Download pdf
Animal Anthropomorphism in Chinese Social Media and Audience Acceptance: A Case Study of Animal Mukbang
- 1 University of Southampton
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
This study aims to explore the anthropomorphic elements represented in animal mukbang videos on Chinese social media (Douyin and Xiaohongshu), as well as the relationship between pet ownership and audience acceptance of various anthropomorphic elements. First, this study summarized the types of anthropomorphic elements in animal mukbang videos on two platforms through content analysis. Second, this study designed a questionnaire based on the content analysis results and investigated the audience acceptance of different anthropomorphic elements. The results showed that on both platforms, the anthropomorphic elements in animal mukbang mainly included “Clothing,” “Expression,” “Communication,” “Diet style,” “Use of tableware,” “Dining environment,” “Use of microphone,” “Feeling about food,” “Inner activities” and “Unique character and identity.” In addition, pet ownership has a different influence on audience acceptance of different anthropomorphic elements. Although this study illustrates the audience acceptance of anthropomorphism in the context of animal mukbang, the relationship between anthropomorphism and a wider category of audiences, as well as the rationality of animal anthropomorphism in various media, still needs further research.
Keywords
animal mukbang, animal anthropomorphism, pet ownership, audience analysis
[1]. Zhang, C. (2020). Gou Chi Niupai, Mao Chi Longxia, 1000Wan Ren Weiguan De Chongwu Chibo Shi Zenyang De Shengyi? [Dogs eat steak, cats eat lobster, what kind of business is the pet mukbang watched by 10 million people?] Retrieved from: https://m.jiemian.com/article/4617781.html
[2]. NetEase. (2020). Kepa De Chongwu Chibo! [Terrible pet eating show!] Retrieved from https://www.163.com/dy/article/FMFM9GSU051197OF.html
[3]. Kang, E., Lee, J., Kim, K. H., & Yun, Y. H. (2020). The popularity of eating broadcast: Content analysis of “mukbang” YouTube videos, media coverage, and the health impact of “mukbang” on public. Health informatics journal, 26(3), 2237-2248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059
[4]. Anjani, L., Mok, T., Tang, A., Oehlberg, L., & Goh, W. B. (2020). Why do people watch others eat food? An Empirical Study on the Motivations and Practices of Mukbang Viewers. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376567
[5]. Choe, H. (2020). Talking the cat: Footing lamination in a Korean livestream of cats mukbang. Journal of Pragmatics, 160, 60-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.02.009\
[6]. Serpell, J. A. (2019). How happy is your pet? The problem of subjectivity in the assessment of companion animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 28(1), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.057
[7]. Weil, K. (2013). Thinking animals: Why animal studies now? Columbia University Press.
[8]. Malamud, R. (2015). Looking at Humans Looking at Animals. In N. Almiron, M. Cole, & C. P. Freeman (Eds), Critical Animal and Media Studies (pp. 154-168). Routledge.
[9]. Geerdts, M. S., Van de Walle, G. A., & LoBue, V. (2016). Learning about real animals from anthropomorphic media. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 36(1), 5-26. DOI: 10.1177/0276236615611798
[10]. Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022). The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding. Animals, 12(20), 2835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12202835
[11]. Sultana, S. F. S., & Das, M. (2022). Content Analysis Of Mukbang Videos: Preferences, Attitudes And Concerns. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(9), 4811-4822. Retrieved from: https://mail.journalppw.com/index.php/jpsp/article/view/13360
[12]. Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass communication & society, 3(1), 3-37. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_02
[13]. Lariscy, R.W., Tinkham, S. F., & Sweetser, K. D. (2011). Kids these days: Examining differences in political uses and gratifications, internet political participation, political information efficacy, and cynicism on the basis of age. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(6), 749-764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211398091
[14]. Song, H. G., Kim, Y. S., & Hwang, E. (2023). How attitude and para-social interaction influence purchase intentions of Mukbang users: A mixed-method study. Behavioral Sciences, 13(3), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13030214
[15]. Kircaburun, K., Harris, A., Calado, F., & Griffiths, M. D. (2021). The psychology of mukbang watching: A scoping review of the academic and non-academic literature. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 1190-1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00211-0
[16]. Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059
[17]. Zhang, X., & Zhu, L. (2023). Research on the Narrative Feature of the Short Video. Probe-Media and Communication Studies, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.59429/pmcs.v5i5.958
[18]. O’Meara, R. (2014). Do cats know they rule YouTube? Surveillance and the pleasures of cat videos. M/C Journal, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.794
[19]. Stumpf, A., Herbrandt, S., Betting, L., Kemper, N., & Fels, M. (2024). Societal Perception of Animal Videos on Social Media—Funny Content or Animal Suffering? A Survey. Animals, 14(15), 2234. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14152234
[20]. Myrick, J. G. (2015). Emotion regulation, procrastination, and watching cat videos online: Who watches Internet cats, why, and to what effect?. Computers in human behavior, 52, 168-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.001
[21]. Merskin, D. (2015). Media Theories and the Crossroads of Critical Animal and Media Studies. In N. Almiron, M. Cole, & C. P. Freeman (Eds), Critical Animal and Media Studies (pp. 11-25). Routledge.
[22]. Burghardt, G. M. (1997). Amending Tinbergen: A Fifth Aim for Ethology. In R. W. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, and H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (pp. 254–276). Albany: State University of New York Press.
[23]. Karlsson, F. (2012). Critical anthropomorphism and animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 707-720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9349-8
[24]. Martens, P., Hansart, C., & Su, B. (2019). Attitudes of young adults toward animals—the case of high school students in Belgium and The Netherlands. Animals, 9(3), 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9030088
[25]. Busch, G., Schütz, A., Hölker, S., & Spiller, A. (2022). Is pet ownership associated with values and attitudes towards animals?. Animal Welfare, 31(4), 447-454. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.31.4.011
[26]. Armat, M. R., Assarroudi, A., & Rad, M. (2018). Inductive and deductive: Ambiguous labels in qualitative content analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(1). http://eprints.medsab.ac.ir/id/eprint/300
[27]. Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Social cognition unbound: Insights into anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 58-62. DOI: 10.1177/0963721409359302
[28]. Hall, S. (2003). Encoding/decoding∗. In Culture, media, language (pp. 117-127). Routledge.
[29]. Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. London: Routledge.
[30]. Hodkinson. (2016). Media, culture and society: an introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Cite this article
Liu,X. (2024). Animal Anthropomorphism in Chinese Social Media and Audience Acceptance: A Case Study of Animal Mukbang. Communications in Humanities Research,64,27-41.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).