Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.64> Article
Research Article

Animal Anthropomorphism in Chinese Social Media and Audience Acceptance: A Case Study of Animal Mukbang

Xinyang LiuUniversity of Southampton*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

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
Published: December 26, 2024
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2024.18987
Volume: CHR Vol.64
pp. 27-41
Download PDF

References

  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.