You are on page 1of 17

Anthrozoös

A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of people and animals

ISSN: 0892-7936 (Print) 1753-0377 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfan20

The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom


Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals

Sharon E. Roberts, Courtney N. Plante, Kathleen C. Gerbasi & Stephen


Reysen

To cite this article: Sharon E. Roberts, Courtney N. Plante, Kathleen C. Gerbasi & Stephen
Reysen (2015) The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to
Nonhuman Animals, Anthrozoös, 28:4, 533-548, DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1069993

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2015.1069993

Published online: 09 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 49

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfan20

Download by: [Emory University] Date: 20 February 2016, At: 02:50


ANTHROZOÖS VOLUME 28, ISSUE 4 REPRINTS AVAILABLE PHOTOCOPYING © ISAZ 2015
PP. 533–548 DIRECTLY FROM PERMITTED PRINTED IN THE UK
THE PUBLISHERS BY LICENSE ONLY

The Anthrozoomorphic
Identity: Furry Fandom
Members’ Connections to
Nonhuman Animals
Sharon E. Roberts,* Courtney N. Plante,*
Kathleen C. Gerbasi† and Stephen Reysen‡
*
Renison University College, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.


Niagara County Community College, New York, USA

Texas A&M University-Commerce , Texas, USA
Address for correspondence: ABSTRACT We examined furry fandom members’ anthrozoomorphic
Dr. Sharon Roberts,
Department of Social identity by investigating this subculture’s relationship with nonhuman ani-
Development Studies, mals. Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and two large-
Renison University College at scale Internet and convention-based studies of furries, we developed
the University of Waterloo,
240 Westmount Road North, (study 1; n = 4,338) and replicated (study 2; n = 1,707) the 10-item
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Species Connection Scale, which is a three-factor model of felt connec-
N2L 3G4.
E-mail:
tion to animals: (1) a sense of appreciation or liking for a species, (2) a
serobert@uwaterloo.ca sense of spiritual or mystical connection to a species, and (3) a feeling of
identification with or as another species. We then used this model to pre-

Anthrozoös DOI: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1069993


dict participants’ psychological wellbeing and tendency to attribute
human-like traits and emotions to animals. The results indicated that (1)
liking animals may be related to the ascription of secondary emotions to
animals (supported in study 1, but not study 2), but was not associated
with participant wellbeing (supported by both studies); (2) a spiritual con-
nection to animals did not necessarily predict greater attribution of primary
or secondary emotions to animals, but it was associated with greater psy-
chological wellbeing (positive self-esteem in both studies; life satisfaction
in study 1); (3) identification as an animal was strongly associated both
with a tendency to avoid attributing secondary emotions to animals and
negative participant wellbeing (supported by both studies). This research
furthers our understanding of one subcultures’ felt connection with animals
and suggests that further explorations of how connection with animals
affects human welfare are warranted.

Keywords: anthropomorphism, anthrozoomorphic identity, furry fandom,


human connection to animals, zoomorphism
533
The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals


Nonhuman animals (henceforth referred to as animals) play an important role in human
culture and history. Humans have relied on animals for sustenance (Bunn 1981; Blu-
menschine 1987; Moore, Hillman and Legge 2000; Zeder and Hesse 2000), and they
have a shared genetic ancestry with the entire animal kingdom (Dawkins 2009). People relate to
animals spiritually (Willerslev 2007), linguistically (Irvine 2012; Sealey and Charles 2013), culturally,
and symbolically (e.g., The Lion King, sport mascots). Animals create a sense of meaning, both in
our understanding of the world and ourselves (e.g., Sax 2009; Sommer and Sommer 2011). These
relationships are the focus of this paper, which explores one subculture’s (furries) unique anthro-
zoomorphic relationship with animals—seeing animals as having human traits (anthropomorphism:
APA 2007) and humans as having animal traits (zoomorphism: APA 2007)—and its relationships
to the perception of animals and subjective wellbeing of the members of this subculture.
Human–Animal Relationships
Given the multifaceted and complex relationships between human beings and animals, a grow-
ing body of literature illustrates scientists’ attempts to better understand these phenomena
(Gácsi et al. 2001; Soproni et al. 2001; Gerbasi et al. 2002; Irvine and Bekoff 2004; McConnell
et al 2011). Studies reveal a complex interplay of numerous psychological variables in human–
animal relationships. However, fewer studies have focused on the identification of humans with
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

animals. For example, Clayton, Fraser and Burgess (2011, p. 87) suggest that zoos “provide
an opportunity to create and nurture a social identity that emphasizes connection to animals,”
but fail to specify the nature of this connection, and Myers (1998) has shown interaction with
and connection to animals enhances children’s sense of self and interaction skills.
While the literature has illustrated the varieties of human–animal relationships, much of the
research has treated the human–animal connection as one-dimensional. We proposed in-
vestigating different types of felt connections to animals and how these connections may relate
to psychological factors. Specifically, we examined three particular connections: (1) admiration
or reverence for animals, (2) spiritual connection with animals, and (3) identifying as an animal
and whether or not these connections related to overall psychological wellbeing. We focused
on members of the furry fandom, a group whose anthrozoomorphic interests motivate them
to think about and discuss extensively their connections to animals (Gerbasi et al. 2008; Mock
et al. 2013; Plante et al. 2014a, 2014b, 2014c; Roberts et al. 2015).
Furry Community
The term “furry” describes a diverse community of fans with a common interest in anthropomor-
phism and zoomorphism (Gerbasi et al. 2008), the combination of which has been termed an-
throzoomorphism (Robertson 2013). Furries’ anthropomorphic interests are diverse: artwork of
bipedal animals, anthropomorphic animal avatars in online communities, and composition of sto-
ries featuring anthropomorphic characters (Myers 2003; Hemp 2006; Jones 2006; Brookey and
Cannon 2009). Zoomorphism is manifested by assuming the identity of one or more animal
species and/or wearing fabric animal ears and tails or elaborate mascot-like costumes, known as
fursuits. Furries vary in their level of involvement in the fandom: some simply admire furry artwork.
Anthrozoös

For others, anthrozoomorphism is a life-style, which may include a furry social circle, investing
heavily in furry artwork, attending furry conventions, self-identifying with animals, and believing
they possess animal-like traits (Hemp 2006; Gerbasi et al. 2008; Robertson 2013).
Furries’ felt connections to animals are diverse and multi-faceted. Most furries have an
534

anthrozoomorphic character or “fursona” through which they relate to the fandom. Fursonas are
Roberts et al.

based on one or several animal species of particular significance to furries (Plante et al. in press).
A small (20%) subset of furries, called therians, have a spiritual connection with animals, belief in
an animal spirit guide, or the belief that they are the reincarnation of an animal spirit, while oth-
ers believe that they are less than 100% human insomuch that they feel like they are animals
trapped in a human body (Gerbasi et al. 2008; Robertson 2013; Roberts et al. 2015).
While participation in the fandom is characterized by many furries as a leisure activity, for
others it is crucial to their social life, self-expression, and identity (Mock et al. 2013; Roberts et
al. 2015). Since Gerbasi’s research (2008) challenged the negative media stereotypes of fur-
ries (e.g., Gurley 2001; see Roberts et al. in press for a discussion of public perception and
stigma), subsequent studies have revealed that for many furries, interaction with similar oth-
ers is a source of resilience and psychological wellbeing (Mock et al. 2013; Roberts et al.
2015). Given the importance of this fandom to the wellbeing of many furries, in conjunction with
research showing that animals can play an important role in wellbeing (e.g., McConnell et al.
2011), we examined how furries’ felt connections to animals related to perceptions of animals
and psychological wellbeing.
Attributions of Traits to Animals
Given furries’ anthrozoomorphism and unique connections to animals, we postulated that
their connections to animals would correlate with their attribution of human traits to animals.
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

Social identity literature shows that people view their ingroup with positive biases and afford
them preferential treatment (Tajfel and Turner 1979; Turner et al. 1987; Bettencourt et al.
2001). Two other models have sought to identify what people believe to be truly human
traits as opposed to traits belonging to nonhuman others (Leyens et al. 2000; Haslam 2006;
Wilson and Haslam 2009). These models posit that one way people distance themselves
from outgroups is to attribute certain human traits to ingroup members while denying the
presence of those traits in outgroup members. Leyens referred to this denial of essential
human traits to outgroup members as infrahumanization. In his model, the traits that were
unlikely to be attributed to outgroup members were ones that represent secondary human
emotions (sentiments) such as affection, pride, conceit, nostalgia, remorse, and rancor.
These were rated as more human, cognitive, and moral, and less intense than primary emo-
tions such as anger, sadness, or surprise that are typically attributed to animals and hu-
mans. Thus we sought to explore whether the nature of the connection furries feel toward
animals would include greater attribution of secondary emotions to them. The second model
by which ingroup members may create distance from outgroups is to dehumanize outgroup
members. Research on dehumanization (Demoulin et al. 2004; Haslam et al. 2005; Haslam
2006; Loughnan and Haslam 2007) suggests that dehumanization can take two forms. First,
mechanistic dehumanization, involves depriving people of “human nature” (HN) traits, these
traits—such as emotions and passion—are believed to differentiate humans (and other an-
imals) from machines. The second, animalistic dehumanization, involves depriving people of
“uniquely human” (UH) traits, such as higher thinking and rationality, traits that separate hu-
Anthrozoös

mans from animals and non-sentient creatures (Haslam 2006). Animalistic dehumanization
is similar to infrahumanization (Haslam 2006). For a detailed discussion of dehumanization
see Wilson and Haslam (2009).
Combining infrahumanization and dehumanization leads to several predictions about re-
lationships between the nature of one’s felt connection to animals and the anthropomorphism
535

of animals. Because we like those we perceive as being similar to ourselves, we hypothesized


The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals

that the extent to which people report liking animals should correlate with the extent to which
they anthropomorphize them, ascribing to them secondary emotions and HN and UH traits.
Since spiritual associations with animals often involve their anthropomorphization (e.g., Barrett
and Keil 1996), we predicted that furries’ felt spiritual connections to animals should corre-
late similarly with their anthropomorphic perceptions of animals. For those furries who iden-
tify as an animal, their self is viewed as an animal species rather than human. As such, we
expected identification as an animal to be negatively associated with anthropomorphism and
to be associated with factors that make an animal distinct from humans. Finally, given that
human–animal relationships play an important role in identity-formation, healthy development,
and wellbeing (e.g., Myers 1998; McConnell et al. 2011), and that furries experience resilience
and wellbeing from their participation in their fandom (e.g., Mock et al. 2013; Roberts et al.
2015), we hypothesized that furries’ psychological wellbeing would be related to the nature
of their connection to animals.
Two different studies tested these hypotheses. The first study used exploratory factor analy-
sis of data from a large-scale online-survey of the furry community to examine the plausibility of
a model consisting of three separable factors: liking animals, spiritual connection to animals, and
identifying as an animal. These factors were then tested for their association with ascribing human
traits and primary and secondary emotions to animals, and with psychological wellbeing. The
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

second study employed confirmatory factor analysis to test study 1’s model, using a survey
conducted in-person at the world’s largest furry convention and online. We also attempted to
replicate the associations between furries’ connections to animals, wellbeing, and ascription of
primary and secondary emotions to animals from study 1.

Study 1
Study 1 explored the nature of connections furries have with animals, the extent to which
various connections to animals relate to their perceptions of animals and to furries’ sense of
wellbeing. We included the items outlined below in a large-scale online survey of the furry com-
munity. We analyzed the measures using an exploratory factor analysis conducted within a
structural equation modeling framework (Kenny, Kashy and Cook 2006; Schreiber et al. 2006)
to determine the number of factors in the measure of connections with animals. Using this
model, we then tested whether the emergent factors predicted attributions of traits to animals
and psychological wellbeing.
Methods
Participants and Procedure: Participants included 4,338 (3,539 males, 669 females, 72 trans-
gender, 58 “other”) self-identified furries who completed an online survey about their involve-
ment in the furry fandom. Participants were recruited from several popular furry websites.
Participants resided in 69 different countries, but most were North American (78.1%), European
(16.4%), or Australian (3.1%). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 61 years (M = 23.0,
SD = 5.97; minors were ineligible) and self-identified primarily as male (M = 0.19, SD = 0.33;
Anthrozoös

see sex variable description below). Most participants had attained a high-school diploma or
equivalent (84.3%) and 69.9% had at least some college education.1
Measures: 1) Demographics: Participants were asked to provide their age in years, sex, gen-
der, the number of years they had identified as a furry, and the extent to which they identified
with the furry community. Rather than treating sex as a binary construct, it was evaluated along
536

a 5-point continuum, where participants were asked to self-identify as either “male completely,”
Roberts et al.

“male predominantly,” “equal parts male and female,” “female predominantly,” or “female com-
pletely.” In the analysis, this variable was transformed so that a value of 0 corresponded with
male completely and 1 corresponded with female completely, with values of 0.25, 0.50, and
0.75 used to represent the respective points between. Participants were asked, on a 10-point
Likert-type scale, to indicate how strongly they considered themselves to be a part of the furry
community (1 = “Extremely weakly”; 10 = “Extremely strongly”).
2) Species Connections Scale: : The nature of participants’ connection to their token species
was assessed with a 15-item, 7-point Likert-type scale asking participants to indicate the
extent to which each statement described their connection to their fursona or special species
(the species by which they identify themselves to the fandom), with anchors of 1 (Not at all like
me), 4 (Somewhat like me), and 7 (Very much like me). The measure included several items
adapted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR; APA 2000) diagnostic crite-
ria for gender identity disorder (e.g., “I feel like I am my nonhuman species trapped in a human
body”) and other items derived from furries’ responses to questions from previous furry
research (Gerbasi et al. 2008; see Appendix 1 for all 15 items).
3) Wellbeing: Concepts such as happiness or subjective wellbeing are complex (Diener et al.
1999). We operationalized psychological wellbeing based on two of its popular correlates: life sat-
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

isfaction (Diener 2000) and self-esteem (Lucas, Diener and Suh 1996). The wellbeing measure
consisted of six self-esteem 7-point Likert items (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 7 = “Strongly agree”)
adapted from Rosenberg (1965) (␣ = 0.83) and a 10-item “yes-or-no” measure of life satisfac-
tion (van Praag, Frijters and Ferrer-i-Carbonell 2003) derived by reverse-scoring a measure of
depression (␣ = 0.77; Almeida and Almeida 1999).
4) Dehumanization: We adapted measures (Demoulin et al. 2004; Haslam et al. 2005; Haslam
2006; Loughnan and Haslam 2007) of “human nature” and “uniquely human” traits into two
sub-scales that included five human nature (HN) traits (Curious, Friendly, Fun-Loving, Socia-
ble, Trusting) and five uniquely human (UH) traits (Broadminded, Organized, Polite, Thorough,
Humble). Participants were asked to identify how well the 10 traits described Yourself, Furries,
Non-Furries, Nonhuman Animals, Robots, and Computers, using a 6-point Likert scale (1 =
“Not at all descriptive”; 6 = “Very descriptive”). The category of interest in this paper was ani-
mals. Ratings of the 10 traits were standardized and compiled into scores representing par-
ticipants’ ascription of UH traits (␣ = 0.74) and HN traits to animals (␣ = 0.79), both measuring
participants’ perceptions of animals vis a vis these traits.
5) Animal Emotions: A 10-item scale of five primary (pleasure, anger, happiness, surprise, fear)
and five secondary emotions (hope, shame, love, tenderness, guilt) was used to assess the
extent to which participants felt these emotions were experienced by humans and/or animals
(Leyens et al. 2000). Participants identified, on a 7-point Likert scale, the extent to which they
believed each emotion could be experienced (1 = “Exclusively by nonhuman animals”;
4 = “Equally by humans and nonhuman animals”; or 7 = “Exclusively by humans”). Scores for
Anthrozoös

primary and secondary emotions were calculated (␣ = 0.88 and ␣ = 0.84, respectively).
Data Analysis Overview: We first analyzed all items of the Species Connections Scale using
an exploratory factor analysis using structural equation modeling software (SPSS Amos
19). We compared the relative fit of two models. A one-factor model treated all items as
537

indicators of a single latent variable (called Connection); a second model proposed three
The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals

Table 1. Partial correlations between connection to animals factors, wellbeing, animal attributions,
and fandom in study 1.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Like — — — — — — — — — — —
2. Spiritual 0.57** — — — — — — — — — —
3. Identify 0.68** 0.71** — — — — — — — — —
4. Self-esteem –0.02 0.05* –0.05* — — — — — — — —
5. Life
Satisfaction –0.08** –0.03 –0.14** 0.69** — — — — — — —
6. UH Traits 0.18** 0.22** 0.20** 0.02 –0.01 — — — — — —
7. HN Traits 0.14** 0.14** 0.13** 0.03 0.00 0.67** — — — — —
8. Primary
Emotions –0.04* –0.04* –0.06* 0.00 0.02 0.06** 0.09** — — — —
9. Secondary
Emotions –0.15** –0.21** –0.22** –0.04* 0.00 –0.08** 0.01 0.62** — — —
10. Fan
Connect 0.34** 0.27** 0.30** 0.17** 0.11** 0.14** 0.11** –0.01 –0.14** — —
11. Years Furry 0.11** 0.14** 0.15** 0.06** 0.03 0.04* 0.05** –0.01 0.02 0.12** —
Mean 4.53 2.72 2.87 4.48 0.65 0.05 0.06 3.78 4.45 6.99 6.64
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

SD 1.87 1.82 2.16 1.35 0.26 1.35 1.50 0.97 1.08 2.14 5.51
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

latent variables representing Liking, Spiritual Connection, and Identification as an animal


species. Fit was assessed using a number of fit indices (Kenny, Kashy and Cook 2006).
Using the three-factor model, we created further structural equation models that allowed
Liking, Spiritual Connection, and Identification to simultaneously predict attributions of emo-
tions and human traits to animals and participants’ self-esteem and life satisfaction scores
(controlling for age, gender, degree of connection to the furry fandom, and the number of
years participants reported having been a furry).2 This model allowed us to test the extent
to which each of the three different types of connections to animals uniquely predicted
each of the dependent variables. Summary statistics and a correlation table for the variables
are presented in Table 1.
Results
Comparing 1-Factor Model and 3-Factor Models of Connection to Animals: The one-factor
solution yielded a poor fit (CFI = 0.781, RMSEA = 0.195, BCC = 5875). Using modification
indices and content-based hypotheses about which items would best represent the latent
variables, a three-factor model was trimmed until we arrived at the model in Figure 1
(CFI = 0.950, RMSEA = 0.097, BCC = 1411). Five items were removed due to cross-
loading (see Appendix 1). The remaining 10 items loaded onto three different, but signifi-
cantly correlated, factors: liking an animal species (␣ = 0.84), spiritual connection to an
Anthrozoös

animal species (␣ = 0.93), and identifying as a member of an animal species (␣ = 0.81).


Attribution of Traits and Emotions to Animals: The latent variables Liking, Spiritual Connection,
and Identification were then used as predictor variables in a structural equation model that
tested the extent to which each one uniquely predicted the ascription of both UH traits and
538

HN traits to animals, while statistically controlling for the effect of age, sex, the number of years
Roberts et al.

Desire Appearance 0.81

Enjoy Species 0.65


Liking
Preoccupied 0.73

Fantasize 0.83
0.61
0.87
Mystical Connection
0.90 Spiritual
Spirit Guide Connection
0.80
0.96
Spiritual Connection
0.81

Born Connection 0.78

0.84
Trapped as Human Identification
0.68
Discomfort in Body

Figure 1. Three-factor solution modeling the nature of people’s connec-


tion to animals from study 1. Scores represent factor weights of each of
the 10 items as they related to the three latent variables (liking, spiritual
connection, identification). Refer to Appendix for full items.
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

Table 2. Connection factors predicting attributions of uniquely human and human traits,
primary and secondary emotions to animals, and human wellbeing in study 1 and study 2.
Variable UH HN Primary Secondary Self- Life
Emotions Emotions Esteem Satisfaction
Study 1
Liking 0.02 0.11** 0.02 0.12** –0.07 0.01
Spiritual 0.12*** 0.11** 0.03 –0.05 0.18*** 0.22***
Identification 0.08 –0.06 –0.10 –0.27*** –0.18** –0.37***
Study 2
Liking — — 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.03
Spiritual — — 0.00 0.02 0.20** 0.09
Identification — — –0.12 –0.30*** –0.33** –0.23**
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Controlling for partici-
pant age, sex, number of years as a furry, and degree to which participants identify with the furry community
using structural equation modeling.

a person had been a furry, and degree of connection to the fandom (see Table 2). Participants’
Liking scores were significantly positively associated with the attribution of HN traits to ani-
mals (Β = 0.114, p = 0.005), but not UH traits (Β = 0.024, p = 0.550), while Spiritual Connec-
tion scores were significantly positively associated with both UH and HN traits (ΒUH = 0.124,
p < 0.001; ΒHN = 0.110, p = 0.007). In contrast, participants’ Identification scores were not
Anthrozoös

significantly associated with the ascription of either UH or HN traits to animals (ΒUH = 0.079,
p = 0.173; ΒHN = –0.057, p = 0.333).
An identical structural equation model allowed the Liking, Spiritual Connection, and
Identification factors to predict participants’ attribution of primary and secondary emotions to
animals. Spiritual Connection scores were not associated with participants’ attribution of pri-
539

mary or secondary emotions to animals (ΒP = 0.028, p = 0.453; ΒS = –0.054, p = 0.160),


The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals

whereas Liking scores were positively associated with the ascription of secondary, but not
primary emotions (ΒP = 0.019, p = 0.643; ΒS = 0.118, p = 0.003). Participants’ Identification
scores were significantly negatively associated with secondary, but not primary emotions
(ΒP = –0.103, p = 0.083; ΒS = –0.274, p < 0.001).
Human Wellbeing: As in the preceding analyses, the Liking, Spiritual Connection, and
Identification factors were used to predict participants’ self-esteem and life satisfaction scores
while controlling for the effects of age, sex, connection to the fandom, and the number of
years a person had been a furry. Liking had no significant association with either participants’
self-esteem or life satisfaction (ΒSE = –0.067, p = 0.098; ΒLS = 0.007, p = 0.868). Spiritual
Connection, however, was significantly positively associated with both participants’ self-esteem
and life satisfaction (ΒSE = 0.176, p < 0.001; ΒLS = 0.218, p < 0.001). The opposite was true
for Identification, which was negatively associated with both participants’ self-esteem and life
satisfaction scores (ΒSE = –0.182, p = 0.002; ΒLS = –0.369, p < 0.001).
Discussion
Study 1 provided initial support for our hypothesis that connections people feel to animals
consist of three related but distinct factors: liking animals, a spiritual connection to animals, and
identification as animals. Results also suggested that teasing apart these connections can
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

have important implications, both for perceptions of animals and psychological wellbeing.
As hypothesized, the nature of participants’ felt connections to animals predicted a
general tendency to ascribe human traits and emotions to animals. The extent to which
participants reported liking or feeling spiritually connected to animals was, with one ex-
ception, positively associated with the ascription of both UH and HN traits to animals, which
may indicate a tendency to anthropomorphize animals in such connections. With regard to
liking, participants’ liking scores were significantly associated with the ascription of
secondary emotions to animals. However as predicted, to the extent that participants iden-
tified themselves as animals, they did not ascribe more HN and UH traits to animals, and
ascribed fewer secondary emotions to animals. This tendency for identity scores to predict
dehumanization of animals may be explained by the factor items and cautiously interpreted
to represent a kind of species dysphoria (Gerbasi et al. 2008). Participants who self-
identified as animals may be expressing displeasure at being human and may be motivated
to emphasize nonhuman aspects of animals with which they identify. Research is needed
to test this interpretation.
It is noteworthy that the data on life satisfaction and self-esteem were consistent with
other research, which showed that a connection to animals was associated with wellbeing
(e.g., Siegel 1990). However as predicted, the nature of this connection to animals was an
important moderator of the effect; although mere liking of animals was not significantly
associated with participants’ wellbeing, a felt spiritual connection to animals was significantly
positively associated with both life satisfaction and self-esteem. Furthermore, stronger iden-
tification as animals was associated with a decrease in life satisfaction and self-esteem, which
Anthrozoös

is consistent with a species dysphoria interpretation: peoples’ identification as nonhuman


animals may conflict with their identity as humans.
These results from study 1 provide initial evidence for a multidimensional model of felt
connection to animals whose three factors differentially predicted important psychological vari-
ables. Given the exploratory nature of the factor analysis in study 1, it was crucial that this
540

model be replicated.
Roberts et al.

Study 2
To further test the model found in study 1, we conducted a second, large-scale study of a furry
population several months later. The sample was drawn from two sources: approximately half
of the participants were recruited online as in study 1, and the other half were recruited in-person
at the world’s largest furry convention. The purpose of study 2 was to conduct a confirmatory
factor analysis testing the fit model developed in study 1 and replicate the patterns of association
between the three connection factors and the other key variables from study 1.
Methods
Participants and Procedure: Participants in the study were 1,707 (1,261 males, 261 females,
25 transgender, 8 “other,” and 152 non-identified) self-identified furries who completed either
the online version of the survey or the survey at the convention. Participants from 41 differ-
ent countries responded; the majority were North American (85.4%) or European (10.7%).
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 67 years (M = 24.7) and self-identified predominantly
with as male (M = 0.25, SD = 0.31). Most participants had attained a high-school diploma
or equivalent (92%), and many had at least some college education (74%). Overall, the
demographics of participants in study 1 and study 2 were similar.
Online recruitment was similar to that in study 1. Participants at the convention were
recruited while they were waiting in registration lines and at a table in the main convention hall.
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

Participants returned the surveys to the researchers in exchange for various small prizes. The
convention participants (n = 877) comprised 43.2% of this study’s sample.
Measures: Our measures were the same demographic, species connection, animal emotions,
and wellbeing measures used in study 1, with two modifications: (a) the UH and HN trait
dehumanization measures were not used due to length restrictions in the survey, which was
collecting data for several other studies, and (b) the wellbeing and emotion attribution items
appeared in two different versions of the survey, and were thus each only answered by half of
the participants.3
Data Analysis: The analysis was nearly identical to study 1, with one exception: instead of an
exploratory factor analysis, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis, which involved testing
the model used in study 1 to the study 2 data to test the replicability of the model.
Results
Model Fit: Again, the one-factor model (CFI = 0.751, RMSEA = 0.189, BCC = 2226) was not
an optimal fit and the three-factor model was a far better fit of the data (CFI = 0.950,
RMSEA = 0.089, BCC = 529, see Figure 2). Subsequent analyses were conducted using the
same three-factor model of connection to animals as in study 1: liking of animals (␣ = 0.78),
spiritual connection to animals (␣ = 0.92), and identification as an animal (␣ = 0.79). Summary
statistics and a correlation table are presented in Table 3.
Attribution of Traits to Animals: As in study 1, Liking, Spiritual Connection, and Identification scores
Anthrozoös

were used as predictor variables in a structural equation model that tested the attribution of pri-
mary and secondary emotions to animals, while controlling for age, sex, years identifying as a
furry, and connection to the furry community (see the bottom of Table 2). Spiritual Connection
scores, as in study 1, were unrelated to either primary or secondary emotion attribution
(ΒP = 0.002, p = 0.976; ΒS = 0.021, p = 0.709). Liking scores were not significantly related to the
541

ascription of primary or secondary emotions to animals (ΒP = 0.067, p = 0.303; ΒS = 0.075,


The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals

Desire Appearance 0.74

Enjoy Species 0.51


Liking
Preoccupied 0.70

Fantasize 0.81
0.54
0.84
Mystical Connection
0.86 Spiritual
Spirit Guide Connection
0.70
0.96
Spiritual Connection
0.70

Born Connection 0.74

0.83
Trapped as Human Identification
0.69
Discomfort in Body

Figure 2. Three-factor solution modeling the nature of people’s


connection to animals from study 2. Scores represent factor weights of
each of the 10 items as they related to the three latent variables (liking,
spiritual connection, identification). Refer to Appendix for full items.
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

Table 3. Partial correlations between connection to animals factors, wellbeing, animal perception
and fandom in study 2.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Like — — — — — — — — —
2. Spiritual 0.48** — — — — — — — —
3. Identify 0.58** 0.63** — — — — — — —
4. Self-esteem –0.03 0.03 –0.13** — — — — — —
5. Life Satisfaction –0.08* –0.05 –0.15** 0.66** — — — — —
6. Prim. Emotions –0.02 –0.07 –0.08* —± —± — — — —
7. Sec. Emotions –0.10** –0.16** –0.20** —± —± 0.50** — — —
8. Fan Connect 0.29** 0.17** 0.21** 0.09* –0.09* –0.05 –0.13** — —
9. Years Furry 0.10** 0.14** 0.09** 0.02 –0.03 –0.03 –0.02 0.12** —
Mean 4.20 3.26 2.88 5.08 0.68 4.18 4.66 7.21 7.60
SD 1.21 2.06 1.71 1.19 0.24 0.61 0.78 2.01 6.16
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, –± correlation data not available.

p = 0.240). Finally, Identification was significantly negatively associated with the ascription of
secondary emotions to animals, as in study 1, but was not associated with the ascription of
primary emotions to animals (ΒS = –0.295, p < 0.001; ΒP = –0.122, p = 0.131).
Anthrozoös

Wellbeing: Liking, Spiritual Connection, and Identification scores were used to predict self-
esteem and life satisfaction scores while controlling for the effects of age, sex, connection to
the fandom, and the number of years a person had been a furry (see Table 2). Liking scores
were not significantly associated with either self-esteem or life satisfaction scores (ΒSE = 0.083,
p = 0.209; ΒLS = 0.032, p = 0.628). In contrast, Spiritual Connection scores were significantly
542

positively associated with self-esteem but not significantly associated with life satisfaction
Roberts et al.

scores (ΒSE = 0.203, p < 0.001; ΒLS = 0.089, p = 0.131). Finally, Identification scores were sig-
nificantly negatively associated with both self-esteem and life satisfaction scores (ΒSE = –0.325,
p < 0.001; ΒLS = –0.232, p = 0.005).4, 5
Discussion
The results generally replicated the findings of study 1, providing support for a multidimensional
construal of connections to animals that moderate the association between felt connection
with animals and ascription of secondary emotions to animals and psychological wellbeing.
The findings regarding attributions of human emotions and furry wellbeing replicated those from
study 1, with just minor differences in significance. The results suggested that liking animals
may be associated with the ascription of secondary emotions to animals but not with partici-
pant wellbeing. The data also showed that a spiritual connection to animals was associated with
greater psychological wellbeing but may not predict greater attribution of secondary emotions
to animals. Finally, identification as an animal was strongly associated with a tendency to avoid
attributing secondary emotions to animals and with negative participant wellbeing.

General Discussion
Research has documented numerous ways in which humans relate to animals; this paper
advanced the field by empirically testing the presence of several distinct, but related, manifesta-
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

tions of human’s felt connection to animals and various cognitive and psychological wellbeing
variables associated with these different connections. Results from two large-scale studies sup-
ported a three-factor model of connections to animals, indicating that people differed in the
extent to which they liked, have spiritual connections to, and identified as animals. To the extent
that a person likes animals, they may be more likely to anthropomorphize them, a finding con-
sistent with social identity theory, which suggests that we tend to give preferential treatment
to similar others (Brown 2000). Consistent in both studies, the liking of animals was unrelated to
peoples’ overall wellbeing. Those who spiritually connected to animals did not anthropomor-
phize them, but greater spiritual connection to animals was positively associated with psycho-
logical wellbeing. Finally, for those whose connection to animals involved identifying as an animal,
there was an inclination not to anthropomorphize but to zoomorphize animals, seeing them as
particularly distinct from humans. Given that identification with animals may be a manifestation
of a kind of species dysphoria, or dissatisfaction with one’s human self (e.g., Gerbasi et al. 2008),
it is unsurprising that a connection to animals that involves identifying with them was also asso-
ciated with decreased wellbeing. It is also possible that individuals with decreased wellbeing look
for ways to distract themselves from their distress, and one way to do this may be through
zoomorphism (Heatherton and Baumeister 1991).
It is important to note several limitations of our research. The correlational nature of the
studies made it impossible to determine possible causality in these results. It is plausible that
rather than the nature of humans’ connection to animals affecting psychological wellbeing or
the tendency to anthropomorphize and zoomorphize animals, the reverse may be true—that
Anthrozoös

our wellbeing and anthrozoomorphizing of animals may influence the nature of our felt con-
nection to animals. It seems likely that this connection represents an ongoing positive feedback
loop, whereby increases in connection to animals lead to changes in our perception of them,
which, in turn, leads to an even stronger felt connection. Similarly, a tendency to identify one-
self as an animal may lead to greater dissatisfaction with oneself, which may lead to a stronger
543

tendency to distance oneself from their human identity. Research on this subject should employ
The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals

longitudinal designs to further investigate these bidirectional hypotheses, allowing the magnitude
of the two directions of causation to be simultaneously assessed and compared.
A second limitation of the current research was its exclusive use of furries and the fact that
there was likely to have been some overlap between the samples for the two studies.5 While
research has suggested that furries do not differ significantly from the general population with
regard to overall wellbeing (e.g., Plante et al. in press), it seems with furries’ interests in an-
throzooomorphism they would think more about the nature of human–animal relationships
and their connections to animals than non-furries—which is why they were selected for the
study. It is possible that furries’ experiences with anthrozoomorphism may be associated with
them having better-developed understandings of their felt connections to animals. They may
also more readily endorse a multitude of connections to animals than non-furries. Possibly
then, non-furries may be less likely to have multidimensional connections to animals, or if they
do, then those factors may be less strongly associated with other psychological variables.
While we suspect that this multidimensional connection to animals applies to the general
population, it would nonetheless be useful for future research to test the generalizability of the
present findings to non-furry populations.
A final limitation to the present study involved the use of fewer indicators of the variables of
interest than is ideal. Because the studies were part of broader, multi-faceted studies of the
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

furry fandom, survey length restrictions prevented the inclusion of more scales. Ideally, additional
measures of wellbeing would be employed to allow for better discrimination of the associations
between the dimensions of felt connection to animals and various types of wellbeing (e.g., phys-
ical health and the absence of anxiety). Research with a more focused, less exploratory aim,
should include additional variables, such as shared fate with animals and dependence on ani-
mals to further explore the model. Future work should replicate the model in a population–level
sample and determine the extent to which the nature of one’s felt connection to animals can
have significant behavioral outcomes.

Conclusion
This research expanded knowledge of the nature of human connections with animals by find-
ing evidence for a multidimensional model of felt connections with animals that included liking
animals, spiritual connection to animals, and identification as an animal. Furthermore, the pres-
ent studies provided evidence that the nature of one’s felt connection to animals has potentially
important psychological ramifications. This research suggests that through an understanding
of the nature of our felt connections to animals, we stand to learn a lot about ourselves.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada.

Notes
Anthrozoös

1. The online survey included demographic measures, questions regarding the nature of their involvement in
the furry community (e.g., self-disclosure of furry identity, fursona species, attitudes toward other furries in
the fandom, motivation to participate in the fandom), and other psychological items (e.g., fandom/fanship)
that are not presented in this study.
2. All analyses in study 1 and study 2 were run both with and without these covariates. The addition of
544

covariates did not significantly affect the results. All data presented are the values with the covariates
included.
Roberts et al.

3. While study 2 was used as a replication for this particular paper, this was not the sole intention of study 2.
Thus we did not replicate all items that were used in study 1.
4. Unfortunately we had no way of assessing the overlap of the two studies. However, our surveys typically
inform participants that if they have attended a particular convention and filled in a survey then they need
not fill in the online survey.
5. We re-ran all of the study 2 analyses using only the participants who said they had never taken a furry
survey online before (which yielded 52.6% of the sample). The pattern of results was the same. The results
were affected in only a minor way: one association fell from significant to marginal, and the others went from
< 0.001 to < 0.05, which would be expected when half the sample is removed. The model fits are virtually
identical with this reduced sample as well.

References
Almeida, O. and Almeida, S. 1999. Short versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale: A study of their validity for
the diagnosis of a major depressive episode according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV. International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry 14: 858–865.
American Psychiatric Association 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th edn, Text
Revision. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. 2007. APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: Author.
Barrett, J. and Keil, F. 1996. Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: Anthropomorphism in God concepts. Cognitive
Psychology 31: 219–247.
Bettencourt, B. A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N. and Hume, D. L. 2001. Status differences and in-group bias: A
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability.
Psychological Bulletin 127: 520–542.
Blumenschine, R. 1987. Characteristics of an early hominid scavenging niche. Current Anthropology 38:
383–407.
Brookey, R. and Cannon, K. 2009. Sex lives in second life. Criminal Studies in Media Communication 26:
145–164.
Brown, R. 2000. Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European
Journal of Social Psychology 30: 745–778.
Bunn, H. 1981. Archaeological evidence for meat eating by plio-pleistocene hominids from Koobi Fora and
Olduvai Gorge. Nature 291: 574–577.
Clayton, S., Fraser, J. and Burgess, C. 2011. The role of zoos in fostering environmental identity. Ecopsychology
3: 87–96.
Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press.
Demoulin, S., Leyens, J., Paladino, M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Rodriguez-Perez, A. and Dovidio, J. 2004.
Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non-uniquely” human emotions. Cognition and Emotion 18: 71–96.
Diener, E. 2000. Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American
Psychologist 55: 34-43.
Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R. and Smith, H. 1999. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.
Psychological Bulletin 125: 276–302.
Gácsi, M., Topál, J., Miklosi, Á., Dóka, A. and Csányi, V. 2001. Attachment behavior of adult dogs (Canis
familiaris) living at rescue centers: Forming new bonds. Journal of Comparative Psychology 115: 423–431.
Gerbasi, K., Anderson, D., Gerbasi, A. and Coultis, D. 2002. Doctoral dissertations in human–animal studies:
News and views. Society & Animals 10: 339–346.
Gerbasi, K., Palone, N., Higner, J., Scaletta, L., Bernstein, P., Conway, S. and Privitera, A. 2008. Furries from A
to Z (anthropomorphism to zoomorphism). Society & Animals 16: 197–222.
Gurley, G. 2001, Pleasures of the fur. Vanity Fair March: 174–196.
Anthrozoös

Haslam, N. 2006. Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10: 252–264.
Haslam, N., Bain, P., Douge, L., Lee, M., Bastian, B. and Casper, J. 2005. More human than you: Attributing
humanness to self and others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 937–950.
Heatherton, T. and Baumeister, R. 1991. Binge eating as escape from self-awareness. Psychological Bulletin
110: 86–108.
Hemp, P. 2006. Avatar-based marketing. Harvard Business Review 84: 48–57.
545

Irvine, L. 2012. Sociology and anthrozoology: Symbolic interactionist contributions. Anthrozoös 25: 123–137.
The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals

Irvine, L. and Bekoff, M. 2004. If You Tame Me: Understanding Our Connection with Animals. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Jones, D. 2006. I, avatar: Constructions of self and place in Second Life. Gnovis, Journal of Communication,
Culture and Technology 6: 1–32.
Kenny, D., Kashy, D. and Cook, W. 2006. Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Leyens, J., Paladino, P., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez Perez, A. and Gaunt, R. 2000.
The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality
and Social Psychology Review 4: 186–197.
Loughnan, S. and Haslam, N. 2007. Animals and androids: Implicit associations between social categories and
nonhumans. Psychological Science 18: 116–121.
Lucas, R., Diener, E. and Suh, E. 1996. Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 71: 616–628.
McConnell, A., Brown, C., Shoda, T., Stayton, L. and Martin, C. 2011. Friends with benefits: On the positive
consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 1,239–1,252.
Mock, S., Plante, C., Reysen, S. and Gerbasi, K. 2013. Deeper leisure involvement as a coping resource in a
stigmatized leisure context. Leisure/Loisir 37: 111–126.
Moore, A., Hillman, G. and Legge, A. 2000. Village on the Euphrates: The Excavation of Abu Hureyra. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Myers, O. 1998. Children and Animals: Social Development and Our Connections to Other Species. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Myers, O. 2003. No longer the lonely species: A post-Mead perspective on animals and sociology. International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23: 46–68.
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

Plante, C., Roberts, S., Reysen, S. and Gerbasi, K. 2014a. The interaction of intergroup socio-structural
characteristics on identity concealment and self-esteem in stigmatized minority group members. Current
Psychology 32: 3–19.
Plante, C., Roberts, S., Reysen, S. and Gerbasi, K. 2014b. “One of us”: Engagement with fandoms and global
citizenship identification. Psychology of Popular Media Culture 3: 49–64.
Plante, C., Roberts, S., Reysen, S. and Gerbasi, K. in press. “By the Numbers”: A cross fandom look at furries
and related fandoms. In What is a Furry? ed. J. Thurston. Murfreesboro: Thurston Howl Publications.
Plante, C., Roberts, S., Snider, J., Schroy, C., Reysen, S. and Gerbasi, K. 2014. “More than skin-deep”:
Biological essentialism in response to a distinctiveness threat in a stigmatized fan community. British Journal
of Social Psychology 54: 359–370.
van Praag, B., Frijters, P. and Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. 2003. The anatomy of subjective well-being. Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization 51: 29–49.
Roberts, S., Plante, C., Gerbasi, K. and Reysen, S. 2015. Clinical interaction with anthropomorphic
phenomenon: Notes for health professionals about interacting with clients who possess this unusual identity.
Health and Social Work 40: e42–e50.
Roberts, S., Plante, C., Reysen, S. and Gerbasi, K. in press. Marginalization of anthropomorphic identities:
Public perception, realities, and “tails” of being a furry researcher. In What is a Furry? ed. J. Thurston.
Murfreesboro: Thurston Howl Publications.
Robertson, V. 2013. The beast within: Anthrozoomorphic identity and alternative spirituality in the online
therianthropy movement. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16: 7–30.
Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sax, B. 2009. The magic of animals: English witch trials in the perspective of folklore. Anthrozoös 22: 317–332.
Schreiber, J., Stage, F., King, J., Nora, A. and Barlow, E. 2006. Reporting structural equation modeling and
confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research 99: 323–337.
Sealey, A. and Charles, N. 2013. “What do animals mean to you?” Naming and relating to nonhuman animals.
Anthrozoös 26: 485–503.
Anthrozoös

Siegel, J. 1990. Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: The moderating role of pet
ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 1081–1086.
Sommer, R. and Sommer, B. 2011. Zoomorphy: Animal metaphors for human personality. Anthrozoös 24:
237–248.
Soproni, K., Miklósi, Á., Tópal, J. and Csányi, V. 2001. Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet
546

dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology 115: 122–126.


Roberts et al.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations, 33–47, ed. W. Austin and S. Worchel. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S. and Wetherell, M. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group:
A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Willerslev, R. 2007. Soul Hunters: Hunting, Animism, and Personhood among the Siberian Yukaghirs. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Wilson, S. and Haslam, N. 2009. Is the future more or less human? Differing views of humanness in the
posthumanism debate. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 39: 247–266.
Zeder, M. and Hesse, B. 2000. The initial domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zargos Mountains 10,000
years ago. Science 287: 2,254–2,257.
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

Anthrozoös
547
The Anthrozoomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals

Appendix 1. 15-Item Species Connections Scale.


Instructions: For the following questions think about the ways you are connected to your special species. Use
the 1-7 (1 = not much at all like me; 7 = very much like me) rating scale below and indicate the extent to
which the statement describes how you are connected to your special species. If you do not have a special
species please skip the question and continue the survey.

1. I was born with this connection to my non-human species.1


2. I feel like I am my non-human species trapped in a human body.1
3. I feel like I share characteristics in common with my non-human species.4
4. I feel that in a previous life I was my non-human species and I was reincarnated as a human.4
5. I feel that I have a mystical connection to my non-human species.3
6. I would like to acquire the appearance of my species.2
7. I have a persistent feeling of discomfort or inappropriateness concerning my human body.1
8. I feel that this species is my spirit guide.3
9. I feel that I have a spiritual connection to this species.3
10. This species appears in my dreams.4
Anthrozoös 2015.28:533-548.

11. I really enjoy this species.2


12. I am preoccupied with my species.2
13. I have fantasies about being my species.2
14. I feel that my physical appearance resembles my species.4
15. Spending time on activities about my species interferes with work and/or non-furry activities.4
1
Identification Subscale.
2
Liking/Admiring Subscale.
3
Spiritual Subscale.
4Removed due to cross-loading.
Anthrozoös
548

You might also like