![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
As incidences of human–wildlife interaction escalate, it is useful to increase understanding of the perceptions that might underpin these interactions or explain human behavior so associated. This study sought to identify public perceptions of the animal mind across wildlife species and to examine how states or qualities such as conscious thinking and feeling are perceived. We also aimed to evaluate whether people anthropomorphize species as readily as is often postulated. Using an online survey of 2,342 participants from the United States, we characterized perceptions of 36 wildlife species. In doing so, we also sought to stabilize inconsistent terminology in previous animal mind studies, by characterizing and measuring attributions of two specific traits, which we categorized as “cognitive” and “emotive.” We found that people differentiate between cognitive traits (intellectual traits) and emotive traits (experiential, emotional states). Contrary to some past studies as well as popular assumptions, cognitive traits were ascribed more frequently than emotive traits for all animals. In addition, different animal classes were perceived as having varying levels of capacity of both traits. Mammals were ranked highest on qualities that defined both traits, followed by birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. The ranges within class also varied. Our findings provide new insights on how the public view the mental capabilities of wildlife species. The study further suggests that perceptions regarding the cognitive ability of animals may be higher than previously believed and that emotive traits may not be as notable as traditionally assumed. Elucidating these points may contribute to further progress in wildlife discussions and conservation strategies.
Acknowledgements
We thank those who generously agreed to participate in this study. We also thank Jane Simonsen and members of the Slab group for their support and feedback and Zak Witkower for his statistical support. MMC and TS were supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) 435-2013-2017. JZ was supported by the Canada Research Chair Program and Canada Foundation for Innovation.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 The survey can be found at the following, open-access link: https://osf.io/dkuc5/?view_only=dca2a1d26390437c9d84060625cd3a16