What "Animal" Has An "Appendix" "Similar To Humans"

Abstract

Human attitudes towards animals are becoming of increasing importance in the areas of conservation and welfare. Information technology has long been taken for granted that our attitudes are influenced past the degree of biological or behavioural similarity betwixt 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 xl pictures illustrating a wide diversity of animals. Extensive data regarding the natural history, behaviour and physiology of forty species of animals from a wide range of taxonomic groups were nerveless. Bio-behavioural similarity betwixt beast species and humans was formed on the basis of multidimensional analyses, including factors such as size, weight and lifespan among the concrete attributes, and reproductive strategy, parental investment and social organisation among the behavioural traits. It was found that a clear human relationship betwixt similarity and preference exists, suggesting that humans are predisposed to liking species on the footing 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. Information technology may be of import for a new approach to be taken when it comes to determining the targets of conservation.

Introduction

At that place is notable variation in human attitudes towards animals. Certain species and groups seem to be valued more than highly in terms of conservation, enquiry and public involvement. ^{ane, ii} To date, nevertheless, few studies take investigated the reasons for the occurrence of such variations. This is surprising when one considers the impact human preference may have on a species' future, perhaps determining how much time and money is spent on conservation ² or affecting how far rights are granted in terms of experimentation and welfare. ^three Furthermore, determining which species inspire support and high regard may provide valuable insight into human being reasoning and determination of attitudes. It may be thought self-evident that humans prefer some animal groups to others, but what determines which are favoured and which are overlooked?

Kellert ^one pioneered research into this surface area in a written report conducted in 1978 that surveyed 3945 members of the American public on their attitudes to different species. The results of this investigation suggested that species preference is affected by a wide variety of influences that can be categorized into iv major factors: In a similar written report, Czech et al. ⁱⁱ constitute that certain groups of species are preferred to others, for instance, birds and mammals were favoured for conservation over reptiles and invertebrates and within the reptile group, conservational support is heavily biased towards the Testudines. Both studies propose a range of factors that may influence species or group perception. For example, domestic animals are frequently favoured, as are aesthetically pleasing species (further demonstrated in a study past Stokes ^four of homo perception of penguin species). Within other groups (e.yard. fish and invertebrates), those species with utility or monetary values are favoured, such as trout and dearest bees.

• An individual's prior attitude towards, and values of, wildlife and nature (eastward.g. humanistic, utilitarian).

• An private'due south previous experience and knowledge of a species or grouping.

• The relationship betwixt species and humans, for case cultural significance, utility value or conservation condition.

• Human perceptions of private species (in terms of aesthetic value, assumed intelligence, threat, etc.)—the nigh of import factor for the present report.

Recently, Knight ⁵ highlighted the influence of perceived threat from a species, and also that of neoteny (sometimes referred to as the 'beautiful result'). Other influential factors may be cultural significance and perceived sentience. ¹

Previous studies have frequently highlighted 'similarity to humans' every bit a cistron influencing human attitude towards a species. Kellert ^{1, 6, 7} repeatedly notes the significance of this cistron, still does not hash out it in detail. Just ane written report to engagement has considered this factor in whatsoever depth. Plous ⁸ conducted 4 minor studies that found in that location were correlations between subjects' perceptions of a species similarity to humans and their proposed conservational importance, in which almost people would adopt to 'salve' species that they consider to be nigh similar to humans. However, these studies were on a small scale using a limited number of species. In some cases species were aggregated into uneven groups, such as the order 'frogs' and the genus 'dogs'.

It is generally presumed (and supported by Plous' ⁸ study) that humans will prefer species' that are perceived to be similar to their own. However, Beatson and Halloran ⁹ found a converse effect, in that after subjects watched a video of bonobos mating their subjects experienced negative feelings towards this species. Information technology is suggested that recognition of similarities between humans and animals may make humans uncomfortable and consequently less disposed to positive feelings towards them. ^ix

The electric current study attempts to approach this area in a different manner to previous studies past objectifying the pregnant of 'homo–species similarity'. A major issue with studies such every bit that by Plous ^eight is that they accept used human perception of species similarity to themselves as a measure. In terms of a species position in society, this may well exist the well-nigh valuable gauge of similarity as information technology is this same human perception that will determine overall attitudes. However, human perception is subjective and then if participants perceived a species to be like to humans and then it would exist recorded as like, independently of whatever objective measure. Thus, if subjects were to perceive a dog to exist more than similar to humans than is a monkey, this would be held to be true, irrespective of the cladistical evidence. Secondly, human perception is affected past contextual cues, and may change over fourth dimension. For instance, as an individual'southward knowledge and understanding of a species changes, then that species may appear to be more than or less like to humans. Past way of contrast, any correlation between an objectively defined mensurate of species similarity and our preferences may imply that an adaptive part exists for such biases. Moreover, an objective written report would exist more than widely applicable because information technology would be less dependent on the individual's cognition or upon cultural variation.

Despite being a complex and intriguing area of research, peculiarly with regard to human decisions concerning species protection and conservation, our cognition and understanding of factors affecting human preferences for different species has barely increased since Kellert's original work was published. ¹ Furthermore, the measurement of species similarity has not advanced and studies employing this concept take by and large used weak methodology. Although the potential influence of similarity every bit a factor has been best-selling, the biological bases of species' similarity to humans have rarely been fairly defined. This is despite the fact that socio-psychological inquiry on man–human similarities (e.g. in forming the basis of friend or mate selection) has had a relatively long history and suggests some plausible options for betwixt-species measures.

This report takes a multivariate approach with the aim of providing an objective mensurate of species' biobehavioural similarity, and to exam whether this measure of human–animal similarity influences our preferences for other species. Thus, the report questions if a species' biobehavioural similarity to humans affects human attitudes towards it. The term biobehavioural is used here to reflect that a wide range of biological, behavioural and social factors are involved in a multidimensional definition of similarity. Therefore, it does not relate only to superficial advent criteria such as body size or coloration, and unless otherwise stated, similarity will be used only with this strict multifactorial significant for the remainder of this newspaper.

Materials and Methods

Species Catalogue

A catalogue of information on twoscore animal species was created and then as to represent as wide a range of species every bit feasible (Tablei). These were non chosen in proportion to the number of recorded species, but considering of the massive imbalance betwixt vertebrates and invertebrates that would arise as the latter make up 97% of all brute species. ¹⁰ This study mainly used species that are easily recognizable to non-specialist participants. Most of the major invertebrate groups were represented, with an emphasis on the largest phyla, Arthropoda. The selection was intended to include a representative from each significant, recognizable grouping of species. For example, the mammals selected included a rodent, a bat, an ape, a monkey, an ungulate, a marine mammal and a marsupial. Another of import factor determining the inclusion of species was the amount of information known about their biological science, ecology and behaviour. In social club to control for any confounding effects of familiarity, domestic animals were excluded. Based on these prerequisites, the specific species were selected from a big collection of greyscale drawings, as each would crave pictorial representation. In some cases, appropriate pictures were not available (e.g. of testudines), limiting the selection. Detailed species' data was caused from authoritative books and articles, and where possible this was cantankerous-referenced between a number of sources. Information technology was occasionally necessary to collect data for a similar species. Collected data included life history details and physical and behavioural traits (Appendix A). Although the data ready collected is by no means comprehensive, information technology may still be considered to be representative for the purposes of this written report.

Tabular array 1.

Animals used in written report (common names)

Mammals	Birds	Fish	Reptiles	Amphibians	Invertebrates
Badger	Eagle	Eel	Lizard	Frog	Bee
Bat	Emu	Bounding main Dragon	Python	Salamander	Beetle
Blue Whale	Goose	Shark			Centipede
Chimpanzee	Owl	Trout			Crab
Elephant	Sparrow				Earthworm
Elk					Housefly
Gemsbok					Jellyfish
Kangaroo					Millipede
Langur					Moth
Leopard					Prawn
Rat					Scallop
Shrew					Snail
Walrus					Spider
					Starfish

Mammals	Birds	Fish	Reptiles	Amphibians	Invertebrates
Badger	Hawkeye	Eel	Lizard	Frog	Bee
Bat	Emu	Sea Dragon	Python	Salamander	Beetle
Blue Whale	Goose	Shark			Centipede
Chimpanzee	Owl	Trout			Crab
Elephant	Sparrow				Earthworm
Elk					Housefly
Gemsbok					Jellyfish
Kangaroo					Millipede
Langur					Moth
Leopard					Prawn
Rat					Scallop
Shrew					Snail
Walrus					Spider
					Starfish

Table 1.

Animals used in study (common names)

Mammals	Birds	Fish	Reptiles	Amphibians	Invertebrates
Badger	Eagle	Eel	Lizard	Frog	Bee
Bat	Emu	Sea Dragon	Python	Salamander	Beetle
Bluish Whale	Goose	Shark			Centipede
Chimpanzee	Owl	Trout			Crab
Elephant	Sparrow				Earthworm
Elk					Housefly
Gemsbok					Jellyfish
Kangaroo					Millipede
Langur					Moth
Leopard					Prawn
Rat					Scallop
Shrew					Snail
Walrus					Spider
					Starfish

Mammals	Birds	Fish	Reptiles	Amphibians	Invertebrates
Badger	Eagle	Eel	Lizard	Frog	Bee
Bat	Emu	Sea Dragon	Python	Salamander	Protrude
Blue Whale	Goose	Shark			Centipede
Chimpanzee	Owl	Trout			Crab
Elephant	Sparrow				Earthworm
Elk					Housefly
Gemsbok					Jellyfish
Kangaroo					Millipede
Langur					Moth
Leopard					Prawn
Rat					Scallop
Shrew					Snail
Walrus					Spider
					Starfish

Materials

Greyscale line drawings of each species were prepared at the centre of a white card, all 40 cards having the same dimensions. Line drawings of each animal were taken from a single source. ¹¹ Greyscale drawings were used so as to reduce the confounding furnishings of variations in image quality, lighting, colour or viewing angle that may differ widely betwixt photographs. Naturally, greyscale drawings practise non demonstrate the colour of natural pelage that often forms an important element in the touch and appearance of a species, but bright coloration may as well human action to divert the viewer'due south attending towards more than aesthetic characteristics of species. The aim of the presentation was to prompt species recognition from participants without such distractions and so for this purpose, image degradation is a beneficial component of the presentation.

Participants

Seventy-one students from the University of Chester, predominantly females with a mean age of 23.seven years participated in this written report. Although this sample size is very small for the multivariate analyses undertaken here, fourth dimension restrictions during the final yr of caste studies limited my intentioned target number. However, using small samples normally precludes finding significant principal furnishings, which was not the case here. None of the participants were biology students, although most were taking scientific discipline subjects. Each was given a questionnaire requesting gender, degree programme and engagement of nascence, followed past 40 Thurstone scales ranging from 'Strongly Dislike' to 'Strongly Like' with a 'Neutral' centre-point.

Procedure

Participants were informed that they were taking office in a study investigating human perceptions of animals. They were read and shown instructions on a PowerPoint slide and it was stressed that it was their personal rating of the beast species (rather than the film) that was required. The presentation automatically displayed the series of 40 animals in a random order. Prior to each slide, a number respective to that picture was displayed, with an alerting sound. Later 3 south, this number was replaced past the species picture, displayed for 6 s. Within this fourth dimension participants recorded their preference on the Thurstone scales described. Participants were fully debriefed regarding the study's purpose.

Results

Each participant rated each of the forty species past placing a mark on a 10-cm broad scale (essentially, this is a bare line on which their responses are marked). The mean boilerplate liking ratings for each species are shown in Tabular arrayii. All analyses were carried out using SPSS (version 15) and MVSP (Kovach Calculating). A number of multivariate statistics were used to explore similarities (measures of Euclidean distance) between species. First, an agglomerative, hierarchical cluster assay identified three clusters (Figure1). This partitioning was also constitute in a principal components analysis (PCA), created using varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization. The PCA extracted 3 principals (Table3), two of which stand for to the two groupings from the cluster assay, suggesting a robust set of similarities within these clusters. The third PCA component is fabricated upwardly of a small group of similar-sized insectivorous/omnivorous species, which is also evident in the hierarchical clustering shown in Figure1. Finally, multidimensional scaling (MDS) was used to explore the cluster configurations in three dimensions. Once again, the two major groupings were conspicuously identifiable, but rotation likewise demonstrated that species such as the elk, worm, millipede, bat and sparrow appear every bit more afar from the clusters, suggesting a looser affiliation within this group of species. MDS was also used to calculate (Euclidean) altitude measures for each species in their proximity to humans (Figure2). Ii distinct groups were once again apparent from the MDS: those with closest proximity to humans (chimp through to gemsbok) and those furthest from humans (beetle to crab). The central group of species shown in Effigytwo are those non similar enough to class a single homogenous grouping, having correlations ranging from 0.177 (body of water dragon) to 0.78 (barn owl). The Euclidean altitude between humans and each of the twoscore species and their liking ratings are shown in Figure3. There are two anomalies to what would exist expected from this clan. Moth and starfish are rated more positively than expected and prevarication outside the 95% confidence interval, snake and worm had boilerplate ratings more negative than would be expected judging from their similarity to humans. A significant correlation (r = 0.542, P < 0.01) was constitute betwixt similarity to humans and the average liking ratings of species.

Figure 1.

Clustering of species similarities based on 2-means cluster analysis. The axes are similarity measures based on Euclidean distances.

Figure i.

Clustering of species similarities based on two-means cluster analysis. The axes are similarity measures based on Euclidean distances.

Figure two.

Euclidean distance measures betwixt 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 like species tin can likewise be identified from this effigy, as those with smaller vertical distances between them.

Figure two.

Euclidean distance measures betwixt humans and the xl 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 like species can likewise be identified from this effigy, as those with smaller vertical distances betwixt them.

Figure 3.

Scatter plot showing the correlation betwixt mean average liking rating for each species with their similarity measures to humans. Discrepant instances are marked and positioned beyond the 95% confidence interval.

Figure three.

Scatter plot showing the correlation betwixt hateful average liking rating for each species with their similarity measures to humans. Discrepant instances are marked and positioned across the 95% confidence interval.

Table 2.

Mean average species ratings (to 1 decimal place), in ascending order

Species—negative ratings	Average rating	Species—positive ratings	Average rating
Jellyfish	1.9	Sea Dragon	5.2
Housefly	two.one	Shark	5.3
Bee	2.3	Trout	v.five
Centipede	2.iii	Frog	5.7
Beetle	2.iii	Badger	v.8
Millipede	2.iv	Scallop	5.8
Spider	2.6	Walrus	5.nine
Eel	2.7	Starfish	6.3
Earthworm	3.0	Goose	6.iv
Python	three.2	Eagle	6.5
Elephant Shrew	3.6	Kangaroo	6.viii
Rat	3.7	Whale	6.ix
Prawn	three.7	Gemsbok	6.9
Snail	3.8	Elk	6.9
Crab	4.3	Moth	6.9
Bat	4.4	Sparrow	7.two
Salamander	four.4	Langur	7.3
Emu	4.viii	Leopard	7.7
Lizard	v.0	Owl	7.7
		Elephant	7.8
		Chimpanzee	8.2

Species—negative ratings	Boilerplate rating	Species—positive ratings	Average rating
Jellyfish	i.9	Bounding main Dragon	5.2
Housefly	ii.1	Shark	v.3
Bee	two.three	Trout	5.5
Centipede	2.3	Frog	5.7
Beetle	ii.three	Badger	5.eight
Millipede	two.4	Scallop	5.8
Spider	2.6	Walrus	5.9
Eel	two.seven	Starfish	six.3
Earthworm	3.0	Goose	6.4
Python	3.2	Eagle	half-dozen.5
Elephant Shrew	3.6	Kangaroo	vi.8
Rat	3.7	Whale	6.ix
Prawn	3.7	Gemsbok	6.9
Snail	3.8	Elk	6.9
Crab	4.iii	Moth	half dozen.9
Bat	4.iv	Sparrow	7.2
Salamander	4.4	Langur	7.3
Emu	four.8	Leopard	seven.vii
Cadger	v.0	Owl	7.seven
		Elephant	seven.eight
		Chimpanzee	8.2

Table 2.

Hateful average species ratings (to 1 decimal place), in ascending order

Species—negative ratings	Average rating	Species—positive ratings	Average rating
Jellyfish	1.9	Sea Dragon	5.2
Housefly	2.1	Shark	5.3
Bee	ii.3	Trout	5.5
Centipede	2.iii	Frog	5.7
Beetle	2.iii	Annoy	5.8
Millipede	two.4	Scallop	5.eight
Spider	2.6	Walrus	five.9
Eel	ii.7	Starfish	vi.3
Earthworm	iii.0	Goose	6.iv
Python	3.2	Eagle	half dozen.5
Elephant Shrew	3.6	Kangaroo	6.eight
Rat	3.7	Whale	6.9
Prawn	three.7	Gemsbok	6.9
Snail	3.8	Elk	half-dozen.9
Crab	4.3	Moth	6.9
Bat	4.4	Sparrow	7.2
Salamander	4.4	Langur	7.three
Emu	four.8	Leopard	7.seven
Lizard	5.0	Owl	seven.seven
		Elephant	vii.8
		Chimpanzee	8.2

Species—negative ratings	Average rating	Species—positive ratings	Average rating
Jellyfish	ane.9	Sea Dragon	5.2
Housefly	two.1	Shark	five.iii
Bee	2.three	Trout	5.5
Centipede	2.iii	Frog	5.7
Beetle	ii.3	Badger	5.8
Millipede	2.4	Scallop	five.viii
Spider	ii.6	Walrus	five.ix
Eel	two.seven	Starfish	six.3
Earthworm	3.0	Goose	vi.4
Python	three.two	Eagle	6.v
Elephant Shrew	3.6	Kangaroo	6.8
Rat	3.7	Whale	vi.9
Prawn	3.7	Gemsbok	6.9
Snail	3.8	Elk	6.9
Crab	4.iii	Moth	vi.9
Bat	4.4	Sparrow	vii.two
Salamander	iv.4	Langur	seven.3
Emu	4.8	Leopard	vii.7
Lizard	5.0	Owl	seven.7
		Elephant	7.8
		Chimpanzee	viii.ii

Table 3.

Results of principle component analysis

	Component
	1	ii	three
Shrew	−0.923
Walrus	−0.881
Elephant	−0.880
Whale	−0.868
Elk	−0.826
Snail	0.824
Salamander	0.817
Beetle	0.811
Moth	0.809
Frog	0.809
Spider	0.807
Sea Dragon	0.806
Prawn	0.804
Wing	0.804
Bee	0.804
Scallop	0.804
Trout	0.803
Eel	0.803
Jellyfish	0.802
Crab	0.801
Starfish	0.801
Centipede	0.795
Gemsbok	−0.749
Millipede	0.732
Python		0.912
Annoy		0.900
Emu		0.898
Goose		0.879
Kangaroo		0.869
Eagle		0.853
Langur		0.800
Man		0.787
Leopard		0.780
Shark		0.764
Chimp		0.750
Barn Owl		0.741
Sparrow			−0.957
Lizard			−0.942
Bat			−0.915
Rat			−0.910
Worm

	Component
	ane	2	3
Shrew	−0.923
Walrus	−0.881
Elephant	−0.880
Whale	−0.868
Elk	−0.826
Snail	0.824
Salamander	0.817
Beetle	0.811
Moth	0.809
Frog	0.809
Spider	0.807
Bounding main Dragon	0.806
Prawn	0.804
Fly	0.804
Bee	0.804
Scallop	0.804
Trout	0.803
Eel	0.803
Jellyfish	0.802
Crab	0.801
Starfish	0.801
Centipede	0.795
Gemsbok	−0.749
Millipede	0.732
Python		0.912
Badger		0.900
Emu		0.898
Goose		0.879
Kangaroo		0.869
Eagle		0.853
Langur		0.800
Homo		0.787
Leopard		0.780
Shark		0.764
Chimp		0.750
Barn Owl		0.741
Sparrow			−0.957
Lizard			−0.942
Bat			−0.915
Rat			−0.910
Worm

Tabular array iii.

Results of principle component assay

	Component
	ane	2	3
Shrew	−0.923
Walrus	−0.881
Elephant	−0.880
Whale	−0.868
Elk	−0.826
Snail	0.824
Salamander	0.817
Protrude	0.811
Moth	0.809
Frog	0.809
Spider	0.807
Sea Dragon	0.806
Prawn	0.804
Wing	0.804
Bee	0.804
Scallop	0.804
Trout	0.803
Eel	0.803
Jellyfish	0.802
Crab	0.801
Starfish	0.801
Centipede	0.795
Gemsbok	−0.749
Millipede	0.732
Python		0.912
Annoy		0.900
Emu		0.898
Goose		0.879
Kangaroo		0.869
Eagle		0.853
Langur		0.800
Homo		0.787
Leopard		0.780
Shark		0.764
Chimp		0.750
Barn Owl		0.741
Sparrow			−0.957
Lizard			−0.942
Bat			−0.915
Rat			−0.910
Worm

	Component
	1	2	3
Shrew	−0.923
Walrus	−0.881
Elephant	−0.880
Whale	−0.868
Elk	−0.826
Snail	0.824
Salamander	0.817
Protrude	0.811
Moth	0.809
Frog	0.809
Spider	0.807
Bounding main Dragon	0.806
Prawn	0.804
Fly	0.804
Bee	0.804
Scallop	0.804
Trout	0.803
Eel	0.803
Jellyfish	0.802
Crab	0.801
Starfish	0.801
Centipede	0.795
Gemsbok	−0.749
Millipede	0.732
Python		0.912
Badger		0.900
Emu		0.898
Goose		0.879
Kangaroo		0.869
Hawkeye		0.853
Langur		0.800
Human		0.787
Leopard		0.780
Shark		0.764
Chimp		0.750
Befouled Owl		0.741
Sparrow			−0.957
Lizard			−0.942
Bat			−0.915
Rat			−0.910
Worm

Give-and-take

A significant association was institute betwixt the mean liking rating of a species and determined biobehavioural similarity to humans. This supports the hypothesis that, at some level, similarity to humans is an of import gene influencing human attitudes towards animals. Why might this effect occur?

Enquiry in social psychology suggests a potential explanation as to why humans may show preference for similar animals. It has been constitute that people are more compassionate, show greater helping behaviour and are more attracted to those other people whom they perceive to be similar to them. ^12–14 Plous ⁸ suggests that humans may display a form of positive assortative mate choice in a more generalized sense that he terms 'positive assortative caring', which may encompass other animals. Although there are various theories every bit to why this form of preference may occur, Alvarez and Jaffe ^fourteen note that that in humans this effect is most evident in non-biological traits, i.e. cultural or social similarities such as education or religion. This may support Plous' notion, in that we may be influenced merely as much by a species resembling united states of america in intelligence and behaviours as by physical similarities. ⁸ Many of these salient characteristics of animals (e.g. sociability) are evident in those species that humans commonly choose equally pets, and have bred into domesticated stock animals.

In addition to a potential preference for similarity, at that place is bear witness suggesting that humans also actively dislike dissimilar animals (due east.g. invertebrates ⁷). In the electric current written report, 18 out of 40 species had average ratings below the neutral point of the calibration, and participants ofttimes recorded a 'strongly dislike' rating (Tabletwo). There are a number of psychological theories that may provide some explanation for this.

First, all animals potentially remind humans of their ain 'creatureliness', that is, a shared evolutionary history with many species and parallels in sexual behaviour and production of actual products. ⁹ It is suggested that such reminders increase man 'bloodshed salience', i.e. sensation of the inevitability of 1'southward own death, ¹⁵ as mortality is peradventure the predominant trait humans share with all animals. In turn, an increase in bloodshed salience may lead to a response known as 'terror management'. ¹⁵ This is described as a cognitive mechanism designed to control the panic created by knowledge of mortality by causing humans to cling to their 'cultural worldview' (weltanshung). An increase in identification with 1'due south worldview (as a form of terror management) has the effect of derogating, directing and eliciting prejudice towards 'out-groups'; i.due east. those with unfamiliar weltanshung. ⁹ In this case, a not-human species would be considered an extreme out-grouping, equally their different natural histories and 'cultures' exercise not fit with the anthropocentric worldview. ⁷ Furthermore, out-grouping derogation is likely to increase with dissimilarity, equally the increasingly alien morphologies and survival strategies of contrasting species get disassociated from the weltanshung. In add-on, both the fecundity and caste-nature of many species (such as eusocial insects) strongly conflicts with the human concepts of individuality and liberty, some other potential incentive for in-grouping amalgamation and intolerance of the out-group. ⁷

However, any animate being may remind us of our 'creatureliness', so should they not all be derogated as out-groups? Beatson and Halloran ^ix investigated how reminders of similarity to bonobos (while watching a video of their mating behaviour) affected participants' attitudes towards them. The results implied that later reminders of bonobo–man similarity attitudes towards the bonobos became more negative, supporting the 'reminders of creatureliness' hypothesis. However, humans may only have this response to like animals if they are forced to compare 'creaturely' acts to their own. In other words, had the participants watched bonobos displaying positive social behaviours such as altruism or cooperation, they may have identified with the bonobos in a more positive mode.

As naturally social animals, humans may be adapted to empathize with others, and insofar every bit empathy improves social interaction it will consequently have fitness benefits. ¹² Therefore, it may as well be that humans are evolved to recognize and capeesh similarities between themselves and others and be suspicious of differences (which may signify conflict). Traits which humans recognize and sympathize in other species cause anthropomorphism, i.east. application of human mental states to non-human animals ¹⁶ and a form of identification with that species. ¹⁶ Though anthropomorphism has the potential to cause an overestimation of similarities, information technology also appears to increment interest, intendance and business for a species. ³ Of course, any preference for similar animals created through anthropomorphic thinking may non be adaptive in itself, only simply a pleiotropic effect. Even so, anthropomorphism could be adaptive. Mithen ¹⁷ proposes that human power to anthropomorphize may have evolved 40 000 years agone because of increased 'cognitive fluidity', that is, improve connections betwixt encephalon areas including increased ability to make inferences most the thoughts and feelings of others. Mithen ¹⁷ argues that anthropomorphism became a common human trait every bit a result of its adaptive value—modern humans in the Upper Paleolithic appear to have planned and executed hunts by predicting prey behaviour. Serpell ¹⁶ additionally suggests that anthropomorphism may accept enabled domestication of companion and agricultural animals. This potentially evolved trait, combined with human being identification with similar others, provides expert reasoning as to why humans should recognize their similarities to other animals and prefer them.

In contrast, when humans encounter those animals with which they cannot identify (for example, many invertebrates), at that place is less care and concern. In this regard, Kellert's ⁷ survey found general dislike and aversion towards invertebrates to be irrespective of their potential risk to humans. Similarly, the electric current study establish that the harmless protrude scored the aforementioned low mean average rating (2.3) as the more dangerous centipede. This suggests that within invertebrate groups, any similarity to humans may be well-nigh absent-minded and the contrast effect may get less influential, or even obsolete, compared with other factors affecting preference. Both Kellert ^seven and the electric current study found invertebrates with aesthetic appeal (such equally the moth and starfish) to exist rated more positively than less-attractive species (e.g. the housefly). Although aesthetics are by no means the only deciding cistron (particularly considering subjectivity in aesthetic judgement), in this case bewitchery may outweigh other factors, including similarity to humans. All the same, it could be argued that for a preference based on similarity to exist, information technology must also coincide with some evolutionarily adaptive function.

Thus, there are many previous findings in the literature that support the proposal that human attitudes to animals are affected by species' similarity to humans. Theories suggesting contact between humans and other animals invokes bloodshed salience and terror direction, affecting weltanshung, are rather abstruse. All the same, these processes may act on the human being preconscious when apprehending a species' behaviour. Therefore, despite their theoretical nature, these viewpoints are relevant to the current study considering it is likely that even an instantaneous reaction to a species may derive from previous observation or consideration of its behaviour. All the same, the results of this written report may have been more strongly affected past participant level of (or lack of) identification and empathy with each species, as this is probable to be more immediate than detailed consideration of a species' threat to ane's worldview, individuality and so on.

Information technology is evident from previous research ^{1, ii, 4, 8, 18} that a wide variety of factors affect human attitudes towards animals. To be realistic, the impact of multiple factors inducing human responses to other species must as well be considered. The current study has attempted to control for some of the most influential confounding furnishings of other variables, for example by excluding domestic animals and, where possible, highly aesthetically attractive and neotenous animals. Unlike previous enquiry using photographs, ⁵ line drawings of standardized sizes were used to prevent confounding effects of differing photograph colour, angle, quality and background. When species were placed in groups of variable, aposematic and cryptic colourings, there was merely minor variation in mean average liking rating between these groups, suggesting that the use of greyscale pictures minimized the influence of colour on perception (as noted past Stokes ^iv). There was also no significant correlation constitute between species' body length and mean boilerplate liking rating, suggesting that size furnishings (as investigated by Ward ¹⁸) were also minimized in the current written report. Humans may react more negatively to animals of which they are afraid. These reactions could have strong furnishings on this study's results, as fearfulness-inducing animals are often the aforementioned invertebrates considered very dissimilar to humans. Still, there was no obvious consistency—snakes and spiders, though unremarkably feared, were rated less negatively than more than harmless species. Animals that are feared owing to their disgust-inducing nature (a response likely to accept evolved considering of close association with illness ^nineteen) were negatively perceived (eastward.g. rat, fly), but the disease-association free desert rodent (elephant shrew) was perceived more negatively nevertheless. Although potential risk (whether real or perceived) clearly plays an important role in species preferences of invertebrates, humans oftentimes rate potentially dangerous vertebrates (such as the snow leopard and elephant) higher than their harmless fellow mammals. Czech et al. ² found rarity to exist an of import influence on attitude and this finding is reflected in the current study, with preference for a species increasing alongside its IUCN status. However, conservation status per se may non influence attitude, as the nearly endangered species are often 'charismatic megafauna' ^one as opposed to the non-IUCN listed common invertebrates.

It is clear that many factors influence man attitudes toward species, but of those investigated none seem to completely explain the order in which these forty species were rated by participants. This is non to suggest that similarity alone does fully explain the order, or man preferences, but that the strong connection between this blended measure of biobehavioural similarity to humans and the boilerplate rating given for a species is highly dependent upon this facet.

If the results of the current study can be said to demonstrate a existent effect of biobehavioural similarity on the human attitude to species, this may partly explain why mammals, the smallest phyla, are so greatly over-represented by conservation efforts and human involvement. ² Interestingly, Kellert's ¹ written report institute the American public'south favourite wild animals to exist birds. In this report, all birds merely the Emu received a positive (i.e. above median) rating from participants. This has implications regarding potentially significant furnishings of behavioural similarities, as although birds are physiologically different to mammals, their frequently social nature, bipedalism and pair-bonding with high levels of biparental investment are all reminiscent of humans.

The strong bias towards our closest relatives the chimpanzees suggests that humans may recognize and identify with many of their own behaviours in this species. However, our affection for such species may diminish when we observe the more 'creaturely' of their behaviours. ^ix This suggests that in promoting involvement in a species, it may be more benign to utilize the anthropomorphizing nature of humans to highlight similarities betwixt an fauna's behaviour and our own.

If many invertebrates are and then dissimilar from humans that there is no existent identification with them, they may remain generally disliked. However, recent evidence suggests that invertebrates may exist more like to humans than commonly thought, in that they may be capable of feeling pain. ²⁰ Indeed many people believe that invertebrates feel pain, ^seven suggesting that humans may exist able to recognize even the most tenuous similarities between other species and ourselves, and education may play a crucial role in this regard. The results of the current written report, all the same, imply that liking is strongly dependent upon similarity. If so, dissimilar animals may remain largely disliked. Withal, Czech et al. ² found that despite fright and dislike, most participants still (reportedly) believe all species to be worth conserving.

It is clear that studies investigating factors that affect species preference should be carried out, as this surface area is vital to understanding how humans view the natural world and what impact these biases have on the management conservation efforts take. Furthermore, though few studies accept successfully investigated species preference in depth, those that have propose compelling bear witness. It is of import that the methodology of such studies be standardized every bit much equally possible to enable direct comparisons. Ideally, a precise, authentic and comprehensive database could exist created as a standard library of criteria that may be used to compare species, including their similarity to humans in terms of size, behaviour, physical features, etc. Increased application of cladistics may be influential in this approach, maybe providing more precise measures of distances between species. Farther studies in this area should likewise cover a much broader range of peoples, as all studies to date have focused on Western populations whose animal knowledge and attitudes may differ from those of other cultures. Information technology is an obvious and intriguing observation that dissimilar cultures regard and care for animals very differently from one another. Information technology is clear that this line of inquiry may provide much data that will not simply build our knowledge of human attitudes to animals, just besides help in our agreement and planning for conservation efforts worldwide.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the staff and students of the University of Chester who provided advice, references and subjects for this study, and especially Roger Davies for his consequent and invaluable support.

Appendix A

Information collected: biological and behavioural traits

Feature	Information Entered	Notes
Weight	number in KG/ < 0.005 kg	Mean averages. Male and female weight and length ranges from cantankerous-referenced resources (wherever possible)
Length	number in cm
Limb number	Number
Limb blazon	Legs/Legs + Wings/Legs + Arms/Fins/Pereopods Feathers/Foot/Flippers/None
Limb proportion to body	Curt/Medium/Long ii-short-2-long/2-short-2-medium/None	Where: Short: 0–50% body length Medium: 50–100% body length Long: >100% body length
Tail	Short/Medium/Long/None
Eye number	Number
Middle position	None/Front end/Sides/Snout/Eyestalks
Colouring	Cryptic/Aposematic/Translucent/Variable	Where: Cryptic: inconspicuous Aposematic: highly conspicuous
Integumentary arrangement	Pare/Skin roofing/Scales/Exoskeleton	This further defined by post-obit subcategories
Skin type	Sparse stratum corneum + mucous/ciliated/thick stratum corneum/stratum corneum/squamous epithelium
Pare roofing	Fur/Feathers/Calcium Shell/None
Scale type	Placoid/Coarse/Cycloid + Mucous/Organic Platelet/None
Exoskeleton	Cephalothorax/Sclerite exoskeleton/Chitinous exoskeleton/None
Perception	Unmarried major/double major/triple major	These categories represent the species' most oftentimes utilised senses. Information technology is not suggested that a species lacks other senses
Single major	Tactitiion / Vision / Electroception
Double major	Chemoception + Vision/Vision + Audience/Tactition + Chemoception/Audition + Taction
Triple major	Vision + Tactition + Chemoception/Vision + Audtion + Tactition
Diet	Generalist/Specialist	These are further defined by following subcategories
Generalist Blazon	Omnivorous/Carnivorous/Herbivorous/Saprovorous/Suspensivorous/Detritivorous
Specialist Blazon	Nectarivorous/Insectivorous/Piscivorous/Planktonivorous/Frugivorous
Movement blazon	Multiple/Terrestrial/Aquatic/Airborne	Where: Multiple = frequently utilizes >1 movement type
Terrestrial movement type	Gait/Clamber/Slither/Saltation	Where: Gait = extended limbs, body lifted from ground. Crawl = bent limbs, body close to ground Slither = body in contact with ground Saltation = leaping upwards/forwards, all limbs get out basis
Gait type	Quadrupedal/Bipedal	(Primarily)
Crawl type	Quadrupedal/Hexapedal/Octopedal/Centipedal/Millipedal
Slither type	Pedal moving ridge/H2o Vascular/Peristalsis
Saltation type	Bipedal/Quadrupedal
Aquatic movement blazon	Undulatory/Jet Propulsion/Pond paired bagginess
Airborne movement type	Insect flight/Soaring flight/Manoeuvring flying
Stance	Fully cock/Sprawling/Semi-cock/Suspended	Where: Fully Erect = legs placed beneath body Sprawling = legs spread to sides of body, body remains on footing Semi-erect = legs at sides of body, body held to a higher place footing Suspended = e.g. in water
Social Unit	Related group/Large grouping/Lone/Paired/Variable	Where variable = changes social unit depending on time of year/life-cycle
Reproductive Behaviour	Monogamous/Polygynous/Polygynandrous/Hermaphrodite/Polyandrous/Variable	Where variable = able to reproduce in more than one way, or able to alter sex.
Monogamous type	Successive/Obligate	Where: Successive = maintains monogamy with more than than one mate in lifespan Obligate = maintains monogamy with only one partner in lifespan, inc semelparous species
Polygamous blazon	Unimale/Scramble contest	Where: Unimale = one male has mating control over a number of females Scramble Comp = where males mate with females where encountered, simply no group formed
Selection strategy	r/Thousand	Does not suggest that species chooses strategy, but nature of reproduction falls into: r = frequent reproduction, many offspring, short lifespan K = exceptional reproduction, high investment in less offspring, long lifespan
Offspring no. per brood	Number	Average, cross-referenced where possible, describing no. of offspring produced at one time – this may be per flavor, 24-hour interval, or one time in lifespan
Offspring type	Altricial/Precocial	Where: Altricial = unable to care of self postal service-birth Precocial = born mature and independent
Reproduction blazon	Iteroparous/Polycyclic/Semelparous	Where: Iteroparous = 'reproduces more than than in one case', and in this case, 'reproduces again after certain maturation of offspring', e.g. when female returns to oestrus Polycyclic = reproduces repeatedly at predictable times, e.g. each year Semelparous = reproduces once in lifetime
Post-birth Parental Investment	None/Uniparental female person/Uniparental male person/Biparental/Eusocial
Dimorphism	None/Polymorphic/Males larger/Females larger/Morphology differences	Mainly considering sexual dimorphism, just including species with polymorphism depending on role, eastward.m. honey bees
Habitat	Terrestrial/Aquatic/Subterranean	Further defined past following subcategories
Terrestrial habitat type	Variable/Temperate/Desert/Tropical/Tundra	Where variable = able to live in a multifariousness of environs, OR lives in dissimilar environs depending on time of year/life-cycle
Aquatic habitat blazon	Oceanic/Littoral/Freshwater
Temperature regulation	Hibernating Endothermic/Hibernating Ectothermic/Endothermic/Ectothermic
Lifespan	Number in years	Hateful average, cross-referenced where possible, only information from wild animals

Feature	Data Entered	Notes
Weight	number in KG/ < 0.005 kg	Mean averages. Male person and female weight and length ranges from cross-referenced resource (wherever possible)
Length	number in cm
Limb number	Number
Limb blazon	Legs/Legs + Wings/Legs + Arms/Fins/Pereopods Feathers/Pes/Flippers/None
Limb proportion to body	Short/Medium/Long 2-curt-2-long/2-short-2-medium/None	Where: Short: 0–50% trunk length Medium: 50–100% body length Long: >100% trunk length
Tail	Curt/Medium/Long/None
Eye number	Number
Middle position	None/Front/Sides/Snout/Eyestalks
Colouring	Cryptic/Aposematic/Translucent/Variable	Where: Ambiguous: inconspicuous Aposematic: highly conspicuous
Integumentary arrangement	Skin/Skin roofing/Scales/Exoskeleton	This farther defined past following subcategories
Skin type	Thin stratum corneum + mucous/ciliated/thick stratum corneum/stratum corneum/squamous epithelium
Skin covering	Fur/Feathers/Calcium Trounce/None
Scale type	Placoid/Coarse/Cycloid + Mucous/Organic Platelet/None
Exoskeleton	Cephalothorax/Sclerite exoskeleton/Chitinous exoskeleton/None
Perception	Single major/double major/triple major	These categories represent the species' about ofttimes utilised senses. It is not suggested that a species lacks other senses
Single major	Tactitiion / Vision / Electroception
Double major	Chemoception + Vision/Vision + Audition/Tactition + Chemoception/Audition + Taction
Triple major	Vision + Tactition + Chemoception/Vision + Audtion + Tactition
Diet	Generalist/Specialist	These are further defined past following subcategories
Generalist Blazon	Omnivorous/Carnivorous/Herbivorous/Saprovorous/Suspensivorous/Detritivorous
Specialist Blazon	Nectarivorous/Insectivorous/Piscivorous/Planktonivorous/Frugivorous
Motion type	Multiple/Terrestrial/Aquatic/Airborne	Where: Multiple = oftentimes utilizes >1 movement type
Terrestrial movement type	Gait/Crawl/Slither/Saltation	Where: Gait = extended limbs, body lifted from footing. Crawl = bent limbs, body close to footing Slither = body in contact with basis Saltation = leaping upwards/forwards, all limbs leave basis
Gait type	Quadrupedal/Bipedal	(Primarily)
Crawl type	Quadrupedal/Hexapedal/Octopedal/Centipedal/Millipedal
Slither blazon	Pedal moving ridge/Water Vascular/Peristalsis
Saltation type	Bipedal/Quadrupedal
Aquatic movement type	Undulatory/Jet Propulsion/Swimming paired appendage
Airborne motion type	Insect flight/Soaring flight/Manoeuvring flight
Stance	Fully erect/Sprawling/Semi-erect/Suspended	Where: Fully Cock = legs placed below body Sprawling = legs spread to sides of torso, torso remains on ground Semi-cock = legs at sides of body, body held above basis Suspended = e.g. in water
Social Unit	Related group/Large group/Alone/Paired/Variable	Where variable = changes social unit depending on time of year/life-cycle
Reproductive Behaviour	Monogamous/Polygynous/Polygynandrous/Hermaphrodite/Polyandrous/Variable	Where variable = able to reproduce in more than than one fashion, or able to change sexual practice.
Monogamous type	Successive/Obligate	Where: Successive = maintains monogamy with more than than one mate in lifespan Obligate = maintains monogamy with simply one partner in lifespan, inc semelparous species
Polygamous type	Unimale/Scramble competition	Where: Unimale = one male has mating control over a number of females Scramble Comp = where males mate with females where encountered, only no grouping formed
Pick strategy	r/Grand	Does non suggest that species chooses strategy, merely nature of reproduction falls into: r = frequent reproduction, many offspring, short lifespan K = infrequent reproduction, high investment in less offspring, long lifespan
Offspring no. per brood	Number	Average, cross-referenced where possible, describing no. of offspring produced at one time – this may be per season, day, or once in lifespan
Offspring type	Altricial/Precocial	Where: Altricial = unable to care of self post-birth Precocial = born mature and contained
Reproduction type	Iteroparous/Polycyclic/Semelparous	Where: Iteroparous = 'reproduces more than once', and in this case, 'reproduces again after certain maturation of offspring', east.g. when female returns to rut Polycyclic = reproduces repeatedly at predictable times, due east.grand. each yr Semelparous = reproduces once in lifetime
Post-birth Parental Investment	None/Uniparental female person/Uniparental male/Biparental/Eusocial
Dimorphism	None/Polymorphic/Males larger/Females larger/Morphology differences	Mainly considering sexual dimorphism, merely including species with polymorphism depending on role, e.chiliad. beloved bees
Habitat	Terrestrial/Aquatic/Subterranean	Further defined by following subcategories
Terrestrial habitat type	Variable/Temperate/Desert/Tropical/Tundra	Where variable = able to alive in a diversity of environs, OR lives in dissimilar environs depending on time of year/life-cycle
Aquatic habitat type	Oceanic/Coastal/Freshwater
Temperature regulation	Hibernating Endothermic/Hibernating Ectothermic/Endothermic/Ectothermic
Lifespan	Number in years	Mean average, cross-referenced where possible, only data from wild fauna

References

1

.,

The Value of Life: Biological Diverseness and Human being Gild

,

1996

Washington

Isle Press

two

,  ,  .

Social construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species

,

Cons. Biol.

,

1998

, vol.

12

 (pg.

1103

-

1112

)

iii

.,

Similarity or difference as a basis for justice: must animals be like humans to be legally protected from humans?

,

2005

 

four

.

Things we similar: homo preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation

,

Hum. Ecol.

,

2006

, vol.

35

 (pg.

361

-

369

)

5

.

"Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!" How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection

,

J. Environ. Psychol

,

2008

, vol.

28

 (pg.

94

-

103

)

half-dozen

.

Public perceptions of predators, specially the Wolf and Coyote

,

Biol. Cons.

,

1985

, vol.

31

 (pg.

167

-

189

)

seven

.

Values and perceptions of invertebrates

,

Cons. Biol.

,

1993

, vol.

7

 (pg.

845

-

855

)

viii

.

Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals

,

J. Soc. Issues

,

1993

, vol.

49

 (pg.

11

-

52

)

ix

,  .

Humans rule! The furnishings of creatureliness reminders, bloodshed salience and self-esteem on attitudes towards animals

,

Br. J. Soc. Psychol.

,

2007

, vol.

46

 (pg.

619

-

632

)

10

,  .,

Invertebrate Zoology

,

1994

6th ed

London

Saunders Higher Publishing

11

IMSI's Masterclips Collection (computer software)

,

1985

Francisco Blvd. East, San Rafael, California

12

,  .

The role of empathy in improving intergroup relation

,

J. Soc. Issues

,

1999

, vol.

55

 (pg.

729

-

743

)

13

,  ,  , et al.

Human-to-animate being similarity and participant mood influence punishment recommendations for beast abusers

,

Soc. Animals

,

2002

, vol.

10

 (pg.

267

-

284

)

14

,  .

Narcissism guides mate choice: humans mate assortatively, as revealed by facial resemblance, post-obit an algorithm of 'self seeking like'

,

Evol. Psychol.

,

2004

, vol.

2

 (pg.

177

-

194

)

fifteen

,  ,  , et al.

To belong or non to belong, that is the question: terror management and identification with gender and ethnicity

,

J. Personality Soc. Psychol.

,

2002

, vol.

83

 (pg.

26

-

43

)

xvi

.

Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection – across the 'Beautiful Response'

,

Soc. Animals

,

2003

, vol.

11

 (pg.

83

-

100

)

17

. ,  .

The Hunter-Gatherer prehistory of human–brute interactions

,

The Animals Reader

,

2007

Oxford

Berg

(pg.

117

-

128

)

18

,  ,  , et al.

The human relationship between popularity and body size in zoo animals

,

Cons. Biol.

,

1998

, vol.

12

 (pg.

1408

-

1411

)

19

.,

Evolutionary Psychology

,

2003

Hoboken

John Wiley & Sons

20

,  ,  , et al.

Nociception or pain in a decapod crustacean?

,

Anim. Behav.

,

2008

, vol.

75

 (pg.

745

-

751

)

Author Biography

Sarah Batt completed a first-class BSc with Honours in Animal Behaviour at the Academy of Chester in 2008. She is now planning to travel and conduct personal research on variation in man attitudes towards animals and man-animal relationships, with a view to write for publication. Sarah gained practical experience working with animals equally a volunteer at rescue centres in the Andes and in the Amazon rainforest of Ecuador, and intends to take part in farther volunteering projects whilst travelling. She is also considering postal service-graduate enquiry in the above-mentioned area.

Writer notes

Supervisor: Roger Davies, University of Chester, Chester, Cheshire CH1 4BJ, UK.

© 2009 The Author(southward)

This is an Open up Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Not-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/past-nc/ii.0/united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in whatsoever medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Source: https://academic.oup.com/biohorizons/article/2/2/180/254452

Posted by: rydereling1966.blogspot.com

Share this post