The 6-item specific object anthropomorphism scale: a new questionnaire for children and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attribution of human characteristics, emotions, or behaviors to nonhuman entities or objects is known as anthropomorphism. Research on anthropomorphism has been limited by abstract measures that may be difficult for both children and adults to understand. To address this issue, we developed and tested the reliability and validity of the Specific Object Anthropomorphism Scale (SOAS) across three studies involving child and adult participants. The SOAS consists of six items that ask respondents to rate the extent to which a specific object possesses anthropomorphic qualities using simple, concrete statements. Study 1 found that the measure fit a one-factor solution in adults (aged 17-72, M = 32.3). In Study 2, we confirmed the unidimensional structure in adults (aged 18-73, M = 32.2) and demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and divergent validity. Study 3 confirmed the unidimensional structure in children (aged 5-12, M = 8.3) and showed that the items were highly understandable. Taken together, these findings indicate that the SOAS is a promising measure of anthropomorphic tendencies that may be easier for both children and adults to complete, potentially leading to a better understanding of the nature of anthropomorphism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".