Political Conservatism and Anthropomorphism: An Investigation

In the current research, we explore the possibility that politically conservative consumers may anthropomorphize consumer products more than their liberal counterparts. This is possibly because conservatives need to manage uncertainty in the marketplace. One way to do so might be by assigning more human‐like attributes to inanimate products. We test this hypothesis in three studies by measuring (Studies 1 and 2) and manipulating political ideology (Study 3). We find that avoidance of uncertainty (Study 1) and need for order (Study 2) can explain conservatives’ greater anthropomorphism. The effect is stronger for unpredictable than predictable products as the former are associated with greater uncertainty, which conservatives need to manage (Study 3). Also, we report that greater anthropomorphism of products can increase the perceived functionality of the products (Studies 2 and 3), offering implications for marketers. In all, the results offer support for our key hypothesis that conservatives anthropomorphize more; they also provide preliminary support for the role of uncertainty management in conservatives’ greater anthropomorphism of products. In our General Discussion, we discuss alternate explanations for the key effect and present some directions for further research in this area.     

Concepts of God and Germs: Social Mechanisms and Cognitive Heuristics

Previous research has shown that the more individuals view observable entities as animate, the more those entities are associated with having psychological and physiological experiences. This study examined the relationship between children's animistic and anthropomorphic reasoning for concepts of unobservable scientific (i.e., germ) and religious (i.e., God) entities. This study further explored how children's conceptions vary according to the social learning opportunities (i.e., discourse, rituals) parents reportedly create. Parent–child dyads with young children from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds participated. Three central findings emerged. First, children readily associated God with psychobiological characteristics but did not do so to the same extent for germs. Second, children applied more psychobiological properties to both entity types when they believed that the entity was animate. Third, engaging in rituals and discourse with parents was indirectly related to children's concepts of God but not related to their concepts of germs. Overall, this study presented support for a connection between children's animistic and anthropomorphic reasoning for unobservable entities, and an indirect effect of cultural input on this reasoning. The implications of these findings will be discussed.     

Attributes of God: Conceptual Foundations of a Foundational Belief

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human properties to nonhuman entities, is often posited as an explanation for the origin and nature of God concepts, but it remains unclear which human properties we tend to attribute to God and under what conditions. In three studies, participants decided whether two types of human properties—psychological (mind‐dependent) properties and physiological (body‐dependent) properties—could or could not be attributed to God. In Study 1 (n = 1,525), participants made significantly more psychological attributions than physiological attributions, and the frequency of those attributions was correlated both with participants’ religiosity and with their attribution of abstract, theological properties. In Study 2 (n = 99) and Study 3 (n = 138), participants not only showed the same preference for psychological properties but were also significantly faster, more consistent, and more confident when attributing psychological properties to God than when attributing physiological properties. And when denying properties to God, they showed the reverse pattern—that is, they were slower, less consistent, and less confident when denying psychological properties than when denying physiological properties. These patterns were observed both in a predominantly Christian population (Study 2) and a predominantly Hindu population (Study 3). Overall, we argue that God is conceptualized not as a person in general but as an agent in particular, attributed a mind by default but attributed a body only upon further consideration.