A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Link between Modernization, Anthropomorphism and Attitude to Wildlife

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper analzyed whether modernization is linked to an increase in anthropomorphism, but that this effect is culturally mediated, varying across countries . The following corrections are required.

First, the causal link in model is modernization---> anthropomorphism--> attitude to wildlife. It is recommended to verify such causality through a structural equation model. Currently, three variables cannot be analyzed in one model.
Second, the control variables are not properly selected and theoretical reviewed.  For example, income is a very important variable, but it is not taken into account in the model. 
Third, it is necessary to add the theoretical and practical implications of the results of this study.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Sufficient amendments have been made to address prior concerns. 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, please check the attachments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for this very interesting paper.

Reading your manuscript, I think that you are targeting human “zootropism” and not anthropomorphism. Could you please explain the differences you make between the two? the variables you would choose to study both of them?

Moreover your explanation about the cultural mediation between anthropomorphism and mordernization Is not clear at all for me.

L35 : please define « anthropogenic pressure”

L97-98: please be more specific and tell us which aspects of modernization ?

L123-124: what is the gender distribution among countries?

L161: “modern” experience with animals is misleading. According to societal debates on zoos being places where animals suffer, do you still think it is modern to go to visit those places? 

I thought that most vegan/vegetarian were against zoos: could you please explain how and why those anthropomorphic people go to zoos?

L231: “modern” pet ownership: what do you mean? Ownership relates to “property of an animal”, how this relates to anthropomorphism and not domination?

Figures: it is hard to tell apart Malaysia from Brazil

L298: what do you mean by culturally mediated? Please explain the underlying processes. Or do you just want to show a variability inter-countries?

I think you study zootropism and not anthropomorphism, please explain.

L312-314: please explain underlying processes

L315-322; by breaking down “culture” into the variables you studied you might be able to explain some processes. You state it is culture mediated but you don’t explain how it works so it very confusing.

L358-359: the link is not clear at all.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments, please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thank you very much for the great job you did.

All the best

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is of interest, providing an important addition to the field. This is well supported by prior literature. There are some amendments required in my opinion, and I have detailed these below. The manuscript is generally well written and suited to a scientific audience, although a thorough proofread for typographical errors is required. The subject of the paper does sit broadly within the scope of the journal although alternatives may more closely align with the key messages presented here. 

I have some concerns regarding the sample size given the division between different countries, genders, religions, age groups etc. Little is provided about the make-up of the sample population. Including sample sizes throughout would be beneficial for transparency. This is particularly important given the authors have identified some contraindications in the data, such as those discussed in L333-335. The significance of the over-reliance on university students is particularly relevant here. 

Some errors throughout, such as closing parentheses (e.g. L42, 55, 310, 388). 

L81 - more accurate to say Manfredo et al.'s work was modified/adapted rather than improved - this is subjective. 

Figure legend for Figure 1 is incomplete. Figure 2 has not been referred to in the text. 

L123-125 - It seems data collection in all countries was skewed towards university students, rather than just in Malaysia and Spain. This presents a significant limitation to the data which is not sufficiently explored, particularly when considering countries that may have low levels of education at high school or above.  

L216 - Should read "We detected no convergence issues in any of the models presented."

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with a very interesting topic, and the following revisions are required.

First, this study should organize and review previous studies on independent variables that can affect anthropomorphism, domination and mutualism orientations.
The rationale for setting all of independent variables set in Table 3, especially the control variables, should be clearly laid out.

Second, since many interaction terms are set in Table 3, it is necessary to show the analysis results first with each variable inserted before adding the interaction terms.

Third, it is necessary to explain the theoretical contribution of the results presented in this study based on previous theories.

Fourth, for important variables, it is necessary to present the average value of how the values ​​change according to the demographic variables and perform the Anova-test. The presentation of basic statistics will contribute to enhancing the understanding of this paper.