While anthropomorphism – the attribution of human characteristics to non-human things or events – is a fundamental part of human psychology and language, some scientists regard it as a source of misconceptions. This creates tension for those writing about science. Taking an experimental approach to diagnosing misconceptions, we compared the effects of anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic writing on 174 adult readers’ knowledge, understanding, confidence in and connection with the material. Reading any text at all improves readers’ knowledge and ability to answer questions. There was no difference in understanding, enjoyment or frequency of anthropomorphic thinking between anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic texts. Those who read anthropomorphic text tended to use more vivid examples and fewer generalisations. This suggests that anthropomorphism acts as an evocative, albeit potentially distracting, technique but does not cause significant misconceptions. Writers should feel free to use anthropomorphic techniques if they are appropriate for their topic and their audience.
BarmanCRSteinMMcNairSBarmanNS (2006) Students’ ideas about plants & plant growth. The American Biology Teacher68(2): 73–79.
2.
BenjaminASBjorkRASchwartzBL (1998) The mismeasure of memory: When retrieval fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General127(1): 55–68.
3.
BrownPSchollR (2014) Expert interviews with science communicators: How perceptions of audience values influence science communication values and practices. F1000Research3: 128.
4.
CantorJEngleRW (1993) Working-memory capacity as long-term memory activation: An individual-differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition19(5): 1101.
5.
CooremansKGeuensM (2019) Same but different: Using anthropomorphism in the battle against food waste. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing38(2): 232–245.
6.
CouperMTraugottMLamiasM (2002) Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly65: 230–253.
7.
CreswellJW (2016) 30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
DahlstromMF (2014) Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with non-expert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(suppl 4): 13614–13620.
9.
DahlstromMFHoSS (2012) Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Science Communication34(5): 592–617.
10.
DanemanMCarpenterPA (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior19(4): 450–466.
DavisPRHornMSSherinBL (2013) The right kind of wrong: A ‘knowledge in pieces’ approach to science learning in museums. Curator: The Museum Journal56(1): 31–46.
13.
DeutskensEDe RuyterKWetzelsMOosterveldP (2004) Response rate and response quality of internet-based surveys: An experimental study. Marketing Letters15(1): 21–36.
14.
DuffyBR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems42(3): 177–190.
15.
DugganMBrennerJ (2013) The Demographics of Social Media Users, 2012, vol. 14. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project.
16.
EpleyNWaytzAAkalisSCacioppoJT (2008) When we need a human: Motivational determinants of anthropomorphism. Social Cognition26(2): 143–155.
17.
EpleyNWaytzACacioppoJT (2007) On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review114(4): 864–886.
18.
FalkJHStorksdieckMDierkingLD (2007) Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science16(4): 455–469.
19.
FenesiBHeiszJJSavagePIShoreDIKimJA (2014) Combining best-practice and experimental approaches: Redundancy, images, and misperceptions in multimedia learning. The Journal of Experimental Education82(2): 253–263.
20.
FerlRWheelerRLevineHGPaulA-L (2002) Plants in space. Current Opinion in Plant Biology5(3): 258–263.
21.
FleschRF (1979) How to Write Plain English: A Book for Lawyers and Consumers. New York: Harper & Row.
22.
FriedlerYZoharATamirP (1993) The effect of age and of learning on the ability to distinguish between anthropomorphic and teleological explanations. International Journal of Science Education15(4): 439–443.
23.
GarnerRBrownRSandersSMenkeDJ (1992) ‘Seductive details’ and learning from text. In: RenningerKAHidiSKrappA (eds) The Role of Interest in Learning and Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 239–254.
24.
GlenbergAMWilkinsonACEpsteinW (1982) The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition10(6): 597–602.
25.
GlynnSMTakahashiT (1998) Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching35(10): 1129–1149.
26.
GoslingSDVazireSSrivastavaSJohnOP (2004) Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist59(2): 93–104.
27.
GrovesRMPresserSDipkoS (2004) The role of topic interest in survey participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly68(1): 2–31.
28.
GuthrieSE (1997) Anthropomorphism: A Definition and a Theory. In: MitchellRThompsonNSMilesHL (eds) Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals. Albany, NY: Suny Press, pp. 50–58.
29.
GuzzettiBJSnyderTEGlassGV (1992) Promoting conceptual change in science: Can texts be used effectively?Journal of Reading35(8): 642–649.
30.
HankeD (2004) Teleology: The explanation that bedevils biology. In: CornwellJ (ed.) Explanations: Styles of Explanation in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 143–155.
31.
HarpSFMayerRE (1998) How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology90(3): 414–434.
32.
HarrisonMAHallAE (2010) Anthropomorphism, empathy, and perceived communicative ability vary with phylogenetic relatedness to humans. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology4(1): 34–48.
33.
HartleyJM (2015) When Homo Academicus meets Homo Journalisticus: An inter-field study of collaboration and conflict in the communication of scientific research. Journalism18(2): 211–225.
34.
HaslamFTreagustDF (1987) Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education21(3): 203–211.
HuangFWongVCWanEW (2020) The influence of product anthropomorphism on comparative judgment. Journal of Consumer Research46(5): 936–955.
37.
JacobsMHarmsM (2014) Influence of interpretation on conservation intentions of whale tourists. Tourism Management42: 123–131.
38.
JarreauPBPorterL (2017) Science in the social media age: Profiles of science blog readers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(1): 142–168.
39.
KahanDM (2013) Making climate-science communication evidence-based – All the way down. In: CrowDABoykoffMT (eds) Culture, Politics and Climate Change: How Information Shapes Our Common Future. London: Routledge, pp. 203–220.
40.
KalleryMPsillosD (2004) Anthropomorphism and Animism in Early Years Science: Why Teachers Use Them, how They Conceptualise Them and What Are Their Views on Their Use. Research in Science Education34(3): 291–311.
41.
KennedyJS (1992) The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
KensingerEA (2009) Remembering the details: Effects of emotion. Emotion Review1(2): 99–113.
43.
KrugerJDunningD (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77(6): 1121.
44.
LeaneE (2007) Reading Popular Physics: Disciplinary Skirmishes and Textual Strategies. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
45.
LegareCHLaneJDEvansEM (2013) Anthropomorphizing science: How does it affect the development of evolutionary concepts?Merrill-Palmer Quarterly59(2): 168–197.
46.
Lévy-LeblondJ-M (1992) About misunderstandings about misunderstandings. Public Understanding of Science1(1): 17–21.
47.
LiptonP (2004) What good is an explanation? In Explanations: Styles of Explanation in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–21.
48.
MasterP (1991) Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes10(1): 15–33.
49.
McAuleyEDuncanTTammenVV (1989) Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport60(1): 48–58.
50.
MignoneCBaldwinEO’FlahertyKSHomfeldAMBauerMMcCaughreanM, et al. (2016) How a cartoon series helped the public care about Rosetta and Philae. Communicating Astronomy with the Public Journal19: 12.
51.
MillikanRG (1997) Varieties of purposive behavior. In: MitchellRThompsonNSMilesHL (eds) Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals. Albany, NY: Suny Press, pp. 189–197.
NegreteALartigueC (2010) The science of telling stories: Evaluating science communication via narratives (RIRC method). Journal Media and Communication Studies2(4): 98–110.
55.
PallantJ (2011) SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using the SPSS Program, 4th edn.Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
56.
PattonMQ (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
PopperKR (2002) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.
60.
PostS (2014) Scientific objectivity in journalism? How journalists and academics define objectivity, assess its attainability, and rates its desirability. Journalism16(6): 730–749.
61.
PramlingNSäljöR (2007) Scientific knowledge, popularisation, and the use of metaphors: Modern genetics in popular science magazines. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research51(3): 275–295.
62.
RangerMBultitudeK (2016) ‘The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me’: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of Science25(3): 361–378.
63.
ReedR (2001) (Un-)Professional discourse? Journalists’ and scientists’ stories about science in the media. Journalism2(3): 279–298.
64.
RoweGPoortingaWPidgeonN (2006) A comparison of responses to Internet and postal surveys in a public engagement context. Science Communication27(3): 352.
65.
SealeyAOakleyL (2013) Anthropomorphic grammar? Some linguistic patterns in the wildlife documentary series life. Text & Talk33(3): 399–420.
TaberKSDe TraffordTQuaiT (2006) Conceptual resources for constructing the concepts of electricity: The role of models, analogies and imagination. Physics Education41(2): 155.
68.
TaberKSWattsM (1996) The secret life of the chemical bond: Students’ anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education18(5): 557–568.
69.
TamK-PLeeS-LChaoMM (2013) Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology49(3): 514–521.
70.
TamirPZoharA (1991) Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education75(1): 57–67.
71.
ThornCJBissingerKThornSBognerFX (2016) ‘Trees live on soil and sunshine!’- Coexistence of Scientific and alternative conception of tree assimilation. PLoS One11(1): e0147802.
72.
TreagustDF (1988) Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education10(2): 159–169.
73.
TsigilisNTheodosiouA (2003) Temporal stability of the intrinsic motivation inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills97(1): 271–280.
74.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185(4157): 1124–1131.
WangLTouré-TilleryRMcGillAL (2019) When the flu speaks: the effect of disease anthropomorphism on protection motivation. In: BagchiRBlockLLeeL (eds) Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 47. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 321–331.
77.
WattsMBentleyD (1994) Humanizing and feminizing school science: Reviving anthropomorphic and animistic thinking in constructivist science education. International Journal of Science Education16(1): 83–97.
78.
WaytzACacioppoJEpleyN (2010a) Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science5(3): 219–232.
79.
WaytzAGrayKEpleyNWegnerDM (2010b) Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences14(8): 383–388.
80.
WaytzAMorewedgeCKEpleyNMonteleoneGGaoJ-HCacioppoJT (2010c) Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology99(3): 410–435.
81.
WilliamsLABrosnanSFClayZ (2020) Anthropomorphism in comparative affective science: Advocating a mindful approach. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews115: 299–307.
82.
WillsonVLPutnamRR (1982) A meta-analysis of pretest sensitization effects in experimental design. American Educational Research Journal19(2): 249–258.
83.
WoodM (2019) The potential for anthropomorphism in communicating science: Inspiration from Japan. Cultures of Science2(1): 23–34.
84.
WynneCDL (2004) The perils of anthropomorphism. Nature428(6983): 606–606.
85.
WynneCDL (2007) What are animals? Why anthropomorphism is still not a scientific approach to behavior. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews2: 125–135.
86.
YanaiILercherM (2020) The two languages of science. Genome Biology21: 147.
87.
ZillmannD (1999) Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by some of its parts. Media Psychology1(1): 69–94.
88.
ZoharAGinossarS (1998) Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and anthropomorphism in biology education? Heretical suggestions. Science Education82(6): 679–697.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
