I appreciate this post as I've been perplexed by the difference between these two terms and wanted to figure it out.
With all due respect, however, I think this post has the meanings precisely reversed.
The author writes:
"For example, the sentence, 'The wind blew angrily, expressing the full extent of his violent rage,' applies this concept [i.e., anthropomorphism], because the wind retains its non-human form while taking on human emotions, intentions, and a masculine pronoun. Personification works similarly and occurs when the writer allows a non-human entity to fully embody human traits."
In fact, the "morphe" in "anthropomorphism" derives from the Greek word for "shape" or "form." "Anthro," of course, means "human." It would thus make sense, at least on a linguistic, etymological level, that anthropomorphism, not personification, occurs when a non-human entity fully embodies human traits, including a human *form*. Conversely, then, personification occurs when human characteristics are ascribed to non-human entities, but *without* altering their (non-human) form. Hence, personification would be the correct term for the attribution of human emotions, intentions, etc., to entities like the wind, as well as to more abstract entities like Love, Beauty, etc. (again, without giving them a human shape or form).
This view would make personification the broader of the two terms, and anthropomorphism a (narrower) kind of personification.
I've encountered this use of the terms in a book by a leading scholar of ancient Greece describing Hesiod's cosmogenesis. The first entities to appear in Hesiod's account are Chaos, Gaia, Tartaros, and Eros, which the scholar describes as "personified" primal powers. The next generation of gods, the Titans, which are the first to have human-like form, are referred to by the scholar as the first "anthropomorphised" entities.
Perhaps the meaning of these terms varies by genre, but etymologically it seems to me to make sense for anthropomorphism to be the less abstract term of the pair.
Any further thoughts on this, and how I may be missing something, would be greatly appreciated. And thanks again for your post, which has helped me clarify the conceptual differences at play.