Why we see some animals as more human than others

Anthropomorphism, or seeing animals as human-like, has long helped shape conservation efforts. From cartoons to fundraising campaigns, giving animals human emotions and faces makes them more relatable. But this seemingly harmless trick has deeper consequences.

A new study in the journal iScience explores how cultural, personal, and social factors shape our willingness to see animals like ourselves. This impacts which species we choose to protect.

“Unfortunately, anthropomorphism significantly influences conservation efforts… Species that appear more human-like or exhibit human-like behaviors usually tend to receive more attention, funding, and public support,” said Federica Amici of Leipzig University.

Emotional responses to animals

The research team surveyed 741 adults from Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, and Spain. Each participant rated how much they agreed with statements about animals’ emotions, minds, intentions, and even their ability to distinguish good from evil.

Respondents also reported their religious beliefs, education level, social networks, and personal experiences with animals.

Participants with less education tended to assign more human-like free will to animals. In contrast, those with more structured scientific learning were more cautious.

Interestingly, urban experiences like owning pets or seeing animals in media predicted more emotional connections. These people were more likely to believe animals had minds, emotions, and intent.

Lonely humans humanize animals

Social isolation played a powerful role. People with weaker social ties were more likely to see animals as emotionally complex and similar to humans.

This tendency was even more pronounced in allocentric individuals, who see themselves as part of a group rather than independent. These individuals often attributed more free will and emotions to animals, perhaps to meet their own need for companionship

“People who feel lonely or aren’t well connected to others often try to meet their need for social connection by seeing human-like qualities in animals or other non-human things,” noted Amici. This helps explain why pet owners or animal lovers may assign deeper personalities to their pets.

Religion shapes human view of animals

Religious belief had a noticeable effect. Participants from monotheistic traditions like Islam and Christianity were less likely to attribute free will, emotions, and pain to animals.

In contrast, those from non-monotheistic faiths such as Hinduism and Buddhism were more open to the idea that animals could feel, think, and even deceive.

“Non-monotheistic religions appear to contribute more strongly to envisioning a space of coexistence between humans and other species,” said Amici. This supports the idea that religions emphasizing interconnection nurture deeper empathy toward non-human life.

Seeing monkeys as moral agents

The study included special focus on monkeys. People with greater exposure to monkeys were more likely to believe monkeys could deceive, plan, or act with intent but paradoxically, less likely to think monkeys felt pain.

Why the contradiction? The researchers suggest a possible reason. When animals are seen as threats, such as crop raiding monkeys, humans may still judge their behavior but downplay their suffering.

This type of moral distancing may help humans justify their actions when conflicts arise.

Feeling and understanding emotions

The survey measured traits like the ability to feel primary emotions such as anger or fear, secondary emotions like guilt or shame, and understand others’ intentions.

Most people saw monkeys as capable of feeling basic emotions and having minds of their own.

However, beliefs about more complex traits like distinguishing good from evil were more variable. These attributions often reflected a blend of religion, social closeness, and urban experience.

Assigning human traits to animals

Assigning human traits to animals can help conservation efforts. It can boost empathy, raise funds, and build support. But it can also skew public concern toward cute or familiar species. That may leave less attractive yet ecologically vital creatures out of focus.

“I think anthropomorphizing species can be an effective approach, but it should be used with caution,” said Amici.

This study shows that conservationists must consider social context. Campaigns that resonate in one culture may fall flat in another. Customizing messaging based on local beliefs, education, and exposure to animals can make programs more effective.

From sympathy to strategy

This research uncovers how deeply our personal lives shape what we see in animals. By recognizing those patterns, conservation can become more inclusive and impactful.

Instead of relying only on emotion or charisma, strategies can balance human connection with ecological urgency. When we see animals clearly, through both empathy and science, we might finally protect them wisely.

The study is published in the journal iScience.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–