Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Appetite journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet Too humanlike to increase my appetite: Disposition to anthropomorphize animals relates to decreased meat consumption through empathic concern Aleksandra Niemyjska a,* , Katarzyna Cantarero a , Katarzyna Byrka b , Michał Bilewicz c a SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Faculty in Sopot, Poland b SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw Faculty of Psychology, Poland c University of Warsaw, Poland ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Meat consumption Anthropomorphism Empathy Animal welfare ABSTRACT People who exclude meat from their diets are not only devoid of situational pressures to disengage morally and deny humanlike mental states to animals but also they may be dispositionally more inclined to ascribe human- like qualities to non-human animals than omnivores. The aim of this research was to test whether individual differences in anthropomorphism are related to empathic connection with non-human animals and hence de- creased meat consumption. In two studies (N = 588) we confirmed that decreased meat consumption was as- sociated with both increased recognition of human features of animals and increased empathy to animals. Most importantly, our data support a model in which animals’ anthropomorphism predicts empathy. Empathy, in turn, increases the importance that potential animal harm plays in dietary choices regarding meat, leading to reduced meat consumption. For some time now, meat-free diets have been gaining popularity (e.g., Jabs, Devine, & Sobal, 1998). Research consistently shows that concern for animal welfare is a primary motive for vegetarians to ab- stain from meat consumption (Fox & Ward, 2008; Ruby, 2012). Other motivations include: personal health, fitness and well-being. Interest- ingly, non-vegetarians recognize benefits of a non-meat diet similar to those vegetarians do. Although omnivores manifest a more anthropo- centric perspective (Ruby, 2012). Omnivores consider health reasons (i.e., healthy diet and controlling one's weight) to be more important benefits of refraining from meat consumption than animal welfare. Importantly, it has been argued that humanization of animals is an important factor in dietary choices relating to meat (Zickfeld, Kunst, & Hohle, 2018). We expect that people who recognize animals as having “human” qualities abstain from consumption of meat products due to increased empathy with animals and concern for animal welfare. We extend existing literature by showing that anthropomorphism of ani- mals is an individual predisposition that may be more fundamental to the decision to abstain from meat consumption than other reasons. Our research also demonstrates that it is specifically anthropomorphism of animals, rather than a generalized tendency to anthropomorphize ev- erything from the natural environment to technical devices, that is as- sociated with reduced meat consumption. This clarification is critical to understanding dietary choices because it suggests that abstention from meat consumption should not be attributed to ontological confusions in the perception of reality. 1. Anthropomorphism as inclusion of animals in the scope of humanness Individual differences in anthropomorphism denote disposition to imbue non-human agents with physical features (e.g., face, clothing) and/or psychological qualities (e.g., intentions, conscious awareness, empathy) that are commonly attributed to human beings (Bilewicz, Imhoff, & Drogosz, 2011; Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007; Guthrie, 1993; Koski & Sterck, 2010; Waytz, Cacioppo, & Epley, 2010). Per- ception of non-human animals is vulnerable to subjective interpreta- tion. As pointed out by Guthrie (1993, p. 88): “the category of human has no essence, no clear or distinct edges, and barely even a set of fa- mily resemblances.” The lack of precise psychological differentiation between humans and non-human animals (e.g., Koski & Sterck, 2010) makes the generally accepted definition of anthropomorphism devoid of any claims about the accuracy of the term (Epley et al., 2007). Waytz et al. (2010) have empirically demonstrated relatively stable individual differences in the tendency to ascribe cognitive and emo- tional human qualities (i.e., intentions, free will, emotional experiences, consciousness and mind of one's own) to a wide range of non-human objects such as animals, natural entities and technological devices. Al- though there is a generalized tendency to anthropomorphize, the https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.012 Received 15 February 2018; Received in revised form 3 April 2018; Accepted 11 April 2018 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: aniemyjska@swps.edu.pl (A. Niemyjska). Appetite 127 (2018) 21–27 Available online 12 April 2018 0195-6663/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T