If Your Dinner Could Smile, Would You Still Eat It?

A growing body of research has begun to explore whether portraying farmed animals as more human-like — a concept known as anthropomorphism — influences people’s attitudes toward meat consumption. Anthropomorphism involves attributing human characteristics to non-human entities, such as giving animals smiling faces, expressive eyes, or even the ability to speak. It’s a common feature in cartoons and branding. But what happens when this strategy is used to market meat?

Across four online surveys involving more than 1,200 meat-eaters in China, researchers found that simply making farmed animals appear more human-like increases people’s sense of closeness to them and significantly reduces their intention to purchase or consume meat. The effect is particularly strong among individuals who place a high value on acting morally or who already see animals as sentient beings. These findings carry important implications for farmed animal advocacy and efforts to reduce meat consumption.

What The Researchers Examined

The researchers set out to answer three key questions:

1. Does making farmed animals appear more human-like reduce people’s willingness to consume meat?
2. Is this effect driven by increased psychological closeness to the animal?
3. Are certain individuals more responsive to this influence than others?

To explore these questions, they conducted four experiments featuring different types of meat (pork, beef, and chicken) and consumption contexts (restaurant advertising, supermarket packaging, and online grocery shopping).

Study 1: Establishing The Core Effect

The first study tested the central hypothesis. A total of 290 participants were shown a restaurant poster promoting pork. The poster featured either a smiling cartoon pig standing upright and speaking in the first person, or a realistic pig.

Those exposed to the anthropomorphized pig reported feeling approximately 25% closer to the animal, and their intention to eat pork decreased by roughly 15.5%. Statistical analyses revealed that this effect was mediated by what the researchers term social psychological distance — the degree of perceived closeness or detachment from another being. When the pig appeared more human-like, it felt less like a product and more like an individual, making the idea of eating it more uncomfortable.

This first study established a clear pathway: humanizing animals increased psychological closeness, which in turn reduced meat consumption intentions.

Study 2: Who’s Most Influenced?

The second study extended the investigation into restaurant advertising for beef. A total of 308 participants saw either a smiling cartoon cow wearing an apron and speaking in the first person, or a more conventional advertisement featuring a realistic cow.

The results closely mirrored those of the first study: psychological closeness increased by approximately 27% when participants saw the anthropomorphized cow, while willingness to consume beef declined by about 11%.

However, this study introduced an important nuance, as the effect was different among participants. Individuals who already tended to attribute thoughts and emotions to animals — those with a high anthropomorphic tendency — exhibited a significant decline in their intention to consume meat. By contrast, those with a low tendency to see animals as sentient beings showed little to no change. In other words, anthropomorphism appears most effective among those already inclined to empathize with animals.

Study 3: The Role Of Moral Self-Efficacy

The third study shifted the context to supermarket packaging for chicken and introduced a new moderating factor: moral self-efficacy. This reflects the extent to which individuals believe they can act consistently with their moral values, even when tempted.

A total of 331 participants were shown a package featuring a smiling cartoon chicken in an apron giving a thumbs-up or an image of an actual chicken. Once again, the same pattern emerged: anthropomorphism increased psychological closeness by about 30.5% and reduced purchase intentions by roughly 17%.

However, the reduction in purchase intentions depended heavily on moral self-efficacy. Individuals high in moral self-efficacy showed a significant decline in their intention to buy chicken, whereas those low in moral self-efficacy showed little change. These findings suggest that psychological closeness may generate moral discomfort, but behavioral intentions shift primarily among individuals who feel capable of acting on their moral convictions.

Study 4: The Full Picture

The fourth study brought the entire conceptual model together. This time, an online retail setting was used to extend the findings to a different and increasingly common purchasing environment. A total of 305 participants were shown a simulated online shopping page featuring beef packaging with either a smiling cartoon cow in an apron giving a thumbs-up, or a realistic cow.

As before, the core effects held: psychological closeness increased in response to the anthropomorphized cow by about 36%, while purchase intentions dropped by around 19%.

Crucially, this final study confirmed the full chain of effects simultaneously. Individual anthropomorphic tendency continued to amplify the impact of anthropomorphism on psychological closeness, and moral self-efficacy continued to strengthen the link between that closeness and reduced purchase intentions — but only for consumers with moderate to high anthropomorphic tendencies. Among consumers who scored low on both anthropomorphic tendency and moral self-efficacy, anthropomorphism had no significant effect on purchase intentions at all.

Implications For Animal Advocacy

Together, the studies demonstrate that even subtle anthropomorphic cues, such as a smile, can meaningfully shift consumer attitudes without relying on graphic imagery or confrontational messaging.

The research highlights two key insights:

• Reducing psychological distance makes animals feel more like individuals and less like commodities.
• Anthropomorphic strategies are especially effective among people who already empathize with animals or see themselves as morally responsible decision-makers.

Rather than depicting meat as an abstract product, campaigns that restore a sense of connection may gently encourage hesitation, and that hesitation can influence purchasing decisions.

Limitations

Despite the consistency of the findings, several limitations should be acknowledged. All studies were conducted in China, and cultural factors may influence how anthropomorphism is perceived. Additionally, the researchers measured intentions rather than actual purchasing behavior, which may be shaped by other factors such as price, habit, convenience, and social norms. Finally, the shifts in intentions, while consistent and statistically meaningful, were modest in size (ranging from 11% to 19%), and reflect relative differences between experimental conditions rather than absolute changes.

Overall, these limitations suggest that anthropomorphism is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather one potentially valuable tool among many for influencing meat purchases and consumption.