Abstract
Anthropomorphic figures of nonhuman animals are omnipresent in various forms of mass media (e.g., movies, books, and advertising). The depiction of companion and wild animals, including nonhuman primates (e.g., chimpanzees), as possessing human characteristics or behaviors can influence these animals’ desirability as companions. Ultimately, this can distort general public perception of what constitutes “normal” wild behavior, as well as the conservation status of these animals. Therefore, anthropomorphic animal representations can contribute to the spread of misleading messages that may have highly unpredictable effects. In the present review, we have highlighted various articles from the academic literature which focus on anthropomorphised animals, noting the main thematic issues. We suggest that further studies on this topic are needed to deepen such a complex and not yet clarified topic.
Introduction
Mass media can be excellent means of communication to share positive, environmentally conscious content globally, with the aim of increasing people’s knowledge of conservation issues (Kingston, 2016). Mass media can play a very important role in spreading information regarding nonhuman animal welfare and illegal environmental activities, which are both often featured on various media channels (Feber et al., 2017). In addition, it has been demonstrated that films, such as documentaries, with themes of safeguarding and preserving nonhuman primates may be powerful educational tools for children who live where nonhuman primate conservation is an issue (Leeds et al., 2017). As a result, there can be positive impacts on both the children’s knowledge and consideration of environmental issues (Leeds et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, mass media can also have negative effects on society through the distortion of information, which has been positively correlated with increasing amounts of media exposure. In fact, following the fairly well-documented “cultivation theory,” which was developed by Gerbner and Gross (1976) to examine the effect of television, people spending more time in front of televisions are more likely to believe that the virtual world reflects the real world (Riddle, 2009; Shanahan & Morgan, 1999). This implies that television shapes viewers’ concepts of social reality, as well as their beliefs, behaviors, and perceptions. Studies have provided support for the existing influence and effectiveness of cultivation effects from different mass media other than television (Beullens, Roe, & Van den Bulck, 2011, 2012). Exposure to either traditional (e.g., cinema, radio, and newspapers) or contemporary (e.g., internet, video game, and music platforms) media can cultivate an individual’s views on environmental and zoological themes, which in turn may affect one’s ecological awareness (Dahlstrom & Scheufele, 2010) as well as perceptions of, and relationship with, animals (Phillips, 1996a). Some typical examples of the consequences of this effect include an altered perception of environmental risks linked to humans (Dahlstrom & Scheufele, 2010) and a consistent personal preference for higher-order species and domestic species over wild ones. This phenomenon is documented in both adults and children (Archer & Morton, 2011; Borgi & Cirulli, 2013).
One recognized media-related factor that contributes to the spread of distorted understanding and perception of the natural world is the intensive use of anthropomorphic strategies. Such intensive humanizing of nonhuman animal figures, be they talking, dancing, or otherwise acting in “human ways,” is a frequent feature in mass advertising (Patterson et al., 2013; Phillips, 1996b). It is surely one of the most powerful vehicles of mass media of the last century. One aim of anthropomorphism is to transfer cultural messages, advertise products, or promote films and television using humanized animal figures. One famous example is the “Disneyzation” phenomenon (similar to “McDonaldization”) in which the principles of Walt Disney World and its fantasy have found roots in various sectors, dominating the American society and the rest of the world (Bryman, 1999; Beardsworth & Bryman, 2001).
In this review, we have discussed all the best-known and well-documented examples reported in the literature which support our thesis that mass media influence people’s attitude toward, and perception of, wildlife issues. This includes their desired species of pet (companion animal) and stance on conservation issues. Moreover, the considerations arising from the present work can serve as a starting point to guide further research in empirically addressing the influence of mass media on environmental perceptions.
Materials and Methods
Our systematic search of the literature is driven by the need to locate literature which enables us to address the question: “What are the possible negative effects caused by the anthropomorphism of animals in mass media?” Working from this premise, we initially selected 150 contributions which included experimental works, peer-reviewed scientific articles, abstract proceedings of major scientific conferences, and books. Then, following an a priori research protocol, only topic-centered and scientifically sound works were taken into consideration for a total of 59 publications (Table 1). All materials were located using the following search websites or databases: Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct. The search keywords used for selecting the literature are described in Table 2.
References selected for this review
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10021
References selected for this review
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10021
References selected for this review
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10021
Main topics and search keywords used
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10021
Main topics and search keywords used
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10021
Main topics and search keywords used
Citation: Society & Animals 31, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/15685306-BJA10021
Anthropomorphism in Mass Media Communications
The word “anthropomorphism” is derived from the Greek word for “human form.” There has yet to be a general consensus on the defined concept of anthropomorphism (Root-Bernstein et al., 2013). Generally speaking, we refer to anthropomorphism as “a phenomenon in which animated objects (not solely animals) or non-animated objects are represented with purely human features and movements” (Epley et al., 2007). According to its original connotation, anthropomorphism implies the misattribution of human quality to nonhumans, or at the very least it overestimates the similarities between humans and nonhumans (de Waal, 1999). These notions of misattribution and overestimation have commonly led people to think that any form of anthropomorphism is to be avoided under all circumstances (de Waal, 1999).
De Waal (2016) refocused the debate over anthropomorphism using a symmetrical perspective. He states that if we reject anthropomorphism because it tends to overestimate human-like characteristics of nonhuman animals, then we should equally assume that underestimation of similarities between humans and animals is also possible. The term anthropomorphism has thus become the antonym to “anthropodenial,” a term coined purposely by de Waal (1997) to indicate (behaviorists’) a priori rejection of shared characteristics between humans and animals when in fact they may exist. If we consider animals to be more similar to us than to traditional Cartesian notions of automatons, then according to de Waal, anthropodenial becomes impossible and anthropomorphism is unavoidable, and not necessarily unscientific. The issue of real concern, therefore, is not the concept of anthropomorphism necessarily, but rather when it is emerges from a foundation of anthropocentrism (de Waal, 2001). “Anthropocentric anthropomorphism” refers to the sentimentalist, popular humanization that is conveyed by all the talking and singing animals on advertisements, television, cinema, and books, who have little relation to their actual counterparts but fit well with the popular image of the natural world as a peaceable and cozy place (Keyworth, 1996).
Since the early 1900s, anthropomorphized nonhuman characters have been in circulation, yet it is still a growing phenomenon (Balcombe, 2010) since it serves the social purposes of persuading, attracting, educating, and influencing the general public (de Waal, 1999; Jacobson, 2008). This can exploit our natural urge to give the reality of nonhumans a “human face.” It begins as early as when children begin to project their needs and desires onto their own dolls and other inanimate toys (de Waal, 1999). Many interpretations of this tendency for people to attribute anthropomorphic features, motivations, and behaviors to animals have been documented (Airenti, 2018). From an evolutionary perspective, it seems that being able to perceive a “human face” on a nonhuman being or object allows for the understanding and control of nature (Mithen, 1996). The origins of anthropomorphism have even been linked to the primordial need to locate predators cleverly hidden in the surrounding environment (Brown, 2010).
Advertising Characters
The use of anthropomorphized animals as mascots of brands for advertising and marketing purposes is frequent because they are effective in presenting a new brand to the market (Pomering & Frostling-Henningsson, 2014). Brand animals and mascots are ubiquitous, for instance, the Lacoste crocodile, the Qantas kangaroos, and Coca-Cola’s cuddly polar bears (Brown, 2010). Some characters are animated (e.g., Tony the Tiger), others are live action figures (e.g., Morris the Cat), and some are simply illustrated (e.g., Hello Kitty). Irrespective of their forms, these characters benefit brands by establishing a strong identity and favorable associations (Dotz et al., 1996; Fournier, 1998). Nevertheless, the mechanisms behind anthropomorphic marketing’s appeal are surprisingly poorly understood (Brown, 2010). These mascots may reflect the natural tendency of human beings to see the world in an anthropomorphic way (Cayla, 2013) but can lead to misconceptions of animal species (Bonas et al., 2000; Levinson, 1969; Serpell, 1999, p. 91), which may play a role in consumers’ responses to anthropomorphized animals appearing as brand presenters in advertising.
Another explanation has been put forward by some authors (Baker, 2000; Bettany & Belk, 2011) which considers how “becoming animal-like” provides a creative escapism for human beings to think of themselves as an “other-than-in” identity. Evidence shows that certain animal species are used depending on which type of product is being marketed, with wild animals being most frequently associated with services and are more frequently represented anthropomorphically than domesticated animals (Spears et al., 1996). Consumers have been shown to prefer portrayals of animals with a higher physical similarity to humans, rather than non-anthropomorphic portrayals (Connell, 2013). Furthermore, the anthropomorphic demonstration effect (i.e., demonstrating the efficacy of the product based on human behavior) would be higher when the character representing the product is highly similar to humans (Laksmidewi et al., 2017).
One of the best known and most studied cases by the experts in this field is that of the meerkat Aleksandr Orlov, who is the main character of the advertising campaign “Comrkat,” conceived of by BGL Group. The character has been a media phenomenon in British and Australian TV since January 2009 (Patterson et al., 2013). PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), condemning the use of real animals in commercials, rewarded the creators of Aleksandr Orlov with the Goody Award for Best Advert of the Year 2009 (Bennett, 2009; Glover, 2009). Human-like animals in advertising increase brand recognition and sales (Lloyd & Woodside, 2013), but they also appear to increase people’s interest in and concern for these animals (Bryant, 2005). For example, as a result of Aleksandr Orlov’s great fame, the number of visitors in front of the meerkats’ installation at the London Zoo increased a few months after the advertising campaign was launched (Brown, 2010). Conversely, a species’ popularity and people’s preference for a certain animal species may also lead to negative consequences regarding conservation issues and the pet trade (Nijman & Nekaris, 2017).
Three other anthropomorphic characters are worth mentioning, namely, Fashion Kitty, My Little Pony, and Hello Kitty. These and similar characters attract predominantly female market segments. Such figures have been criticized for representing “disturbing images of women as atavistic and animalistic, signalling a return to old concepts of social and racial hierarchy that positioned women, children, imbeciles, and the non-white at the lower levels of civilization” (Peers, 2008). The well-known timeless success of Hello Kitty in particular has also been related to her classic cuteness (e.g., round, fluffy, white head with two black-dotted eyes and a yellow button nose) and symbolization of the transition phase from girlhood to womanhood (Lai, 2005). There is a sense of nostalgia, which altogether constitutes a major part of any advertising strategy (Callcott & Alvey, 1991). In addition, Hello Kitty represents a “princess of purity” for toddlers, a cuddly playmate for young girls, and a way for adults to reminisce about their childhoods (Belson & Bremner, 2004).
Book Characters
Fantasy is a common theme of popular literature, and so the present article questions whether the use of anthropomorphic elements in books might be counterproductive for learning about the biological world (Ganea et al., 2011). McCrindle and Odendaal (1994) have shown that preschoolers prefer books in which fantasy animals (e.g., anthropomorphized) are present. However, in the literature, we found conflicting opinions on the impact of anthropomorphic media on children’s factual learning and conceptions of animals. Evidence indicates that children are less likely to transfer content knowledge from fantastical books to reality, compared with nonfiction books (Richert, Shawber, Hoffman, & Taylor, 2009; Richert & Smith, 2011).
Thus, according to Ganea et al. (2011), adding fantasy elements to books might have the dual negative effect of (a) reducing children’s ability to learn and transfer facts about animals, (b) leading children to adopt an anthropocentric view of the natural world (Ganea et al., 2011; Marriott, 2002; Sackes et al., 2009). This has been shown to affect their conceptions of animals (Ganea et al., 2014). In addition, two- to five-year-old children are not always able to visually distinguish between humans and other animals, and attitudes toward other animals develop precisely from this lack of distinction in children (de Waal, 1999). For this reason, according to McCrindle and Odendaal (1994), it would be particularly advisable to use realistic, nonfictional information and representations of animals to avoid altering the perception of children at that age.
Again, Burke and Copenhaver (2004) claimed that while, on the one hand, it is intuitive that animals are included in children’s stories because children are naturally curious about animals and many of them have pets in their families, it is also true that “when these animals begin to talk and scheme and learn to read,” they are put “to use in a purposeful distortion of reality,” and not just intuitively included in a replication of reality (Burke & Copenhaver, 2004). More recently, Geerdts, Van de Walle, and Lobue (2015) reported that exposure to anthropomorphized subjects would not interfere with factual learning about real animals in preschool-aged children. In light of these opposing viewpoints, we agree with Geerdts et al. (2015) that there is need for further research on the potential educational role of fantasy elements, such as anthropomorphism, in children’s media.
Effects on Viewers’ Visions of Wildlife
Attitudes on Wild Animals
Something that should be considered is the tendency to perceive animals differently depending on the species (Paul, 1996). Many studies in the literature suggest that attitudes toward animals are affected by the degree of similarity between a given species and us (Batt, 2009). Interestingly, in the study by Kellert (1996) on Americans’ attitudes to different species, all birds except the emu received a positive rating from participants and emerged as being the favorite wild animals. Birds are physiologically dissimilar to mammals, but their social nature, bipedalism, and pair-bonding with high levels of biparental investment are all behavioral dynamics which might bring them closer to humans (Batt, 2009). Thus, it is a subject’s perception of a species’ similarity to humans that actually influences human attitudes toward that given taxa. And human perception is affected by contextual cues, so that species may appear to be more or less similar to humans depending on an individual’s knowledge and understanding of a species, irrespective of any objective biological issue (Batt, 2009).
However, traits which humans recognize in other species can cause anthropomorphism and lead to some kind of identification with that species (Serpell, 2003). This may in turn cause an overestimation of similarities, therefore establishing a powerful cycle. In contrast to the aforementioned, humans are less interested and concerned when faced with animals whom they cannot identify by species (e.g., invertebrates). They may even react negatively to those animals whom they are afraid of or dislike.
Indeed, another factor that potentially influences attitudes toward different species is if they are seen as a threat (whether real or perceived) or, at the other extreme, cute (referred to as neoteny) (Knight, 2008). This factor has been reported to be affected by different levels of anthropomorphism with which various species or groups of animals are portrayed in mass media (Eidt, 2016). Companion animals (e.g., dogs, cats, and horses) are often positively represented as admirable characters (e.g., protagonists, sidekicks, and helpers for the protagonist), while animals on farms are typically portrayed as neutral and insignificant, having less total screen time. Wild animals, instead, are often negatively labeled (e.g., aggressive and/or annoying to the protagonist). In addition, mammals, birds, and reptiles are generally depicted as having more acceptable and human-like behaviors compared to invertebrates or fish (Paul, 1996).
Eidt (2016) found a significant difference between viewers’ opinions of “good” and “bad” animals only for cartoon characters with a low level of anthropomorphism. Animals featured in less anthropomorphic roles were more likely to be rated higher if they were portrayed as a “good” character. As suggested by the author, anthropomorphism could be masking a complexity in which an animal is not truly identified as representative of their species. Alternatively, anthropomorphism could simply contribute to affection for a particular animal regardless of whether the creature is portrayed positively or negatively, due to the overall preference for anthropomorphic animals (e.g., an animal with a hat and shoes is cute regardless of the creature’s behavior).
Despite that the use of wild animals in media is a widespread practice, the direct and indirect effects of this phenomenon on people’s collective imagination have not been fully clarified (Silk et al., 2018). The depiction of wildlife in the media is often criticized because they can offer an unrealistic view of nature, with sensational scenes and a focus on the “charismatic megafauna” (i.e., species who attract the most interest and empathy from the public: Ducarme et al., 2013; Albert et al., 2018), including elephants, gorillas, lions, and seals (Champ, 2002). But according to Courchamp et al. (2018), the ten most charismatic animal species in the world are all threatened in the wild, and yet people may not perceive the imminent risk of extinction. The authors hypothesize that people’s perceptions of threatened species’ conservation status is biased by an incorrect use of their image in mass media productions, which does not convey the urgent threats they face (Courchamp et al., 2018).
Charismatic species are often anthropomorphized in the media, some represented as cute and baby-like with forward-facing eyes (Smith et al., 2012), and others (such as wolves) depicted as frightening creatures, prone to conflict with humans (Prokop et al., 2011). Aside from the fact that young people are, in general, a segment of the population significantly influenced by mass media (Eagles & Demare, 1999), we know that with respect to themes that involve wild animals and the environment, this influence may be different based on their ages. According to Kellert (1984), it is possible to identify three transition phases of the development of children in relation to the perception of wildlife: (a) between six and nine years, (b) between ten and thirteen years, and (c) between thirteen and sixteen years.
In the first stage, children are mainly involved in the emotional relationship with the animals; in the second, a cognitive factor of the species takes over. The last stage is characterized by ethical and ecological issues related to animals (Kellert, 1984). The profound and different influence of the media on the psychosocial development of children and adolescents, and, consequently, on their attitudes and behaviors as adults, underlies the importance of educational messages that are sent through television or cinema. It follows that media which provides an anthropomorphic and distorted view of wild animals may create and perpetuate a culture that values and promotes misperceptions of species behavior and conservation status.
The educational power of cartoons and films oriented towards children has been widely recognized. The Walt Disney group, among others (e.g., Warner Brothers, Terrytoons, Hanna Barbera, Walter Lantz, Nelvana, Filmation, and UPA), has grown alongside many generations of children and parents all over the world, having a significant impact on culture worldwide. It is common for people to associate the phrases “wildlife film” and “nature film” with many Disney films (Bousé, 1998). In fact, Disney has a storied influence on wildlife documentaries; in particular, two elements were very important for its success: (a) the “Disney gaze” and (b) the manipulated representations of the natural world, which elicit emotions from the viewer (Nichols, 1992).
Although Disney movies are traditionally viewed as purely entertainment, we know from the aforementioned studies that children may glean information and generate assumptions about the world around them based on these films. This occurs through repeated exposure’s potential influence on the increasing internalization of ideas (Eidt, 2016). Disney movies often feature animals and nature, and children will typically rewatch these films throughout their childhood. Thus, they are sources for children (and adults) to learn about the animal kingdom. Unfortunately, Disney movies very often lack a faithfulness to representing nature scientifically beyond surface aesthetics, and this has attracted criticisms from scientists (Eidt, 2016).
Regarding other nature films or documentaries, some are condemned for the use of close-up shots, which provide a false intimacy between the viewers and wildlife and give the impression that animals can have human-like thoughts (Bousé, 2003). De Waal (1999) wrote: “Walt Disney made us forget that Mickey is a mouse and Donald a duck.” Afterwards, de Waal (2001) described that high level of humanizations of animals as “Bambification,” thus recalling Bambi—the well-known big-eyed, gentle little deer almost entirely human-like in speech, thought, and feeling—who gives the name to the famous Walt Disney cartoon film (Bambi).
Lutts (1992) found a variety of potential concerns hidden in this same cartoon. For example, the decision to have the young fawn’s mother die by being shot by a hunter has been widely criticized; the scene is considered by many as being too violent and traumatizing for children (Lutts, 1992). Moreover, distorted eco-zoological knowledge is provided: the ethological description of the deer is not always accurate, and all other animal species seem to be “good friends,” conveying the message that predation is all but a natural and adaptive strategy (Lutts, 1992). This is a theme that reoccurs throughout Disney films where animals are portrayed fictitiously, such as showing opossums hanging by their tails and depicting predators as malicious killers who do not belong in a harmonious “Eden” (Lutts, 1992).
Disney movies create the idealized nature we referred to previously, to which the real natural world cannot compare. They also tend to demonize those animal characters who engage in behaviors that are perceived as “bad.” Analyzing Disney films and cartoons, Fouts, Callan, Piasentin, and Lawson (2006) found that 74% contained “evil” words when referring to a person—for example, monster, devil, demon, wicked—which were repeated an average of 5.6 times per movie. Another study showed that Disney portrayed forms of indirect aggression (e.g., gossiping, spreading rumors, social exclusion), although to a lesser extent (about nine times per hour) than children’s TV programs (Coyne & Archer, 2004). Moreover, indirect aggression was portrayed by Disney movies in ways that would not facilitate viewers’ imitation (Coyne & Whitehead, 2008), as it was more likely to be unjustified in that it was not socially acceptable or necessary to gain a greater good (e.g., fighting against oppression), and used by “bad” characters.
Nevertheless, the Walt Disney Company’s animated, feature-length movies foster identification between the viewer and the characters (Fouts et al., 2006). In addition, children consume many Disney movies since they are a popular production company with frequent releases (Giroux, 1999), and they rewatch them in their homes: a setting of parental involvement, approval, and enjoyment (Fouts et al., 2006). Taken together, this suggests that children may be more vulnerable to the impact of Disney movies’ messages and images based on the films’ approval by their parental figures, which has implications for parents and professionals in the field alike.
Non-Human Primates as Actors
Non-human primates (referred to as primates henceforth) are among the most famous and acclaimed tamed wild animals used for entertainment in films or TV shows. Primates have played significant, varying roles in human cultures, and this may affect the way they are depicted in media. In cultures in which the harming or killing of these animals is forbidden, primates may be revered as gods (Knight, 1999) or represented as human ancestors (Loudon et al., 2006) or as sacred or spiritual entities (e.g., Oates et al., 1992; Burton, 2002) in myths and legends. In stark contrast, some cultures view primates as “evil” figures to be killed (Simons & Meyers, 2001). In some locations and cultures, primates are involved in conflicts with humans, mainly due to crop-raiding. Frequently, in these cases, the mass media may depict them as “enemies” or antagonists to humans, strengthening what may already be a negative public perception of these animals (Knight, 2003).
In the last few years, primate actors have been used in film-making. Brooke (2018) analyzed the presence of non-human primates in movie trailers between 1990 and 2013. Overall, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), capuchin monkeys (Cebus and Sapajus spp.), and Cercopicethines (Papio and Macaca spp.) were the most commonly used species. Moreover, 50% of the time, they were dressed in human clothes; 58% of the time, they showed typically human behaviors; and 87% of the time, they were placed in anthropic or urbanized environments. The author points out that, when concerned with primates as actors, the film industries and producers do not take into account the multiple negative, and scientifically proven consequences to their welfare. This ranges from the alteration of viewers’ perceptions of these animals’ state of conservation to the lack of sustainability depicted in these films (Brooke, 2018). On a positive note, although there was no significant variation throughout the study period, there was a reduction in orangutan (Pongo spp.) presence over time in film and television.
In most of those films, primates were placed in unnatural, human environments, dressed and conditioned to exhibit humanness. These factors were shown to distort public perception of primates, leading people to underestimate the endangerment of some of these species (Ross et al., 2008; Schroepfer et al., 2011) or consider them suitable as pets, which directly or indirectly encourages the illegal pet trade (Craig, 2018; Ross et al., 2011). Ross et al. (2011) illustrate this point. They contacted participants via telephone and gave them a wildlife questionnaire from the Lincoln Park Zoo. They were shown a photograph of an adolescent chimpanzee who would be either clothed or unclothed, with or without a human present, interacting with this human or not, as well as placed in an anthropomorphic (e.g., an office) or naturalistic (e.g., a jungle) setting.
After viewing the assigned picture, people were then asked to answer how they characterized the current conservation of wild chimpanzee populations and whether they found chimpanzees appealing as pets. The findings indicated that people viewing a photograph of a chimpanzee shown in typically human settings (such as an office space) or alongside a human were more likely to consider wild populations to be stable/healthy compared to those seeing the exact same picture in other contexts and without a human. In addition, the presence of a human in the photograph increased the odds of wanting chimpanzees as pets (Ross et al., 2011). In another study, Leighty et al. (2015) found that there is a correlation between people claiming to desire a non-human primate as a pet and most of the people who are unaware of the critical conservation of these animals.
Beyond traditional media forms, social media sites such as YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook, and Instagram can have a significant impact (Lenzi et al., 2019). Asian nocturnal primates and slow lorises (Nycticebus spp.) are emblematic in this regard (Nekaris et al., 2015). Since 2007, all species are listed in CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) Appendix I, thereby banning all of their commercial trade (Nekaris & Nijman, 2007). Despite this ban, slow lorises are still illegally harvested for the pet trade. This is perpetuated in part by their regular appearance in anthropogenic settings on international social media sites (Nekaris et al., 2013), which renders them desirable as pets of people without a clear understanding of their needs.
Wildlife Conservation and Trade
The depiction of endangered species in cinema and television productions can be a useful tool for transmitting a conservation message (Bowen-Jones & Entwistle, 2002). Problems arise when information is conveyed in a distorted or sensationalist manner (Bradshaw et al., 2007), or not transmitted at all. An emblematic example of this is the animated movie Ice Age, in which viewers witness long-extinct dinosaur characters living at the same time as Pleistocene mammals (Yong et al., 2011). Anthropomorphism is a double-edged sword (Root-Bernstein et al., 2013), exerting either positive or negative effects on people’s perceptions about animal species conservation. One of the potential negative effects is the possibility that the public focuses its attention on the individual animal (usually a charismatic species) rather than the whole species, which may limit conservation success (Root-Bernstein et al., 2013). In fact, according to Slovic (2007), most people will willingly contribute to alleviate individual animal suffering, but these same people can become “numbly indifferent to the plight of individuals who are one of many in a much greater problem” (p. 80).
Moreover, the attention given to an individual animal may even lead people to desire or rejoice over the death of their antagonists or predators (Chan, 2012), ultimately compromising the achievement of the goals of conservation (Root-Bernstein et al., 2013). There may be further indirect effects: if one species is protected (and anthropomorphized), this could adversely affect a less charismatic but more ecologically important species (Smith et al., 2012). In this sense, the attribution of human characteristics and social stereotypes can lead to dramatic ecological consequences. An example may be found on the Caribbean island of Dominica, where the efforts of media to protect the national bird Imperial Parrot (Amazona imperialis) led the sister species, the Red-Necked Parrot (Amazona arausiaca), to be perceived negatively (Douglas, 2011; Root-Bernstein et al., 2013).
The phenomenon related to the animated movie Madagascar (2005) has not yet been fully clarified. Some authors have been critical of the lack of attention given to deforestation and the fragmentation of landscapes (Harper et al., 2007), as was featured in the movie Rio (Ranta et al., 1998). Others take issue with how the film contributes to the inexorable spread of anthropomorphism (Brown, 2010). Among the protagonists of the story, there is King Julien, the leader of a population of ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta). As often occurs in the latest generation of productions, this character has been anthropomorphized, having a human-like appearance and movements. It is no coincidence that he became an icon for many children, dancing and singing the song entitled “I Like to Move It.”
There is no evidence in the literature for an association between the release of Madagascar and the development of “lemur mania,” which was expected to lead to an increased demand for keeping lemurs as pets or as touristic attractions. However, lemurs gained worldwide fame in 2005 (e.g., the ring-tailed lemur is the sixth most threatened species in Africa and the tenth of threatened species with the highest number of photos posted on the social network Flickr; Willemen et al., 2015). As for other non-human primate species, this popularity can lead to negative consequences involving people’s perceptions of their conservation status or of their desirability as pets (Clarke et al., 2019). According to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the conservation status of ring-tailed lemurs has deteriorated, shifting from vulnerable between 1990 and 2000, to near-threatened in 2008, and finally to endangered from 2014 onward (Andriaholinirina et al., 2014). Although deforestation and hunting are major causes of this reduction in the number of lemurs in nature (Dunham et al., 2008), we cannot overlook how the number of lemurs in captivity has increased considerably in recent years, most being owned as personal pets or for money-making purposes (Reuter & Schaefer, 2017), despite the trade being illegal almost everywhere. Data corresponding to 2010 to mid-2013 indicated the presence of 28,000 captive Lemur catta individuals only in Madagascar (Reuter et al., 2016).
With respect to the trade of wild animals, another interesting case is the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. In the years following its release, this animated TV series has led to a significant increase in the purchase of American turtles as pets, who were then liberated on other continents, causing remarkable ecological damage (Ramsay et al., 2007). Similarly, many raccoons were imported into Japan after the animated cartoon series Rascal Raccoon came out between the 1970s and 1980s. The popular cartoon series anthropomorphized the North American raccoon as a cute, funny, and harmless creature, enhancing the creature’s desirability as a pet (Root-Bernstein et al., 2013). Unfortunately, many non-native North American pet raccoons have been released into the wild, due to their natural behavior being difficult to manage in a domestic environment. They are involved in serious conflicts with humans, which require a still ongoing, costly, and intensive, nationwide eradication program (Ikeda et al., 2004).
Consistent with the findings of Moorhouse, Balaskas, D’Cruze, and Macdonald (2016) on communication paradoxes, even the animated cartoon Finding Nemo, which contains clear conservation messages, did not lead to a desirable impact on public perception. One study (Rhyne et al., 2012) showed that two years after Finding Nemo, four of the twenty most imported fish species in the US were types of clownfish, the species of the titular character Nemo (Amphiprion ocellaris, Amphiprion percula, Amphiprion frenatus, and Premnas biaculeatus). Militz and Foale (2017) also confirmed a similar increase in the import of clownfish in the two years following the cartoon’s release, but they excluded a so-called Finding Nemo effect because the market growth index was still lower than that of other fish species.
However, it is worth noting that in recent years, several mass media campaigns and strategies have been carried out with the aim of discouraging people from having a wild animal as a pet. According to a study conducted by Moorhouse et al. (2016), strategies that employ information about the legal implications and public health risks (e.g., zoonoses) are more successful in convincing people to avoid keeping wild animals than those providing information on animals’ states of conservation and welfare.
Possible Future Research
The scientific evidence regarding the effects of anthropomorphism in the media on the public are often based on what happens at a certain time interval following the release of a film or animated feature. A common phenomenon is a documented increase in the sales of featured animals or species for captivity being affected by passing fads propagated by the media. It would be interesting to further delve into these themes from psychological, ethological, and anthropological perspectives. Moreover, the role of anthropomorphism in the media should be seriously considered and even controlled with respect to the messages that children receive from films or television, to which they are particularly sensitive and susceptible. In addition, children’s susceptibility may influence the commercial choices (i.e., the purchase of toys or pets) and habits of their parents. Finally, there is a need to direct the research towards trying to better understand the way in which the public perceives the conservation status of animals that are represented on the “big screen,” which has implications for non-human primates as well as for other species, both wild and domestic.
Conclusion
Traditional and contemporary mass media are powerful means of communication. The presence of animals in films, movies, TV shows, and books is a fundamental cultural phenomenon which attracts the attention of viewers. However, the ways in which animals are represented can affect people’s perceptions of their conservation statuses, natural behaviors, ecological importance, and suitability as pets, especially for endangered species (Brown, 2009; Yong et al., 2011). This is likely the result of inaccurate and irresponsible portrayals in media. Anthropomorphism seems to play a critical role in affecting public perception towards wildlife, especially if human-like animal characters are used in advertisements and marketing campaigns. According to Litchfield (2013), the mass media has contributed to the demonization of some species (e.g., non-human primates) by propagating myths about their nature which can have negative repercussions on their conservation. However, avoiding the demonization of certain species and the promotion of positive attitudes is not enough to provide accurate perceptions of animals if it is not in conjunction with as accurate a representation as possible of the species’ natural behavior and status. Thus, we can avoid classifying some wild animals as “super heroes” and others as “antagonists” in conservation and conflict-over-wildlife narratives (Litchfield, 2013).
We also advise that producers of animal-themed media critically examine the messages being portrayed about animals, such as whether they may influence animal welfare issues. This is especially true with regard to children’s consumption of animal-themed media, since they are the generation tasked with addressing the increasing impact of global climate change and the extinction crisis in the future.
Conflict of Interest
The authors state there are no conflicts of interest.
References
Airenti, G. (2018). The development of anthropomorphism in interaction: Intersubjectivity, imagination, and theory of mind. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2136.
Albert, C., Luque, G. M., & Courchamp, F. (2018). The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0199149.
Andriaholinirina, N., Baden, A., Blanco, M., Chikhi, L., Cooke, A., Davies, N., … Zaramody, A. (2014). Lemur catta. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, e.T11496A62260437.
Archer, J., & Monton, S. (2011). Preferences for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats. Ethology, 117, 217-226.
Baker, S. (2000). The postmodern animal. London: Reaktion Books.
Balcombe, J. (2010). Second nature: The inner lives of animals. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstok.
Batt, S. (2009). Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: A multivariate approach. Bioscience Horizons: The International Journal of Student Research, 2(2), 180-190.
Beardsworth, A., & Bryman, A. (2001). The wild animal in late modernity: The case of the Disneyization of zoos. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 83-104.
Belson, K., & Bremner, B. (2004). Hello Kitty: The remarkable story of Sanrio and the billion dollar feline phenomenon. Singapore: John Wiley.
Bennett, K. (2009). PETA U.K.’s 2009 GOODY Award: Meerkat Steals the Show. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/blog/peta-uks-2009-goody-award-meerkat-steals-show/.
Bettany, S., & Belk, R. W. (2011). Disney discourses of self and other: Animality, primitivity, modernity, and postmodernity. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 14, 163-176.
Beullens, K., Roe, K., & Van den Bulck, J. (2011). The impact of adolescents’ news and action movie viewing on risky driving behavior: A longitudinal study. Human Communication Research, 37(4), 488-508.
Beullens, K., Roe, K., & Van den Bulck, J. (2012). Music video viewing as a marker of driving after the consumption of alcohol. Substance Use & Misuse, 47(2), 155-165.
Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2013). Children’s preferences for infantile features in dogs and cats. Human–Animal Interaction Bulletin, 1, 1-15.
Bonas, S., McNicholas, J., & Collis, G. M. (2000). Pets in the network of family relationships: An empirical study. In A. L. Podberscek, E. Paul, & J. A. Serpel (Eds.), Companion animals and us (pp. 209-236). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bousé, D. (1998). Are wildlife films really “nature documentaries”?. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 15(2), 116-140.
Bousé, D. (2003). False intimacy: Close-ups and viewer involvement in wildlife films. Visual Studies, 18(2), 123-132.
Bowen-Jones, E., & Entwistle, A. (2002). Identifying appropriate district, districts in flagship species: The importance of culture and local context, Oryx, 36, 189-195.
Bradshaw, C. J. A., Brook, B. W., & McMahon, C. R. (2007). Dangers of sensationalizing conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 21, 570-571.
Brooke, C. A. (2018). The use of primate “actors” in feature films 1990-2013. Anthrozoös, 31(1), 5-21.
Brown, S. (2010). Where the wild brands are: Some thoughts on anthropomorphic marketing. The Marketing Review, 10(3), 209-224.
Bryant, T. L. (2005). Similarity or difference as a basis for justice: Must animals be like humans to be legally protected from humans? UCLA School of Research, 5-21.
Bryman, A. (1999). The Disneyization of society. The Sociological Review, 47(1), 25-47.
Burke, C., & Copenhaver, J. (2004). Animals as people in children’s literature. Language Arts, 81(3), 205-213.
Burton F. D. (2002). Monkey king in China: Basis for a conservation policy? Primates face to face. In A. Fuentes & L. D. Wolfe (Eds.), The conservation implications of human‐nonhuman primate interconnections (pp. 137-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Callcott, M. F., & Alvey, P. A. (1991). Toons sell … and sometimes they don’t: An advertising spokes-character typology and exploratory study. In R. Holman (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1991 Conference of American Academy of Advertising (pp. 43-52). American Academy of Advertising.
Cayla, J. (2013). Brand mascots as organisational totems. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1-2), 86-104.
Champ, J. G. (2002). A culturalist-qualitative investigation of wildlife media and value orientations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(4), 273-286.
Chan, A. A. Y-H. (2012). Anthropomorphism as a conservation tool. Biodiversity Conservation, 21, 1889-1892.
Clarke, T. A., Reuter, K. E., LaFleur, M., & Schaefer, M. S. (2019). A viral video and pet lemurs on Twitter. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0208577.
Connell, P. M. (2013). The role of baseline physical similarity to humans in consumer responses to anthropomorphic animal images. Psychology & Marketing, 30, 461-468.
Courchamp, F., Jaric, I., Albert, C., Meinard, Y., Ripple, W. J., & Chapron, G. (2018). The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biology, 16(4), e2003997.
Coyne, S. M., & Archer J. (2004). Indirect aggression in the media: A content analysis of british television programs. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 254-271.
Coyne, S. M., & Whitehead, E. (2008). Indirect aggression in animated Disney films. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 382-395.
Craig, L. E. (2018, February 19). Putting primates on screen is fuelling the illegal pet trade. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/putting-primates-on-screen-is-fuelling-the-illegal-pet-trade-91995.
Dahlstrom, M. F., & Scheufele, D. A. (2010). Diversity of television exposure and its association with the cultivation of concern for environmental risks. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 54-65.
De Waal, F. (2016). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are?. WW Norton & Company.
De Waal, F. B. M. (1997). Are we in anthropodenial? Discover, 18(7), 50-53.
De Waal, F. B. M. (1999). Anthropomorphism and anthropodenial: Consistency in our thinking about humans and other animals. Zoological Philosophy, 27(1), 255-280.
De Waal, F. B. M. (2001). The ape and the Sushi master: Cultural reflections of a primatologist. New York: Basic Books.
Dotz, W., Morton, J., & Lund, J. W. (1996). What a Character! Twentieth-Century American Advertising Icons. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.
Douglas, L. (2011). The Social and Ecological Underpinnings of Human-Wildlife Conflict on the Island of Dominica (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Columbia University.
Ducarme, F., Luque, G. M., & Courchamp, F. (2013). What are “charismatic species” for conservation biologists? BioSciences Master Reviews, 1-8.
Dunham, A. E., Erhart, E. M., Overdorff, D. J., & Wright, P. C. (2008). Evaluating effects of deforestation, hunting, and El Niño events on a threatened lemur. Biological Conservation, 141(1), 287-297.
Eagles, P. F. J., & Demare, R. (1999). Factors influencing children’s environmental attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 33-37.
Eidt, S. (2016). Disney’s Animated Animals: A Potential Source of Opinions and Knowledge (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, Malone University.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864-886.
Feber, R. E., Raebel E. M., D’cruze N., Macdonald D. W., & Baker, S. E. (2017). Some animals are more equal than others: Wild animal welfare in the media. BioScience, 67(1), 62-72.
Fouts, G., Callan, M., Piasentin, K., & Lawson, A. (2006). Demonizing in children’s television cartoons and Disney animated films. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 37(1), 15-23.
Ganea, P. A., Canfield, C. F., Simons-Ghafari K., & Chou, T. (2014). Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children’s knowledge about animals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(283), 1-9.
Ganea, P. A., Ma, L., & DeLoache, J. S. (2011). Young children’s learning and transfer of biological information from picture books to real animals. Child Development, 82(5), 1421-1433.
Geerdts, M. S., Van de Walle, G. A., & LoBue, V. (2015). Learning about real animals from anthropomorphic media. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 36(1), 5-26.
Giroux, H. A. (1999). The mouse that roared: Disney and the end of innocence. Rowman & Littlefield, New York, NY.
Glover, S. (2009). ‘Compare the Meerkat’ wins PETA’s Goody Award for best advert of the year. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org.uk/media/news-releases/compare-the-meerkat-wins-petas-goody-award-for-best-advert-of-the-year/.
Harper, G. J., Steininger, M. K., Tucker, C. J., Juhn, D., & Hawkins, F. (2007). Fifty years of deforestation and forest fragmentation in Madagascar. Environmental Conservation, 34, 325-333.
Ikeda, T., Asasno, M., Matoba, Y., & Abe, G. (2004). Present status of invasive alien raccoon and its impact in Japan. Global Environmental Research, 8, 125-131.
Kellert, S. R. (1984). Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. In M. W. Fox & L. D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in Animal Welfare Wcience 1984/85 (pp. 43-60). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.
Kellert, S. R. (1996). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington Island Press.
Keyworth, S., (1996, May 7). Anthropomorphism in The Lion King. Retrieved from https://www.gate.net/~bneufeld/lionking.html/.
Kingston, T. (2016). Cute, creepy, or crispy—How values, attitudes, and norms shape human behavior toward bats. In C. Voigt & T. Kingston (Eds.), Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World (pp. 571-595). Cham: Springer.
Knight, A. J. (2008). “Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 94-103.
Knight, J. (1999). Monkeys on the move: the natural symbolism of the people‐macaque conflict in Japan. Journal of Asian Studies, 58, 622-647.
Knight, J. (2003). Waiting for wolves in Japan: An anthropological study of people‐wildlife relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lai, A. T. Y. (2005). Consuming Hello Kitty: Tween icon, sexy cute, and the changing meaning of childhood. In C. Mitchell & J. Reid-Walsh (Eds.), Seven Going on Seventeen: Tween Studies in the Culture of Girlhood (pp. 242-256). New York: Peter Lang.
Laksmidewi, D., Susianto, H., & Afiff, A. Z. (2017). Anthropomorphism in advertising: The effect of anthropomorphic product demonstration on consumer purchase intention. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 22(1), 1-25.
Leeds, A., Lukas, K. E., Kendall, C. J., Slavin, M. A., Ross, E. A., Robbins, M. M., van Weeghel, D., & Bergl, R. A. (2017). Evaluating the effect of a year‐long film focused environmental education program on Ugandan student knowledge of and attitudes toward great apes. American Journal of Primatology, 79(8), e22673.
Leighty, K. A., Valuska, A. J., Grand, A. P., Bettinger, T. L., Mellen, J. D., Ross, S. R., Boyle, P., & Ogden, J. J. (2015). Impact of visual context on public perceptions of non-human primate performers. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0118487.
Lenzi, C., Speiran, S., & Grasso, C. (2019). “Let me take a selfie”: Reviewing the implications of social media for public perceptions of wild animals. Preprints, 2019040123.
Levinson, B. M. (1969). Pet-Oriented Child Psychotherapy. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Litchfield, C. (2013). Telling the truth about animals and environments: Media and pro-environmental behaviour. In R. Crocker & S. Lehmann (Eds.), Motivating Change: Sustainable Design and Behaviour in the Built Environment (pp. 153-177). London: Routledge.
Lloyd, S., & Woodside, A. G. (2013). Animals, archetypes, and advertising (A3): The theory and the practice of customer brand symbolism. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1-2), 5-25.
Loudon, J. E, Sauther, M. L, Fish, K. D., Hunter‐Ishikawa M., & Ibrahim, Y. J. (2006). One reserve, three primates: Applying a holistic approach to understand the interconnections among ring‐tailed lemurs (Lemur catta), Verreaux’s sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi), and humans (Homo sapiens) at Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve, Madagascar. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 2, 54-74.
Lutts, R. H. (1992). The trouble with Bambi: Walt Disney’s Bambi and the American vision of nature. Forest & Conservation History, 36(4), 160-171.
Marriott, D. (2002). Comprehension Right from the Start: How to Organize and Manage Book Clubs for Young Readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
McCrondle, C. M. E., & Odendaal, S. J. (1994). Animals in books used for preschool children. Anthrozoös, 7(2), 135-146.
Militz, T. A., & Foale, S. (2017). The “Nemo effect”: Perception and reality of Finding Nemo’s impact on the marine aquarium fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 18, 596-606.
Mithen, S. (1996). The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. London: Thames & Hudson.
Moorhouse, T. P., Balaskas, M., D’Cruze, N., & Macdonald, D. W. (2016). Information could reduce consumer demand for exotic pets. Conservation Letters, 10(3), 337-345.
Nekaris, K. A. I., & Nijman, V. (2007). CITES proposal highlights rarity of Asian nocturnal primates (Lorisidae: Nycticebus). Folia Primatologica, 78, 211-214.
Nekaris, K. A. I., Campbell, N., Coggins, T. C., Rode, E. J., & Nijman, V. (2013). Tickled to death: Analysing public perception of ‘cute’ videos of threatened species (slow loris—Nycticebus spp.) on web 2.0 sites. PLoS One, 8, e69215.
Nekaris, K., Musing, A. I. L., Vazquez, A. G., & Donati, G. (2015). Is tickling torture? Assessing welfare towards slow lorises (Nycticebus spp.) within Web 2.0 Videos. Folia Primatologica, 86, 534-551.
Nichols, B. (1992). Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Indiana University Press.
Oates, J. F., Anadu, P. A., Gadsby, E. L., & Were, J. L. (1992). Sclater’s guenon. National Geographic Research & Exploration, 8, 476-491.
Patterson, A., Khogeer, Y., & Hodgson, J. (2013). How to create an influential anthropomorphic mascot: Literary musings on marketing, make-believe, and meerkats. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1-2), 69-85.
Paul, E. S. (1996). The representation of animals in children’s television. Anthrozoös, 9(4), 169-181.
Peers, J. (2008). Doll culture. In C. A. Mitchell & J. Reid-Walsh (Eds.), Girl Culture: An Encyclopedia (pp. 25-38). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Phillips, B. J. (1996a.) Advertising and the cultural meaning of animals. In K. P. Corfman & J. G. Lynch, Jr. (Eds.), NA—Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 354-360). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Phillips, B. J. (1996b). Defining trade characters and their role in American popular culture. The Journal of Popular Culture, 29, 143-158.
Pomering, A., & Frostling-Henningsson, M. (2014). Anthropomorphic brand presenters: The appeal of Frank the Sheep. In S. Brown & S. Ponsonby-McCabe (Eds.), Brand Mascots: And Other Marketing Animals (pp. 141-162). New York, NY: Routledge.
Prokop, P., Usak, M., & Erdogan, M. (2011). Good predators in bad stories: Cross-cultural comparison of children’s attitudes toward wolves. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10, 229-242.
Ramsay, N. F., Ng, P. K. A., O’Riordan, R. M., & Chou, L. M. (2007). The red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) in Asia: A review. In F. Gherardi (Ed.), Biological invaders in inland waters: Profiles, distributions, and threats (pp. 161-174). The Netherlands: Springer.
Ranta, P., Blom, T., Niemela, J., Joensuu, E., & Siitonen, M. (1998). The fragmented Atlantic forest of Brazil: Size, shape and distribution of forest fragments. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7, 385-403.
Reuter, K. E., & Schaefer, M. S. (2017). Motivations for the ownership of captive lemurs in Madagascar. Anthrozoös, 30(1), 33-46.
Reuter, K. E., Gilles, H., Wills, A. R., & Sewall, B. J. (2016). Live capture and ownership of lemurs in Madagascar: Extent and conservation implications. Oryx, 40, 344-354.
Rhyne, A. L., Tlusty, M. F., Schofield, P. J., Kaufman, L., Morris, J. A., Jr., & Bruckner, A. W. (2012). Revealing the appetite of the marine aquarium fish trade: The volume and biodiversity of fish imported into the United States. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e35808.
Richert, R. A., & Smith, I. E. (2011). Preschoolers’ quarantining of fantasy stories. Child Development, 82(4), 1106-1119.
Richert, R. A., Shawber, A. B., Hoffman, R. E., & Taylor, M. (2009). Learning from fantasy and real characters in preschool and kindergarten. Journal of Cognition and Development, 10(1-2), 41-66.
Riddle, K. (2009). Cultivation theory revisited: The impact of childhood television viewing levels on social reality beliefs and construct accessibility in adulthood. In International Communication Association (Ed.), The Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott, Chicago (pp. 1-29).
Root-Bernstein, M., Douglas, L., Smith, A., & Verissimo, D. (2013). Anthropomorphized species as tools for conservation: utility beyond prosocial, intelligent and suffering species. Biodiversity Conservation, 22(8), 1577-1589.
Ross, S. R., Lukas, K. E., Lonsdorf, E. V., Stoinski, T. S., Hare, B., Shumaker, R., & Goodall, J. (2008). Inappropriate use and portrayal of chimpanzees. Science, 319(5869), 1487.
Ross, S. R., Vreeman, V. M., & Lonsdorf, E. V. (2011). Specific image characteristics influence attitudes about chimpanzee conservation and use as pets. PLoS ONE, 6(7), e22050.
Sackes, M., Trundle, K. C., & Flevares, L. M. (2009). Using children’s literature to teach standard-based science concepts in early years. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 415-422.
Schroepfer, K. K., Rosati, A. G., Chartrand, T., & Hare, B. (2011). Use of “entertainment” chimpanzees in commercials distorts public perception regarding their conservation status. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e26048.
Serpell, J. (1999). Guest editor’s introduction: Animals in children’s lives. Society & Animals, 7(2), 87-94.
Serpell, J. A. (2003). Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection—beyond the ‘cute response’. Society & Animals, 11(1), 83-100.
Shanahan, J., & Morgan, E. M. (1999). Television and Its Viewers: Cultivation Theory and Research. Cambridge: University Press.
Silk, M. J., Crowley, S. L., Woodhead, A. J., & Nuno, A. (2018). Considering connections between Hollywood and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 32(3), 597-606.
Simons E. L., & Meyers, D. M. (2001). Folklore and beliefs about the aye aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis). Lemur News, 6, 11-16.
Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgement and Decision Making, 2(2), 79-95.
Smith, R. J., Veríssimo, D., Isaac, N. J. B., & Jones, K. E. (2012). Identifying Cinderella species: Uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal. Conservation Letters, 5(3), 205-212.
Spears, N., Mowen, J., & Chakraborty, G. (1996). Symbolic role of animals in print advertising: Content analysis and conceptual development. Journal of Business Research, 37, 87-95.
Willemen, L., Cottam, A. J., Drakou, E. G., & Burgess, N. D. (2015). Using social media to measure the contribution of red list species to the nature-based tourism potential of African protected areas. PLoS ONE, 10(6), e0129785.
Yong, D. L., Fam, S. D., & Lum, S. (2011). Reel conservation: Can big screen animations save tropical biodiversity? Tropical Conservation Science, 244- 2253.