Human evaluation of amphibian species: a comparison of disgust and beauty
- PMID: 31263997
- DOI: 10.1007/s00114-019-1635-8
Human evaluation of amphibian species: a comparison of disgust and beauty
Abstract
Animals can evoke a wide range of emotions helping us to choose a quick and appropriate reaction towards them: approach or avoidance in general. This work has focused on disgust evoked by amphibians in humans as well as perceived beauty. Due to the high morphological variability of recent amphibian taxa, we examined humans' cognitive categorisation of 101 amphibian photos and the effect of stimuli characteristics on disgust evaluation or beauty perception of individual groups/species. We also explored how respondents' characteristics, e.g. gender, age and disgust sensitivity (DS-R) influence the disgust and beauty evaluation of picture stimuli on a 7-point Likert scale. The scores of disgust and beauty evaluation were strongly negatively correlated, representing the opposite ends of a single axis, further referred to as the index of preference. The most preferred amphibians belonged to anurans, whereas the least preferred ones were mostly worm-like, legless and small-eyed caecilians. Additional analyses of morphologically diverse anurans showed that species with a round body shape, short forelegs, small eyes, warts, pink and grey colouration, or dark and dull colouration were perceived as disgusting or ugly. The effect of gender and age were only marginal; however, people with higher disgust sensitivity rated amphibians as more disgusting and less beautiful, which might support the hypothesis of a possible disgust involvement in animal fears and phobias. This topic has implications not only for the nature conservation decisions of globally endangered amphibians but also for understanding the evolution of disgust and its generalisation to harmless animals.
Keywords: Amphibians; Animal beauty; Disgust; Emotions; Evolutionary psychology; Nature conservation.
Similar articles
-
Scary and nasty beasts: Self-reported fear and disgust of common phobic animals.Br J Psychol. 2020 May;111(2):297-321. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12409. Epub 2019 Jun 11. Br J Psychol. 2020. PMID: 31183857
-
Disgust as a motivator of avoidance of spiders.J Anxiety Disord. 2005;19(4):461-75. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.04.002. J Anxiety Disord. 2005. PMID: 15721575 Clinical Trial.
-
Human Attitude toward Reptiles: A Relationship between Fear, Disgust, and Aesthetic Preferences.Animals (Basel). 2019 May 14;9(5):238. doi: 10.3390/ani9050238. Animals (Basel). 2019. PMID: 31091781 Free PMC article.
-
Fear or disgust? The role of emotions in spider phobia and blood-injection-injury phobia.Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2011 Summer;22(2):115-22. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2011. PMID: 21638233 Review.
-
Adaptive colouration in amphibians.Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2013 Jun-Jul;24(6-7):553-61. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2013.05.004. Epub 2013 May 8. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2013. PMID: 23664831 Review.
Cited by
-
Amphibian Skin and Skin Secretion: An Exotic Source of Bioactive Peptides and Its Application.Foods. 2023 Mar 17;12(6):1282. doi: 10.3390/foods12061282. Foods. 2023. PMID: 36981206 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The Ultimate List of the Most Frightening and Disgusting Animals: Negative Emotions Elicited by Animals in Central European Respondents.Animals (Basel). 2021 Mar 9;11(3):747. doi: 10.3390/ani11030747. Animals (Basel). 2021. PMID: 33803132 Free PMC article.
-
Bioecological representations and social characteristics of students influence their attitudes toward wild vertebrates.J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023 Jun 12;19(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s13002-023-00593-5. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed. 2023. PMID: 37308895 Free PMC article.
-
Factors Influencing the Sponsoring of Animals in Slovak Zoos.Animals (Basel). 2021 Dec 23;12(1):21. doi: 10.3390/ani12010021. Animals (Basel). 2021. PMID: 35011128 Free PMC article.
-
Venomous snakes elicit stronger fear than nonvenomous ones: Psychophysiological response to snake images.PLoS One. 2020 Aug 19;15(8):e0236999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236999. eCollection 2020. PLoS One. 2020. PMID: 32813734 Free PMC article.
References
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical