New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Kids Books May Cause Confusion about Animals

Children who heard descriptions of animals behaving like humans were less likely to attribute to a real animal a newly learned biological fact than were kids who heard realistic information. Christie Nicholson reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Peter Rabbit and his sisters live in a hole—a hole in which they sleep in beds and drink chamomile tea.  Cute, right? But such anthropomorphizing can have a surprising influence on how youngsters learn about animals.

Researchers had children aged one through five look at picture books of a large rodent called a cavy engaged in various activities. While looking at the pictures half the children heard factual narrative, like, “Mother cavy licks the babies’ fur to keep them clean.” The other half heard anthropomorphized language, like “Mother cavy tucks her babies into bed in a small cave.” Or “‘Mom, I’m scared!’ says the baby cavy.”

Those children who heard descriptions of animals behaving like humans went on to describe other real animals as having human traits. They were also less likely to attribute to a real animal a newly learned biological fact than were kids who heard realistic information. [Patricia A. Ganea et al, Do cavies talk?: The effect of anthropomorphic books on children's knowledge about animals, in Frontiers in Psychology]

The researchers say for children to appreciate animals as organisms with their own life histories and behaviors, the creatures should be presented in a biologically realistic manner. We don’t want to deny Peter Rabbit his tea. But maybe kids should also hear how a rabbit’s long ears probably help them detect predators. It’s a true story.

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe