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.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe