Attitudes Toward Protecting Pollinators: The Impact of Perceived Physical Attractiveness and Fear of Pollinators

Abstract

Research understanding how people decide to support animal species facing environmental threats has been lacking. This research investigated how perceived physical attractiveness of two common pollinators – Western honey bees and bald-faced hornets – along with fear, influenced participants’ attitudes toward species protection. Two experiments involved showing photographs of both species to a representative sample from the U.S. The findings from the first study indicated that the honey bee, which was viewed as more physically attractive by humans, garnered greater support for protection compared to the less attractive bald-faced hornet. When considering fear, the honey bee evoked less fear than the bald-faced hornet in humans, which in turn positively impacted support for the species. The results of the second study suggested that physical attractiveness also influenced approach and avoidance behavior, further supporting the findings of the first study. These findings underscore a potential risk for species perceived as unattractive or fear-inducing (in humans), as their lack of support could lead to extinction, adversely affecting humans through consequences like rising costs of pollinator-dependent crops.

Keywords

Physical attractiveness fear pollinators

Introduction

There are approximately 28,000 species currently endangered with threatened extinction (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2019). As Wilcove and Master (2005) reported, only about 15% of known species in the U.S. have been studied in sufficient detail to determine whether they are at risk, meaning estimates of imperiled species largely rely on extrapolations from this small, well-studied subset to a much larger group of species. This suggests a need to broaden our focus beyond the commonly researched species to include others that also face significant environmental threats such as the bald-faced hornet (Dolichovespula maculata) which is experiencing population decline (Panziera et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2014).

However, there remains a significant gap in research on the factors that influence individuals’ decisions to support species that face environmental threats. Several factors likely contribute to varying levels of support. First, policy and government information play a crucial role in shaping public opinion. The success of such efforts depends largely on how well scientific knowledge is translated into public policy (Rohlf, 1991). When policies are flawed or based on inaccurate biological concepts – such as ecosystem conservation or the stochastic nature of species persistence – public awareness and engagement suffer. Additionally, ongoing discussions around recovery plans for threatened species often falter due to poor communication of scientific knowledge from experts to the public, hindering effective actions (Gregory et al., 2012).

However, as we argue in this study, a more significant factor influencing support for species that face environmental threats may be humans themselves – specifically, their lack of awareness, ignorance, or personal biases toward certain species, often based on external characteristics. Public attitudes toward wildlife can vary significantly, with some species – particularly mammals – receiving more support and protection than others (Wellsmith, 2011). For example, Liordos et al. (2017) found that people expressed the highest levels of support for species like the red deer, loggerhead sea turtle, and brown bear, while species such as the black vulture, great white shark, and Milos viper received much lower support. Interestingly, the species that garnered the most support were also considered the most attractive and “safe” by the public, suggesting that decisions are often influenced by external appearances.

Our study seeks to address this gap in research, particularly regarding less charismatic species like insects, particularly pollinators. This gap is striking, given the critical role these species play in ecosystems. Understanding the attitudes that shape support for such species is essential for developing effective strategies, including public outreach, fundraising, and awareness campaigns, that aim to protect these animals.

Study 1

Physical Attractiveness

One possible reason certain species receive more support and protection is their physical attractiveness, as perceived by humans (Liordos et al., 2017). Previous research has examined how an animal’s physical traits can influence public willingness to protect it. Gunnthorsdottir (2001) found that an animal’s attractiveness, size, and similarity to humans all contributed to increased support for its conservation. Similarly, Kellert (1993) demonstrated that larger animals, particularly those resembling humans, tend to garner more support than smaller species. Plous (1993) further suggested that physical attractiveness plays a key role in shaping our willingness to engage in animal protection efforts. More recent studies have confirmed that the perceived attractiveness of a species significantly impacts the level of support it receives for conservation (Harnish et al., 2023; Harnish & Nataraajan, 2020). These findings suggest that physical traits, such as size and human-like features, often result in more favorable evaluations. This effect is partly driven by implicit cognitive processes (van Leeuwen & Macrae, 2004), as well as by emotional factors, because animals serve as strong emotional triggers for humans, evoking intense reactions and expressions (Jacobs, 2009).

Given these factors, it is reasonable to suggest that Western honey bees (Apis mellifera), in contrast to bald-faced hornets, are often perceived as visually appealing due to their light coloration, fuzzy bodies, and large eyes (Cunningham et al., 1995). Research on human visual preferences indicates that elements such as symmetry, prototypicality, contrast, complexity, and perceptual fluency shape our aesthetic appreciation (Reber et al., 2004). Additionally, studies on human interpretation of facial expressions and movement suggest that sharp angles tend to signal threat (Aronoff et al., 1992), while rounded shapes evoke warmth and approachability (Bar & Maital Neta, 2006). In contrast, to the honey bee, the bald-faced hornet may be seen as less aesthetically pleasing. Its darker coloration, sparse hair, and smaller eyes are typically less attractive compared to insects like honey bees. Furthermore, the bald-faced hornet carries a different cultural significance, with expressions like “stirring up a hornet’s nest” often evoking negative associations. Unlike honey bees, humans have no history of cohabitation or domestication with bald-faced hornets, which may contribute to their less favorable perception. In general, animals that are perceived as friendly or attractive tend to be favored by society, as people are naturally drawn to beauty and tend to avoid things that are considered unattractive. According to the theory of aestheticism (Baldwin, 1975; Harris Williams, 2010), human appreciation of certain traits is deeply linked to our development and survival instincts.

Fear of Insects

Insects, often overlooked as animals, are a primary trigger for certain animal phobias, with entomophobia being one of the most common types (Polák et al., 2020; Steel et al., 2014). These phobias have significant clinical implications, as specific animal phobias are among the most frequently reported mental health conditions, with lifetime prevalence estimates ranging from 3.3% to 5.7% (Eaton et al., 2018; Steel et al., 2014). Like other forms of psychopathology, insect-related phobias impose considerable psychological, social, and economic costs, both for the individuals affected and for society at large (Greenberg et al., 1999).

Two primary emotions – fear and disgust – are often triggered by animals that elicit phobias in humans (Ekman, 2005; Gerdes et al., 2009). Evolutionary theory suggests that humans’ tendency to experience disgust is an adaptive response that helps reduce the risk of harm or infection. As a result, human emotions and behaviors are shaped by natural selection (Prokop & Fanćovićova, 2010). Sumner et al. (2018) found that humans tend to fear and dislike certain insects, such as wasps, cockroaches, flies, fleas, and mites, while expressing more favorable attitudes toward honey bees. This aversion to wasps, according to Sumner et al. (2018), may stem from the aggressive behavior of a particular group of wasps, such as the bald-faced hornet, which make up less than 1% of all stinging wasps. Despite both wasps and honey bees being capable of stinging and causing allergic reactions like anaphylaxis, wasps are often perceived as more dangerous (Feás et al., 2022).

The language used to describe these insects reflects the contrast in perception. Honey bees are often associated with positive terms (e.g., honey, flowers, pollination, buzz), while wasps are typically described using more negative, emotive words (e.g., sting, dangerous, pain, annoying, nest; Sumner et al., 2018). As a result, wasps align more closely with our cognitive prototype of fearful objects (Lockwood, 2013). Nonetheless, both groups play essential ecological roles: honey bees and wasps are vital pollinators of crops, while wasps also serve as important biocontrol agents, helping to protect other invertebrates and plants (Schowalter et al., 2018; Weisser & Siemann, 2007).

Objectives of Study 1

Building on the evolutionary principles that influence human perceptions of animals, as well as previous research by Liordos et al. (2017) that identified groups of animals for which people expressed varying levels of support for conservation, Study 1 aimed to extend this line of inquiry. Specifically, we sought to compare two very different types of animals – honey bees and bald-faced hornets – based on their aesthetic characteristics. The study had three main objectives: (1) to assess whether there is a perceived difference in physical attractiveness (by humans) between the two species, (2) to examine which species evokes a higher level of fear (in humans), and (3) to determine which species participants would be more willing to support, based on their perceptions of physical attractiveness and the fear each species elicits.

Hypotheses

Based on the reviewed literature, we hypothesized the following:

H₁: Participants will rate the honey bee as more physically attractive than the bald-faced hornet.

H₂: The honey bee will receive more support for protection than the bald-faced hornet due to the difference in perceived physical attractiveness (by humans) between the two species.

H₃: The bald-faced hornet will evoke higher levels of fear among participants as compared to the honey bee.

H₄: The honey bee will receive more support for protection (from humans) than the bald-faced hornet due to the difference in fear evoked (in humans) between the two species.

Method

Participants

Data were obtained from a sample of 425 participants from Prolific (https://www.prolific.com/). All were US citizens, were between the ages of 20 and 85, and English was their first language. The average age of participants was approximately 47 (SD = 15.79) years old. Of the 425 participants, 52% were women, 47% were men, less than 1% non-binary/third gender, male to female transgender, and preferred not to say. Approximately 26% of the participants were married with children, 10% were married without children, 38% were single (never married), 13% were living with a partner, 9% were divorced, 1% were separated, 2% were widowed, and 1% preferred not to say. The majority were Caucasian (76%), with African American (13%), Asian (6%), Hispanic (3%), and “other” (1%) represented. Less than 1% were Native American or preferred not to indicate their race. Most reported no religious affiliation (42%). However, those who did, indicated the following religious affiliations: Protestant (22%), Catholic (13%), Jewish (2%), Buddhist (2%), Hindu (less than 1%), Muslim/Islamic (less than 1%), and “other” (10%). Three percent were not sure of their religious affiliation and 5% preferred not to say. Approximately half of the participants (54%) reported an annual household income of less than US$60,000 before taxes in the previous year. In terms of education, less than 1% had less than a high school education, 13% had a high school education, 22% had attended some college but received no degree, 10% had an associate degree, 39% had received a bachelor’s degree, 11% had a master’s degree, 1% had a doctoral degree, and 2% had a professional degree (e.g., JD, MD) with less than 1% preferring not to say.

Procedure

As noted earlier, participants were recruited using Prolific. Individuals who were registered with Prolific could view available study titles, the study’s host (i.e., the principal investigator), the reward, and time allotted for completion among other information. Participants, who were selected based upon their demographic information to replicate the US population and who were interested in participating, clicked on a “Start Now” link that directed them to the experiment, which was housed outside of Prolific. Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com/) was used to create the experiment and it was hosted on their servers. Participants who completed the experiment were each compensated with a sum of US$4.25. On average, participants took 20 minutes to complete the experiment. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the first author’s institutional research board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Stimuli

Participants were shown a photo (1.5 × 2.26 inches) of an animal. To ensure a diverse range of stimuli and fillers, we included animals from four different classes: Mammalia, Reptilia, Aves, and Insects. Based on prior research (e.g., Harnish et al., 2023; Harnish & Nataraajan, 2020), which suggested that more physically attractive animals tend to receive greater protection from illicit trade, pollution, and cruelty, we chose species that were likely to be considered physically attractive (e.g., Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Archilochus colubris) as well as those that might be viewed as physically unattractive (e.g., Bald-faced Hornet). For a complete list of the animals used in the study, please refer to Table 1.

Table 1.

Animals Used as Stimuli or Fillers in the Research.

Class	Species
Class	Common Name	Scientific Name
Mammalia	California leaf-nosed bat	Macrotus californicus
	Golden retriever	Canis lupus familiaris ‘Golden Retriever’
	Tiger	Panthera tigris tigris
Reptilia	Alameda whipsnake	Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Aves	Ruby throated hummingbird	Archilochus colubris
Insects	Valley elderberry longhorn beetle	Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
	Dead leaf butterfly	Kallima inachus
	Western honey bee	Apis mellifera
	Bald-faced hornet	Dolichovespula maculata

All the animals except the honey bee and the bald-faced hornet served as filler stimuli. This was because we were especially interested in how participants would perceive these two pollinators which varied in terms of their perceived (by humans) physical attractiveness. As noted earlier, we anticipated that the honey bee would be perceived to be more physically attractive (to humans) than the bald-faced hornet (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

View of the honey bee on the left and the bald-faced hornet on the right.

Measures

First, participants were asked how supportive they were in protecting each of the animals from: (1) Illicit trade; (2) Harm from pollution and waste; and (3) Cruelty and persecution. Participants indicated their support for each item using a 4-point scale where 1 = Not at all, 2 = Only a little, 3 = Some, and 4 = A great deal. Next, participants were asked to rate each animal’s physical attractiveness based on the photo presented to them. Participants used a 5-point scale where 1 = Very unattractive, 2 = Unattractive, 3 = Neither unattractive nor attractive, 4 = Attractive, and 5 = Very attractive.

Following this, participants were asked to complete a series of questions assessing their fear of the animal. The fear questions were adapted from the Circumscribed Fear Measure (McCraw & Valentiner, 2015). According to McCraw and Valentiner (2015), four different types of questions have been used to assess fear. These include “… physiological symptoms upon encountering the stimulus (e.g., sweating, feeling sick); a subjective sense of anxiety or fear in response to the stimulus; an attempt or desire to avoid the stimulus, either physically or cognitively; and a sense that the stimulus was threatening, either directly (i.e., that the stimulus itself was dangerous) or indirectly (e.g., it might cause the respondent to behave in ways that are detrimental to functioning…”) (McCraw & Valentiner, 2015, p. 404). Thus, to assess physical symptoms elicited upon encountering the animal, we asked participants, “how physiologically aroused (e.g., increased heartrate, sweaty hands, heavy breathing) would you be if you came face-to-face with the animal pictured above?” Participants responded using a 5-point scale where 1 = Not at all physiologically aroused, 2 = A little physiologically aroused, 3 = Somewhat physiologically aroused, 4 = Physiologically aroused, and 5 = Very physiologically aroused.

To determine their subjective sense of fear, we asked participants to “imagine that you come face-to-face with the animal pictured above. How fearful would you be?” Participants indicated their response on a 5-point scale where 1 = Not at all fearful, 2 = A little fearful, 3 = Somewhat fearful, 4 = Fearful, and 5 = Very fearful or terrified. To measure participants’ desire to avoid the animal, we posed the following question, “which of the following best describes how close you would get to the animal pictured above?” Responses were made on a 5-point scale where 1 = Would approach it so I could touch it, 2 = Would approach it so I was within six to almost 12 inches of it, 3 = Would approach it so I was within one to six feet away from it, 4 = Would approach it so I was further away than six feet from it, and 5 = I would not approach it. Finally, to assess how threatening or dangerous the animal was, we asked participants, “how dangerous is the animal pictured above to you?” Participants rated how dangerous the animal was on a 5-point scale where 1 = Not at all dangerous, 2 = A little dangerous, 3 = Somewhat dangerous, 4 = Dangerous, and 5 = Very dangerous. After these measures were completed, participants were asked to complete the demographic measures.

Results of Study 1

Physical Attractiveness

Because we were interested in how physical attractiveness impacted protection for an animal, we began the analysis by exploring ratings of physical attractiveness for the honey bee and bald-faced hornet. Recall, that participants saw a photograph of a honey bee (Figure 1), which was hypothesized to be more physically attractive to participants compared to a photograph of the bald-faced hornet (Figure 1), which was hypothesized to be less physically attractive to participants. A paired-samples t test was conducted to test the hypothesis. There was a statistically significant difference in ratings of physical attractiveness between the honey bee (M = 3.02, SD = 1.10) and the bald-faced hornet (M = 1.92, SD = .93), t(424) = 21.50, p < .001. Cohen’s d was 1.04 indicating a large effect size. This finding provides support for H₁ which stated participants will rate the honey bee as more physically attractive than the bald-faced hornet.

Next, preliminary analysis revealed that the three wildlife protection items for the honey bee were correlated, r_s ranged from 0.72 (illicit trade & cruelty and persecution) to 0.73 (harm from pollution and waste & cruelty and persecution). Additionally, results revealed that the three wildlife protection items for the bald-faced hornet also were correlated, r_s ranged from 0.72 (illicit trade & cruelty and persecution) to 0.77 (harm from pollution and waste & cruelty and persecution). Thus, responses to protecting the honey bee from illicit trade, harm from pollution and waste, and cruelty and persecution were collapsed by taking a mean across each item to form an index. Similarly, responses to protecting the bald-faced hornet from illicit trade, harm from pollution and waste, and cruelty and persecution were collapsed by taking a mean across each item to form an index. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and reliabilities for these measures.

Table 2.

Descriptive and Reliability Information for the Protection Indices.

Variable	M	SD	Range	Cronbach’s Alpha
Protection index for the honey bee	3.39	0.85	1–4	0.87
Protection index for the bald-faced hornet	2.57	1.05	1–4	0.90

To test the hypothesis that the honey bee would receive more support for protection than the bald-faced hornet due to difference in perceived physical attractiveness (by humans), we conducted generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis to evaluate the relationship between physical attractiveness ratings and the level of support received for the protection of the pollinators. We chose to use GEE instead of analysis of variance (ANOVA) because ANOVA has specific requirements, such as the assumption of equal variances between all possible pairs of within-subject conditions (i.e., levels of the independent variable). It is also limited to fixed time intervals and is sensitive to missing data. In contrast, GEE allows for a more flexible, personalized model that can be tailored to the nature of the dependent variable. The key advantage of GEE is its ability to robustly estimate the variances of regression coefficients when there is high correlation between repeated measurements (Ballinger, 2004; Hardin & Hilbe, 2013). This results in more reliable regression estimates with appropriate standard errors. The GEE model equation can be expressed as: Y_i = β₀ + β₁X_i + ϵ_i where Y_i is the attractiveness score, β₀ is the intercept, β₁ is the coefficient for the pollinators predictor, X_i is the pollinator (honey bee, bald-faced hornet) and ϵ_i is the error term.

The average support score for the honey bee was M = 9.66 (SE = .15), while the bald-faced hornet had an average score of M = 8.49 (SE = .15). The mean physical attractiveness score for the pollinators (i.e., combined ratings) was M = 2.47 (SD = 2.16). A GEE analysis using a normal probability distribution with an identity link function and an independent working correlation matrix structure was employed.¹ The GEE analysis revealed that physical attractiveness ratings had a significant positive effect on the level of support for protection (β = 1.43, Wald χ² = 131.70, p < .001). This indicates that higher attractiveness ratings are associated with increased support. An interaction term between pollinators and physical attractiveness was included, indicating that the effect of attractiveness on support was significantly stronger for the honey bee than for the bald-faced hornet (β = 0.52, Wald χ² = 12.04, p = .001). Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between the honey bee (M = 9.66, SE = .15) and the bald-faced hornet (M = 8.49, SE = .15), p < .001. In summary, our results supported H₂ which predicted that the honey bee would receive more support for protection than the bald-faced hornet due to the difference in perceived physical attractiveness (by humans) between the two pollinators.

Fear

Because we were interested in how fear might impact support for either the physically attractive (i.e., honey bee) or physically unattractive (i.e., bald-faced hornet) species, we conducted a series of correlations on the fear items. Preliminary analysis revealed that the five fear items for the honey bee were correlated, r_s ranged from 0.25 (how dangerous is the animal & how close would you get) to 0.86 (how physiologically aroused would you be if you came face-to-face with the animal & how anxious would you be if you came face to face with the animal). Additionally, results revealed that the five fear items for the bald-faced hornet also were correlated, r_s ranged from 0.31 (how dangerous is the animal & how close would you get) to 0.82 (how anxious would you be if you came face-to-face with the animal & how fearful would you be). Thus, the responses to the fear questions for the honey bee were collapsed by taking a mean across each item to form an index. Similarly, responses to the fear questions for the bald-faced hornet were collapsed by taking a mean across each item to form an index. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and reliabilities for these measures.

Table 3.

Descriptive and Reliability Information for the Fear Indices.

Variable	M	SD	Range	Cronbach’s Alpha
Fear index for the honey bee	2.70	0.93	1–5	0.87
Fear index for bald-faced hornet	2.80	0.96	1–5	0.87

To test the hypothesis that the bald-faced hornet will evoke higher levels of fear among participants as compared to the honey bee, a paired samples t test was conducted. Results revealed a statistically significant difference in ratings of fear between the honey bee (M = 2.70, SD = 0.93) and the bald-faced hornet (M = 2.80, SD = 0.96), t(424) = −2.41, p = .008. Cohen’s d was 0.12 indicating a small effect size. This finding provided support for H₃ which stated the bald-faced hornet will evoke higher levels of fear among participants as compared to the honey bee.

To test the hypothesis that the honey bee will receive more support for protection than the bald-faced hornet due to the difference in fear evoked between the two pollinators, we again conducted generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis to evaluate the relationship between fear ratings and the level of support received for the protection of the pollinators. The average support score for the honey bee was M = 10.13 (SE = .12), while the bald-faced hornet had an average score of M = 7.71 (SE = .15). The mean fear score for the pollinators was M = 13.75 (SD = 4.71). A GEE analysis using a normal probability distribution with an identity link function and an independent working correlation matrix structure was employed. The GEE analysis revealed a significant interaction effect between pollinators and fear on support for the pollinators, indicating that the effect of fear on support was significantly weaker for the honey bee than for the bald-faced hornet (β = 0.10, Wald χ² = 6.72, p = .01). Pairwise comparisons revealed a significant difference between the honey bee (M = 7.71, SE = .15) and the bald-faced hornet (M = 10.13, SE = .12), p < .001. In summary, our results supported H₄ which predicted that the honey bee would receive more support for protection than the bald-faced hornet due to the difference in fear evoked by the two species.

Discussion

We found that participants rated the honey bee as more physically attractive than the bald-faced hornet supporting H₁. Furthermore, the analysis indicated that the honey bee received more support for protection than the bald-faced hornet, potentially due to differences in perceived physical attractiveness affirming H₂. Previous research (Gunnthorsdottir, 2001; Harnish et al., 2023; Harnish & Nataraajan, 2020) consistently supports the idea that the physical attractiveness of a species, as perceived by humans, influences how that species is treated, with more attractive species typically receiving better treatment. These findings align with studies on human physical attractiveness, where physically attractive individuals are often seen as more socially and sexually desirable (Eastwick et al., 2011; Zebrowitz & Montepare, 2008), achieve better educational outcomes (Judge et al., 2009; Umberson & Hughes, 1987), are more likely to be hired for desirable jobs (Lee et al., 2018), and tend to earn higher salaries (Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994) compared to those perceived as less physically attractive. These findings are consistent with evolutionary theory and evolutionary psychology, which suggest that human behavior, shaped by cognitive and physiological structures through natural selection, serves specific survival and reproductive purposes (Buss, 2019). In other words, prior research has highlighted the significant and far-reaching effects of physical attractiveness on people’s lives (e.g., Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005). This body of work typically indicates that more physically attractive individuals are treated more favorably than others. However, these theories do not provide empirical evidence on how varying perceptions of physical attractiveness may influence the way humans perceive animals.

Indeed, it appears that physically unattractive animals and humans are penalized because of their physical attractiveness resulting in a stereotype suggesting that which is “physically unattractive is bad” (Griffin & Langlois, 2006) while those who are perceived to be physically attractive are good (i.e., the “what is beautiful is good” hypothesis; Dion et al., 1972). If physical unattractiveness of a species evokes stronger reactions (i.e., this species is bad) as compared to a physically attractive species (to humans) then, we should observe more fear provoked by the physically unattractive species as compared to the physically attractive species. Results supported this claim: H₄ stated that the honey bee would receive more support for protection than the bald-faced hornet potentially due to the difference in fear evoked by the two species. Consistent with this finding, Bennett-Levy and Marteau (1984) reported an association between ratings of an animals’ level of perceived physical unattractiveness (by humans) and fear. They argued that a species physical unattractiveness “incorporated elements of sliminess, hairiness, colour of animal, perceived dirtiness, number of limbs and antennae projecting from the body, compactness of body and relation of eyes to the head” (p. 41). Thus, it appears that the more an animal form diverges from a human form, the more fear it evokes in humans. Indeed, it may be the case that many individuals do not know insects are animals given how drastically insects differ from other animal forms. This suggests that, as human beings, we all share certain common traits, including limitations such as unawareness or, in more extreme cases, ignorance. These limitations can give rise to personal or collective irrational fears when encountering something strange, unfamiliar, or unknown - such as unfamiliar animals. As DeNicola (2017) explains, “fear is merely the reaction, where ignorance comes first” (p. 31).

Fear of certain animals may also stem from a lack of familiarity (i.e., knowledge, experience). Honey bees, for example, benefit from their symbolic and cultural significance. They appear in family coats of arms, are revered by some ancient cultures, and expressions like “busy as a bee” and “the bee’s knees” highlight positive human traits. The word “honey” is commonly used as a term of endearment, further embedding honey bees in human culture. In addition, honey is a valuable resource that plays a crucial role in achieving sustainable development goals related to food security and biodiversity (Patel et al., 2021). Sumner et al. (2018) also pointed out that humans have a “long history of cohabitation and domestication” (p. 836) with honey bees, which further strengthens their positive perception in human society. Familiarity with animals can also come from watching nature documentaries, where viewers report feeling less fear of the featured animals after gaining knowledge about them. Even brief exposure to nature shows has been found to positively impact emotions and reduce anxiety levels (Morgan, 2021). In contrast, research suggests that individuals who react aggressively toward animals due to fear may do so because of insufficient knowledge about the species they encounter (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). Therefore, acquiring more knowledge about a specific animal appears to have a positive influence on how humans perceive it. Wasps, in particular, have been notably understudied, possibly due to their negative public perception, which often stems from fear and misunderstanding rather than an informed view of their behavior and ecological role.

Study 2

Objectives of Study 2

As with studies relying on self-reports, caution is necessary when interpreting findings, as they may not accurately capture the true intensity of a participant’s response. To address this, we used a behavioral measure in the second study – the Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT; Rinck & Becker, 2007). Previous research has shown a link between approach-avoidance behaviors and both the liking and perceived attractiveness of an object (Neumann et al., 2003). Specifically, approach behaviors tend to increase the attractiveness of an object or person, while avoidance behaviors reduce it. For instance, in interpersonal contexts, studies have found that when individuals demonstrate approach behaviors toward someone, their attitudes toward that person become more positive (Chen et al., 2010; Lambert et al., 2010; Lambert & Fincham, 2011).

Other studies have shown that approach training can improve interracial attitudes and interactions. For example, Kawakami et al. (2007) demonstrated that training participants to approach images of Black individuals and avoid images of White individuals led to more positive attitudes and behaviors toward Black individuals. Similarly, in a health context, avoidance training has been found to alter the approach bias toward alcohol in individuals with alcohol dependence (Wiers et al., 2011). In this study, patients used a joystick to push away alcohol-related stimuli, shifting their approach bias toward alcohol into an avoidance bias. As a result, participants reported weaker alcohol cravings and, compared to a control group, experienced better treatment outcomes a year later.

We modeled our study after Wiers et al. (2011), but instead of using a joystick, we employed two keyboard keys. Pressing the “T” key would push the image away, causing it to shrink, while pressing the “B” key would pull the image toward the participant, making it larger. We hypothesized that participants would be more likely to pull the image of the honey bee toward themselves compared to the bald-faced hornet, as the honey bee is generally perceived as more physically attractive as demonstrated in Study 1. Additionally, unlike Wiers et al. (2011), which was focused on training of alcohol-related cognitions, our aim was to use the AAT to assess whether participants already perceived honey bees as more “approachable” than bald-faced hornets.

Method

Participants

A second sample, consisting of 475 participants, was recruited from Prolific (https://www.prolific.com/). All participants were U.S. citizens, aged between 20 and 87, and had English as their first language. The average age was approximately 49 years (SD = 17.27). In terms of gender, 52% were women, 46% were men, less than 1% identified as third gender/non-binary, less than 1% as transgender, and 1% preferred not to disclose their gender. Regarding relationship status, 31% were married with children, 7% were married without children, 33% were single (never married), 10% were living with a partner, 13% were divorced, 2% were separated, 4% were widowed, and 1% preferred not to say. The racial composition was predominantly Caucasian (67%), with 12% African American, 7% Asian, 7% Hispanic, 2% Native American, 5% identifying as “other,” and less than 1% preferring not to disclose their race. In terms of religious affiliation, 36% reported no religious affiliation. Among those who identified with a religion, 27% were Protestant, 17% Catholic, 3% Jewish, 2% Buddhist, 2% Muslim/Islamic, 1% Hindu, and 9% identified as “other.” Three percent were unsure of their religious affiliation, and 2% preferred not to say. With regard to household income, 49% reported earning less than US$60,000 annually before taxes in the previous year. Educationally, less than 1% had less than a high school education, 13% had a high school diploma, 24% had attended some college without completing a degree, 11% held an associate degree, 35% had a bachelor’s degree, 11% had a master’s degree, 2% held a doctoral degree, 2% had a professional degree (e.g., JD, MD), and less than 1% preferred not to disclose their education level.

Procedure

The demographic questions for this study were created using Qualtrics and hosted on their servers. The approach-avoidance task was designed using an Inquisit script.² Participants who completed the study received a compensation of US$4.25. On average, participants spent 30 min completing the experiment. All procedures involving human participants adhered to the ethical standards set by the first author’s institutional research board, as well as the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its subsequent amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the study.

Pretest stimuli and measures

A pre-test was conducted with 42 different animals to assess their physical attractiveness, involving 22 participants from an Introductory Psychology class at the first author’s university. Participants were shown a 1.5 × 2.26 inch photo of each animal and asked to rate its physical attractiveness on a 5-point scale: 1 = Very unattractive, 2 = Unattractive, 3 = Neither unattractive nor attractive, 4 = Attractive, and 5 = Very attractive. A list of the animals used and their corresponding ratings can be found in Table 4. The top 9 animals rated as most physically attractive and the bottom 9 animals rated as least physically attractive were selected as fillers while the honey bee and bald-faced hornet served as target stimuli in the Approach-Avoidance Task.

Table 4.

Ratings of Physical Attractiveness of Pre-Test Animals.

Common Name	Scientific Name	M	SD
White tiger	Pantheria tigris tigris	4.50	1.012
Siberian husky	Canis lupus	4.40	.940
Red fox	Vulpes vulpes	4.27	.985
Arctic fox	Vulpes lagopus	4.27	.985
Wolf	Canis lupus	4.23	.869
Collie	Canis lupus	4.21	.976
Sea otter	Enhydra lutris	4.18	.958
Royal antelope	Neotragus pygmaeus	4.15	.933
White peacock	Anartia jatrophae	4.10	1.044
Swan	Cygnus atratus	3.86	1.082
Monarch butterfly	Danaus plexippus	3.81	1.167
Mandarin duck	Aix galericulata	3.76	1.091
Baluchistan pygmy jerboas	Salpingotulus michaelis	3.76	.831
Red panda	Ailurus fulgens	3.75	1.070
Regal angel fish	Pygoplites diacanthus	3.74	.872
Panda	Ailuropoda melanoleuca	3.60	.940
Bay checkerspot butterfly	Euphydryas editha bayensis	3.55	1.191
Ruby throated hummingbird	Archilochus colubris	3.55	.912
DeadLeaf butterfly wings open	Kallima inachus	3.48	1.209
Mandarin fish	Synchiropus splendidus	3.48	1.030
Macaw	Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus	3.45	.999
African elephant	Loxodonta africana	3.45	1.191
DeadLeaf butterfly wings closed	Kallima inachus	2.52	1.078
Western honey bee	Apis mellifera	2.50	1.012
Roti island snake necked turtle	Chelodina mccordi	1.81	.981
Blob fish	Psychrolutes marcidus	1.81	1.327
Olm	Proteus anguinus	1.75	1.070
Bald-faced hornet	Dolichovespula maculata	1.73	.883
Aye-aye	Daubentonia madagascariensis	1.64	.848
Purple pig Nosed frog	Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis	1.64	1.002
Cuban solenondon	Atopogale cubana	1.62	.865
Proboscis monkey	Nasalis larvatus	1.62	.740
Titicaca frog	Telmatobius coleus	1.60	.754
Baby bumphead parrotfish	Cetoscarus bicolor	1.57	.870
Giant Chinese salamander	Andrias davidianus	1.50	.740
California condor	Gymnogyps californianus	1.38	.590
Marabou stork	Leptoptilos crumenifer	1.32	.716
Elephant seal	Mirounga angustirostris	1.32	.582
Naked mole rat	Heterocephalus glaber	1.24	.700
Star-nosed mole	Condylura cristata	1.20	.410
Horseshoe bat	Rhinolophus ferrumequinum	1.19	.402

Approach-Avoidance Task

In Study 2, participants completed the Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT; Rinck & Becker, 2007). Four categories of stimuli were used: (1) pictures of animals from the pretest rated as physically attractive, (2) pictures of animals from the pretest rated as physically unattractive, (3) pictures of people expressing positive emotions (e.g., smiling, laughing), and (4) pictures of people expressing negative emotions (e.g., frowning). Each category consisted of 10 images, presented in both portrait and landscape formats.

Participants interacted with the images by pressing the “T” key to shrink the image, causing it to be pushed away, and the “B” key to enlarge the image, pulling it toward them (for technical details, see Rinck & Becker, 2007). Before the test trials, participants completed 10 practice trials, during which a gray rectangle in either portrait or landscape format was shown. The format-to-key assignment was counterbalanced: half of the participants pulled landscape images and pushed portrait images, while the other half received the opposite assignment. The 80 test images were presented in a quasi-random order, with a maximum of three images from the same category or format presented consecutively.

Results

Pre-test of Physical Attractiveness

As previously mentioned, for Study 2, a pre-test was conducted with 42 different animals to assess their physical attractiveness. The results identified several animals that were rated highly in terms of attractiveness, including the White Tiger (Pantheria tigris tigris), Siberian Husky (Canis lupus), Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes), Arctic Fox (Vulpes lagopus), Wolf (Canis lupus), Collie (Canis lupus), Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris), Royal Antelope (Neotragus pygmaeus), and White Peacock (Anartia jatrophae). These animals were selected as fillers for the “physically attractive” category in the AAT, with the Honey Bee included as the target stimuli. In contrast, animals such as the Bald-Faced Hornet, Titicaca Frog (Telmatobius coleus), Baby Bumphead Parrotfish (Cetoscarus bicolor), Giant Chinese Salamander (Andrias davidianus), California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus), Marabou Stork (Leptoptilos crumenifer), Elephant Seal (Mirounga angustirostris), Naked Mole Rat (Heterocephalus glaber), Star-Nosed Mole (Condylura cristata), and Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) were rated as the least physically attractive and were used as fillers in the “physically unattractive” category of the AAT, with the Bald-Faced Hornet serving as the target stimuli for this group. See Table 4 for all the animals used in the pre-test and their ratings.

Pretest comparative analysis

A paired-samples t test was conducted to compare the physical attractiveness ratings of the honey bee and the bald-faced hornet. The results showed a significant difference between the two species, with the honey bee receiving a higher physical attractiveness rating (M = 2.50, SD = 1.01) compared to the bald-faced hornet (M = 1.73, SD = 0.88), t(21) = 3.27, p = .004 (two-tailed). The mean difference was 0.77, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.28 to 1.27. Cohen’s d = 0.70 indicated a medium effect size. Based on these findings, the honey bee was rated as more physically attractive than the bald-faced hornet, and we proceeded with the AAT analysis.

Preliminary Analysis of AAT Scores

To ensure data accuracy, erroneous reactions to the AAT stimuli depicting honey bee and bald-faced hornet orientations were excluded from the dataset when the format-to-key assignment was incorrect (i.e., pushing the landscape images when it should have been pulled, and pulling the portrait images when they should have pushed). This resulted in 40.4% of the sample being excluded from the analysis. Subsequently, outliers exceeding two standard deviations from the mean for each stimulus were also eliminated, resulting in the removal of 23.2% of accurate responses. Consequently, 217 responses were retained for subsequent analyses.

AAT score calculation

AAT scores were computed by determining the difference between reaction times for pushing and pulling separately for honey bee and bald-faced hornet stimuli. A negative score indicates an avoidance tendency, where pushing away is quicker than pulling closer. Conversely, a positive score suggests an approach tendency, with pulling closer being faster than pushing away.

Comparative analysis

A paired-samples t test assessed the disparity in approach and avoidance behaviors between the honey bee and bald-faced hornet stimuli. Results revealed a significant difference in respondent reactions to the honey bee (M = 6.45 ms³, SD = 330.31 ms) and the bald-faced hornet (M = −78.82 ms, SD = 367.99 ms), t(216) = 2.61, p = .01 (two-tailed). The mean difference score was 85.27 ms, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 20.83 ms to 149.72 ms. Cohen’s d = .18 indicated a small effect size.

Discussion

The results of Study 2 provide insightful evidence regarding human perceptions and behavioral responses to two distinct insect species: the honey bee and the bald-faced hornet. The findings from the pretest and the subsequent AAT revealed significant differences in how these species are perceived in terms of physical attractiveness and how people react behaviorally to them. The pretest revealed a significant difference in the perceived physical attractiveness of the honey bee and the bald-faced hornet, with the honey bee receiving a higher attractiveness rating. These results support the hypothesis that animals with more aesthetically pleasing or familiar features are viewed more favorably by humans. This aligns with existing research suggesting that humans tend to favor animals that are perceived as more physically attractive, often influenced by visual cues such as size, color, and symmetry (Liordos et al., 2017).

The AAT results revealed a significant difference in the approach-avoidance tendencies associated with the honey bee and the bald-faced hornet stimuli. Respondents showed a positive mean AAT score for the honey bee, indicating an approach tendency, meaning that participants were quicker to “pull” the image of the honey bee closer, suggesting a more favorable, welcoming response. In contrast, the bald-faced hornet elicited a negative mean AAT score, indicating an avoidance tendency such that participants were faster to “push” the hornet image away, reflecting an instinctual, fearful reaction. This result is consistent with previous research suggesting that certain insects, particularly those perceived as dangerous or threatening, elicit avoidance behaviors, likely due to evolutionary responses to potential threats (Ekman, 2005; Gerdes et al., 2009).

Although the statistical significance of the difference is clear, the effect size for the AAT results was small (Cohen’s d = 0.18), suggesting that while the difference in approach-avoidance behavior is significant, the strength of the relationship between perceived attractiveness and behavioral response is relatively modest. This finding may indicate that while the physical appearance of the species plays a role in influencing approach-avoidance behavior, other factors such as individual experiences, cultural attitudes, and perceived danger also contribute to these responses. For example, even though honey bees are perceived as more attractive, their perceived role as important pollinators may further encourage positive responses, while the bald-faced hornet’s aggressive behavior may be a more dominant factor in triggering avoidance.

Conclusion

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to examine how physical attractiveness and fear may influence support for the protection of pollinators. Research on pollinators is critical due to their vital role in human food production and the increasing threats they face as their populations decline (Klein et al., 2007). The lack of support for species that humans find physically unattractive or that evoke fear could contribute to their extinction, with far-reaching consequences for human societies. For example, declines in pollinator populations could lead to higher prices for crops that rely on pollination, such as almonds, or a reduced availability of pumpkins in the fall (Gallai et al., 2009). Therefore, ensuring the survival of less physically attractive pollinators may depend on a deeper understanding of how humans perceive and react to these species.

The findings of these studies have broader implications for understanding how human perceptions of physical attractiveness influence attitudes and behavioral responses toward pollinators. The tendency to support and approach more attractive species (like honey bees) and avoid less attractive ones (like bald-faced hornets) reflects a broader pattern where human attitudes toward animals are shaped not just by their ecological roles, but also by their visual appeal and perceived threat level. This dynamic is particularly relevant because public attitudes and support for species protection can often be swayed by aesthetic factors (Liordos et al., 2017).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

The stimuli used in this study represent just two of the many pollinator species that vary in their perceived physical attractiveness and the degree of fear they may evoke in humans. Therefore, additional research is needed to explore a broader range of species and further investigate the factors influencing human perceptions of animals. Additionally, future studies could examine individuals’ moral and social capital orientation (Burke, 2010; Muller, 2020; Norman, 2014), as well as other relevant social and psychological factors, such as axiomatic theories (e.g., human values and moral systems) and environmental and social framing (Klein et al., 2022). These factors could provide valuable insights into individual differences in concern for animals and environmental issues, helping to deepen our understanding of the complex dynamics that shape attitudes toward animal welfare.

Footnotes

Author Contribution

Conceptualization: RJH, BET, PT, RN, FJS; Literature research: RJH, PT, BET; Analysis: RJH; Writing: RJH, BET, PT. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by internal research development grants by Penn State New Kensington. Partial funding to support this project was provided by Penn State Schuylkill Faculty and Student Research Endowment and the Fred J. Wiest Faculty Research Award at Penn State Schuylkill.

Ethics Statement

This study was approved by the first author’s institutional review board and we certify that the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards found in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

ORCID iDs

Richard J. Harnish

Piotr Tarka

Data Availability Statement

The data for both studies are available at .

Notes

Author Biographies

Richard J. Harnish is professor of psychology at the Pennsylvania State University, New Kensington Campus, where he teaches social psychology, personality psychology, and research method courses. Dr. Harnish’s research has focused broadly on social influence in everyday decision-making. He received his PhD. from Michigan State University. (rjh27@psu.ed)

Brenna Traver received her PhD in Entomology from Virginia Tech. She is currently an Associate Professor of Biology at Penn State Lehigh Valley. She is a honey bee researcher who has focused on investigating the interactions of pathogens and other factors and their impact on honey bee colonies. (bet12@psu.edu)

Piotr Tarka is an Associate Professor in Market Research Department of the Poznan University of Economics in Poland. His research interests are focused on: compulsive buying behavior, personal values, structural equation modeling, and latent variables measurement. His research has been published in consumer and psychology journals, and he authored, Scales Construction for Consumers' Personal Values: Methodological Aspects and Application. (Piotr.Tarka@ue.poznan.pl)

Rajan Nataraajan is Emeritus Professor of Economics at Auburn University. His research has focused on various topics including compulsive buying, service quality, branding, and celebrity endorsements. He was past editor of Psychology & Marketing. (natarra@auburn.edu)

Frederick Slack is a faculty member at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP), specializing in organizational analysis. With a commitment to academic excellence, he fosters research and critical thinking in students. He received his MBA and PhD from the University of Pittsburgh. (fslack@iup.edi)

References

Aronoff

Woike

B. A.

Hyman

L. M.

(1992). Which are the stimuli in facial displays of anger and happiness? Configurational bases of emotion recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 1050–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.62.6.1050

Baldwin

J. M.

(1975). Thought and things: A study of the development and meaning of thought or generic logic (Vols. III and IV). Arno Press.

Ballinger

G. A.

(2004). Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104263672

Bar

Maital Neta

(2006). Humans prefer curved visual objects. Psychological Science, 17(8), 645–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01759.x

Bennett-Levy

Marteau

(1984). Fear of animals: What is prepared? British Journal of Psychology, 75(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb02787.x

Burke

(2010). On taste, on the sublime and beautiful, reflections on the French revolution & a letter to a noble lord: The five foot shelf of classics (Vol. XXIV). Cosimo Classics.

Buss

D. M.

(2019). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Routledge.

Chen

F. S.

Minson

J. A.

Tormala

Z. L.

(2010). Tell me more: The effects of expressed interest on receptiveness during dialogue. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.012

Cunningham

M. R.

Roberts

A. R.

Barbee

A. P.

Druen

P. B.

C.-H.

(1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.261

10.

DeNicola

(2017). Understanding ignorance: The surprising impact of what we don’t know. The MIT Press.

11.

Dion

Berscheid

Walster

(1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033731

12.

Eastwick

P. W.

Eagly

A. H.

Finkel

E. J.

Johnson

S. E.

(2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 993–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024061

13.

Eaton

W. W.

Bienvenu

O. J.

Miloyan

(2018). Specific phobias. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(8), 678–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30169-X

14.

Ekman

(2005). Basic emotions. In Dalgleish

Power

M. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 45–60). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

15.

Feás

Vidal

Remesar

(2022). What we know about sting-related deaths? Human fatalities caused by hornet, wasp and bee stings in Europe (1994-2016). Biology, 11(2), 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology11020282

16.

Gallai

Salles

J.-M.

Settele

Vaissière

B. E.

(2009). Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 810–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014

17.

Gangestad

S. W.

Scheyd

G. J.

(2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34(1), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143733

18.

Gerdes

A. B. M.

Uhl

Alpers

G. W.

(2009). Spiders are special: Fear and disgust evoked by pictures of arthropods. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.08.005

19.

Greenberg

P. E.

Sisitsky

Kessler

R. C.

Finkelstein

S. N.

Berndt

E. R.

Davidson

J. R. T.

Ballenger

J. C.

Fyer

A. J.

(1999). The economic burden of anxiety disorders in the 1990s. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60(7), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.v60n0702

20.

Gregory

Long

Colligan

Geiger

J. G.

Laser

(2012). When experts disagree (and better science won’t help much): Using structured deliberations to support endangered species recovery planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 105(30), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.001

21.

Griffin

A. M.

Langlois

J. H.

(2006). Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2006.24.2.187

22.

Gunnthorsdottir

(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

23.

Hamermesh

D. S.

Biddle

J. E.

(1994). Beauty and the labor market. The American Economic Review, 84(5), 1174–1194.

24.

Hardin

J. W.

Hilbe

J. M.

(2013). Generalized estimating equations. CRC Press.

25.

Harnish

R. J.

Nataraajan

(2020). Attitudes toward wildlife: The impact of physical attractiveness. Psychology and Marketing, 37(12), 1703–1707. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21389

26.

Harnish

R. J.

Nataraajan

Tarka

Slack

F. J.

(2023). Attitudes toward protecting endangered species: The impact of perceived physical attractiveness of animals and political ideology. Psychology and Marketing, 40(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21719

27.

Harris Williams

(2010). The aesthetic development: The poetic spirit of psychoanalysis. Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

28.

International Union for Conservation of Nature . (2019). Retrieved from https://iucn.org/resources/annual-reports/iucn-2019-international-union-conservation-nature-annual-report-2019

29.

Jacobs

M. H.

(2009). Why do we like or dislike animals? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200802545765

30.

Judge

T. A.

Hurst

Simon

L. S.

(2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 742–755. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015497

31.

Kawakami

Phills

C. E.

Steele

J. R.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2007). (Close) distance makes the heart grow fonder: Improving implicit racial attitudes and interracial interactions through approach behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 957–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.957

32.

Kellert

S. R.

(1993). 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

33.

Klein

A.-M.

Vaissière

B. E.

Cane

J. H.

Steffan-Dewenter

Cunningham

S. A.

Kremen

Tscharntke

(2007). Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings. Biological Sciences, 274(1608), 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721

34.

Klein

S. A.

Horsten

L. K.

Hilbig

B. E.

(2022). The effect of environmental versus social framing on pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 84(6), Article 101897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101897

35.

Lambert

N. M.

Clark

M. S.

Durtschi

Fincham

F. D.

Graham

S. M.

(2010). Benefits of expressing gratitude: Expressing gratitude to a partner changes one’s view of the relationship. Psychological Science, 21(4), 574–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610364003

36.

Lambert

N. M.

Fincham

F. D.

(2011). Expressing gratitude to a partner leads to more relationship maintenance behavior. Emotion, 11(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021557

37.

Lee

Pitesa

Pillutla

M. M.

Thau

(2018). Perceived entitlement causes discrimination against attractive job candidates in the domain of relatively less desirable jobs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(3), 422–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000114

38.

Lerner

J. S.

Keltner

(2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146

39.

Liordos

Kontsiotis

V. J.

Anastasiadou

Karavasias

(2017). Effects of attitudes and demography on public support for endangered species conservation. The Science of the Total Environment, 595(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.241

40.

Lockwood

(2013). The infested mind: Why humans fear, loathe, and love insects. Oxford University Press.

41.

McCraw

K. S.

Valentiner

D. P.

(2015). The circumscribed fear measure: Development and initial validation of a trans-stimulus phobia measure. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000046

42.

Morgan

(2021, February 26). Creature comfort: Why TV nature shows are good for mental health. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/feb/26/creature-comfort-why-tv-nature-shows-are-good-for-mental-health

43.

Muller

J. Z.

(2020). Conservatism: An anthology of social and political thought from david Hume to the present. Princeton University Press.

44.

Neumann

Förster

Strack

(2003). Motor compatibility: The bidirectional link between behavior and evaluation. In Musch

Klauer

K. C.

(Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 7–49). Lawrence Erlbaum.

45.

Norman

(2014). Edmund Burke: The visionary who invented modern politics. William Collins.

46.

Panziera

Requier

Chantawannakul

Pirk

C. W. W.

Blacquière

(2022). The diversity decline in wild and managed honey bee populations urges for an integrated conservation approach. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10(767950), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.767950

47.

Patel

Pauli

Biggs

Barbour

Boruff

(2021). Why bees are critical for achieving sustainable development. Ambio, 50(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01333-9

48.

Plous

(1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 11–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00907.x

49.

Polák

Rádlová

Janovcová

Flegr

Landová

Frynta

(2020). Scary and nasty beasts: Self-reported fear and disgust of common phobic animals. British Journal of Psychology, 111(2), 297–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12409

50.

Prokop

Fančovičová

(2010). The association between disgust, danger and fear of macroparasites and human behaviour. Acta Ethologica, 13(1), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-010-0075-4

51.

Reber

Schwarz

Winkielman

(2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3

52.

Rinck

Becker

E. S.

(2007). Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.001

53.

Rohlf

D. J.

(1991). Six biological reasons why the endangered species act doesn’t work – and what to do about it? Conservation Biology, 5(3), 273–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00139.x

54.

Schowalter

T. D.

Noriega

J. A.

Tscharntke

(2018). Insect effects on ecosystem services - Introduction. Basic and Applied Ecology, 26(6), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.09.011

55.

Smith

K. M.

Loh

E. H.

Rostal

M. K.

Zambrana-Torrelio

C. M.

Mendiola

Daszak

(2014). Pathogens, pests, and economics: Drivers of honey bee colony declines and losses. EcoHealth, 10(4), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-013-0870-2

56.

Steel

Marnane

Iranpour

Chey

Jackson

J. W.

Patel

Silove

(2014). The global prevalence of common mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis 1980-2013. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(2), 476–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu038

57.

Sumner

Law

Cini

(2018). Why we love bees and hate wasps. Ecological Entomology, 43(6), 836–845. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12676

58.

Umberson

Hughes

(1987). The impact of physical attractiveness on achievement and psychological well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(3), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786823

59.

van Leeuwen

M. L.

Macrae

N. C.

(2004). Is beautiful always good? Implicit benefits of facial attractiveness. Social Cognition, 22(6), 637–649. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.22.6.637.54819

60.

Weisser

W. W.

Siemann

(Eds.), (2007). Insects and ecosystem function (1st ed.). Springer.

61.

Wellsmith

(2011). Wildlife crime: The problems of enforcement. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 17(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-011-9140-4

62.

Wiers

R. W.

Eberl

Rinck

Becker

E. S.

Lindenmeyer

(2011). Retraining automatic action tendencies changes alcoholic patients’ approach bias for alcohol and improves treatment outcome. Psychological Science, 22(4), 490–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611400615

63.

Wilcove

D. C.

Master

L. L.

(2005). How many endangered species are in the United States? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(8), 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1890/15409295(2005)003[0414:HMESAT]2.0.CO;2

64.

Zebrowitz

L. A.

Montepare

J. M.

(2008). Social psychological face perception: Why appearance matters. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(3), 1497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00109.x