Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach

Sarah Batt

doi:10.1093/biohorizons/hzp021

Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach

Batt, Sarah 2009-06-21 00:00:00 Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 10.1093/biohorizons/hzp021 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Research article Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach Sarah Batt* University of Chester, Chester, UK. * Corresponding author: 34 Lower Park, Minehead, Somerset TA24 8AY, UK. Tel: þ44 7917 872983. Email: sarahlbatt@gmail.com Supervisor: Roger Davies, University of Chester, Chester, Cheshire CH1 4BJ, UK. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Human attitudes towards animals are becoming of increasing importance in the areas of conservation and welfare. It has long been taken for granted that our attitudes are inﬂuenced by the degree of biological or behavioural similarity between a given species and ourselves. This research investigates whether there is a link between bio-behavioural similarity to humans and preferences for animal species that are obtained when subjects view a set of 40 pictures illustrating a wide diversity of animals. Extensive data regarding the natural history, behaviour and physiology of 40 species of animals from a wide range of taxonomic groups were collected. Bio- behavioural similarity between animal species and humans was formed on the basis of multidimensional analyses, including factors such as size, weight and lifespan among the physical attributes, and reproductive strategy, parental investment and social organization among the behavioural traits. It was found that a clear relationship between similarity and preference exists, suggesting that humans are predisposed to liking species on the basis of shared bio-behavioural traits. These results imply that efforts made in the conservation and welfare of species may be biased more by anthropocentric views than has been previously recognized. It may be important for a new approach to be taken when it comes to determining the targets of conservation. Key words: human attitudes, animals, multivariate conservation. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ American public on their attitudes to different species. The Introduction results of this investigation suggested that species preference There is notable variation in human attitudes towards is affected by a wide variety of inﬂuences that can be categor- animals. Certain species and groups seem to be valued ized into four major factors: more highly in terms of conservation, research and public 1, 2 interest. To date, however, few studies have investigated (i) An individual’s prior attitude towards, and values of, the reasons for the occurrence of such variations. This is sur- wildlife and nature (e.g. humanistic, utilitarian). prising when one considers the impact human preference (ii) An individual’s previous experience and knowledge of a may have on a species’ future, perhaps determining how species or group. much time and money is spent on conservation or affecting (iii) The relationship between species and humans, for how far rights are granted in terms of experimentation and example cultural signiﬁcance, utility value or conserva- welfare. Furthermore, determining which species inspire tion status. support and high regard may provide valuable insight into (iv) Human perceptions of individual species (in terms of human reasoning and determination of attitudes. It may be aesthetic value, assumed intelligence, threat, etc.)—the thought self-evident that humans prefer some animal most important factor for the present study. groups to others, but what determines which are favoured and which are disregarded? In a similar study, Czech et al. found that certain groups of Kellert pioneered research into this area in a study species are preferred to others, for instance, birds and conducted in 1978 that surveyed 3945 members of the mammals were favoured for conservation over reptiles and ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2009 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 180 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... invertebrates and within the reptile group, conservational of species similarity and our preferences may imply that support is heavily biased towards the Testudines. Both an adaptive function exists for such biases. Moreover, an studies propose a range of factors that may inﬂuence objective study would be more widely applicable because it species or group perception. For example, domestic animals would be less dependent on the individual’s knowledge or are frequently favoured, as are aesthetically pleasing species upon cultural variation. ( further demonstrated in a study by Stokes of human per- Despite being a complex and intriguing area of research, ception of penguin species). Within other groups (e.g. ﬁsh particularly with regard to human decisions concerning and invertebrates), those species with utility or monetary species protection and conservation, our knowledge and values are favoured, such as trout and honey bees. understanding of factors affecting human preferences for Recently, Knight highlighted the inﬂuence of perceived different species has barely increased since Kellert’s original threat from a species, and also that of neoteny (sometimes work was published. Furthermore, the measurement of referred to as the ‘cute effect’). Other inﬂuential factors species similarity has not advanced and studies employing may be cultural signiﬁcance and perceived sentience. this concept have generally used weak methodology. Previous studies have often highlighted ‘similarity to Although the potential inﬂuence of similarity as a factor humans’ as a factor inﬂuencing human attitude towards a has been acknowledged, the biological bases of species’ simi- 1, 6, 7 species. Kellert repeatedly notes the signiﬁcance of larity to humans have rarely been adequately deﬁned. This is this factor, yet does not discuss it in detail. Only one study despite the fact that socio-psychological research on human – to date has considered this factor in any depth. Plous con- human similarities (e.g. in forming the basis of friend or mate ducted four minor studies that found there were correlations choice) has had a relatively long history and suggests some between subjects’ perceptions of a species similarity to plausible options for between-species measures. humans and their proposed conservational importance, in This study takes a multivariate approach with the aim of which most people would prefer to ‘save’ species that they providing an objective measure of species’ biobehavioural consider to be most similar to humans. However, these similarity, and to test whether this measure of human – studies were on a small scale using a limited number of animal similarity inﬂuences our preferences for other species. In some cases species were aggregated into uneven species. Thus, the study questions if a species’ biobehavioural groups, such as the order ‘frogs’ and the genus ‘dogs’. similarity to humans affects human attitudes towards it. The It is generally presumed (and supported by Plous’ study) term biobehavioural is used here to reﬂect that a wide range that humans will prefer species’ that are perceived to be of biological, behavioural and social factors are involved in a similar to their own. However, Beatson and Halloran multidimensional deﬁnition of similarity. Therefore, it does found a converse effect, in that after subjects watched a not relate simply to superﬁcial appearance criteria such as video of bonobos mating their subjects experienced negative body size or coloration, and unless otherwise stated, simi- feelings towards this species. It is suggested that recognition larity will be used only with this strict multifactorial of similarities between humans and animals may make meaning for the remainder of this paper. humans uncomfortable and consequently less disposed to positive feelings towards them. The current study attempts to approach this area in a Materials and Methods different manner to previous studies by objectifying the Species Catalogue meaning of ‘human – species similarity’. A major issue with studies such as that by Plous is that they have used human A catalogue of information on 40 animal species was created perception of species similarity to themselves as a measure. so as to represent as wide a range of species as feasible In terms of a species position in society, this may well be (Table 1). These were not chosen in proportion to the the most valuable gauge of similarity as it is this same number of recorded species, simply because of the massive human perception that will determine overall attitudes. imbalance between vertebrates and invertebrates that However, human perception is subjective and so if partici- would arise as the latter make up 97% of all animal pants perceived a species to be similar to humans then it species. This study mainly used species that are easily would be recorded as similar, independently of any objective recognizable to non-specialist participants. Most of the measure. Thus, if subjects were to perceive a dog to be more major invertebrate groups were represented, with an empha- similar to humans than is a monkey, this would be held to be sis on the largest phyla, Arthropoda. The selection was true, irrespective of the cladistical evidence. Secondly, human intended to include a representative from each signiﬁcant, perception is affected by contextual cues, and may change recognizable grouping of species. For example, the over time. For instance, as an individual’s knowledge and mammals selected included a rodent, a bat, an ape, understanding of a species changes, then that species may a monkey, an ungulate, a marine mammal and a marsupial. appear to be more or less similar to humans. By way of con- Another important factor determining the inclusion of trast, any correlation between an objectively deﬁned measure species was the amount of information known about their ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 181 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 1. Animals used in study (common names) Participants Seventy-one students from the University of Chester, predomi- Mammals Birds Fish Reptiles Amphibians Invertebrates ................................................................................................................ nantly females with a mean age of 23.7 years participated in Badger Eagle Eel Lizard Frog Bee this study. Although this sample size is very small for the multi- Bat Emu Sea Python Salamander Beetle variate analyses undertaken here, time restrictions during the Dragon ﬁnal year of degree studies limited my intentioned target Blue Whale Goose Shark Centipede number. However, using small samples normally precludes ﬁnding signiﬁcant main effects, which was not the case here. Chimpanzee Owl Trout Crab None of the participants were biology students, although Elephant Sparrow Earthworm most were taking science subjects. Each was given a question- Elk Houseﬂy naire requesting gender, degree programme and date of birth, Gemsbok Jellyﬁsh followed by 40 Thurstone scales ranging from ‘Strongly Kangaroo Millipede Dislike’ to ‘Strongly Like’ with a ‘Neutral’ centre-point. Langur Moth Leopard Prawn Procedure Rat Scallop Participants were informed that they were taking part in a Shrew Snail study investigating human perceptions of animals. They Walrus Spider were read and shown instructions on a PowerPoint slide Starﬁsh and it was stressed that it was their personal rating of the animal species (rather than the picture) that was required. The presentation automatically displayed the series of 40 biology, ecology and behaviour. In order to control for any animals in a random order. Prior to each slide, a number cor- confounding effects of familiarity, domestic animals were responding to that picture was displayed, with an alerting excluded. Based on these prerequisites, the speciﬁc species sound. After 3 s, this number was replaced by the species were selected from a large collection of greyscale drawings, picture, displayed for 6 s. Within this time participants as each would require pictorial representation. In some recorded their preference on the Thurstone scales described. cases, appropriate pictures were not available (e.g. of testu- Participants were fully debriefed regarding the study’s dines), limiting the selection. Detailed species’ information purpose. was acquired from authoritative books and articles, and where possible this was cross-referenced between a number of sources. It was occasionally necessary to collect data for Results a similar species. Collected data included life history details and physical and behavioural traits (Appendix A). Each participant rated each of the 40 species by placing a Although the data set collected is by no means comprehen- mark on a 10-cm wide scale (essentially, this is a blank sive, it may still be considered to be representative for the line on which their responses are marked). The mean purposes of this study. average liking ratings for each species are shown in Table 2. All analyses were carried out using SPSS (version 15) and MVSP (Kovach Computing). A number of multi- Materials variate statistics were used to explore similarities (measures Greyscale line drawings of each species were prepared at the of Euclidean distance) between species. First, an agglomera- centre of a white card, all 40 cards having the same dimen- tive, hierarchical cluster analysis identiﬁed three clusters sions. Line drawings of each animal were taken from a (Figure 1). This partitioning was also found in a principal single source. Greyscale drawings were used so as to components analysis (PCA), created using varimax rotation reduce the confounding effects of variations in image and Kaiser normalization. The PCA extracted three princi- quality, lighting, colour or viewing angle that may differ pals (Table 3), two of which correspond to the two group- widely between photographs. Naturally, greyscale drawings ings from the cluster analysis, suggesting a robust set of do not demonstrate the colour of natural pelage that often similarities within these clusters. The third PCA component forms an important element in the impact and appearance is made up of a small group of similar-sized insectivorous/ of a species, but bright coloration may also act to divert omnivorous species, which is also evident in the hierarchical the viewer’s attention towards more aesthetic characteristics clustering shown in Figure 1. Finally, multidimensional of species. The aim of the presentation was to prompt species scaling (MDS) was used to explore the cluster conﬁgurations recognition from participants without such distractions and in three dimensions. Again, the two major groupings were so for this purpose, image degradation is a beneﬁcial com- clearly identiﬁable, but rotation also demonstrated that ponent of the presentation. species such as the elk, worm, millipede, bat and sparrow ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 182 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 2. Mean average species ratings (to 1 decimal place), in to humans. This supports the hypothesis that, at some level, ascending order similarity to humans is an important factor inﬂuencing human attitudes towards animals. Why might this effect Species—negative Average Species—positive Average occur? ratings rating ratings rating ................................................................................................................ Research in social psychology suggests a potential expla- Jellyﬁsh 1.9 Sea Dragon 5.2 nation as to why humans may show preference for similar Houseﬂy 2.1 Shark 5.3 animals. It has been found that people are more empathetic, Bee 2.3 Trout 5.5 show greater helping behaviour and are more attracted to Centipede 2.3 Frog 5.7 those other people whom they perceive to be similar to 12 – 14 8 Beetle 2.3 Badger 5.8 them. Plous suggests that humans may display a form of positive assortative mate choice in a more generalized Millipede 2.4 Scallop 5.8 sense that he terms ‘positive assortative caring’, which may Spider 2.6 Walrus 5.9 encompass other animals. Although there are various the- Eel 2.7 Starﬁsh 6.3 ories as to why this form of preference may occur, Alvarez Earthworm 3.0 Goose 6.4 and Jaffe note that that in humans this effect is most Python 3.2 Eagle 6.5 evident in non-biological traits, i.e. cultural or social simi- Elephant Shrew 3.6 Kangaroo 6.8 larities such as education or religion. This may support Rat 3.7 Whale 6.9 Plous’ notion, in that we may be inﬂuenced just as much Prawn 3.7 Gemsbok 6.9 by a species resembling us in intelligence and behaviours as Snail 3.8 Elk 6.9 by physical similarities. Many of these salient characteristics Crab 4.3 Moth 6.9 of animals (e.g. sociability) are evident in those species that Bat 4.4 Sparrow 7.2 humans commonly choose as pets, and have bred into dom- Salamander 4.4 Langur 7.3 esticated stock animals. In addition to a potential preference for similarity, there Emu 4.8 Leopard 7.7 is evidence suggesting that humans also actively dislike dis- Lizard 5.0 Owl 7.7 similar animals (e.g. invertebrates ). In the current study, 18 Elephant 7.8 out of 40 species had average ratings below the neutral Chimpanzee 8.2 point of the scale, and participants frequently recorded a ‘strongly dislike’ rating (Table 2). There are a number of appear as more distant from the clusters, suggesting a looser psychological theories that may provide some explanation afﬁliation within this group of species. MDS was also used to for this. calculate (Euclidean) distance measures for each species in First, all animals potentially remind humans of their own their proximity to humans (Figure 2). Two distinct groups ‘creatureliness’, that is, a shared evolutionary history with were once again apparent from the MDS: those with many species and parallels in sexual behaviour and pro- closest proximity to humans (chimp through to gemsbok) duction of bodily products. It is suggested that such remin- and those furthest from humans (beetle to crab). The ders increase human ‘mortality salience’, i.e. awareness of central group of species shown in Figure 2 are those not the inevitability of one’s own death, as mortality is similar enough to form a single homogenous group, having perhaps the predominant trait humans share with all correlations ranging from 0.177 (sea dragon) to 0.78 (barn animals. In turn, an increase in mortality salience may lead owl). The Euclidean distance between humans and each of to a response known as ‘terror management’. This is the 40 species and their liking ratings are shown in described as a cognitive mechanism designed to control the Figure 3. There are two anomalies to what would be panic created by knowledge of mortality by causing expected from this association. Moth and starﬁsh are rated humans to cling to their ‘cultural worldview’ (weltanshung). more positively than expected and lie outside the 95% con- An increase in identiﬁcation with one’s worldview (as a form ﬁdence interval, snake and worm had average ratings more of terror management) has the effect of derogating, directing negative than would be expected judging from their simi- and eliciting prejudice towards ‘out-groups’; i.e. those with larity to humans. A signiﬁcant correlation (r ¼ 0.542, P, unfamiliar weltanshung. In this case, a non-human species 0.01) was found between similarity to humans and the would be considered an extreme out-group, as their different average liking ratings of species. natural histories and ‘cultures’ do not ﬁt with the anthropo- centric worldview. Furthermore, out-group derogation is likely to increase with dissimilarity, as the increasingly Discussion alien morphologies and survival strategies of contrasting A signiﬁcant association was found between the mean liking species become disassociated from the weltanshung.In rating of a species and determined biobehavioural similarity addition, both the fecundity and caste-nature of many ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 183 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Figure 1. Clustering of species similarities based on two-means cluster analysis. The axes are similarity measures based on Euclidean distances. species (such as eusocial insects) strongly conﬂicts with the Traits which humans recognize and understand in other human concepts of individuality and freedom, another species cause anthropomorphism, i.e. application of human potential incentive for in-group afﬁliation and intolerance mental states to non-human animals and a form of identiﬁ- 7 16 of the out-group. cation with that species. Though anthropomorphism has the However, any animal may remind us of our ‘creatureli- potential to cause an overestimation of similarities, it also ness’, so should they not all be derogated as out-groups? appears to increase interest, care and concern for a species. Beatson and Halloran investigated how reminders of simi- Of course, any preference for similar animals created larity to bonobos (while watching a video of their mating be- through anthropomorphic thinking may not be adaptive in haviour) affected participants’ attitudes towards them. The itself, but simply a pleiotropic effect. However, anthropo- results implied that after reminders of bonobo – human simi- morphism could be adaptive. Mithen proposes that larity attitudes towards the bonobos became more negative, human ability to anthropomorphize may have evolved 40 supporting the ‘reminders of creatureliness’ hypothesis. 000 years ago because of increased ‘cognitive ﬂuidity’, that However, humans may only have this response to similar is, better connections between brain areas including increased animals if they are forced to compare ‘creaturely’ acts to ability to make inferences about the thoughts and feelings of their own. In other words, had the participants watched others. Mithen argues that anthropomorphism became a bonobos displaying positive social behaviours such as altru- common human trait as a result of its adaptive value— ism or cooperation, they may have identiﬁed with the modern humans in the Upper Paleolithic appear to have bonobos in a more positive way. planned and executed hunts by predicting prey behaviour. As naturally social animals, humans may be adapted to Serpell additionally suggests that anthropomorphism may empathize with others, and insofar as empathy improves have enabled domestication of companion and agricultural social interaction it will consequently have ﬁtness beneﬁts. animals. This potentially evolved trait, combined with Therefore, it may also be that humans are evolved to recognize human identiﬁcation with similar others, provides good and appreciate similarities between themselves and others and reasoning as to why humans should recognize their simi- be suspicious of differences (which may signify conﬂict). larities to other animals and prefer them. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 184 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 3. Results of principle component analysis Kellert’s survey found general dislike and aversion towards invertebrates to be irrespective of their potential Component risk to humans. Similarly, the current study found that the 12 3 harmless beetle scored the same low mean average rating ................................................................................................................ (2.3) as the more dangerous centipede. This suggests that Shrew 20.923 within invertebrate groups, any similarity to humans may Walrus 20.881 be virtually absent and the dissimilarity effect may become Elephant 20.880 less inﬂuential, or even obsolete, compared with other Whale 20.868 7 factors affecting preference. Both Kellert and the current Elk 20.826 study found invertebrates with aesthetic appeal (such as the Snail 0.824 moth and starﬁsh) to be rated more positively than Salamander 0.817 less-attractive species (e.g. the houseﬂy). Although aesthetics Beetle 0.811 are by no means the only deciding factor (especially consid- ering subjectivity in aesthetic judgement), in this case attrac- Moth 0.809 tiveness may outweigh other factors, including similarity to Frog 0.809 humans. However, it could be argued that for a preference Spider 0.807 based on similarity to exist, it must also coincide with Sea Dragon 0.806 some evolutionarily adaptive function. Prawn 0.804 Thus, there are many previous ﬁndings in the literature Fly 0.804 that support the proposal that human attitudes to animals Bee 0.804 are affected by species’ similarity to humans. Theories Scallop 0.804 suggesting contact between humans and other animals Trout 0.803 invokes mortality salience and terror management, affecting Eel 0.803 weltanshung, are rather abstract. However, these processes Jellyﬁsh 0.802 may act on the human preconscious when apprehending a Crab 0.801 species’ behaviour. Therefore, despite their theoretical nature, these viewpoints are relevant to the current study Starﬁsh 0.801 because it is likely that even an instantaneous reaction to a Centipede 0.795 species may derive from previous observation or consider- Gemsbok 20.749 ation of its behaviour. However, the results of this study Millipede 0.732 may have been more strongly affected by participant level Python 0.912 of (or lack of ) identiﬁcation and empathy with each Badger 0.900 species, as this is likely to be more immediate than detailed Emu 0.898 consideration of a species’ threat to one’s worldview, indivi- Goose 0.879 duality and so on. 1, 2, 4, 8, 18 Kangaroo 0.869 It is evident from previous research that a wide Eagle 0.853 variety of factors affect human attitudes towards animals. To Langur 0.800 be realistic, the impact of multiple factors inducing human Human 0.787 responses to other species must also be considered. The current study has attempted to control for some of the Leopard 0.780 most inﬂuential confounding effects of other variables, for Shark 0.764 example by excluding domestic animals and, where possible, Chimp 0.750 highly aesthetically attractive and neotenous animals. Unlike Barn Owl 0.741 previous research using photographs, line drawings of stan- Sparrow 20.957 dardized sizes were used to prevent confounding effects of Lizard 20.942 differing photograph colour, angle, quality and background. Bat 20.915 When species were placed in groups of variable, aposematic Rat 20.910 and cryptic colourings, there was only minor variation in Worm mean average liking rating between these groups, suggesting that the use of greyscale pictures minimized the inﬂuence of colour on perception (as noted by Stokes ). There was also In contrast, when humans encounter those animals with no signiﬁcant correlation found between species’ body which they cannot identify (for example, many invert- length and mean average liking rating, suggesting that size ebrates), there is less care and concern. In this regard, effects (as investigated by Ward ) were also minimized in ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 185 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Figure 2. Euclidean distance measures between humans and the 40 species used in the study. The lower a species is on the scale, the more dissimilar it is calculated to be from humans. Groups of similar species can also be identiﬁed from this ﬁgure, as those with smaller vertical distances between them. the current study. Humans may react more negatively to by participants. This is not to suggest that similarity alone animals of which they are afraid. These reactions could does fully explain the order, or human preferences, but have strong effects on this study’s results, as fear-inducing that the strong connection between this composite measure animals are often the same invertebrates considered very dis- of biobehavioural similarity to humans and the average similar to humans. However, there was no obvious consist- rating given for a species is highly dependent upon this facet. ency—snakes and spiders, though commonly feared, were If the results of the current study can be said to demon- rated less negatively than more harmless species. Animals strate a real effect of biobehavioural similarity on the that are feared owing to their disgust-inducing nature (a human attitude to species, this may partly explain why response likely to have evolved because of close association mammals, the smallest phyla, are so greatly over-represented 19 2 with disease ) were negatively perceived (e.g. rat, ﬂy), but by conservation efforts and human interest. Interestingly, the disease-association free desert rodent (elephant shrew) Kellert’s study found the American public’s favourite wild was perceived more negatively still. Although potential risk animals to be birds. In this study, all birds but the Emu (whether real or perceived) clearly plays an important role received a positive (i.e. above median) rating from partici- in species preferences of invertebrates, humans frequently pants. This has implications regarding potentially signiﬁcant rate potentially dangerous vertebrates (such as the snow effects of behavioural similarities, as although birds are leopard and elephant) higher than their harmless fellow physiologically dissimilar to mammals, their frequently mammals. Czech et al. found rarity to be an important social nature, bipedalism and pair-bonding with high levels inﬂuence on attitude and this ﬁnding is reﬂected in the of biparental investment are all reminiscent of humans. current study, with preference for a species increasing along- The strong bias towards our closest relatives the chimpan- side its IUCN status. However, conservation status per se zees suggests that humans may recognize and identify with may not inﬂuence attitude, as the most endangered species many of their own behaviours in this species. However, our are often ‘charismatic megafauna’ as opposed to the affection for such species may diminish when we observe the non-IUCN listed common invertebrates. more ‘creaturely’ of their behaviours. This suggests that in It is clear that many factors inﬂuence human attitudes promoting interest in a species, it may be more beneﬁcial to toward species, but of those investigated none seem to com- use the anthropomorphizing nature of humans to highlight pletely explain the order in which these 40 species were rated similarities between an animal’s behaviour and our own. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 186 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Figure 3. Scatter plot showing the correlation between mean average liking rating for each species with their similarity measures to humans. Discrepant instances are marked and positioned beyond the 95% conﬁdence interval. If many invertebrates are so dissimilar from humans that created as a standard library of criteria that may be used there is no real identiﬁcation with them, they may remain gen- to compare species, including their similarity to humans in erally disliked. However, recent evidence suggests that invert- terms of size, behaviour, physical features, etc. Increased ebrates may be more similar to humans than commonly application of cladistics may be inﬂuential in this approach, thought, in that they may be capable of feeling pain. perhaps providing more precise measures of distances Indeed many people believe that invertebrates feel pain, between species. Further studies in this area should also suggesting that humans may be able to recognize even the cover a much broader range of peoples, as all studies to most tenuous similarities between other species and ourselves, date have focused on Western populations whose animal and education may play a crucial role in this regard. The knowledge and attitudes may differ from those of other cul- results of the current study, however, imply that liking is tures. It is an obvious and intriguing observation that differ- strongly dependent upon similarity. If so, dissimilar animals ent cultures regard and treat animals very differently from may remain largely disliked. However, Czech et al. found one another. It is clear that this line of research may that despite fear and dislike, most participants still (report- provide much information that will not only build our edly) believe all species to be worth conserving. knowledge of human attitudes to animals, but also assist It is clear that studies investigating factors that affect in our understanding and planning for conservation efforts species preference should be carried out, as this area is worldwide. vital to understanding how humans view the natural world and what impact these biases have on the direction conservation efforts take. Furthermore, though few studies Acknowledgements have successfully investigated species preference in depth, those that have propose compelling evidence. It is important The author would like to thank the staff and students of the that the methodology of such studies be standardized as University of Chester who provided advice, references and much as possible to enable direct comparisons. Ideally, a subjects for this study, and especially Roger Davies for his precise, accurate and comprehensive database could be consistent and invaluable support. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 187 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Appendix A Data collected: biological and behavioural traits Feature Data Entered Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Weight number in KG/ , 0.005 kg Mean averages. Male and female weight and length ranges from Length number in cm cross-referenced resources (wherever possible) Limb number Number Limb type Legs/Legs þ Wings/Legs þ Arms/Fins/Pereopods Feathers/Foot/Flippers/None Limb proportion Short/Medium/Long Where: to body 2-short-2-long/2-short-2-medium/None Short: 0–50% body length Tail Short/Medium/Long/None Medium: 50–100% body length Long: .100% body length Eye number Number Eye position None/Front/Sides/Snout/Eyestalks Colouring Cryptic/Aposematic/Translucent/Variable Where: Cryptic: inconspicuous Aposematic: highly conspicuous Integumentary Skin/Skin covering/Scales/Exoskeleton This further deﬁned by following subcategories system Skin type Thin stratum corneum þ mucous/ciliated/thick stratum corneum/stratum corneum/squamous epithelium Skin covering Fur/Feathers/Calcium Shell/None Scale type Placoid/Coarse/Cycloid þ Mucous/Organic Platelet/None Exoskeleton Cephalothorax/Sclerite exoskeleton/Chitinous exoskeleton/None Perception Single major/double major/triple major These categories represent the species’ most frequently utilised Single major Tactitiion / Vision / Electroception senses. It is not suggested that a species lacks other senses Double major Chemoception þ Vision/Vision þ Audition/ Tactition þ Chemoception/Audition þ Taction Triple major Vision þ Tactition þ Chemoception/ Vision þ Audtion þ Tactition Diet Generalist/Specialist These are further deﬁned by following subcategories Generalist Type Omnivorous/Carnivorous/Herbivorous/Saprovorous/ Suspensivorous/Detritivorous Specialist Type Nectarivorous/Insectivorous/Piscivorous/Planktonivorous/ Frugivorous Movement type Multiple/Terrestrial/Aquatic/Airborne Where: Multiple ¼ frequently utilizes .1 movement type Terrestrial Gait/Crawl/Slither/Saltation Where: movement type Gait ¼ extended limbs, body lifted from ground. Crawl ¼ bent limbs, body close to ground Slither ¼ body in contact with ground Saltation ¼ leaping upwards/forwards, all limbs leave ground Gait type Quadrupedal/Bipedal (Primarily) Crawl type Quadrupedal/Hexapedal/Octopedal/Centipedal/Millipedal Slither type Pedal wave/Water Vascular/Peristalsis Saltation type Bipedal/Quadrupedal Continued ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 188 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Continued Feature Data Entered Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Aquatic movement Undulatory/Jet Propulsion/Swimming paired appendage type Airborne Insect ﬂight/Soaring ﬂight/Manoeuvring ﬂight movement type Stance Fully erect/Sprawling/Semi-erect/Suspended Where: Fully Erect ¼ legs placed beneath body Sprawling ¼ legs spread to sides of body, body remains on ground Semi-erect ¼ legs at sides of body, body held above ground Suspended ¼ e.g. in water Social Unit Related group/Large group/Solitary/Paired/Variable Where variable ¼ changes social unit depending on time of year/ life-cycle Reproductive Monogamous/Polygynous/Polygynandrous/ Where variable ¼ able to reproduce in more than one way, or able Behaviour Hermaphrodite/Polyandrous/Variable to change sex. Monogamous type Successive/Obligate Where: Successive ¼ maintains monogamy with more than one mate in lifespan Obligate ¼ maintains monogamy with only one partner in lifespan, inc semelparous species Polygamous type Unimale/Scramble competition Where: Unimale ¼ one male has mating control over a number of females Scramble Comp ¼ where males mate with females where encountered, but no group formed Selection strategy r/K Does not suggest that species chooses strategy, but nature of reproduction falls into: r ¼ frequent reproduction, many offspring, short lifespan K ¼ infrequent reproduction, high investment in less offspring, long lifespan Offspring no. per Number Average, cross-referenced where possible, describing no. of brood offspring produced at one time – this may be per season, day, or once in lifespan Offspring type Altricial/Precocial Where: Altricial ¼ unable to care of self post-birth Precocial ¼ born mature and independent Reproduction type Iteroparous/Polycyclic/Semelparous Where: Iteroparous ¼ ‘reproduces more than once’, and in this case, ‘reproduces again after certain maturation of offspring’, e.g. when female returns to oestrus Polycyclic ¼ reproduces repeatedly at predictable times, e.g. each year Semelparous ¼ reproduces once in lifetime Post-birth Parental None/Uniparental female/Uniparental male/Biparental/ Investment Eusocial Dimorphism None/Polymorphic/Males larger/Females larger/ Mainly considering sexual dimorphism, but including species with Morphology differences polymorphism depending on role, e.g. honey bees Habitat Terrestrial/Aquatic/Subterranean Further deﬁned by following subcategories Continued ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 189 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Continued Feature Data Entered Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Terrestrial habitat Variable/Temperate/Desert/Tropical/Tundra Where variable ¼ able to live in a variety of environs, OR lives in type different environs depending on time of year/life-cycle Aquatic habitat Oceanic/Coastal/Freshwater type Temperature Hibernating Endothermic/Hibernating Ectothermic/ regulation Endothermic/Ectothermic Lifespan Number in years Mean average, cross-referenced where possible, only data from wild animals 10. Ruppert EE, Barnes RD (1994) Invertebrate Zoology, 6th ed. London: Saunders References College Publishing. 1. Kellert SR (1996) The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. 11. IMSI’s Masterclips Collection (computer software) (1985) Francisco Blvd. East, Washington: Island Press. San Rafael, California. 2. Czech B, Krausman PR, Borkhataria R (1998) Social construction, political 12. Stephan WG, Finlay K (1999) The role of empathy in improving intergroup power, and the allocation of beneﬁts to endangered species. Cons. Biol. relation. J. Soc. Issues 55: 729–743. 12: 1103–1112. 13. Allen MW, Hunstone M, Waerstad J et al. (2002) Human-to-animal similarity 3. Bryant TL (2005) Similarity or difference as a basis for justice: must animals be and participant mood inﬂuence punishment recommendations for animal like humans to be legally protected from humans? UCLA School of Research abusers. Soc. Animals 10: 267–284 Paper No. 05-21. (Retrieved on 25 December 2007 from http://ssrn.com/ 14. Alvarez L, Jaffe K (2004). Narcissism guides mate selection: humans mate abstract=796205). assortatively, as revealed by facial resemblance, following an algorithm of 4. Stokes DL (2006) Things we like: human preferences among similar organ- ‘self seeking like’. Evol. Psychol. 2: 177–194. isms and implications for conservation. Hum. Ecol. 35: 361–369. 15. Ardnt J, Greenberg J, Schimel J et al. (2002) To belong or not to belong, that 5. Knight AJ (2008) “Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!” How aesthetic and nega- is the question: terror management and identiﬁcation with gender and eth- tivistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. nicity. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 83: 26–43. J. Environ. Psychol. 28: 94–103. 16. Serpell JA (2003) Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection – 6. Kellert SR (1985) Public perceptions of predators, particularly the Wolf and beyond the ‘Cute Response’. Soc. Animals 11: 83–100. Coyote. Biol. Cons. 31: 167–189. 17. Mithen S (2007). The Hunter-Gatherer prehistory of human–animal inter- 7. Kellert SR (1993) Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Cons. Biol. 7: actions. In Kalof L, Fitzgerald A eds, The Animals Reader. Oxford: Berg, pp. 845–855. 117–128. 8. Plous S (1993) Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. 18. Ward PI, Mosberger N, Kistler C et al. (1998). The relationship between popu- J. Soc. Issues 49: 11–52. larity and body size in zoo animals. Cons. Biol. 12: 1408–1411. 9. Beatson RM, Halloran MJ (2007). Humans rule! The effects of creatureliness 19. Rossano MJ (2003) Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. reminders, mortality salience and self-esteem on attitudes towards animals. 20. Barr S, Laming PR, Dick JTA et al. (2008). Nociception or pain in a decapod Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 46: 619–632. crustacean? Anim. Behav. 75: 745–751. Author Biography Sarah Batt completed a ﬁrst-class BSc with Honours in Animal Behaviour at the University of Chester in 2008. She is now planning to travel and conduct personal research on variation in human attitudes towards animals and human-animal relationships, with a view to write for publication. Sarah gained practical experience working with animals as a volunteer at rescue centres in the Andes and in the Amazon rainforest of Ecuador, and intends to take part in further volunteering pro- jects whilst travelling. She is also considering post-graduate research in the above-mentioned area. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Submitted on 30 September 2008; accepted on 18 December 2008; advance access publication 21 April 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Bioscience Horizons Oxford University Press http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/human-attitudes-towards-animals-in-relation-to-species-similarity-to-04EP5Ii45E

Loading next page...

References (36)

S. Kellert (1993)
Values and Perceptions of Invertebrates
Conservation Biology, 7
must animals be like humans to be legally protected from humans? UCLA School of Research Paper No
Jamie Arndt, J. Greenberg, Jeff Schimel, T. Pyszczynski, S. Solomon (2002)
To belong or not to belong, that is the question: terror management and identification with gender and ethnicity.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 83 1
Thea Hobbins, Jon Waerstad, B. Wikner, M. Allen, Joanne Wirrel, Emma Foy, Mathew Hunstone (2002)
Human-to-Animal Similarity and Participant Mood Influence Punishment Recommendations for Animal Abusers
Society & Animals, 10
1103
CONS BIOL, 12
J. Serpell (2002)
Anthropomorphism and Anthropomorphic Selection—Beyond the "Cute Response"
Society & Animals, 10
(2003)
Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken
845
CONS BIOL, 7
S. Mithen (1999)
The Hunter—Gatherer Prehistory Of Human—Animal Interactions
Anthrozoos, 12
361
, 35
94
, 28
Beatson (2007)
619
The British journal of social psychology / the British Psychological Society, 46
R. Beatson, Michael Halloran (2007)
Humans rule! The effects of creatureliness reminders, mortality salience and self-esteem on attitudes towards animals.
The British journal of social psychology, 46 Pt 3
729
, 55
267
SOC ANIMALS, 10
B. Czech, P. Krausman, R. Borkhataria (1998)
Social Construction, Political Power, and the Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species
Conservation Biology, 12
S. Plous (1993)
Psychological Mechanisms in the Human Use of Animals
Journal of Social Issues, 49
Michael Leahy (1997)
The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society
Biodiversity & Conservation, 6
745
Animal Behaviour, 75
(1994)
Invertebrate Zoology, 6th ed
W. Stephan, Krystina Finlay (1999)
The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations.
Journal of Social Issues, 55
Arndt (2002)
26
Journal of personality and social psychology, 83
Butter (1993)
11
, 49
J. Pleck, F. Sonenstein, L. Ku (1993)
Masculinity Ideology: Its Impact on Adolescent Males' Heterosexual Relationships
Journal of Social Issues, 49
S. Kellert (1985)
Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote
Biological Conservation, 31
177
EVOL PSYCHOL, 2
1408
CONS BIOL, 12
167
BIOL CONS, 31
S. Barr, P. Laming, J. Dick, R. Elwood (2008)
Nociception or pain in a decapod crustacean?
Animal Behaviour, 75
Liliana Alvarez, K. Jaffe (2004)
Narcissism Guides Mate Selection: Humans Mate Assortatively, as Revealed by Facial Resemblance, following an Algorithm of “Self Seeking Like”
Evolutionary Psychology, 2
D. Stokes (2007)
Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation
Human Ecology, 35
I. Butter (1993)
Premature Adoption and Routinization of Medical Technology: Illustrations from Childbirth Technology
Journal of Social Issues, 49
83
SOC ANIMALS, 11
A. Knight (2008)
“Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28
Taimie Bryant (2005)
Similarity or Difference as a Basis for Justice: Must Animals Be Like Humans To Be Legally Protected From Humans?
Social Science Research Network
P. Ward, Nicole Mosberger, C. Kistler, O. Fischer (1998)
The Relationship between Popularity and Body Size in Zoo Animals
Conservation Biology, 12

Publisher: Oxford University Press
Copyright: © Published by Oxford University Press.
Subject: Research articles
eISSN: 1754-7431
DOI: 10.1093/biohorizons/hzp021
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 10.1093/biohorizons/hzp021 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Research article Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach Sarah Batt* University of Chester, Chester, UK. * Corresponding author: 34 Lower Park, Minehead, Somerset TA24 8AY, UK. Tel: þ44 7917 872983. Email: sarahlbatt@gmail.com Supervisor: Roger Davies, University of Chester, Chester, Cheshire CH1 4BJ, UK. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Human attitudes towards animals are becoming of increasing importance in the areas of conservation and welfare. It has long been taken for granted that our attitudes are inﬂuenced by the degree of biological or behavioural similarity between a given species and ourselves. This research investigates whether there is a link between bio-behavioural similarity to humans and preferences for animal species that are obtained when subjects view a set of 40 pictures illustrating a wide diversity of animals. Extensive data regarding the natural history, behaviour and physiology of 40 species of animals from a wide range of taxonomic groups were collected. Bio- behavioural similarity between animal species and humans was formed on the basis of multidimensional analyses, including factors such as size, weight and lifespan among the physical attributes, and reproductive strategy, parental investment and social organization among the behavioural traits. It was found that a clear relationship between similarity and preference exists, suggesting that humans are predisposed to liking species on the basis of shared bio-behavioural traits. These results imply that efforts made in the conservation and welfare of species may be biased more by anthropocentric views than has been previously recognized. It may be important for a new approach to be taken when it comes to determining the targets of conservation. Key words: human attitudes, animals, multivariate conservation. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ American public on their attitudes to different species. The Introduction results of this investigation suggested that species preference There is notable variation in human attitudes towards is affected by a wide variety of inﬂuences that can be categor- animals. Certain species and groups seem to be valued ized into four major factors: more highly in terms of conservation, research and public 1, 2 interest. To date, however, few studies have investigated (i) An individual’s prior attitude towards, and values of, the reasons for the occurrence of such variations. This is sur- wildlife and nature (e.g. humanistic, utilitarian). prising when one considers the impact human preference (ii) An individual’s previous experience and knowledge of a may have on a species’ future, perhaps determining how species or group. much time and money is spent on conservation or affecting (iii) The relationship between species and humans, for how far rights are granted in terms of experimentation and example cultural signiﬁcance, utility value or conserva- welfare. Furthermore, determining which species inspire tion status. support and high regard may provide valuable insight into (iv) Human perceptions of individual species (in terms of human reasoning and determination of attitudes. It may be aesthetic value, assumed intelligence, threat, etc.)—the thought self-evident that humans prefer some animal most important factor for the present study. groups to others, but what determines which are favoured and which are disregarded? In a similar study, Czech et al. found that certain groups of Kellert pioneered research into this area in a study species are preferred to others, for instance, birds and conducted in 1978 that surveyed 3945 members of the mammals were favoured for conservation over reptiles and ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2009 The Author(s). This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 180 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... invertebrates and within the reptile group, conservational of species similarity and our preferences may imply that support is heavily biased towards the Testudines. Both an adaptive function exists for such biases. Moreover, an studies propose a range of factors that may inﬂuence objective study would be more widely applicable because it species or group perception. For example, domestic animals would be less dependent on the individual’s knowledge or are frequently favoured, as are aesthetically pleasing species upon cultural variation. ( further demonstrated in a study by Stokes of human per- Despite being a complex and intriguing area of research, ception of penguin species). Within other groups (e.g. ﬁsh particularly with regard to human decisions concerning and invertebrates), those species with utility or monetary species protection and conservation, our knowledge and values are favoured, such as trout and honey bees. understanding of factors affecting human preferences for Recently, Knight highlighted the inﬂuence of perceived different species has barely increased since Kellert’s original threat from a species, and also that of neoteny (sometimes work was published. Furthermore, the measurement of referred to as the ‘cute effect’). Other inﬂuential factors species similarity has not advanced and studies employing may be cultural signiﬁcance and perceived sentience. this concept have generally used weak methodology. Previous studies have often highlighted ‘similarity to Although the potential inﬂuence of similarity as a factor humans’ as a factor inﬂuencing human attitude towards a has been acknowledged, the biological bases of species’ simi- 1, 6, 7 species. Kellert repeatedly notes the signiﬁcance of larity to humans have rarely been adequately deﬁned. This is this factor, yet does not discuss it in detail. Only one study despite the fact that socio-psychological research on human – to date has considered this factor in any depth. Plous con- human similarities (e.g. in forming the basis of friend or mate ducted four minor studies that found there were correlations choice) has had a relatively long history and suggests some between subjects’ perceptions of a species similarity to plausible options for between-species measures. humans and their proposed conservational importance, in This study takes a multivariate approach with the aim of which most people would prefer to ‘save’ species that they providing an objective measure of species’ biobehavioural consider to be most similar to humans. However, these similarity, and to test whether this measure of human – studies were on a small scale using a limited number of animal similarity inﬂuences our preferences for other species. In some cases species were aggregated into uneven species. Thus, the study questions if a species’ biobehavioural groups, such as the order ‘frogs’ and the genus ‘dogs’. similarity to humans affects human attitudes towards it. The It is generally presumed (and supported by Plous’ study) term biobehavioural is used here to reﬂect that a wide range that humans will prefer species’ that are perceived to be of biological, behavioural and social factors are involved in a similar to their own. However, Beatson and Halloran multidimensional deﬁnition of similarity. Therefore, it does found a converse effect, in that after subjects watched a not relate simply to superﬁcial appearance criteria such as video of bonobos mating their subjects experienced negative body size or coloration, and unless otherwise stated, simi- feelings towards this species. It is suggested that recognition larity will be used only with this strict multifactorial of similarities between humans and animals may make meaning for the remainder of this paper. humans uncomfortable and consequently less disposed to positive feelings towards them. The current study attempts to approach this area in a Materials and Methods different manner to previous studies by objectifying the Species Catalogue meaning of ‘human – species similarity’. A major issue with studies such as that by Plous is that they have used human A catalogue of information on 40 animal species was created perception of species similarity to themselves as a measure. so as to represent as wide a range of species as feasible In terms of a species position in society, this may well be (Table 1). These were not chosen in proportion to the the most valuable gauge of similarity as it is this same number of recorded species, simply because of the massive human perception that will determine overall attitudes. imbalance between vertebrates and invertebrates that However, human perception is subjective and so if partici- would arise as the latter make up 97% of all animal pants perceived a species to be similar to humans then it species. This study mainly used species that are easily would be recorded as similar, independently of any objective recognizable to non-specialist participants. Most of the measure. Thus, if subjects were to perceive a dog to be more major invertebrate groups were represented, with an empha- similar to humans than is a monkey, this would be held to be sis on the largest phyla, Arthropoda. The selection was true, irrespective of the cladistical evidence. Secondly, human intended to include a representative from each signiﬁcant, perception is affected by contextual cues, and may change recognizable grouping of species. For example, the over time. For instance, as an individual’s knowledge and mammals selected included a rodent, a bat, an ape, understanding of a species changes, then that species may a monkey, an ungulate, a marine mammal and a marsupial. appear to be more or less similar to humans. By way of con- Another important factor determining the inclusion of trast, any correlation between an objectively deﬁned measure species was the amount of information known about their ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 181 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 1. Animals used in study (common names) Participants Seventy-one students from the University of Chester, predomi- Mammals Birds Fish Reptiles Amphibians Invertebrates ................................................................................................................ nantly females with a mean age of 23.7 years participated in Badger Eagle Eel Lizard Frog Bee this study. Although this sample size is very small for the multi- Bat Emu Sea Python Salamander Beetle variate analyses undertaken here, time restrictions during the Dragon ﬁnal year of degree studies limited my intentioned target Blue Whale Goose Shark Centipede number. However, using small samples normally precludes ﬁnding signiﬁcant main effects, which was not the case here. Chimpanzee Owl Trout Crab None of the participants were biology students, although Elephant Sparrow Earthworm most were taking science subjects. Each was given a question- Elk Houseﬂy naire requesting gender, degree programme and date of birth, Gemsbok Jellyﬁsh followed by 40 Thurstone scales ranging from ‘Strongly Kangaroo Millipede Dislike’ to ‘Strongly Like’ with a ‘Neutral’ centre-point. Langur Moth Leopard Prawn Procedure Rat Scallop Participants were informed that they were taking part in a Shrew Snail study investigating human perceptions of animals. They Walrus Spider were read and shown instructions on a PowerPoint slide Starﬁsh and it was stressed that it was their personal rating of the animal species (rather than the picture) that was required. The presentation automatically displayed the series of 40 biology, ecology and behaviour. In order to control for any animals in a random order. Prior to each slide, a number cor- confounding effects of familiarity, domestic animals were responding to that picture was displayed, with an alerting excluded. Based on these prerequisites, the speciﬁc species sound. After 3 s, this number was replaced by the species were selected from a large collection of greyscale drawings, picture, displayed for 6 s. Within this time participants as each would require pictorial representation. In some recorded their preference on the Thurstone scales described. cases, appropriate pictures were not available (e.g. of testu- Participants were fully debriefed regarding the study’s dines), limiting the selection. Detailed species’ information purpose. was acquired from authoritative books and articles, and where possible this was cross-referenced between a number of sources. It was occasionally necessary to collect data for Results a similar species. Collected data included life history details and physical and behavioural traits (Appendix A). Each participant rated each of the 40 species by placing a Although the data set collected is by no means comprehen- mark on a 10-cm wide scale (essentially, this is a blank sive, it may still be considered to be representative for the line on which their responses are marked). The mean purposes of this study. average liking ratings for each species are shown in Table 2. All analyses were carried out using SPSS (version 15) and MVSP (Kovach Computing). A number of multi- Materials variate statistics were used to explore similarities (measures Greyscale line drawings of each species were prepared at the of Euclidean distance) between species. First, an agglomera- centre of a white card, all 40 cards having the same dimen- tive, hierarchical cluster analysis identiﬁed three clusters sions. Line drawings of each animal were taken from a (Figure 1). This partitioning was also found in a principal single source. Greyscale drawings were used so as to components analysis (PCA), created using varimax rotation reduce the confounding effects of variations in image and Kaiser normalization. The PCA extracted three princi- quality, lighting, colour or viewing angle that may differ pals (Table 3), two of which correspond to the two group- widely between photographs. Naturally, greyscale drawings ings from the cluster analysis, suggesting a robust set of do not demonstrate the colour of natural pelage that often similarities within these clusters. The third PCA component forms an important element in the impact and appearance is made up of a small group of similar-sized insectivorous/ of a species, but bright coloration may also act to divert omnivorous species, which is also evident in the hierarchical the viewer’s attention towards more aesthetic characteristics clustering shown in Figure 1. Finally, multidimensional of species. The aim of the presentation was to prompt species scaling (MDS) was used to explore the cluster conﬁgurations recognition from participants without such distractions and in three dimensions. Again, the two major groupings were so for this purpose, image degradation is a beneﬁcial com- clearly identiﬁable, but rotation also demonstrated that ponent of the presentation. species such as the elk, worm, millipede, bat and sparrow ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 182 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 2. Mean average species ratings (to 1 decimal place), in to humans. This supports the hypothesis that, at some level, ascending order similarity to humans is an important factor inﬂuencing human attitudes towards animals. Why might this effect Species—negative Average Species—positive Average occur? ratings rating ratings rating ................................................................................................................ Research in social psychology suggests a potential expla- Jellyﬁsh 1.9 Sea Dragon 5.2 nation as to why humans may show preference for similar Houseﬂy 2.1 Shark 5.3 animals. It has been found that people are more empathetic, Bee 2.3 Trout 5.5 show greater helping behaviour and are more attracted to Centipede 2.3 Frog 5.7 those other people whom they perceive to be similar to 12 – 14 8 Beetle 2.3 Badger 5.8 them. Plous suggests that humans may display a form of positive assortative mate choice in a more generalized Millipede 2.4 Scallop 5.8 sense that he terms ‘positive assortative caring’, which may Spider 2.6 Walrus 5.9 encompass other animals. Although there are various the- Eel 2.7 Starﬁsh 6.3 ories as to why this form of preference may occur, Alvarez Earthworm 3.0 Goose 6.4 and Jaffe note that that in humans this effect is most Python 3.2 Eagle 6.5 evident in non-biological traits, i.e. cultural or social simi- Elephant Shrew 3.6 Kangaroo 6.8 larities such as education or religion. This may support Rat 3.7 Whale 6.9 Plous’ notion, in that we may be inﬂuenced just as much Prawn 3.7 Gemsbok 6.9 by a species resembling us in intelligence and behaviours as Snail 3.8 Elk 6.9 by physical similarities. Many of these salient characteristics Crab 4.3 Moth 6.9 of animals (e.g. sociability) are evident in those species that Bat 4.4 Sparrow 7.2 humans commonly choose as pets, and have bred into dom- Salamander 4.4 Langur 7.3 esticated stock animals. In addition to a potential preference for similarity, there Emu 4.8 Leopard 7.7 is evidence suggesting that humans also actively dislike dis- Lizard 5.0 Owl 7.7 similar animals (e.g. invertebrates ). In the current study, 18 Elephant 7.8 out of 40 species had average ratings below the neutral Chimpanzee 8.2 point of the scale, and participants frequently recorded a ‘strongly dislike’ rating (Table 2). There are a number of appear as more distant from the clusters, suggesting a looser psychological theories that may provide some explanation afﬁliation within this group of species. MDS was also used to for this. calculate (Euclidean) distance measures for each species in First, all animals potentially remind humans of their own their proximity to humans (Figure 2). Two distinct groups ‘creatureliness’, that is, a shared evolutionary history with were once again apparent from the MDS: those with many species and parallels in sexual behaviour and pro- closest proximity to humans (chimp through to gemsbok) duction of bodily products. It is suggested that such remin- and those furthest from humans (beetle to crab). The ders increase human ‘mortality salience’, i.e. awareness of central group of species shown in Figure 2 are those not the inevitability of one’s own death, as mortality is similar enough to form a single homogenous group, having perhaps the predominant trait humans share with all correlations ranging from 0.177 (sea dragon) to 0.78 (barn animals. In turn, an increase in mortality salience may lead owl). The Euclidean distance between humans and each of to a response known as ‘terror management’. This is the 40 species and their liking ratings are shown in described as a cognitive mechanism designed to control the Figure 3. There are two anomalies to what would be panic created by knowledge of mortality by causing expected from this association. Moth and starﬁsh are rated humans to cling to their ‘cultural worldview’ (weltanshung). more positively than expected and lie outside the 95% con- An increase in identiﬁcation with one’s worldview (as a form ﬁdence interval, snake and worm had average ratings more of terror management) has the effect of derogating, directing negative than would be expected judging from their simi- and eliciting prejudice towards ‘out-groups’; i.e. those with larity to humans. A signiﬁcant correlation (r ¼ 0.542, P, unfamiliar weltanshung. In this case, a non-human species 0.01) was found between similarity to humans and the would be considered an extreme out-group, as their different average liking ratings of species. natural histories and ‘cultures’ do not ﬁt with the anthropo- centric worldview. Furthermore, out-group derogation is likely to increase with dissimilarity, as the increasingly Discussion alien morphologies and survival strategies of contrasting A signiﬁcant association was found between the mean liking species become disassociated from the weltanshung.In rating of a species and determined biobehavioural similarity addition, both the fecundity and caste-nature of many ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 183 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Figure 1. Clustering of species similarities based on two-means cluster analysis. The axes are similarity measures based on Euclidean distances. species (such as eusocial insects) strongly conﬂicts with the Traits which humans recognize and understand in other human concepts of individuality and freedom, another species cause anthropomorphism, i.e. application of human potential incentive for in-group afﬁliation and intolerance mental states to non-human animals and a form of identiﬁ- 7 16 of the out-group. cation with that species. Though anthropomorphism has the However, any animal may remind us of our ‘creatureli- potential to cause an overestimation of similarities, it also ness’, so should they not all be derogated as out-groups? appears to increase interest, care and concern for a species. Beatson and Halloran investigated how reminders of simi- Of course, any preference for similar animals created larity to bonobos (while watching a video of their mating be- through anthropomorphic thinking may not be adaptive in haviour) affected participants’ attitudes towards them. The itself, but simply a pleiotropic effect. However, anthropo- results implied that after reminders of bonobo – human simi- morphism could be adaptive. Mithen proposes that larity attitudes towards the bonobos became more negative, human ability to anthropomorphize may have evolved 40 supporting the ‘reminders of creatureliness’ hypothesis. 000 years ago because of increased ‘cognitive ﬂuidity’, that However, humans may only have this response to similar is, better connections between brain areas including increased animals if they are forced to compare ‘creaturely’ acts to ability to make inferences about the thoughts and feelings of their own. In other words, had the participants watched others. Mithen argues that anthropomorphism became a bonobos displaying positive social behaviours such as altru- common human trait as a result of its adaptive value— ism or cooperation, they may have identiﬁed with the modern humans in the Upper Paleolithic appear to have bonobos in a more positive way. planned and executed hunts by predicting prey behaviour. As naturally social animals, humans may be adapted to Serpell additionally suggests that anthropomorphism may empathize with others, and insofar as empathy improves have enabled domestication of companion and agricultural social interaction it will consequently have ﬁtness beneﬁts. animals. This potentially evolved trait, combined with Therefore, it may also be that humans are evolved to recognize human identiﬁcation with similar others, provides good and appreciate similarities between themselves and others and reasoning as to why humans should recognize their simi- be suspicious of differences (which may signify conﬂict). larities to other animals and prefer them. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 184 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Table 3. Results of principle component analysis Kellert’s survey found general dislike and aversion towards invertebrates to be irrespective of their potential Component risk to humans. Similarly, the current study found that the 12 3 harmless beetle scored the same low mean average rating ................................................................................................................ (2.3) as the more dangerous centipede. This suggests that Shrew 20.923 within invertebrate groups, any similarity to humans may Walrus 20.881 be virtually absent and the dissimilarity effect may become Elephant 20.880 less inﬂuential, or even obsolete, compared with other Whale 20.868 7 factors affecting preference. Both Kellert and the current Elk 20.826 study found invertebrates with aesthetic appeal (such as the Snail 0.824 moth and starﬁsh) to be rated more positively than Salamander 0.817 less-attractive species (e.g. the houseﬂy). Although aesthetics Beetle 0.811 are by no means the only deciding factor (especially consid- ering subjectivity in aesthetic judgement), in this case attrac- Moth 0.809 tiveness may outweigh other factors, including similarity to Frog 0.809 humans. However, it could be argued that for a preference Spider 0.807 based on similarity to exist, it must also coincide with Sea Dragon 0.806 some evolutionarily adaptive function. Prawn 0.804 Thus, there are many previous ﬁndings in the literature Fly 0.804 that support the proposal that human attitudes to animals Bee 0.804 are affected by species’ similarity to humans. Theories Scallop 0.804 suggesting contact between humans and other animals Trout 0.803 invokes mortality salience and terror management, affecting Eel 0.803 weltanshung, are rather abstract. However, these processes Jellyﬁsh 0.802 may act on the human preconscious when apprehending a Crab 0.801 species’ behaviour. Therefore, despite their theoretical nature, these viewpoints are relevant to the current study Starﬁsh 0.801 because it is likely that even an instantaneous reaction to a Centipede 0.795 species may derive from previous observation or consider- Gemsbok 20.749 ation of its behaviour. However, the results of this study Millipede 0.732 may have been more strongly affected by participant level Python 0.912 of (or lack of ) identiﬁcation and empathy with each Badger 0.900 species, as this is likely to be more immediate than detailed Emu 0.898 consideration of a species’ threat to one’s worldview, indivi- Goose 0.879 duality and so on. 1, 2, 4, 8, 18 Kangaroo 0.869 It is evident from previous research that a wide Eagle 0.853 variety of factors affect human attitudes towards animals. To Langur 0.800 be realistic, the impact of multiple factors inducing human Human 0.787 responses to other species must also be considered. The current study has attempted to control for some of the Leopard 0.780 most inﬂuential confounding effects of other variables, for Shark 0.764 example by excluding domestic animals and, where possible, Chimp 0.750 highly aesthetically attractive and neotenous animals. Unlike Barn Owl 0.741 previous research using photographs, line drawings of stan- Sparrow 20.957 dardized sizes were used to prevent confounding effects of Lizard 20.942 differing photograph colour, angle, quality and background. Bat 20.915 When species were placed in groups of variable, aposematic Rat 20.910 and cryptic colourings, there was only minor variation in Worm mean average liking rating between these groups, suggesting that the use of greyscale pictures minimized the inﬂuence of colour on perception (as noted by Stokes ). There was also In contrast, when humans encounter those animals with no signiﬁcant correlation found between species’ body which they cannot identify (for example, many invert- length and mean average liking rating, suggesting that size ebrates), there is less care and concern. In this regard, effects (as investigated by Ward ) were also minimized in ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 185 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Figure 2. Euclidean distance measures between humans and the 40 species used in the study. The lower a species is on the scale, the more dissimilar it is calculated to be from humans. Groups of similar species can also be identiﬁed from this ﬁgure, as those with smaller vertical distances between them. the current study. Humans may react more negatively to by participants. This is not to suggest that similarity alone animals of which they are afraid. These reactions could does fully explain the order, or human preferences, but have strong effects on this study’s results, as fear-inducing that the strong connection between this composite measure animals are often the same invertebrates considered very dis- of biobehavioural similarity to humans and the average similar to humans. However, there was no obvious consist- rating given for a species is highly dependent upon this facet. ency—snakes and spiders, though commonly feared, were If the results of the current study can be said to demon- rated less negatively than more harmless species. Animals strate a real effect of biobehavioural similarity on the that are feared owing to their disgust-inducing nature (a human attitude to species, this may partly explain why response likely to have evolved because of close association mammals, the smallest phyla, are so greatly over-represented 19 2 with disease ) were negatively perceived (e.g. rat, ﬂy), but by conservation efforts and human interest. Interestingly, the disease-association free desert rodent (elephant shrew) Kellert’s study found the American public’s favourite wild was perceived more negatively still. Although potential risk animals to be birds. In this study, all birds but the Emu (whether real or perceived) clearly plays an important role received a positive (i.e. above median) rating from partici- in species preferences of invertebrates, humans frequently pants. This has implications regarding potentially signiﬁcant rate potentially dangerous vertebrates (such as the snow effects of behavioural similarities, as although birds are leopard and elephant) higher than their harmless fellow physiologically dissimilar to mammals, their frequently mammals. Czech et al. found rarity to be an important social nature, bipedalism and pair-bonding with high levels inﬂuence on attitude and this ﬁnding is reﬂected in the of biparental investment are all reminiscent of humans. current study, with preference for a species increasing along- The strong bias towards our closest relatives the chimpan- side its IUCN status. However, conservation status per se zees suggests that humans may recognize and identify with may not inﬂuence attitude, as the most endangered species many of their own behaviours in this species. However, our are often ‘charismatic megafauna’ as opposed to the affection for such species may diminish when we observe the non-IUCN listed common invertebrates. more ‘creaturely’ of their behaviours. This suggests that in It is clear that many factors inﬂuence human attitudes promoting interest in a species, it may be more beneﬁcial to toward species, but of those investigated none seem to com- use the anthropomorphizing nature of humans to highlight pletely explain the order in which these 40 species were rated similarities between an animal’s behaviour and our own. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 186 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Figure 3. Scatter plot showing the correlation between mean average liking rating for each species with their similarity measures to humans. Discrepant instances are marked and positioned beyond the 95% conﬁdence interval. If many invertebrates are so dissimilar from humans that created as a standard library of criteria that may be used there is no real identiﬁcation with them, they may remain gen- to compare species, including their similarity to humans in erally disliked. However, recent evidence suggests that invert- terms of size, behaviour, physical features, etc. Increased ebrates may be more similar to humans than commonly application of cladistics may be inﬂuential in this approach, thought, in that they may be capable of feeling pain. perhaps providing more precise measures of distances Indeed many people believe that invertebrates feel pain, between species. Further studies in this area should also suggesting that humans may be able to recognize even the cover a much broader range of peoples, as all studies to most tenuous similarities between other species and ourselves, date have focused on Western populations whose animal and education may play a crucial role in this regard. The knowledge and attitudes may differ from those of other cul- results of the current study, however, imply that liking is tures. It is an obvious and intriguing observation that differ- strongly dependent upon similarity. If so, dissimilar animals ent cultures regard and treat animals very differently from may remain largely disliked. However, Czech et al. found one another. It is clear that this line of research may that despite fear and dislike, most participants still (report- provide much information that will not only build our edly) believe all species to be worth conserving. knowledge of human attitudes to animals, but also assist It is clear that studies investigating factors that affect in our understanding and planning for conservation efforts species preference should be carried out, as this area is worldwide. vital to understanding how humans view the natural world and what impact these biases have on the direction conservation efforts take. Furthermore, though few studies Acknowledgements have successfully investigated species preference in depth, those that have propose compelling evidence. It is important The author would like to thank the staff and students of the that the methodology of such studies be standardized as University of Chester who provided advice, references and much as possible to enable direct comparisons. Ideally, a subjects for this study, and especially Roger Davies for his precise, accurate and comprehensive database could be consistent and invaluable support. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 187 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Appendix A Data collected: biological and behavioural traits Feature Data Entered Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Weight number in KG/ , 0.005 kg Mean averages. Male and female weight and length ranges from Length number in cm cross-referenced resources (wherever possible) Limb number Number Limb type Legs/Legs þ Wings/Legs þ Arms/Fins/Pereopods Feathers/Foot/Flippers/None Limb proportion Short/Medium/Long Where: to body 2-short-2-long/2-short-2-medium/None Short: 0–50% body length Tail Short/Medium/Long/None Medium: 50–100% body length Long: .100% body length Eye number Number Eye position None/Front/Sides/Snout/Eyestalks Colouring Cryptic/Aposematic/Translucent/Variable Where: Cryptic: inconspicuous Aposematic: highly conspicuous Integumentary Skin/Skin covering/Scales/Exoskeleton This further deﬁned by following subcategories system Skin type Thin stratum corneum þ mucous/ciliated/thick stratum corneum/stratum corneum/squamous epithelium Skin covering Fur/Feathers/Calcium Shell/None Scale type Placoid/Coarse/Cycloid þ Mucous/Organic Platelet/None Exoskeleton Cephalothorax/Sclerite exoskeleton/Chitinous exoskeleton/None Perception Single major/double major/triple major These categories represent the species’ most frequently utilised Single major Tactitiion / Vision / Electroception senses. It is not suggested that a species lacks other senses Double major Chemoception þ Vision/Vision þ Audition/ Tactition þ Chemoception/Audition þ Taction Triple major Vision þ Tactition þ Chemoception/ Vision þ Audtion þ Tactition Diet Generalist/Specialist These are further deﬁned by following subcategories Generalist Type Omnivorous/Carnivorous/Herbivorous/Saprovorous/ Suspensivorous/Detritivorous Specialist Type Nectarivorous/Insectivorous/Piscivorous/Planktonivorous/ Frugivorous Movement type Multiple/Terrestrial/Aquatic/Airborne Where: Multiple ¼ frequently utilizes .1 movement type Terrestrial Gait/Crawl/Slither/Saltation Where: movement type Gait ¼ extended limbs, body lifted from ground. Crawl ¼ bent limbs, body close to ground Slither ¼ body in contact with ground Saltation ¼ leaping upwards/forwards, all limbs leave ground Gait type Quadrupedal/Bipedal (Primarily) Crawl type Quadrupedal/Hexapedal/Octopedal/Centipedal/Millipedal Slither type Pedal wave/Water Vascular/Peristalsis Saltation type Bipedal/Quadrupedal Continued ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 188 Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 Research article ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Continued Feature Data Entered Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Aquatic movement Undulatory/Jet Propulsion/Swimming paired appendage type Airborne Insect ﬂight/Soaring ﬂight/Manoeuvring ﬂight movement type Stance Fully erect/Sprawling/Semi-erect/Suspended Where: Fully Erect ¼ legs placed beneath body Sprawling ¼ legs spread to sides of body, body remains on ground Semi-erect ¼ legs at sides of body, body held above ground Suspended ¼ e.g. in water Social Unit Related group/Large group/Solitary/Paired/Variable Where variable ¼ changes social unit depending on time of year/ life-cycle Reproductive Monogamous/Polygynous/Polygynandrous/ Where variable ¼ able to reproduce in more than one way, or able Behaviour Hermaphrodite/Polyandrous/Variable to change sex. Monogamous type Successive/Obligate Where: Successive ¼ maintains monogamy with more than one mate in lifespan Obligate ¼ maintains monogamy with only one partner in lifespan, inc semelparous species Polygamous type Unimale/Scramble competition Where: Unimale ¼ one male has mating control over a number of females Scramble Comp ¼ where males mate with females where encountered, but no group formed Selection strategy r/K Does not suggest that species chooses strategy, but nature of reproduction falls into: r ¼ frequent reproduction, many offspring, short lifespan K ¼ infrequent reproduction, high investment in less offspring, long lifespan Offspring no. per Number Average, cross-referenced where possible, describing no. of brood offspring produced at one time – this may be per season, day, or once in lifespan Offspring type Altricial/Precocial Where: Altricial ¼ unable to care of self post-birth Precocial ¼ born mature and independent Reproduction type Iteroparous/Polycyclic/Semelparous Where: Iteroparous ¼ ‘reproduces more than once’, and in this case, ‘reproduces again after certain maturation of offspring’, e.g. when female returns to oestrus Polycyclic ¼ reproduces repeatedly at predictable times, e.g. each year Semelparous ¼ reproduces once in lifetime Post-birth Parental None/Uniparental female/Uniparental male/Biparental/ Investment Eusocial Dimorphism None/Polymorphic/Males larger/Females larger/ Mainly considering sexual dimorphism, but including species with Morphology differences polymorphism depending on role, e.g. honey bees Habitat Terrestrial/Aquatic/Subterranean Further deﬁned by following subcategories Continued ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 189 Research article Bioscience Horizons † Volume 2 † Number 2 † June 2009 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Continued Feature Data Entered Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Terrestrial habitat Variable/Temperate/Desert/Tropical/Tundra Where variable ¼ able to live in a variety of environs, OR lives in type different environs depending on time of year/life-cycle Aquatic habitat Oceanic/Coastal/Freshwater type Temperature Hibernating Endothermic/Hibernating Ectothermic/ regulation Endothermic/Ectothermic Lifespan Number in years Mean average, cross-referenced where possible, only data from wild animals 10. Ruppert EE, Barnes RD (1994) Invertebrate Zoology, 6th ed. London: Saunders References College Publishing. 1. Kellert SR (1996) The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. 11. IMSI’s Masterclips Collection (computer software) (1985) Francisco Blvd. East, Washington: Island Press. San Rafael, California. 2. Czech B, Krausman PR, Borkhataria R (1998) Social construction, political 12. Stephan WG, Finlay K (1999) The role of empathy in improving intergroup power, and the allocation of beneﬁts to endangered species. Cons. Biol. relation. J. Soc. Issues 55: 729–743. 12: 1103–1112. 13. Allen MW, Hunstone M, Waerstad J et al. (2002) Human-to-animal similarity 3. Bryant TL (2005) Similarity or difference as a basis for justice: must animals be and participant mood inﬂuence punishment recommendations for animal like humans to be legally protected from humans? UCLA School of Research abusers. Soc. Animals 10: 267–284 Paper No. 05-21. (Retrieved on 25 December 2007 from http://ssrn.com/ 14. Alvarez L, Jaffe K (2004). Narcissism guides mate selection: humans mate abstract=796205). assortatively, as revealed by facial resemblance, following an algorithm of 4. Stokes DL (2006) Things we like: human preferences among similar organ- ‘self seeking like’. Evol. Psychol. 2: 177–194. isms and implications for conservation. Hum. Ecol. 35: 361–369. 15. Ardnt J, Greenberg J, Schimel J et al. (2002) To belong or not to belong, that 5. Knight AJ (2008) “Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!” How aesthetic and nega- is the question: terror management and identiﬁcation with gender and eth- tivistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. nicity. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 83: 26–43. J. Environ. Psychol. 28: 94–103. 16. Serpell JA (2003) Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection – 6. Kellert SR (1985) Public perceptions of predators, particularly the Wolf and beyond the ‘Cute Response’. Soc. Animals 11: 83–100. Coyote. Biol. Cons. 31: 167–189. 17. Mithen S (2007). The Hunter-Gatherer prehistory of human–animal inter- 7. Kellert SR (1993) Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Cons. Biol. 7: actions. In Kalof L, Fitzgerald A eds, The Animals Reader. Oxford: Berg, pp. 845–855. 117–128. 8. Plous S (1993) Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. 18. Ward PI, Mosberger N, Kistler C et al. (1998). The relationship between popu- J. Soc. Issues 49: 11–52. larity and body size in zoo animals. Cons. Biol. 12: 1408–1411. 9. Beatson RM, Halloran MJ (2007). Humans rule! The effects of creatureliness 19. Rossano MJ (2003) Evolutionary Psychology. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. reminders, mortality salience and self-esteem on attitudes towards animals. 20. Barr S, Laming PR, Dick JTA et al. (2008). Nociception or pain in a decapod Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 46: 619–632. crustacean? Anim. Behav. 75: 745–751. Author Biography Sarah Batt completed a ﬁrst-class BSc with Honours in Animal Behaviour at the University of Chester in 2008. She is now planning to travel and conduct personal research on variation in human attitudes towards animals and human-animal relationships, with a view to write for publication. Sarah gained practical experience working with animals as a volunteer at rescue centres in the Andes and in the Amazon rainforest of Ecuador, and intends to take part in further volunteering pro- jects whilst travelling. She is also considering post-graduate research in the above-mentioned area. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Submitted on 30 September 2008; accepted on 18 December 2008; advance access publication 21 April 2009 .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Journal

Bioscience Horizons – Oxford University Press

Published: Jun 21, 2009

Keywords: Key words human attitudes animals multivariate conservation

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach

Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach

Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach

References (36)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies