Anthropomorphism – a double edged sword: influences on acceptance of livestock keeping

Andrea Knörr (), Xiao Zhou, Angela Bearth and Michael Siegrist
Additional contact information
Andrea Knörr: ETH Zurich
Xiao Zhou: ETH Zurich
Angela Bearth: ETH Zurich
Michael Siegrist: ETH Zurich

Agriculture and Human Values, 2025, vol. 42, issue 1, No 28, 460 pages

Abstract: Abstract Anthropomorphism, the attribution of human-like qualities to non-human entities, can influence comprehension of the surrounding world. Going beyond previous research on the general assessment of anthropomorphism, the current study aimed to explore how anthropomorphising a specific animal species influences public acceptance of livestock keeping practices. Specifically, we focused on welfare-infringing practices that limit animals’ freedom, describe disruptive procedures, social isolation, or other stressful situations. Lacking experience in livestock keeping, it is likely that people project their own preferences to animals when judging livestock keeping practices. Questionnaire data from a sample of the Swiss German public (N = 1232) were analysed regarding their acceptance of livestock keeping practices, as well as anthropomorphism for three animals: cattle, pigs, and poultry. We showed that judgement of livestock keeping was related to an anthropomorphic view of animals. This takes two opposite directions: (1) anthropomorphising was connected to a more critical view of livestock keeping practices and (2) the attribution of more cognitive capabilities to cattle and poultry was associated with a higher acceptance of welfare-infringing livestock keeping practices. The tendency to anthropomorphise was species-dependent, with the two mammals eliciting a higher tendency to anthropomorphise than poultry. The results suggest that the tendency to anthropomorphise plays a significant role in shaping the public’s opinion on livestock keeping. We argue that, when activating the tendency to anthropomorphise in the media, advertisements, or political publicity (e.g. by highlighting human-like features), a certain level of caution should be taken to avoid undesirable outcomes.

Keywords: Anthropomorphism; Human–animal interaction; Human–animal relationship; Livestock; Animal welfare; Agriculture (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-024-10621-z Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:42:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-024-10621-z

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10460

DOI: 10.1007/s10460-024-10621-z

Access Statistics for this article

Agriculture and Human Values is currently edited by Harvey S. James Jr.

More articles in Agriculture and Human Values from Springer, The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().