Social identification with animals: Unpacking our psychological connection with other animals.

Abstract

Our relations with other animals are ubiquitous in human life, yet the psychological structure of our connection with animals is just beginning to receive empirical attention. Drawing on theories of social identification and intergroup relations, we investigate the various ways that people identify with animals. Across 7 studies, we introduce the Identification with Animals Measure (IWAM) and uncover 3 dimensions by which humans identify with animals as a group: solidarity with animals, animal pride, and human–animal similarity. First, we establish the reliability, factorial structure, and predictive validity of the 3-factor IWAM. Next, we find that these factors predict a distinct set of attitudes and behaviors toward animals. Solidarity with animals is defined by feeling connected to other animals and is associated with more contact with animals (i.e., pets) and a greater desire to help animals and to engage in collective actions on their behalf, even if this implies withdrawing privileges to humans. Human–animal similarity is defined by the perception that animals share similarities with humans; this dimension is associated with increased moral concern for their welfare and a greater attribution of typically human traits to other animals. Finally, animal pride is defined by a direct recognition and positive endorsement of the social category that includes all animals, and is associated with viewing humans as more animal-like, and with more competitive and instrumental intergroup relations. The findings confirm that identification with animals is a multidimensional construct that is colored by the unique and complex nature of our relations with nonhuman animals.

Liking but Devaluing Animals: Emotional and Deliberative Paths to Speciesism

“…Likability could be a function of various evolutionary-based or culturally and individually acquired intuitions about animals. Such intuitions may include a preference for animals to which people feel socially connected, a preference for particularly charismatic animals, or an aversion against disgusting or dangerous animals (Amiot & Bastian, 2017; Amiot, Sukhanova, & Bastian, 2019; Loughnan & Piazza, 2018). In the context of meat consumption, for example, it has been shown that emotional reactions toward animals mediate willingness to eat them: People are more reluctant to eat animals that trigger empathy, such as cute and baby animals (Bastian & Loughnan, 2016; Piazza, McLatchie, & Olesen, 2018; Zickfeld, Kunst, & Hohle, 2018).…”

Tree‐Huggers Versus Human‐Lovers: Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization Predict Valuing Nature Over Outgroups

“…People working in the field of conservation—such as John Robinson, who urged the displacement of several thousand indigenous people living in Nagarhole National Park to protect approximately 40 tigers (Guha & Martinez‐Alier, 1997)—are often reproached for caring more about animal welfare than social justice (see Heise, 2016). In hypothetical sacrificial dilemmas in which either a pet or a stranger can be saved from being hit by an oncoming vehicle, many people say they would save their pet (Topolski, Weaver, Martin, & McCoy, 2013), although this tendency declines significantly for others’ pets (Amiot, Sukhanova, & Bastian, 2020; Topolski et al., 2013) and is not as pronounced for other animal species (Petrinovich, O'Neill, & Jorgensen, 1993). Thus, even though many people care much more about humans than about nonhuman creatures and natural habitats, as evidenced by the devastating loss of biodiversity caused by people acting to benefit humanity through agriculture and other activities (Newbold et al., 2015), this is not a universal tendency.…”

To Sit Quietly in a Room Alone: The Psychology of Social, Material, and Sensation Seeking Input

“…One potential limitation is that I focused specifically on material, social, and sensation seeking input, but there are other areas of research in psychology that to some degree deal with external input and were not included in the present research. In this context, I primarily refer to research on human relationship with animals (i.e., animals as external input; Amiot, Sukhanova, & Bastian, 2020), and on human connectedness with nature (i.e., nature as external input; Mayer & Frantz, 2004;Perrin & Benassi, 2009). There is one main reason why I did not cover these two areas in the present research.…”