Perceiving that other animals are like us can have ethical implications, but does it actually change how we think and act towards non-human animals?

As humans, our affection towards and perceptions of non-human animals is, in many ways, a “chicken or egg” type of relationship. It’s hard to know which comes first: is our perception of animal minds (and related ethical issues) formed prior to our affection for them, or does our affection make us perceive them differently? Scholars have studied how ethics and our perception of animals are linked, but an often overlooked question is how much our perception of animals is affected by what we think are “humanlike” characteristics. Limited research has found that not all humanlike attributes are viewed and considered with equal weight and that there are links between dietary choice and “people’s perception of human-animal emotional similarity.”

This study aimed to bring together several of these threads into one cohesive study. Specifically, the author sought to address “some of the shortcomings in the literature on the study of humanlike animal attributes using relational and predictive approaches.” To this end, the paper examines “how affection toward animals and perceptions of animal minds may predict whether they are granted moral consideration.” From there, the study looks at how humanlike animal attributes might sway people to become either ethical vegetarians or vegans. The study was deployed as a “structured, non-random online and paper-and-pencil survey” to Spanish university students. In addition to “socio-demographic data,” the researchers collected data on eating and lifestyle habits for their analysis.

In line with other studies that have looked at similar subjects, the researchers found “an association between affection toward animals and attitudes toward their mental life; moreover, those constructs correlate strongly with and predict moral consideration for animals.” However, the humanlike attributes only have a “moderate predictive power.” In other words, affection for animals is linked to what we think of animal minds, but whether or not an animal seems “humanlike” is not a major predictor of ethics. They found that female respondents were “more emotionally driven than males,” which could explain the gender differences observed in the study. Overall, the authors found that animal capacity for emotion and animal consciousness “were significantly correlated with rejection of those uses regarded as the cornerstones of the animal rights movement: food, clothes, experimentation, and entertainment.”

The authors comment that the study results can help animal advocates target receptive audiences and design effective campaigns based on affection for animals. They call this a “low-hanging fruit” strategy in which advocates would focus their energies on the people who are easiest to attract and persuade to change. Campaigning among people who already have an affinity for animals, including those who have companion animals, could mean more efficient advocacy. Advocates can shift their focus to more difficult audiences as the movement’s momentum builds. This study helps by describing who the low-hanging fruit might be, along with suggestions as to how we can reach them.