviour and support for aggression. In Study 1, participants primed with human-animal similarities (i.e., human creatureliness) exhibited elevated death-thought accessibility (DTA) after hitting a punching bag. In Studies 2a and 2b, creatureliness priming caused participants to hit a punching bag with less frequency, perceived force, and comfort. In Study 3, participants primed to view violence as animalistic exhibited increased DTA and reported less support for war against Iran. These studies suggest that portraying violence as creaturely may reduce the intensity of aggressive actions and support for violent solutions to international conflicts.

When Closing the Human–Animal Divide Expands Moral Concern

Humans and animals share many similarities. Across three studies, the authors demonstrate that the framing of these similarities has significant consequences for people’s moral concern for others. Comparing animals to humans expands moral concern and reduces speciesism; however, comparing humans to animals does not appear to produce these same effects. The authors find these differences when focusing on natural tendencies to frame human–animal similarities (Study 1) and following experimental induction of framings (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 3, the authors extend their focus from other animals to marginalized human outgroups, demonstrating that human–animal similarity framing also has consequences for the extension of moral concern to other humans. The authors explain these findings by reference to previous work examining the effects of framing on judgments of similarity and self-other comparisons and discuss them in relation to the promotion of animal welfare and the expansion of moral concern.

Attitudes toward Animals: The Effect of Priming Thoughts of Human-Animal Similarities and Mortality Salience on the Evaluation of Companion Animals

AbstractHuman attitudes toward nonhuman animals are complex and quite contradictory. They can range between extremely negative (animal cruelty) to positive (treating companion animals like human surrogates). Attitudes toward animals are especially negative when people think about human creatureliness and personal mortality. This paper investigates people's attitudes toward highly valued animals (companion animals). The research presented here tested whether companion-animal caregivers would respond to reminders of human creatureliness and mortality salience (MS) with more negative attitudes toward pets. Participants completed an online survey in which MS and human-creatureliness conditions were manipulated. Results showed that, under MS, even pet owners responded to reminders of human creatureliness with less positive attitudes toward the average pet. Thus, the effects observed in previous research extend to more popular animals, even among people with presumably positive attitudes toward animals.

Language as a consequence and an enabler of the exercise of higher-order relational capabilities: Evidence from toddlers

AbstractData on toddler language acquisition and use support the idea of a cognitive “supermodule” that can resolve contradictory claims about human-animal similarities. Examples of imagination, aesthetic evaluation, theory of mind (ToM), and language learning reveal higher-order, relational, abstract capabilities early on. Although language itself may be a consequence of exercising this supermodule, it enables further cognitive operations on indirect experience to go far beyond animal accomplishments.

Humans rule! The effects of creatureliness reminders, mortality salience and self‐esteem on attitudes towards animals

This research paper presents findings from an experimental investigation of the attitudes that people hold towards animals when they are reminded of the fact that humans and animals are creatures alike. We tested the hypothesis that mortality salience (MS) would lead participants reminded of human creatureliness to evaluate animals more negatively, especially when they reported lower self-esteem. Student participants were randomly assigned to conditions in which MS was made salient and thoughts about human creatureliness were manipulated. Participants then reported their attitudes towards animals. Lending support to the hypothesis of this study, MS led participants with lower self-esteem to rate animals more negatively, when they were reminded of human-animal similarity. The implications of these results for understanding people's attitudes towards animals were discussed.