Anthropomorphism in comparative affective science: Advocating a mindful approach

Can bioethics bray? Non-human animals, biosemiotics, and a road to shared decision-making

The prospect of shared decision-making with animals is an elusive one. Its elusiveness comes largely from how difficult it is to assess the linguistic abilities of animals, whether that be their ability to 'speak' or their ability to maintain propositional values. In this paper, I suggest a path to shared decision-making with animals that attempts to avoid these deadlocks by using resources from biosemiotics and Umwelt theory. I begin with an examination of the general structure of decision-making, demonstrating its future-orientation, comparison of imagined futures, and assessment of what things matter to participants in decision-making. Animals' capability of having things matter to them, due to their residence in Umwelten, offers a means to shared decision-making with animals via a process I call 'imaginative adjuncting.'

Horse Sector Participants' Attitudes towards Anthropomorphism and Animal Welfare and Wellbeing

Anthropomorphizing can misinform the making of inferences about animal mental experiences. This is a consideration when implementing the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment. An online survey run in 2021 captured horse sector participants' perspectives about anthropomorphism and wellbeing in relation to horses. Most respondents, 82.9% (n = 431/520), believed that anthropomorphism could influence horse welfare and wellbeing. These respondents were then asked how, in their opinion, anthropomorphism might relate to horse welfare. A thematic analysis identified two themes: (1) 'Anthropomorphism can influence how people relate to horses' and (2) 'Anthropomorphism can have consequences for horse welfare and wellbeing'. The results suggested that experienced respondents were aware of the complexities surrounding anthropomorphic attitudes and that anthropomorphism can have beneficial and detrimental consequences on horse welfare and wellbeing. Benefits include a sense of relatedness to a horse, while detriments include the potential to misinterpret horse behaviors. The authors propose that anthropomorphism has a place in horse welfare and wellbeing when used critically and with caution. This study recommends that there is a need to actively manage anthropomorphism when organizations update policies and practices and implement the Five Domains Model. More research is required to understand the effects of anthropomorphism on horse-related practices.

Qualitative Behavioural Assessment of bonobo emotional expressivity across observer groups and zoo housing environments

Human evaluation of animal emotional expressivity can inform animal welfare. Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (QBA) has been applied to domesticated and some non-domesticated animals, but its use in primates is limited despite their emotional expressivity. We aimed to develop and apply a QBA for bonobos (Pan paniscus) through two consecutive studies. We applied Free Choice Profiling (FCP) and the Fixed List methodology, respectively, in Study 1 and 2, and invited students and bonobo experts to rate video clips of zoo-living bonobos of different sexes and age classes, and before and after moving to a new enclosure. In Study 1, students described dimension 1 as ranging from 'quiet/calm' to 'angry/active' and dimension 2 from 'sad/anxious' to 'happy/loving'. Experts described dimension 1 ranging from 'quiet/relaxed' to 'nervous/alert' and dimension 2 from 'nervous/bored' to 'playful/happy'. Using a fixed list of descriptors, informed by findings from Study 1, students in Study 2 described dimension 1 as ranging from 'quiet/calm' to 'agitated/frustrated', and dimension 2 from 'sad/stressed' to 'happy/positively engaged'. Experts described dimension 1 as ranging from 'quiet/calm' to 'active/excited', and dimension 2 from 'sad/bored' to 'happy/positively engaged'. Students scored adults as more 'calm/quiet' and experts scored subadults as more 'happy/positively engaged'. Additionally, experts in Study 2 rated bonobos as more 'active/excited' in their new enclosure. Reliability was moderate to good for the dimensions. Additionally, animal-directed empathy of observers influenced QBA scores. This is the first time, FCP has been successfully used as a method to study primate emotional expressivity. Our findings show the promise of employing QBA in primate studies and in industry, with validation of additional metrics to enable its use for welfare-monitoring purposes.

Comics in Science and Health Communication: Insights From Mutual Collaboration and Framing a Research Practice

Comics have been used as a tool for learning, teaching, understanding, raising awareness and changing behaviours. Researchers are taking more advantage of this medium as comics in research has become a growing field. Notwithstanding, comics as research practice/method has received less attention, particularly the research framework involved in making comics. Here, we detail the research process through the drawing to create a comic about non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. We argue that deciding on visual choices intersecting the perspectives of both artist and researchers whilst promoting reflexivity can be best understood through mutual collaboration. We depict examples of how the active inter/trans/disciplinary research environment, incorporating perceptions, experiences, tensions, from the artist and researchers, and respective disciplines, also informed by patient testimonies, resulted in (new) meanings and ways of thinking in terms of visual content and structure. Particularly when creating the characters and when using multimodality and resources afforded by comics –visual metaphor, anthropomorphism, and scientific sketchnote–, to portray the human body and bring familiarity and simplicity to complex cellular and metabolic events. We end with a comic strip framing comics as research practice, outlining the active engagement during the drawing processes and the research framework that combined a mixed method research approach for creating a tool useful towards understanding science and health promotion.

Implicit measures of anthropomorphism: affective priming and recognition of apparent animal emotions

It has long been recognized that humans tend to anthropomorphize. That is, we naturally and effortlessly interpret the behaviors of nonhuman agents in the same way we interpret human behaviors. This tendency has only recently become a subject of empirical research. Most of this work uses explicit measures. Participants are asked whether they attribute some human-like trait to a nonhuman agent on some scale. These measures, however, have two limitations. First, they do not capture automatic components of anthropomorphism. Second, they generally only track one anthropomorphic result: the attribution (or non-attribution) of a particular trait. However, anthropomorphism can affect how we interpret animal behavior in other ways as well. For example, the grin of a nonhuman primate often looks to us like a smile, but it actually signals a state more like fear or anxiety. In the present work, we tested for implicit components of anthropomorphism based on an affective priming paradigm. Previous work suggests that priming with human faces displaying emotional expressions facilitated categorization of words into congruent emotion categories. In Experiments 1-3, we primed participants with images of nonhuman animals that appear to express happy or sad emotions, and asked participants to categorize words as positive or negative. Experiment 4 used human faces as control. Overall, we found consistent priming congruency effects in accuracy but not response time. These appeared to be more robust in older adults. They also appear to emerge with more processing time, and the pattern was the same with human as with primate faces. This demonstrates a role for automatic processes of emotion recognition in anthropomorphism. It also provides a potential measure for further exploration of implicit anthropomorphism.

A Functional and Neuroanatomical Model of Dehumanization

The dehumanization of others is a major scourge of mankind; however, despite its significance, physicians have little understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms for this behavior. We can learn much about dehumanization from its brain-behavior localization and its manifestations in people with brain disorders. Dehumanization as an act of denying to others human qualities includes two major forms. Animalistic dehumanization (also called infrahumanization) results from increased inhibition of prepotent tendencies for emotional feelings and empathy for others. The mechanism may be increased activity in the inferior frontal gyrus. In contrast, mechanistic dehumanization results from a loss of perception of basic human nature and decreased mind-attribution. The mechanism may be hypofunction of a mentalization network centered in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and adjacent subgenual anterior cingulate cortex. Whereas developmental factors may promote animalistic dehumanization, brain disorders, such as frontotemporal dementia, primarily promote mechanistic dehumanization. The consideration of these two processes as distinct, with different neurobiological origins, could help guide efforts to mitigate expression of this behavior.

The Complexity of the Human-Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human-Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding

The human-animal relationship is ancient, complex and multifaceted. It may have either positive effects on humans and animals or poor or even negative and detrimental effects on animals or both humans and animals. A large body of literature has investigated the beneficial effects of this relationship in which both human and animals appear to gain physical and psychological benefits from living together in a reciprocated interaction. However, analyzing the literature with a different perspective it clearly emerges that not rarely are human-animal relationships characterized by different forms and levels of discomfort and suffering for animals and, in some cases, also for people. The negative physical and psychological consequences on animals' well-being may be very nuanced and concealed, but there are situations in which the negative consequences are clear and striking, as in the case of animal violence, abuse or neglect. Empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism are human psychological mechanisms that are considered relevant for positive and healthy relationships with animals, but when dysfunctional or pathological determine physical or psychological suffering, or both, in animals as occurs in animal hoarding. The current work reviews some of the literature on the multifaceted nature of the human-animal relationship; describes the key role of empathy, attachment and anthropomorphism in human-animal relationships; seeks to depict how these psychological processes are distorted and dysfunctional in animal hoarding, with highly detrimental effects on both animal and human well-being.

From human wellbeing to animal welfare

What does it mean to be "well" and how might such a state be cultivated? When we speak of wellbeing, it is of ourselves and fellow humans. When it comes to nonhuman animals, consideration turns to welfare. My aim herein is to suggest that theoretical approaches to human wellbeing might be beneficially applied to consideration of animal welfare, and in so doing, introduce new lines of inquiry and practice. I will review current approaches to human wellbeing, adopting a triarchic structure that delineates hedonic wellbeing, eudaimonic wellbeing, and social wellbeing. For each, I present a conceptual definition and a review of how researchers have endeavored to measure the construct. Drawing these three domains of research together, I highlight how these traditionally anthropocentric lines of inquiry might be extended to the question of animal welfare - namely by considering hedonic welfare, eudaimonic welfare, and social welfare as potentially distinguishable and complementary components of the broader construct of animal welfare.

Stop avoiding the inevitable: The effects of anthropomorphism in science writing for non-experts

While anthropomorphism - the attribution of human characteristics to non-human things or events - is a fundamental part of human psychology and language, some scientists regard it as a source of misconceptions. This creates tension for those writing about science. Taking an experimental approach to diagnosing misconceptions, we compared the effects of anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic writing on 174 adult readers' knowledge, understanding, confidence in and connection with the material. Reading any text at all improves readers' knowledge and ability to answer questions. There was no difference in understanding, enjoyment or frequency of anthropomorphic thinking between anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic texts. Those who read anthropomorphic text tended to use more vivid examples and fewer generalisations. This suggests that anthropomorphism acts as an evocative, albeit potentially distracting, technique but does not cause significant misconceptions. Writers should feel free to use anthropomorphic techniques if they are appropriate for their topic and their audience.

Of Great Apes and Magpies: Initiations into Animal Behaviour

Simple Summary

Animal encounters have been favourite subjects for a long time and it would scarcely be novel to report such stories for their own sake, even though the ones told here are dramatic enough to stand on their own. The questions addressed in this paper are twofold. The first question is: What influence may particular and dramatic animal encounters have on the human observer and how dependent is such a response on previously held attitudes? This paper provides three cases studies of extraordinary moments that changed the lives of the human participants and turned them into advocates of the species they had encountered. The next question asked is how we can be respectful of animals without anthropomorphising them and study them in ways that help us understand their abilities and their needs rather than impose questions that mean much to the human researcher but could be irrelevant to the species? The examples given here compare and contrast species that are especially close to us (great apes) with studies of those that are distant from us in their evolution (birds) and show how different attitudes change the questions that can be asked by scientists, demonstrably leading to new and even stunning results.

Abstract

This paper presents three case studies of exceptional human encounters with animals. These particular examples were selected because they enabled analysis of the underlying reasons that led the human participants to respond in new ways to their animal counterparts. The question asked here is whether sudden insights into the needs and abilities of an animal arises purely from an anthropocentric position as empathy because of genetic closeness (e.g., chimpanzees) or is something else and whether new insights can be applied to other phylogenetic orders not close to us, e.g., birds, and change research questions and implicit prejudices and stereotypes. Particularly in avian species, phylogenetically distant from humans, the prejudices (anthroprocentric position) and the belief in human uniqueness (human exceptionalism) might be greater than in the reactions to primates. Interestingly, in studies of great apes, contradictory opinions and controversies about cognitive abilities, especially when compared with humans, tend to be pronounced. Species appropriateness in test designs are desirable present and future goals but here it is suggested how different experiences can also lead to different questions that explode the myth of human uniqueness and then arrive at entirely different and new results in cognitive and affective abilities of the species under investigation.

Are They Really Trying to Save Their Buddy? The Anthropomorphism of Animal Epimeletic Behaviours

Simple Summary

Anthropomorphism, defined as attributing human traits to animals and other entities, seems to have appeared during evolution to improve an individual’s understanding of other species (or indeed the world in general). Yet anthropomorphism can have beneficial or harmful consequences especially for animals, and there seems to be little interest in monitoring the potential danger of this approach. Few studies have focused on the factors affecting how we attribute intentions or beliefs to animals, and more quantitative studies are needed to identify how and why humans attribute mental states and cognitive abilities to other animals. In this study, participants answer questions about three videos in which an individual (a sparrow, an elephant and a macaque, respectively) displayed behaviours towards an inanimate conspecific that suddenly regained consciousness at the end of the footage. A fourth video showed a robot dog being kicked by an engineer to demonstrate its stability. These questions were designed to measure how far participants attribute humanlike intentions, beliefs or mental states to non-human animals and robots. Men and older participants are less likely to attribute humanlike mental states to animals. Similarly, people who work with animals or have at least one pet at home demonstrated less naïve anthropomorphism. Conversely, we found that members of animal protection associations showed more biophilia (affinity for other living organisms), attributed more intentions and mental states to animals and were further from biological reality (current scientific knowledge of each species) than non-members. Understanding the potential usefulness of these factors can lead to better relationships with animals and encourage human-robot interactions.

Abstract

Anthropomorphism is a natural tendency in humans, but it is also influenced by many characteristics of the observer (the human) and the observed entity (here, the animal species). This study asked participants to complete an online questionnaire about three videos showing epimeletic behaviours in three animal species. In the videos, an individual (a sparrow, an elephant and a macaque, respectively) displayed behaviours towards an inanimate conspecific that suddenly regained consciousness at the end of the footage. A fourth video showed a robot dog being kicked by an engineer to demonstrate its stability. Each video was followed by a series of questions designed to evaluate the degree of anthropomorphism of participants, from mentaphobia (no attribution of intentions and beliefs, whatever the animal species) to full anthropomorphism (full attribution of intentions and beliefs by animals, to the same extent as in humans) and to measure how far the participants had correctly assessed each situation in terms of biological reality (current scientific knowledge of each species). There is a negative correlation (about 61%) between the mental states attributed to animals by humans and the real capability of animals. The heterogeneity of responses proved that humans display different forms of anthropomorphism, from rejecting all emotional or intentional states in animals to considering animals to show the same intentions as humans. However, the scores participants attributed to animals differed according to the species shown in the video and to human socio-demographic characteristics. Understanding the potential usefulness of these factors can lead to better relationships with animals and encourage a positive view of human-robot interactions. Indeed, reflective or critical anthropomorphism can increase our humanity.