Bioecological representations and social characteristics of students influence their attitudes toward wild vertebrates.

Amanda Rozendo da Silva, Franciany Braga-Pereira, Anna Karolina Martins Borges, José Valberto de Oliveira, Moacyr Xavier Gomes da Silva, Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves
Author Information
  1. Amanda Rozendo da Silva: Laboratório de Etnobiologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Avenida das Baraúnas, 351, Bairro Universitário, Campina Grande, PB, 58429-500, Brazil.
  2. Franciany Braga-Pereira: Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa, PB, 58051-900, Brazil. franbraga83@yahoo.com.br.
  3. Anna Karolina Martins Borges: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Etnobiologia e Conservação da Natureza, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Av. Dom Manoel de Medeiros, s/n - Dois irmãos, Recife, PE, 52171-900, Brazil.
  4. José Valberto de Oliveira: Laboratório de Etnobiologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Avenida das Baraúnas, 351, Bairro Universitário, Campina Grande, PB, 58429-500, Brazil.
  5. Moacyr Xavier Gomes da Silva: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Etnobiologia e Conservação da Natureza, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Av. Dom Manoel de Medeiros, s/n - Dois irmãos, Recife, PE, 52171-900, Brazil.
  6. Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves: Laboratório de Etnobiologia, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba, Avenida das Baraúnas, 351, Bairro Universitário, Campina Grande, PB, 58429-500, Brazil.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The origin of different human emotions directed towards animals (whether in the utilitarian, affective, conflictual, or cosmological context) is strongly influenced by sociocultural factors, although our genetic predispositions also play an important role in the origin of these emotions. Such emotions guide people's representations of different species, which in turn affect their attitudes toward them. For this reason, understanding the factors that guide such attitudes becomes a key element in making conservationist decisions. In this sense, the main objective of this study was to analyze how sociocultural characteristics and bioecological representations can influence students' attitudes of empathy or antipathy towards vertebrate species; as well as which classes and species are related to greater and lesser support in people for their conservation.
METHODS: To do so, 667 interviews were conducted with students from urban (n = 1) and rural (n = 2) schools in the Brazilian semi-arid region. We used mixed generalized linear models (GLMM) to examine the effect of social factors and bioecological representations on empathy and antipathy attitudes and multiple factor analysis (MFA) to examine the relationship between the biological characteristics of the animals (positive or negative) and the attitudes toward them (antipathetic or empathetic).
RESULTS: Through GLMM, we found that students from the urban area and from lower school levels are more extreme in their responses, more frequently expressing both empathy and antipathy towards wild animals. Regarding gender, women had a higher frequency of responses associated with aversion than men for species perceived as dangerous and poisonous (p < 0.001). Through the MFA, we found greater support (empathy) for the conservation of fish species (31.56%), birds (29.37%) and mammals (25.94%), with emphasis on the Red-cowled cardinal (Paroaria dominicana) and clownfish (Amphiprion ocellaris) species, and less support (antipathy) for reptile and amphibian species such as rattlesnakes (Crotalus durissus) and horned frogs (Ceratophrys joazeirensis).
CONCLUSIONS: The attitudinal ambivalence reflected by varying empathy for certain species and antipathy to others has important implications for wildlife conservation. Understanding the socioeconomic factors and emotions that influence attitudes towards animals can enable integrating educational strategies for the conservation of species, especially those which are culturally important.

Keywords

References

  1. Naturwissenschaften. 2019 Jul 1;106(7-8):41 [PMID: 31263997]
  2. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012 Feb 08;8:8 [PMID: 22316318]
  3. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2020 Mar 30;16(1):16 [PMID: 32228669]
  4. Psychol Bull. 2009 Mar;135(2):303-21 [PMID: 19254082]
  5. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2009 Apr 22;5:12 [PMID: 19386121]
  6. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2012 Jul 30;8:27 [PMID: 22846258]
  7. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2015 Nov 17;11:80 [PMID: 26576760]
  8. Conserv Biol. 2011 Dec;25(6):1080-1083 [PMID: 22070255]
  9. PLoS One. 2018 Jul 9;13(7):e0199149 [PMID: 29985962]
  10. Toxicon. 2021 Oct 15;201:155-163 [PMID: 34454970]
  11. Front Psychol. 2020 Jun 24;11:1277 [PMID: 32670150]
  12. Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):483-522 [PMID: 11488376]
  13. Psychol Rev. 1993 Apr;100(2):204-32 [PMID: 8483982]
  14. Anim Conserv. 2021 Dec;24(6):937-945 [PMID: 34177353]
  15. Sci Rep. 2018 Aug 6;8(1):11733 [PMID: 30082795]
  16. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2016 Jun 20;12(1):25 [PMID: 27324788]
  17. Ambio. 2022 Apr;51(4):990-1000 [PMID: 34251598]
  18. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2021 May 19;17(1):35 [PMID: 34011374]
  19. PeerJ. 2023 Jan 9;11:e14553 [PMID: 36643645]
  20. Environ Monit Assess. 2012 Nov;184(11):6877-901 [PMID: 22134858]
  21. Proc Biol Sci. 2004 May 7;271 Suppl 4:S131-3 [PMID: 15252963]
  22. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:913671 [PMID: 23710241]
  23. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012;2012:474716 [PMID: 22454668]
  24. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 14;9(2):e88842 [PMID: 24551176]
  25. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2019 Nov 27;15(1):55 [PMID: 31771592]
  26. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2018 Jul 13;14(1):47 [PMID: 30005687]
  27. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2014 Mar 27;10:30 [PMID: 24673877]
  28. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013 Mar 08;9:17 [PMID: 23497491]
  29. Animals (Basel). 2019 May 14;9(5): [PMID: 31091781]
  30. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2013 Jan 08;9:3 [PMID: 23295130]
  31. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2019 Jan 5;15(1):1 [PMID: 30611288]

MeSH Term

Animals
Male
Humans
Female
Emotions
Socioeconomic Factors
Students
Animals, Wild
Anura
Attitude
Mammals

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0speciesattitudesempathyantipathyemotionstowardsanimalsfactorsrepresentationsconservationimportanttowardcharacteristicsinfluencesupportstudentsorigindifferentsocioculturalguidebioecologicalcangreaterurbanGLMMexaminesocialMFAfoundresponseswildBACKGROUND:humandirectedwhetherutilitarianaffectiveconflictualcosmologicalcontextstronglyinfluencedalthoughgeneticpredispositionsalsoplayrolepeople'sturnaffectreasonunderstandingbecomeskeyelementmakingconservationistdecisionssensemainobjectivestudyanalyzestudents'vertebratewellclassesrelatedlesserpeopleMETHODS:667interviewsconductedn = 1ruraln = 2schoolsBraziliansemi-aridregionusedmixedgeneralizedlinearmodelseffectmultiplefactoranalysisrelationshipbiologicalpositivenegativeantipatheticempatheticRESULTS:arealowerschoollevelsextremefrequentlyexpressingRegardinggenderwomenhigherfrequencyassociatedaversionmenperceiveddangerouspoisonousp < 0001fish3156%birds2937%mammals2594%emphasisRed-cowledcardinalParoariadominicanaclownfishAmphiprionocellarislessreptileamphibianrattlesnakesCrotalusdurissushornedfrogsCeratophrysjoazeirensisCONCLUSIONS:attitudinalambivalencereflectedvaryingcertainothersimplicationswildlifeUnderstandingsocioeconomicenableintegratingeducationalstrategiesespeciallyculturallyBioecologicalvertebratesAntipathyConservationEmpathyEthnozoologyWildlife

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.