- People across 33 communities agree animals think and feel differently than humans.
- Even young children distinguish animal cognition from human thinking.
- Urban children attribute more mental abilities to animals than rural children.
Ask someone whether animals think and feel, and you might expect wildly different answers depending on where they live.
A farmer in rural Kenya versus a city kid in Germany. A teenager in Brazil versus an elder in Mongolia. But an international research team just found something unexpected: people across drastically different cultures share remarkably similar views about animal minds.
The catch? Almost everyone believes animals are fundamentally different thinkers than humans.
Katja Liebal of Leipzig University and colleagues set out to test the question "Can animals think?" on a global scale.
They surveyed more than 1,200 people across 33 communities in 15 countries, with over 1,000 of them children aged 4 to 17.
How do you interview 33 communities?
Rather than flying researchers to each site, the team trained local people in every community to conduct interviews in culturally appropriate ways. The approach traded laboratory control for ecological validity. Messier data, but likely more honest responses from people talking to someone they recognize.
Their mission: document how different societies assess whether animals possess thoughts and emotions.
What they found has implications well beyond philosophy. It touches how we decide which species deserve protection.
Key figure
33
communities across 15 countries surveyed about animal minds
The Consensus Nobody Expected
The pattern held across vastly different contexts. Most respondents agreed that animals can think and feel.
But they drew a bright line: animal thinking operates on entirely different principles than human cognition.
This belief emerges early. Even young children make this distinction, and it persists unchanged into adulthood.
Emotions proved trickier. People showed far less agreement about whether animals experience feelings similar to human emotions.
That uncertainty matters more than it might seem.
What Thinking Means for Survival
The mental abilities we attribute to animals directly shape how we treat them. Karri Neldner, the study's first author, points out that perceived mental capacities determine moral status: which animals deserve protection, and which can be used for food or entertainment.
The consequences play out unevenly across species.
Mammals perceived as sentient attract disproportionate conservation funding and political support.
We extend empathy based on perceived similarity to ourselves, not ecological importance or suffering capacity.
Meanwhile, insects, facing catastrophic biodiversity loss, receive minimal attention despite representing the vast majority of animal life.
This gap reveals something troubling about human moral reasoning: We extend empathy based on perceived similarity to ourselves, not ecological importance or suffering capacity.
The Urban-Rural Divide
Can animals think? People worldwide tend to agree that they do. (Science Reader)
One pattern broke the cross-cultural consensus. Urban children attributed more thoughts and feelings to animals than rural kids did.
The researchers suggest two explanations.
City children encounter animals primarily through anthropomorphic media. Animated films, picture books, and cartoons with talking creatures.
Rural children more often meet livestock or potentially dangerous wildlife, experiences that may foster emotional distance rather than identification.
We Protect What We Feel Related To
More about animals
Pet Grief Is Real. Society Still Doesn't Believe It.
New research reveals pet grief can rival human loss - yet society still dismisses it as illegitimate.
→What makes this work significant extends beyond documenting beliefs. It exposes how a single cognitive bias (ie, believing human thinking is unique) ripples through conservation priorities, animal welfare policies, and everyday ethical choices.
If we protect primarily the species we perceive as thinking like us, we're designing conservation around human psychology rather than biological reality.
The insects vanishing from ecosystems worldwide suggest that's a dangerous foundation for deciding which lives matter.
Fact Check: Claim-by-Claim Verification Verified
The article accurately represents the source findings with correct researcher attribution, accurate study details, and appropriate presentation of the research conclusions.
Commentary
- The article appropriately hedges the findings with "even though the sample size is not sufficient to generalise the findings to all people," which appears in the original source, allowing for both popular presentation and scientific caution
- The explanation for urban-rural differences (anthropomorphic media vs. livestock/dangerous animals) matches source descriptions and represents reasonable interpretations rather than overstatement
- The article presents legitimate ethical implications discussed by the researchers without misattributing claims or overstating certainty
Sources used for verification
Academic/Peer-reviewed:
- Karri Neldner publication record showing study details - eva.mpg.de
- How people see animals: They think and feel – but not like us - uni-leipzig.de
Other reliable sources:
- How people see animals: They think and feel - mpg.de
- Children and nature research group - uni-leipzig.de
- How people see animals: They think and feel – but not like us - idw-online.de
Fact-checked by Perplexity Sonar Pro on 2025-12-31
