Cass Knowledge - Cass Business School

Copyright Cass Business School 2013

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


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 non-

anthropomorphic portrayals. In contrast, evaluations of anthropomorphic portrayals of

animals with a higher baseline physical similarity are more favourable than non-

anthropomorphic portrayals.


“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 non-

anthropomorphic 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


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


"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,


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.


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 between-

subjects 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 pre-

test 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 =


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


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).


Table 1: Experimental Results

Dependent Measures

Experimental Condition Means (Standard Deviations) Lower Similarity Animal (Lion) Higher Similarity Animal (Bear)

Nonanthropomorphic (n=17)

Anthropomorphic (n=14)


Anthropomorphic(n=15)

Feeling Thermometer (0 to100)

61.53 (29.88)

51.34 (14.12)

39.25 (22.17)

47.13 (22.89)

Self-brand Connection (1 to7)

3.40 (1.79)

2.29 (1.67)

1.98 (1.06)

2.36 (1.78)

Brand Personality

Control Variables

Experimental Condition Means (Standard Deviations) Lower Similarity Animal (Lion) Higher Similarity Animal (Bear)


Anthropomorphic (n=14)


Anthropomorphic(n=15)

Sincerity (1 to 7)

3.22 (.85)

3.81 (1.05)

2.93 (.82)

3.25 (.89)

Ruggedness (1 to 7)

4.89 (1.02)

4.12 (1.02)

4.59 (1.53)

3.44 (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


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


(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 self-

brand 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 non-

anthropomorphic 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


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


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.


Appendix: Experimental Stimuli

Lower Physical Similarity to Humans Higher Physical Similarity to Humans

Nonanthropomorphic

Anthropomorphic


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 of

objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20,

138-145.


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


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, 705-

711.

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, 366-

371.


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.


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.


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, 364-

382.

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 advertising:

Content analysis and conceptual development. Journal of Business 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.


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.

Cass Knowledge - Cass Business School

Documents

Transcript of Cass Knowledge - Cass Business School