Cass Knowledge
www.cassknowledge.com
The Role of Baseline Physical Similarity to Humans in Consumer
Responses to Anthropomorphic Animal Images
Paul M. Connell (Cass Business School, City University, London)
May 2013
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
The Role of Baseline Physical Similarity to Humans in Consumer
Responses to Anthropomorphic Animal Images
___________________________________________________________________
Abstract
While humans have a long history of anthropomorphising animals and the use of animal
imagery in the marketplace and popular culture is commonplace, the phenomenon has
received little attention. This research investigates the role of how consumers respond to
anthropomorphic portrayals of animal mascots that differ on their baseline physical
resemblance to humans. In order to test this assertion, an experimental study was
conducted with 62 undergraduate participants from a large state university in the United
States. Results from the study indicate that evaluations of anthropomorphic portrayals of
animals with a lower baseline physical similarity to humans are less favourable than nonanthropomorphic portrayals. In contrast, evaluations of anthropomorphic portrayals of
animals with a higher baseline physical similarity are more favourable than nonanthropomorphic portrayals.
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
“Two legs good, four legs bad” (George Orwell, Animal Farm)
Throughout civilization, people have imbued creatures from the natural world with human
traits and motivations. Marketers have capitalized on this tendency by creating a plentitude of
anthropomorphic animal mascots for a variety of products and services. For example , Tony the Tiger
endorses Kellogg's Frosted Flakes, Smokey the Bear warns people to be careful with fire, and the
Energizer Bunny beats drums in commercials promoting Energizer batteries. However, there are a
number of non-anthropomorphic animal mascots as well. A galloping horse adorns the grill of Ford
Mustang vehicles, a flying bird adorns the packaging of Bird's Eye vegetables, and two bulls charge at
each other on the label of Red Bull energy drinks. Despite this observation, very little is known about
how people respond to animal images when they are presented in anthropomorphic versus nonanthropomorphic form, leaving practitioners with little guidance as to how to use animal imagery in
branding, packaging, and advertising.
Research on animal imagery in advertising and popular culture is sparse and has mostly
delved into of the symbolic roles that animals play (Lerner & Kalof, 1999; Phillips, 1996; Spears &
Germain, 2007). A slightly larger but growing literature hones in on effects of anthropomorphism on
consumer behavior. Some of this literature focuses on effects of brand advertising mascots on brand
attitudes (Garretson & Burton, 2005; Garretson & Niedrich, 2004) and associated policy implications
(Garretson & Burton, 1998; Neeley & Schumann, 2004). Most recently, researchers have begun to
explore how anthropomorphic portrayals affect perceptions of risk (Kim & McGill, 2011), how products
themselves can be seen as alive (Chandler & Schwarz, 2010), or how products are effectively
anthropomorphized (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007; Delbaere, MacQuarrie, & Phillips, 2011; Landwehr,
McGill, & Herrmann, 2011, McKeaveney, Herrman, Befurt, & Landwehr, 2012). However, these
literatures on animal imagery and anthropomorphism rarely meet. Rather, findings related to
anthropomorphic animal portrayals in consumption settings are typically side notes to other research
questions. For example, previous content analyses reveal that a large percentage of animated animal
mascots are presented anthropomorphically (Callcott & Lee, 1994), and that animals are more likely
to be portrayed anthropomorphically (versus non-anthropomorphically) in advertisements for
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
nondurable goods in magazine advertisements than for other product categories such as nondurables
and services (Spears, Mowen, & Chakraborty, 1996). The objective of this research is to add to the
literatures of anthropomorphism and animal imagery by delving into how responses toward portrayals
of animals in marketplace situations are affected by anthropomorphism. Because people tend to think
of the world in terms of the human experience, and tend to be drawn toward things that are more
similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971; Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1986; Miller, Downs, & Prentice, 1998),
this research examines the role of perceived animal similarity to humans.
Conceptual Framework
Anthropocentrism and Physical Similarity to Humans
Anthropomorphism is the process of assigning real or imagined human characteristics,
intentions, motivations, or emotions to nonhuman objects, often motivated by explaining and
understanding the behavior of those nonhuman agents (Epley et al., 2008; Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo,
2007). People do this with a seemingly unending array of things, including brands and television
characters (Fournier, 1998; Russell, Norman, & Heckler, 2004). Recent research has just begun to
uncover motivations for anthropomorphizing nonhuman objects. Making sense of one's world, also
known as effectance motivation, has emerged as one of these motivations (Waytz, Morewedge,
Epley, Monteleone, Gao, & Cacioppo, 2010). While people's imaginations and technological advances
allow them to simulate the experiences of nonhuman animals, they can never truly fully understand
how animals very different from humans experience the world. For example, while people can scuba
dive, they are limited to seeing coral reefs in three spectrums of color rather than the four spectrums
many tropical fish are able to see. While people can peer down from an observation deck, they can
never know what it is like for migrating birds to peer down to the earth as they fly over it. Thus, people
can only conceive the world in terms of the way that they themselves experience it, and they are
bound to do so in an anthropocentric manner (Kant, 1963; Werth, 1998). As a consequence, it may be
easier to relate to things that resemble humans more in their physical appearance.
The word "anthropomorphism" is derived from two Greek words: "anthropos" and "morphe."
The first, "anthropos," means "human." Interestingly, the second word used in creating the term is
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
"morphe" (form), and not "nous" (mind). Thus, anthropomorphism was originally conceived in
physical, and not cognitive, terms. It is not too surprising, however, when one considers that humans
are unique on earth not only in their brain capacity but also in their physical appearance. No other
animal walks on two legs with an erect spine and hands that can grasp objects. Illustrating this point,
in Orwell's Animal Farm, the pigs in the story finally become fully transformed into sentient beings
when they begin walking upright, which comes after they had gained advanced cognitive functioning.
Thus, people are likely to infer sentience from physical cues, and tend to anthropomorphize
things that look and move like humans (Delbaere et al., 2011; Gray, Gray, &Wegner, 2007;
Morewedge, Preston, & Wegner, 2007; Persson, Laaksolahti, & Lonnqvist, 2000; Werth, 1998). For
example, while octopi have been found to be highly intelligent with sophisticated problem-solving
skills (Catalini, 2008), their non-human, almost otherworldly appearance thwarted the ability to
observe this intelligence for millennia. This concept of physical similarity is important because it has
shaped the way that people view the animals around them. Furthermore, people are particularly adept
at categorizing animals (Henley, 1969; Tversky, 1977) and also have a propensity to ascribe traits
based on appearance alone (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988). Because of this tendency to ascribe
traits based on appearance, animals that are more physically similar to humans are generally
perceived as more humanlike (Driscoll, 1995; Eddy, Gallup, & Povinelli, 1993; Plous, 1993).
Interestingly, research in the robotics literature has converged on similar findings. That is, people
have an easier time attributing a humanlike mind to robots that physically appear more human by
means of their appearance and their expressions (Boden, 2006; Breazeal, 2000; Duffy, 2003).
Similarity, Liking, and Prototypicality
A large body of research has converged on the finding that people like similar others. The
foundational work in this literature stream was built on attitude similarity (Byrne, 1971; Byrne, Clore, &
Smeaton, 1986; Heider, 1958). This research has been subsequently extended to domains such as
similarity in personality traits (Tesser & Campbell, 1980; Tesser & Paulhus, 1983), race (Ensher &
Murphy, 1997; Hamner, Kim, Baird, & Bigoness, 1974), and sexual orientation (Chen & Kenrick,
2002). Miller and colleagues (1998) found that even trivial similarities, such as a shared birthday,
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
cause people to view others more favorably. Thus, the findings from this literature would suggest that
enhancing any animal's physical similarity to humans by anthropomorphizing it would lead to more
positive reactions to it.
However, research on prototypes and schemas provides an explanation for how
anthropomorphizing an animal image could actually backfire and create a less positive response. As
mentioned previously, animals differ on their baseline physical similarity to humans. An
anthropomorphic portrayal of an animal that is more similar to humans in its natural form would be
more prototypical of that species than an anthropomorphic portrayal of an animal that is less similar to
humans. This distinction is important because people tend to prefer objects that are considered more
average or prototypical (Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2000; Hoegg &Alba, 2008; Martindale, 1984;
Martindale & Moore, 1988; Martindale, Moore, & Borkum, 1990). Similarly, research on processing
fluency suggests that because prototypical objects are more easily processed, this results in
increased positive affective response toward those objects (Hoegg & Alba, 2008; Reber, Schwarz, &
Winkielman, 2004; Reber, Winkielman, & Schwarz, 1998). Research on schema congruity has also
converged on similar findings. That is, schema incongruity can lead to increased elaboration and an
adverse effect on evaluations (Lee & Mason, 1999; Meyers-Levy & Tybout,1989, Peracchio & Tybout,
1996).
Some animals, at a baseline, are more physically similar to humans in their natural form. For
example, bears have binocular vision and forward-facing ears, are tailless, have hand-like claws that
can be used to grasp objects, and can walk bipedally over short distances. Their faces can be
manipulated to display humanlike emotional expressions when anthropomorphized while still being
recognizable as the original animal. Thus, an anthropomorphic portrayal of an animal such as a bear
that is high in baseline physical similarity to humans is likely to be relatively prototypical and schema
congruent. In contrast, most other animals do not share all these key morphological characteristics
with humans. Presenting animals that are lower in baseline physical similarity to humans
anthropomorphically requires that more liberties be taken with their anatomy, which will make them
appear less prototypical and less congruent with the schema for their species.
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
The Current Research
The following experimental study tests responses to visual anthropomorphic portrayals of
animals based on their baseline physical similarity to humans. Because prototypicality is associated
with more positive responses, and because schema incongruity can lead to negative evaluations, this
research hypothesizes that people will evaluate nonanthropomorphic portrayals of animals with lower
baseline physical similarity to humans more favorably than anthropomorphic portrayals. However,
because animals with a higher baseline similarity to humans retain their prototypicality and schema
congruency, but are simultaneously made more similar to humans when presented in
anthropomorphic form, this research hypothesizes that people will evaluate anthropomorphic
representations more favorably than nonanthropomorphic representations. Formally:
H1: People will respond more favorably to anthropomorphic portrayal of animals with a
higher baseline physical similarity to humans, but will respond more favorably to
nonanthropomorphic portrayals of animals with a lower baseline similarity to humans.
Method
Procedure
Sixty-two undergraduate students participated in exchange for course credit in a betweensubjects design with two manipulated factors (animal: lower/higher similarity and portrayal:
nonanthropomorphic/anthropomorphic ). Participants were told that their university was helping a local
high school with research to assist them in choosing a new school mascot. The mascot images were
a bear (higher similarity) and a lion (lower similarity). These animal species were selected due to their
frequency of use as animal mascots (both in anthropomorphic and natural form). In addition, a pretest was run to confirm that bears are perceived as more humanlike than lions. Fifty-three
undergraduate student participants from a large state university in the Northeastern United States
rated bears and lions, embedded within a list of other animals in order to mask the study's hypothesis,
on how similar each animal was to human beings on a 7-point scale. The pre-test confirmed that
bears were perceived as more similar to humans than lions (MBear = 3.55/7.0; MLion = 2.90/7.0; t =
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
3.33, p < .001). In the experiment, participants viewed either a bear or a lion mascot that was
presented either anthropomorphically or nonanthropomorphically in its visual appearance.
Participants then completed two dependent measures, where they evaluated positive affect toward
and connection to the mascot.
Manipulations. In the non-anthropomorphic condition, participants were shown black,
quadrupedal, left-facing, full body profile silhouette images of the animals (see appendix for stimulus
images). In the anthropomorphic condition, participants were shown a cartoon depiction of a
basketball player that was graphically altered by an artist from a human into an anthropomorphic
animal with a bear's or lion's face and a humanlike expression. In order to assure that participants
correctly identified the animals as bears or lions, the name of the animal was included in the
instructions for the two animal images (e.g., “The school is considering using this (bear/lion) as its
school mascot.”).
Dependent Measures. Because a mascot is a branding element, participants completed a
self-brand connection scale for the mascot (Escalas & Bettman, 2005) on 7-point scales. The scale
included items such as "I can identify with this mascot" and "I feel a personal connection to this
mascot" and was found to have good reliability in this study (α = .95). As another dependent measure
designed to capture positive affect felt toward the mascot, participants were asked to imagine their
feelings for the mascot as if they were being measured on a thermometer (0 = very cold feelings, 50 =
neutral feelings, 100 = very warm feelings). Participants wrote their response in degrees on a blank
below a graphical representation of the thermometer. Feeling thermometers are used broadly within
behavioral research (Payne, Burkley, & Stokes, 2008), and are advantageous because they more
closely approximate a continuous variable than 7-point affect scales (Alwin, 1997) and require little
verbal effort on the part of the participant during appraisal of affect (Smith, 2003).
Control variables. Participants also completed Aaker's (1997) brand personality measures as
control variables. Two factors, sincerity and ruggedness, were particularly of interest in the context of
this study. Because the mascot images were presented in a cartoonlike form, they could possibly be
perceived as "cuter." Thus, a "cuter" image is likely to be perceived both as less rugged and also as
more sincere than a nonanthropomorphic image. Both of these measures could impact evaluations of
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
sports mascots. That is, because sports teams are competitive in nature, more rugged mascots might
be preferred. However, more sincere images might also be preferred because they would be
perceived as friendly, cheerful, and down-to-earth (Aaker, 1997), thus increasing positive affect. If
these measures systematically vary with the independent variable and subsequently affect the
dependent variable, then they could potentially confound results of the study (Field, 2013; Steg,
Buunk, & Rothengatter, 2008). Therefore, these measures could potentially serve as covariates in
order to control for possible confounding influences (Field, 2013; Steg et al., 2008). Both brand
personality measures were found to have adequate reliability (αRuggedness = .64, αSincerity = .78). Indeed,
the anthropomorphic portrayals were perceived as less rugged (MNonanthropomorphic = 4.75/7,
MAnthropomorphic = 3.78/7, F (1, 61) = 9.72, p < .01, η2 = .14) and as more sincere (MNonanthropomorphic =
3.08, MAnthropomorphic = 3.54, F (1, 61) = 3.77, p < .05, η2 = .06). Unexpectedly, the lower similarity
animal (lion) images were seen as both more sincere (MLower = 4.53/7, MHigher = 4.03/7, F (1, 61) =
2.33, p < .10, η2 = .04) and as more rugged (MLower = 3.50/7, MHigher = 3.09/7, F (1, 61) = 3.00, p < .05,
η2 = .05) than the higher similarity (bear) images (no differences between animal type were expected
for the brand personality measures). However, there were no interaction effects of animal similarity
and anthropomorphic portrayal on either brand personality variable (Fs < 1). Means and standard
deviations for each cell are provided in table 1 (next page).
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
Table 1: Experimental Results
Dependent
Measures
Feeling
Thermometer
(0 to100)
Self-brand
Connection
(1 to7)
Brand
Personality
Control
Variables
Sincerity (1 to
7)
Ruggedness
(1 to 7)
Experimental Condition Means (Standard Deviations)
Lower Similarity Animal (Lion)
Higher Similarity Animal (Bear)
Nonanthropomorphic Anthropomorphic Nonanthropomorphic Anthropomorphic
(n=17)
(n=14)
(n=16)
(n=15)
61.53
51.34
39.25
47.13
(29.88)
(14.12)
(22.17)
(22.89)
3.40
(1.79)
2.29
(1.67)
1.98
(1.06)
2.36
(1.78)
Experimental Condition Means (Standard Deviations)
Lower Similarity Animal (Lion)
Higher Similarity Animal (Bear)
Nonanthropomorphic Anthropomorphic Nonanthropomorphic Anthropomorphic
(n=17)
(n=14)
(n=16)
(n=15)
3.22
3.81
2.93
3.25
(.85)
(1.05)
(.82)
(.89)
4.89
4.12
4.59
3.44
(1.02)
(1.02)
(1.53)
(1.24)
As suspected, there was also a positive relationship between ruggedness and the feeling
thermometer measure (β = .40, t = 3.38, p <.001) as well as the self-brand connection measure (β =
.27, t = 2.17, p <.05). Similarly, there was also a positive relationship between sincerity and the feeling
thermometer measure (β = .27, t = 2.14, p < .05) as well as the self-brand connection measure (β =
.36, t = 2.93, p < .01). Thus, these two measures were included in the model as covariates to control
for potential confounding influences.
Results
The hypothesis that participants would evaluate non-anthropomorphic (anthropomorphic)
animal images more positively when the animal's baseline physical similarity to humans was lower
(higher) was tested with a MANCOVA where animal similarity (lower/higher) and visual presentation
(anthropomorphic/nonanthropomorphic) were entered into the model as categorical independent
variables, mascot ruggedness and sincerity were entered as covariates, and the feeling thermometer
and self-brand connection measures were entered as dependent variables. There were main effects
of both the ruggedness (F (2,51) = 4.27, p < .01) and sincerity (F (2,51) = 4.28, p < .01) covariates on
the multivariate test. There were no other significant main effects. The 2-way interaction between
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
animal similarity (lower/higher) and visual presentation (anthropomorphic/non-anthropomorphic) was
significant for the multivariate test (F (2,51) = 3.18, p < .05, η2 = .11) as well as for both the feeling
thermometer (F (1,52) = 5.07, p < .05, η2 = .09) and the self-brand connection dependent variables (F
(1,52) = 4.53, p < .05, η2 = .08). Ratings on the feeling thermometer and self-brand connection
measures were more favorable for the higher similarity animal (bear) when it was presented
anthropomorphically, but ratings on the feeling thermometer and self-brand connection measures
were less favorable for the lower similarity animal (lion) when it was presented anthropomorphically.
Thus, the results support hypothesis 1. Means and standard deviations for each cell are provided in
table 1.
Simple contrasts were first run for each animal condition. The simple contrast within the lower
similarity (lion) condition was significant for the multivariate test (F (2,25) = 2.72, p < .05, η2 = .18) as
well as for the self-brand connection measure (F (1,26) = 5.41, p < .05, η2 = .17), with the
hypothesized effect of stronger self-brand connections with the non-anthropomorphic portrayal than
the anthropomorphic portrayal (MNon-anthropomorphic =3.40/7, MAnthropomorphic = 2.29/7). The simple contrast
within the lower similarity (lion) condition was not significant for the feeling thermometer measure but
was in the hypothesized direction (MNon-anthropomorphic =61.53/100, MAnthropomorphic = 51.34/100, F < 1).
The simple contrast within the higher similarity (bear) condition was not significant for the multivariate
test (F (2,23) = 1.58) or for the self-brand connection measure (F < 1). However, the simple contrast
for the higher similarity (bear) condition was significant for the feeling thermometer measure (F (1,24)
= 3.13, p < .05, η2 = .12), with the hypothesized effect of more positive feelings associated with the
anthropomorphic image than for the non-anthropomorphic image (MNon-anthropomorphic = 39.25/100,
MAnthropomorphic = 47.13/100).
Simple contrasts were then run for each anthropomorphism portrayal condition. Within the
non-anthropomorphic condition, the simple contrast was significant for the multivariate test (F (2,26) =
4.03, p < .05, η2 = .24) as well as for both the feeling thermometer (F (1,27) = 5.09, p < .05, η2 = .16)
and self-brand connection measures (F (1,27) = 6.07, p < .05, η2 = .18) with the effect of more
positive evaluations of the lower similarity animal when it was presented in non-anthropomorphic form
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
(feeling thermometer: MLower = 61.53/100, MHigher = 39.25/100; self-brand connection: MLower = 3.40/7,
MHigher = 1.98/7). These differences disappeared, however, when the animals were presented in
anthropomorphic form, as the simple contrast within the anthropomorphic portrayal condition was not
significant for the multivariate test (F < 1), the feeling thermometer measure or (F < 1), or the selfbrand connection measure (F (1, 23) = 1.59).
Discussion
Findings from this research indicate that an animal's baseline physical similarity to humans is
an important determinant of how people react to it. In an experimental study, participants who viewed
an animal lower in baseline physical similarity to humans had more positive evaluations of the animal
image when it was presented non-anthropomorphically. In contrast, participants who viewed an
animal higher in baseline physical similarity to humans had more positive evaluations of the animal
image when it was presented anthropomorphically. Thus, while both anthropomorphic and nonanthropomorphic animal imagery is prevalent in the marketplace, this research reveals that there are
important boundary conditions that affect whether anthropomorphism is likely to result in more
positive reactions to animal imagery.
This research contributes to understandings of two streams of research that have been
sparsely investigated in consumer research: animal imagery and anthropomorphism. Indeed, while
these two literatures are highly compatible with one another, they have rarely met. This is the first
study that empirically examines responses to anthropomorphic animal imagery, and provides insights
into how and why people might respond more favorably to anthropomorphic portrayals of animals
compared with non-anthropomorphic portrayals of animals. The findings of this research indicate that
the effects of anthropomorphism not only affect how much people like the animal imagery in question,
but also how deeply people develop self-brand connections to these advertising mascots. These
findings have important implications for enhancing brand equity, improving attitudes toward
advertising featuring animal imagery, and perhaps even increasing the likelihood of one brand being
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
selected over another at point of purchase based on the animal imagery on the label and subsequent
loyalty for that brand.
While findings of this research indicate that physically transforming an already physically
similar animal to more resemble humans can enhance consumer response to it, future research could
determine whether the type and degree of physical transformation are also important. For example,
increasingly realistic images of anthropomorphism that are now possible with improved computer
graphic animation might lead to another problem that has been identified in the robotics literature:
heightened similarity to humans might draw attention to subtle imperfections or differences that
appear disturbingly odd. Mori (1970) referred to this phenomenon as the Uncanny Valley. While
cartoon images of anthropomorphic animals (such as the one used in this experimental study) often
appear cute, it is possible that more realistic portrayals would push these animals into the Uncanny
Valley.
Finally, cultural relationships with certain animals convolute the impressions and reactions
toward them. While some species have been long admired for their beauty and the joy they bring to
people (e.g., butterflies, songbirds), others are feared (e.g., sharks, snakes, spiders) or are loathed as
pests (e.g., mice, pigeons). Some have a long history of serving mankind (e.g., horses, dogs) while
others have been used primarily as sources of food (e.g., cows, chickens). Indeed, previous research
has indicated that people morally disengage from species commonly consumed as food when
contemplating their consciousness (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010). As these relationships are
likely to vary between cultures, future research would determine whether cross-cultural differences
are important in how people respond to anthropomorphic portrayals of animals.
Conclusion
While humans have a long and rich history of anthropomorphizing the animal kingdom, much
remains to be learned about why, when, and how people assign human characteristics to other
animals. Recent studies have only begun to explore some of these questions (e.g., Aggarwal &
McGill, 2007; Chandler & Schwarz, 2010; Epley et al., 2007; Epley et al., 2008; Kim & McGill, 2011).
Similarly, while the literature has produced a smattering of findings on the cultural meanings of
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
animals (Philips, 1996) and the effectiveness of advertising mascots (Garretson & Burton, 2005;
Garretson & Niedrich, 2004), beyond this research and a few content analyses (Callcott & Lee, 1994;
Moyers, 2001; Spears et al., 1996; Stallard, 2003) the question of animal anthropomorphism has yet
to be explored. This research contributes to the understanding of animal anthropomorphism by
demonstrating that anthropomorphism can enhance, or at least not harm, consumer responses to
animals that already have a high baseline physical similarity with humans by capitalizing on effects of
similarity and liking that have been well established. On the other hand, for animals that have a lower
baseline similarity to humans, anthropomorphism can result in less favorable evaluations of the
animal images because these images are not prototypical or schema-congruent. Thus, they become
more difficult to process and result in more negative evaluations of them than if they were left in their
natural form.
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
Lower Physical Similarity to Humans Anthropomorphic
Nonanthropomorphic Appendix: Experimental Stimuli
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
Higher Physical Similarity to Humans References
Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-361.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A.L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for
evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 468-479.
Albright, L., Kenny, D.A., & Malloy, T.E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero
acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387-395.
Alwin, D. F. (1997). Feeling thermometers versus 7-point Scales: Which are better? Sociological
Methods & Research, 25, 318-340.
Boden, M.A. (2006). Robots and anthropomorphism. In Technical Report WS-06-09, pp. 69-74, Menlo
Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Breazeal, C. (2000). Proto-conversations with an anthropomorphic robot. Proceedings of the 2000
IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication,328-333.
Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Byrne, D., Clore, G.L., & Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect
anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167-1170.
Callcott, M.F. & Lee, W. (1994). A content analysis of animation and animated spokescharacters in
television commercials. Journal of Advertising, 23, 1-13.
Catalini, J.A. (2008). Cephalopod intelligence. American Paleontologist, 16, 41-45.
Chandler, J. & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship: Thinking
objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20,
138-145.
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
of
Delbaere, M., MacQuarrie, E.F., & Phillips, B.J. (2011). Personification in advertising using a visual
metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising, 40, 121-130.
Driscoll, J. W. (1995). Attitudes toward animals: Species ratings. Society & Animals, 3, 139-150.
Duffy, B.R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 42,
177-190.
Eddy, T.J., Gallup, G.G. Jr., & Povinelli, D.J. (1993). Attribution of cognitive states to animals:
Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 87-101.
Ensher, E.A. & Murphy, S.E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact
on
mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460-481.
Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A. & Cacioppo, J.T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential
reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological
Science, 19, 114-120.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of
anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864-886.
Escalas, J.E. & Bettman, J.R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal
of Consumer Research, 32, 378-389.
Field, A.P. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: And Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll, 4th
edition, London: Sage.
Fournier, S.F. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373.
Garretson, J.A. & Burton, S. (1998). Alcoholic beverage sales promotion: An initial investigation of the
role of warning messages and brand characters among consumers over and under the legal drinking
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
age. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17, 35-47.
Garretson, J.A. & Burton, S. (2005). The role of spokescharacters as advertisements and package
cues in integrated marketing communications. Journal of Marketing, 69, 118-132.
Garretson, J.A. & Niedrich, R.W. (2004). Spokes-characters: Creating character trust and positive
brand attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 33, 25-36.
Gray, H.M., Gray, K. & Wegner, D.M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.
Halberstadt, J. & Rhodes, G. (2000). The attractiveness of nonface averages: Implications for an
evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science,
11, 285-
289.
Hamner, W.C., Kim, J.S., Baird, L., & Bigoness, W.J. (1974). Race and sex as determinants of ratings
by potential employers in a simulated work-sampling task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 705711.
Henley, N.M. (1969). A psychological study of the semantics of animal terms. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 176-184.
Hoegg, J. & Alba, J.W. (2008). A role for aesthetics in consumer psychology, in Haugtvedt, C.P., Herr,
P.M., & Kardes, F.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 733-754), New York, NY:
Psychology Press.
Kant, I. (1963). Critique of Pure Reason. London: Macmillan and Company, LTD.
Kirkpatrick, C.A. (1953). Trade characters in promotion campaigns. Journal of Marketing, 17, 366371.
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
Landwehr, J.R., McGill, A.L., & Herrman, A. (2011). It's got the look: The effect of friendly and
aggressive "facial" expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing, 75, 132-146.
Lerner, J.E. & Kalof, L. (1999). The animal text: Message and meaning in television advertisements.
The Sociological Quarterly, 40, 565-586.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral
status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55, 156-159.
Martindale, C. (1984). The pleasures of thought: A theory of cognitive hedonics. The
Journal of
Mind and Behavior, 5, 49-80.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K. (1988). Priming, prototypicality, and preference. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 661-670.
Martindale, C., & Moore, K., & Borkum, J. (1990). Aesthetic preference: Anomalous findings for
Berlyne's psychobiological theory. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 53-80.
McKeaveney, S.M., Herrman, A., Befurt, R., & Landwehr, J.R. (2012). The eyes have it: How a car's
influences consumer categorization and evaluation of product line extensions. Psychology &
Marketing, 29, 36-51.
Miller, D.T., Downs, J.S., & Prentice, D.A. (1998). Minimal conditions for the creation of a unit
relationship: The social bond between birthdaymates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28,
475-481.
Mitchell, R.W., & Hamm, M. (1997). The interpretation of animal psychology: Anthropomorphism or
behavior reading? Behaviour, 134, 173-204.
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
Morewedge, C.K., Preston, J., & Wegner, D.M. (2007). Timescale bias in attribution of mind.Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1-11.
Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani (The uncanny valley). Energy, 7, 33-35.
Moyers, K.N. (2001). Use of animal imagery in magazine advertisements. Unpublished thesis, Texas
Tech University.
Neeley, S.M., & Schumann, D.W. (2004). Using animated spokes-characters in advertising to young
children: Does increasing attention to advertising necessarily lead to product
preference? Journal
of Advertising, 33, 7-23.
Payne, B. K., Burkley, M.A., & Stokes, M.B. (2008). Why do implicit and explicit attitude tests diverge?
The role of structural fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 16-31.
Persson, P., Laaksolahti, J., & Lonnqvist, P. (2000). Anthropomorphism: A multi-layered
phenomenon. In AAAI Technical Report FS--00-04 (pp. 1-5). American Association for Artificial
Intelligence.
Phillips, B.J. (1996). Defining trade characters and their role in American popular culture. Journal of
Popular Culture, 29, 143-158.
Phillips, B.J. (1996). Advertising and the cultural meaning of animals. In Corfman, K. &
Lynch, J.
(Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23 (pp. 354-360). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Plous, S. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues,
49, 11-52.
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is
beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364382.
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on
affective
judgments, Psychological Science, 9, 45-48.
Russell, C.A., Norman, A.T., & Heckler, S.E. (2004). The consumption of television programming:
Development and validation of the connectedness scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 31,150-161.
Smith, T,W. (2003). Developing Comparable Questions in Cross-National Surveys. In J.A. Harkness,
F.J.R. van de Vijver, and P. Moler (Eds.), Cross Cultural Survey Methods (pp.69-91). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Spears, N. & Germain, R. (2007). 1900-2000 in review: The shifting role of animals in print
advertisements in the twentieth century. Journal of Advertising, 36 , 19-33.
Spears, N., Mowen, J.C., & Chakraborty, G. (1996). Symbolic role of animals in print
Content analysis and conceptual development. Journal of Business
advertising:
Research, 37, 87-95.
Stallard, T.D. (2003). A content analysis of animal spokescharacters in print
advertisements.
Unpublished thesis, Texas Tech University.
Steg, L., Buunk, A.P., & Rothengatter, T. (2008). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding
and
Managing Social Problems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tesser, A. & Campbell, J. (1980). Self-definition: The impact of relative performance and similarity of
others. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 341-347.
Copyright Cass Business School 2013
Tesser, A. & Paulhus, D. (1983). The definition of self: Private and public self-evaluation management
strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 672-682.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
Waytz, A., Morewedge, C.K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2010). Making
sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 99, 410-435.
Werth, L.F. (2002). The anthropocentric predicament and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence
(The universe as seen through our eyes darkly). Journal of Applied Philosophy, 15, 83-88.
Copyright Cass Business School 2013