The current research asks whether children’s judgments of harmful actions toward animals depend on animals’ perceived attractiveness. In Study 1, primary school children (N = 359) rated the perceived attractiveness of six animals and judged how severe it is to hurt them, as compared to moral transgressions, social-conventional transgressions, and personal choices. Hurting attractive animals was perceived as severe as hurting another child, while hurting unattractive animals was evaluated as less serious than social-conventional transgressions. In Study 2, we experimentally tested whether the attractiveness of animals rated as unattractive in Study 1 could be influenced by an environmental education intervention. After the intervention, children in the experimental group (N = 21) rated unattractive animals as more attractive than before the intervention, and this led to judging harming these animals more severely than before the intervention. No changes were found in the control group (N = 20).
BallantyR.FienJ.PackerJ. (2010). Program effectiveness in facilitating intergenerational influence in environmental education: Lessons from the field. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958960109598657
2.
BallouardJ-M.ConordM.JohanyA.JardéN.CaronS.DeleuzeS.BonnetX. (2020). Is popularity a double-edged sword? Children want to protect but also harvest tortoises. The Journal of Environmental Education, 51(5), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2019.1693329
3.
BallouardJ-M.ProvostG.BarreD.BonnetX. (2012) Influence of a field trip on the attitudes of schoolchildren toward unpopular organisms: An experience with snakes. Journal of Herpetology, 46(3), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1670/11-118
4.
BalmfordA.BrunerA.CooperP.CostanzaR.FarberS.GreenR. E.JenkinsM.JefferissP.JessamyV.MaddenJ.MunroK.MyersN.NaeemS.PaavolaJ.RaymentM.RosendoS.RoughgardenJ.TrumperK.TurnerR. K. (2002). Ecology – economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science, 297(5583), 950–953. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1073947
5.
BjerkeT.ØdegårdstuenT. S.KaltenbornB. P. (1998) Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian children and adolescents: Species preferences. Anthrozoös, 11(4), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279398787000544
6.
BorgiM.CirulliF. (2015). Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children: Species preferences. Anthrozoös: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals, 28(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279315X14129350721939
7.
CandeaM. (2010). “I fell in love with Carlos the meerkat”: Engagement and detachment in human-animal relations. American Ethnologist, 37(2), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2010.01253.x
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
11.
ColladoS.SorrelM. A. (2019). Children’s environmental moral judgments: Variations according to type of victim and exposure to nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.02.005
12.
ColléonyA.ClaytonS.CouvetD.JalmeM.S.PrévotA. (2017). Human preferences for species conservation: Animal charisma trumps endangered status. Biological Conservation, 206, 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.035
13.
CzechB.KrausmanP. R. (2001). The endangered species act. History, conservation biology, and public policy. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
14.
DelaneyM. F.WhiteK. M. (2015). Predicting people’s intention to donate their body to medical science and research. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(3), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.998962
15.
De PinhoJ. R.GriloC.BooneR. B.GalvinK. A.SnodgrassJ. G. (2014). Influence of aesthetic appreciation of wildlife species on attitudes towards their conservation in Kenyan agropastoralist communities. PLoS One, 9(2), e88842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088842
EvansG. W.OttoS.KaiserF. (2018). Childhood origins of young adults environmental behavior. Psychological Science, 29(1), 679–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741894
20.
FonsecaM. J.FrancoN.BrosseronF.TavaresF.OlssonA.Borlido-SantosJ. (2011). Children’s attitudes towards animals: Evidence from the RODENTIA project. Journal of Biological Education, 45(3), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.576259
21.
FryntaD.ŠimkováO.LiškováS.LandováE. (2013). Mammalian collection on Noah’s Ark: The effects of beauty, brain and body size. PLoS One, 8(5), e63110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063110.
22.
GaneaP.CanfieldC.Simons-GhafariK.ChouT. (2014). Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children knowledge about animals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 283. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00283
23.
GeerdtsM. S. (2015). (un)Real animals: Anthropomorphism and early learning about animals. Child Development Perspectives, 10(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12153
24.
GobsterP. H.NassauerJ. I.DanielT. C.FryG. (2007). The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology?Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
25.
GunnthorsdottirA. H. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279301786999355
26.
HahnE. R.GarrettM. K. (2017). Preschoolers’ moral judgments of environmental harm and the influence of perspective taking. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000378
27.
HarlandP.StaatsH.WilkeH. A. M. (1999). Explaining pro-environmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2505–2528. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00123.x
28.
HoweD.KahnP. H.Jr.FriedmanB. (1996). Along the Rio Negro: Brazilian children’s environmental views and values. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 979–987. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.979
29.
HuddyL.GunnthorsdottirA. (2000). The persuasive effects of motive visual imagery: Superficial manipulation or the product of passionate reason?Political Psychology, 21(4), 745–778. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00215
30.
HussarK. M.HarrisP. L. (2018). Vegetarian and nonvegetarian children’s judgments of harm to animals and humans. Ecopsychology, 10(1), 36–43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.05.001
31.
HussarK. M.HorvathJ. C. (2011). Do children play fair with mother nature? Understanding children’s judgments of environmentally harmful actions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.05.001.
32.
IBM Corp. Released 2015. IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. IBM Corp.
33.
KahnP. H. (2006). Nature and moral development. In KillenM.SmetanaJ. G. (Eds.). Handbook of moral development (pp. 461–480). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KahnP. H.LourencoO. (2002). Water, air, fire and earth: A developmental study in Portugal of environmental moral reasoning. Environment and Behavior, 34(4), 405–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/00116502034004001
36.
KalivodaaO.VojaraJ.SkřivanováaZ.ZahradníkbD. (2014). Consensus in landscape preference judgments: The effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics. Journal of Environmental Management, 137, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.009
37.
KellertS. R. (1984). Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. In FoxM. W.MickelyL. D. (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984/85 (pp. 43–60). The Humane Society of the United States.
38.
KellertS. R. (1993a). Attitudes, knowledge and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan and Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00908.x
39.
KellertS. R. (1993b). Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation Biology, 7(4), 845–855.
40.
KellertS. R. (1996). The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island Press.
41.
KellertS. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. In Kahnp. H.KellertS. R. (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 117–151). The MIT Press.
42.
KnegteringE.HendrickxL.van der WindtH. J.UiterkampA. (2002). Effects of species’ characteristics on nongovernmental organizations’ attitudes toward species conservation policy. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 378–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034003006
43.
KnightA. J. (2000). Culling demons: The problems of bear in Japan. In KnightJ. (Ed.), Natural enemies: People-wildlife conflicts in anthropological perspective (pp. 145–169). Routledge.
44.
KnightA. J. (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, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001
45.
KrettenauerT. (2017). Pro-environmental behavior and adolescent moral development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27(3), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12300
46.
LandováE.BakhshaliyevaN.JanovcováM.PeléškováŠ.SuleymanovaM.PolákJ.GulievA.FryntaD. (2018). Association between fear and beauty evaluation of snakes: Cross-cultural findings. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 333. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00333
47.
LeeD. S. (2012). The categorization of “bad animal” and its relation to animal appearances: A study of 6-year-old children’s perceptions. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(1), 32-49. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099226
48.
Lindemann-MatthiesP.JungeX.MatthiesD. (2010). The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation, 143(1), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.003
LorenzA. R.LibarkinJ. C.OrdingG. J. (2014). Disgust in response to some arthropods aligns with disgust provoked by pathogens. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2, 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2014.09.012
51.
LorimerJ. (2007). Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(5), 911–932. https://doi.org/10.1068/d71j
52.
ManeziZ.Van LangeP.PolletT. (2015). Butterfly eyespots: Their potential influence on aesthetic preferences and conservation attitudes. PLoS One, 10(11), e0141433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141433
53.
MarešováJ.AntonínK.FryntaD. (2009). We all appreciate the same animals: Cross-cultural comparison of human aesthetic preferences for snake species in Papua New Guinea and Europe. Ethology, 115(4), 297–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01620.x
54.
MarešováJ.FryntaD. (2008). Noah’s Ark is full of common species attractive to humans: The case of boid snakes in zoos. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 554–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.012
55.
Martín-LópezB.MontesC.BenayasJ. (2007). The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 139, 67–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.005
56.
MetrickA.WeitzmanM.L. (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Economics, 72(1), 1–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3147153
57.
MorrisD. (1967). The naked ape. McGraw-Hill.
58.
NelsonM. P.BruskotterJ. T.VucetichJ. A.ChapronG. (2016). Emotions and the ethics of consequence in conservation decisions: Lessons from cecil the lion. Conservation Letters, 9(4), 302–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12232
59.
NohlW. (2001). Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception–preliminary reflections on future landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1–4), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00138-4
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Version = 3.5.2.
62.
RevelleW. (2018). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych. Version = 1.8.12.
Root-BernsteinM.DouglasL. R.VerissimoD. (2013). Anthropomorphized species as tools for conservation: Utility beyond prosocial, intelligent and suffering species. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(8), 1577–1589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0494-4
65.
SamplesK. C.DixonJ. A.GowenM. M. (1986). Information disclosure and endangered species valuation. Land Economics, 62(3), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/3146394
66.
SaundersC. D. (2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review10(2), 137–149.
SmetanaJ. (2006). Social domain theory: Consistencies and variations children’s moral and social judgments. In KillenM.SmetanaJ. G. (Eds.). Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–154). Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-87
69.
SmetanaJ.JambonM.BallC. (2014). The social domain approach to children’s moral and social judgements. In KillenM.SmetanaJ. G. (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 23–45, 2nd ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203581957
70.
SnaddonJ. L.TurnerE. C.FosterW. A. (2008). Children’s perceptions of rainforest biodiversity: Which animals have the lion’s share of environmental awareness?PLoS One, 3(7), e2579. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002579
71.
StokesD. L. (2007). Things we like: Human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Human Ecology, 35(3), 361–369. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27654197.
72.
TamK. P.LeeS. L.ChaoM. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experiential Social Psychology, 49(3), 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001
73.
ThøgersenJ. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsable behavior: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 247–261. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.004
74.
Torres-MerchanN. Y.Salcedo-PlazasL. A.Becerra-NinoA.ValderramaW. (2018). Fuentes de conocimiento en la identificación y preferencias de fauna en niñez de contextos rurales y urbanos. [Sources of Knowledge in Preferences and Identification of Fauna in Children of Rural and Urban Contexts]. Educare, 22(3), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.15359/ree.22-3.4
75.
TribotA. S.CarabeuxQ.DeterJ.ClaverieT.VillégerS.MouquetN. (2018). Confronting species aesthetics with ecological functions in coral reef fish. Scientific Reports, 8, 11733. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29637-7
76.
TurielE. (2006). The development of morality. In EisenbergN. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 789–857). New Wiley.
77.
WaglerR. (2010). The association between preservice elementary teacher animal attitude and likelihood of animal incorporation in future science curriculum. The International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(3), 353–375
78.
WardP. I.MosbergerN.KistlerC.FischerO. (1998). The Relationship between Popularity and Body Size in Zoo Animals. Conservation Biology, 12(6), 1408–1411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.97402.x
79.
WickhamH. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
