Are They Really Trying to Save Their Buddy? The Anthropomorphism of Animal Epimeletic Behaviours
Abstract
Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Ethics
2.2. Design of the Questionnaire
- (Q1)
- Do you think that this individual had the intention to save its inanimate conspecific by acting like this? Possible answers: ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Maybe’.
- (Q2)
- Do you think that this individual was aware of the risk of imminent death of its conspecific? Possible answers: ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Maybe’.
- (Q3)
- Do you think that individuals of this species are aware of what death is? Possible answers: ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Maybe’.
- (Q4)
- What do you feel when the man kicks the robot and that the latter is destabilised? Possible answers (non-exclusive): ‘Surprise’, ‘Amusement’, ‘Anger’, ‘Sadness’, ‘Nothing’.
- (Q5)
- Do you think your feeling is justified? Possible answers: ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Maybe’.
- (1)
- Their age: possible answers ‘under 20 yo’, ‘20 to 35 yo’, ‘36 to 50 yo’, ‘51 to 65 yo’, ‘older than 65 yo’ (yo is an abbreviation for ‘years old’);
- (2)
- Their gender: ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘not specified’;
- (3)
- Their academic levels: possible answers ‘no qualifications’, ‘Brevet (GCSEs)’, ‘Baccalauréat (A levels)’, ‘Bachelor’s degree’, ‘Master’s degree’, ‘PhD’;
- (4)
- Whether their profession was linked to animals; possible answers ‘Yes’, ‘No’;
- (5)
- Whether they had at least one pet at home; possible answers ‘Yes’, ‘No’;
- (6)
- Whether they belonged to an Animal Protection Association: possible answers ‘Yes’, ‘No’.
2.3. Data Analysing
- - ‘No’ for the three questions about the bird,
- - ‘Maybe’ for Q1, and ‘No’ for Q2 and Q3 about the monkey,
- - ‘Yes’ for Q1 and Q2 but ‘Maybe’ for Q3 for the elephant.
3. Results
3.1. Participants
3.2. Distribution and Comparisons of Scores
3.3. Socio-Demographic Factors Affecting Scores
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wilson, E.O. Biophilia; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992; Volume 1, p. 79. [Google Scholar]
- Wilson, E.O. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In Evolutionary Perspectives on Environmental Problems; Routledge: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 263–272. [Google Scholar]
- Simaika, J.P.; Samways, M.J. Biophilia as a universal ethic for conserving biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 903–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DeLoache, J.S.; Pickard, M.B.; LoBue, V. How very young children think about animals. Am. Psych. Assoc. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caselli, M.C.; Bates, E.; Casadio, P.; Fenson, J.; Fenson, L.; Sanderl, L.; Weir, J. A cross-linguistic study of early lexical development. Cogn. Develop. 1995, 10, 159–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nabhan, G.P.; St Antoine, S.; Kellert, S.; Wilson, E. The loss of floral and faunal story: The extinction of experience. In The Biophilia Hypothesis; Keller, S.R., Wilson, E.O., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 229–250. [Google Scholar]
- Darwin, C.; Prodger, P. The expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998; ISBN 0-19-515806-7. [Google Scholar]
- Dictionary, O.E. Oxford English Dictionary; Simpson, JA & Weiner, ESC: Oxford, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Urquiza-Haas, E.G.; Kotrschal, K. The mind behind anthropomorphic thinking: Attribution of mental states to other species. Anim. Behav. 2015, 109, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Courchamp, F.; Jaric, I.; Albert, C.; Meinard, Y.; Ripple, W.J.; Chapron, G. The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e2003997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martín-López, B.; Montes, C.; Benayas, J. The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 139, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapouthier, G. Au Bon Vouloir de L’homme, L’animal; Presses Universitaires de France: Paris, France, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Chapouthier, C.C.G. La Question Animale: Entre Science, Littérature et Philosophie; Presses Universitaires de Rennes: Rennes, France, 2016; ISBN 2-7535-4727-0. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Serpell, J.A. Domestication and history of the cat. In The Domestic Cat: The Biology of its Behaviour; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; Volume 2, pp. 180–192. [Google Scholar]
- Descartes, R.; Gröber, G. Discours de la Méthode: 1637; Heitz: Bonita Springs, FL, USA, 1905. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Arluke, A.B. Sacrificial symbolism in animal experimentation: Object or pet? Anthrozoös 1988, 2, 98–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, K.L.; Goldenberg, J.L. Women, objects, and animals: Differentiating between sex-and beauty-based objectification. Rev. Int. Psychol. Soc. 2015, 28, 15–38. [Google Scholar]
- Rémy, C. Une mise à mort industrielle «humaine»? L’abattoir ou l’impossible objectivation des animaux. Rev. Sci. Soc. Politique 2003, 16, 51–73. (In French) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passariello, P. Me and my totem: Cross-cultural attitudes towards animals. In Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999; pp. 12–25. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, D.C.; Waiblinger, E.; Fehlbaum, B. 8 Cultural differences in human–cat relations. In The Domestic Cat: The Biology of Its Behaviour; Turner, D.C., Bateson, P., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 101–112. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, A. A Theory of Sentience; Clarendon Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN 0-19-823851-7. [Google Scholar]
- Duncan, I.J. The changing concept of animal sentience. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006, 100, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillaume, A.; Gagnon, A.-C. Sentience: Un mot à connaître et employer sans modération! 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318641024_Sentience_un_mot_a_connaitre_et_employer_sans_moderation (accessed on 4 December 2020).
- Brown, C. Fish intelligence, sentience and ethics. Anim. Cogn. 2015, 18, 1–17. (in French). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chandroo, K.P.; Duncan, I.J.; Moccia, R.D. Can fish suffer?: Perspectives on sentience, pain, fear and stress. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 86, 225–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, R.C. Science, sentience, and animal welfare. Biol. Philos. 2013, 28, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proctor, H. Animal sentience: Where are we and where are we heading? Animals 2012, 2, 628–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheney, D.L.; Seyfarth, R.M. Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-226-10244-3. [Google Scholar]
- De Waal, F. Are we Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 0-393-24619-1. [Google Scholar]
- Matsuzawa, T. Primate Origins of Human Cognition and Behavior; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2001; ISBN 978-4-431-70290-0. [Google Scholar]
- Tomasello, M.; Call, J. Primate Cognition; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1997; ISBN 978-0-19-510624-4. [Google Scholar]
- Griffin, D.R. Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013; ISBN 0-226-22712-X. [Google Scholar]
- Joulian, F. Comparer l’incomparable: Des vertus et des limites de la comparaison hommes/primates. In Faire des Sciences Sociales. Comparer; Remaud, O., Schaub, J.-F., Thireau, I., Eds.; Cas de figure; Éditions de l’École des Hautes études en Sciences Sociales: Paris, France, 2015; pp. 97–125. ISBN 978-2-7132-2589-5. [Google Scholar]
- Waal, F. Anthropomorphism and anthropodenial: Consistency in our thinking about humans and other animals. Philos. Top. 1999, 27, 255–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, J.A.; Muniandy, B.; Yahaya, W.A.J.W. Emotional design in multimedia learning: How emotional intelligence moderates learning outcomes. Int. J. Modern Ed. Comput. Sci. 2016, 8, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sims, V.K.; Chin, M.G.; Sushil, D.J.; Barber, D.J.; Ballion, T.; Clark, B.R.; Garfield, K.A.; Dolezal, M.J.; Shumaker, R.; Finkelstein, N. Anthropomorphism of Robotic Forms: A Response to Affordances? SAGE Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2005; Volume 49, pp. 602–605. [Google Scholar]
- Norman, D.A. Why we Love (or Hate) Everyday Things; Perseus Books Group: New York, NY, USA, 2004; ISBN 0-465-05136-7. [Google Scholar]
- Karlsson, F. Critical anthropomorphism and animal ethics. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2012, 25, 707–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivas, J.; Burghardt, G.M. Crotalomorphism: A metaphor for understanding anthropomorphism by omission. In The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 9–18. [Google Scholar]
- Pfungst, O. Clever Hans:(the Horse of Mr. Von Osten.) a Contribution to Experimental Animal and Human Psychology; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1911. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, C. Contemporary Science Series. An Introduction to Comparative Psychology; W. Scott: New York, NY, USA, 1894. [Google Scholar]
- Ghiselin, M.T. Lloyd Morgan’s canon in evolutionary context. Behav. Brain Sci. 1983, 6, 362–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sober, E. Morgan’s Canon. In The Evolution of Mind; Cummins, D., Allen, C., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 224–242. [Google Scholar]
- Thorndike, E.L. Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychol. Rev. Monograph Suppl. 1898, 2, i. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, R.W.; Thompson, N.S.; Miles, H.L. Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals; SUNY Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997; ISBN 0-7914-3125-8. [Google Scholar]
- Spada, E.C. Amorphism, mechanomorphism, and anthropomorphism. In Dog Behaviour, Evolution and Cognition; Oxford Universsity Press: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, R.W.; Whiten, A. Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes, and Humans; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1988; ISBN 978-0-19-852175-4. [Google Scholar]
- Pepperberg, I.M. Intelligence and Rationality in Parrots; Harvard University Press: Harvard, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Camazine, S.; Deneubourg, J.-L.; Franks, N.R.; Sneyd, J.; Theraula, G.; Bonabeau, E. Self-Organization in Biological Systems; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-0-691-11624-2. [Google Scholar]
- Couzin, I.D.; Krause, J. Self-Organization and Collective Behavior in Vertebrates; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; Volume 32, pp. 1–75. ISBN 0065-3454. [Google Scholar]
- Todd, P.M.; Gigerenzer, G. Précis of simple heuristics that make us smart. Behav. Brain Sci. 2000, 23, 727–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connor, R.C. Dolphin social intelligence: Complex alliance relationships in bottlenose dolphins and a consideration of selective environments for extreme brain size evolution in mammals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 362, 587–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Connor, R.C.; Heithaus, M.R.; Barre, L.M. Complex social structure, alliance stability and mating access in a bottlenose dolphin ‘super-alliance. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2001, 268, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- King, S.L.; Allen, S.J.; Krützen, M.; Connor, R.C. Vocal behaviour of allied male dolphins during cooperative mate guarding. Anim. Cogn. 2019, 22, 991–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Krasheninnikova, A.; Berardi, R.; Lind, M.-A.; O’Neill, L.; von Bayern, A.M. Primate cognition test battery in parrots. Behaviour 2019, 156, 721–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, E. What Frege asked Alex the parrot: Inferentialism, number concepts, and animal cognition. Philos. Psychol. 2019, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martino, B.D.; Kumaran, D.; Seymour, B.; Dolan, R.J. Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain. Science 2006, 313, 684–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelé, M.; Sueur, C. Decision-making theories: Linking the disparate research areas of individual and collective cognition. Anim. Cogn. 2013, 16, 543–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pronin, E. Perception and misperception of bias in human judgment. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2007, 11, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strack, F.; Mussweiler, T. Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 73, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keeley, B.L. Anthropomorphism, primatomorphism, mammalomorphism: Understanding cross-species comparisons. Biol. Philos. 2004, 19, 521–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morizot, B. Sur la Piste Animale; Éditions Actes Sud: Arles, France, 2018; ISBN 2-330-10115-5. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Caporael, L.R.; Heyes, C.M. Why anthropomorphise? Folk psychology and other stories. Anthropomorph. Anecdotes Anim. 1997, 4, 59–73. [Google Scholar]
- Hodgson, D. The visual dynamics of Upper Palaeolithic cave art. Camb. Arch. J. 2008, 18, 341–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Descola, P. Par-delà Nature et Culture; Éditions Gallimard: Paris, France, 2015; ISBN 2-07-262185-2. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Descola, P. Beyond Nature and Culture; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013; ISBN 0-226-14500-X. [Google Scholar]
- Furnham, A.; McManus, C.; Scott, D. Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare. Anthrozoös 2003, 16, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, N.; Signal, T. Empathy and attitudes to animals. Anthrozoös 2005, 18, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wheatley, T.; Milleville, S.C.; Martin, A. Understanding animate agents: Distinct roles for the social network and mirror system. Psychol. Sci. 2007, 18, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Di Pellegrino, G.; Fadiga, L.; Fogassi, L.; Gallese, V.; Rizzolatti, G. Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Exp. Brain Res. 1992, 91, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaiser, M.D.; Shiffrar, M.; Pelphrey, K.A. Socially tuned: Brain responses differentiating human and animal motion. Soc. Neurosci. 2012, 7, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gobbini, M.I.; Gentili, C.; Ricciardi, E.; Bellucci, C.; Salvini, P.; Laschi, C.; Guazzelli, M.; Pietrini, P. Distinct neural systems involved in agency and animacy detection. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2011, 23, 1911–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shultz, S.; Lee, S.M.; Pelphrey, K.; McCarthy, G. The posterior superior temporal sulcus is sensitive to the outcome of human and non-human goal-directed actions. Social Cogn. Aff. Neurosci. 2010, 6, 602–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filippi, M.; Riccitelli, G.; Falini, A.; Di Salle, F.; Vuilleumier, P.; Comi, G.; Rocca, M.A. The brain functional networks associated to human and animal suffering differ among omnivores, vegetarians and vegans. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maréchal, L.; Levy, X.; Meints, K.; Majolo, B. Experience-based human perception of facial expressions in Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). Peer J. 2017, 5, e3413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bloom, T.; Friedman, H. Classifying dogs’ (Canis familiaris) facial expressions from photographs. Behav. Proc. 2013, 96, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Diesel, G.; Brodbelt, D.; Pfeiffer, D.U. Reliability of assessment of dogs’ behavioural responses by staff working at a welfare charity in the UK. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 115, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidjell, T.; Range, F.; Huber, L.; Virányi, Z. Do owners have a Clever Hans effect on dogs? Results of a pointing study. Front. Psychol. 2012, 3, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tami, G.; Gallagher, A. Description of the behaviour of domestic dog (Canis familiaris) by experienced and inexperienced people. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009, 120, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trevorrow, N. The implications of social living in cats. Compan. Anim. 2019, 24, 257–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bearzi, G.; Reggente, M.A. Epimeletic behaviour. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 337–338. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, Z.; Pine, M.K.; Huang, S.-L.; Wang, D.; Wu, H.; Wang, K. A case of epimeletic behaviour and associated acoustic records of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis). J. Mammal. 2018, 99, 1112–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cockcroft, V.; Sauer, W. Observed and inferred epimeletic (nurturant) behaviour in bottlenose dolphins. Aquat. Mamm. 1990, 16, 31–32. [Google Scholar]
- Cremer, M.J.; Hardt, F.A.S.; Júnior, A.J.T. Evidence of epimeletic behaviour involving a Pontoporia blainvillei calf (Cetacea, Pontoporiidae). Biotemas 2006, 19, 83–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasuya, T.; Miyazaki, N. An observation of epimeletic behaviour of Lagenorhyncus obliquidens. Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 1976, 28, 141–143. [Google Scholar]
- Lodi, L. Epimeletic behaviour of free-ranging rough-toothed dolphins, Steno bredanensis, from Brazil. Mar. Mammal Sci. 1992, 8, 284–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, B.D.; López, A.; Methion, S.; Covelo, P. Infanticide attacks and associated epimeletic behaviour in free-ranging common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2018, 98, 1159–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.R. Comparative thanatology. Curr. Biol. 2016, 26, R553–R556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carter, A.J.; Baniel, A.; Cowlishaw, G.; Huchard, E. Baboon thanatology: Responses of filial and non-filial group members to infants’ corpses. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2020, 7, 192206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pettitt, P.; Anderson, J.R. Primate thanatology and hominoid mortuary archeology. Primates 2020, 61, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gonçalves, A.; Carvalho, S. Death among primates: A critical review of non-human primate interactions towards their dead and dying. Biol. Rev. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, L.A.; Brosnan, S.F.; Clay, Z. Anthropomorphism in comparative affective science: Advocating a mindful approach. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2020, 115, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, C. Woman’s Best Friend: Pet abuse and the role of companion animals in the lives of battered women. Violence Against Women 2000, 6, 162–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, S.C.; Kennedy, C.C.; DeVoe, D.C.; Hickey, M.; Nelson, T.; Kogan, L. An examination of changes in oxytocin levels in men and women before and after interaction with a bonded dog. Anthrozoös 2009, 22, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blouin, D.D. Understanding Relations between people and their pets. Sociol. Compass 2012, 6, 856–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epstein, L.A. Resolving confusion in pet owner tort cases: Recognizing pets’ anthropomorphic qualities under a property classification. S. Ill. ULJ 2001, 26, 31. [Google Scholar]
- Paul, E.S.; Moore, A.; McAinsh, P.; Symonds, E.; McCune, S.; Bradshaw, J.W. Sociality motivation and anthropomorphic thinking about pets. Anthrozoös 2014, 27, 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miralles, A.; Raymond, M.; Lecointre, G. Empathy and compassion toward other species decrease with evolutionary divergence time. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 19555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bloss, R. Robot walks on all four legs and carries a heavy load. Ind. Robot 2012, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutter, M.; Gehring, C.; Jud, D.; Lauber, A.; Bellicoso, C.D.; Tsounis, V.; Hwangbo, J.; Bodie, K.; Fankhauser, P.; Bloesch, M.; et al. ANYmal—A highly mobile and dynamic quadrupedal robot. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Deajeon, Korea, 4–9 October 2016; pp. 38–44. [Google Scholar]
- Le Neindre, P.; Dunier, M.; Larrère, R.; Prunet, P. La Conscience des Animaux; Éditions Quæ: Versailles, France, 2018; ISBN 978-2-7592-2871-3. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Birch, J.; Schnell, A.K.; Clayton, N.S. Dimensions of animal consciousness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurvers, R.H.; Herzog, S.M.; Hertwig, R.; Krause, J.; Carney, P.A.; Bogart, A.; Argenziano, G.; Zalaudek, I.; Wolf, M. Boosting medical diagnostics by pooling independent judgments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 8777–8782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moussaïd, M. Fouloscopie: Ce que la Foule Dit de Nous; Humen Sciences Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 2-37931-014-9. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Connor, M.; Lawrence, A.; Brown, S. Associations between oxytocin receptor gene polymorphisms, empathy towards animals and implicit associations towards animals. Animals 2018, 8, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurvers, R.H.; Herzog, S.M.; Hertwig, R.; Krause, J.; Moussaid, M.; Argenziano, G.; Zalaudek, I.; Carney, P.A.; Wolf, M. How to detect high-performing individuals and groups: Decision similarity predicts accuracy. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaaw9011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bercovitch, F.B. A comparative perspective on the evolution of mammalian reactions to dead conspecifics. Primates 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gazzola, V.; Rizzolatti, G.; Wicker, B.; Keysers, C. The anthropomorphic brain: The mirror neuron system responds to human and robotic actions. Neuroimage 2007, 35, 1674–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buccino, G.; Lui, F.; Canessa, N.; Patteri, I.; Lagravinese, G.; Benuzzi, F.; Porro, C.A.; Rizzolatti, G. Neural circuits involved in the recognition of actions performed by nonconspecifics: An fMRI study. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2004, 16, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kupferberg, A.; Huber, M.; Helfer, B.; Lenz, C.; Knoll, A.; Glasauer, S. Moving just like you: Motor interference depends on similar motility of agent and observer. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e39637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sueur, C.; Pelé, M. Risk should be objectively defined: Reply to Zentall and Smith. Anim. Cogn. 2015, 18, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ganea, P.A.; Canfield, C.F.; Simons-Ghafari, K.; Chou, T. Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children’s knowledge about animals. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, H.; Eisen, S.; Lillard, A.S. Anthropomorphic media exposure and preschoolers’ anthropomorphic thinking in China. J. Child. Media 2019, 13, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geerdts, M.S.; Van de Walle, G.A.; LoBue, V. Learning about real animals from anthropomorphic media. Imag. Cogn. Person. 2016, 36, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serpell, J. Anthropomorphism and Anthropomorphic Selection—Beyond the ‘Cute Response’. Soc. Anim. 2003, 11, 83–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butterfield, M.E.; Hill, S.E.; Lord, C.G. Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 48, 957–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelé, M.; Bellut, C.; Debergue, E.; Gauvin, C.; Jeanneret, A.; Leclere, T.; Nicolas, L.; Pontier, F.; Zausa, D.; Sueur, C. Cultural influence of social information use in pedestrian road-crossing behaviours. Open Sci. 2017, 4, 160739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, M.; Ansic, D. Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: An experimental analysis. J. Econ. Psychol. 1997, 18, 605–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, M.J. Gender socialization and identity theory. Soc. Sci. 2014, 3, 242–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron-Cohen, S. The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2002, 6, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron-Cohen, S.; Wheelwright, S. The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2004, 34, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vitulli, W.F. Attitudes toward empathy in domestic dogs and cats. Psychol. Rep. 2006, 99, 981–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R.; Berry, J.K. Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behaviors toward Wildlife as Affected by Gender. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1987, 15, 363–371. [Google Scholar]
- Knight, S.; Vrij, A.; Cherryman, J.; Nunkoosing, K. Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös 2004, 17, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, C.; Izmirli, S.; Aldavood, J.; Alonso, M.; Choe, B.; Hanlon, A.; Handziska, A.; Illmann, G.; Keeling, L.; Kennedy, M.; et al. An international comparison of female and male students’ attitudes to the use of animals. Animals 2011, 1, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swami, V.; Furnham, A.; Christopher, A.N. Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scand. J. Psychol. 2008, 49, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orians, G.H. On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. Am. Nat. 1969, 103, 589–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Royle, N.J.; Smiseth, P.T.; Kölliker, M. The Evolution of Parental Care; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; ISBN 0-19-969257-2. [Google Scholar]
- Armstrong, S.J.; Botzler, R.G. The Animal Ethics Reader; Taylor & Francis: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2016; ISBN 1-317-42197-3. [Google Scholar]
- Goatly, A. The representation of nature on the BBC World Service. Text Talk 2001, 22, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loyd, K.A.T.; Hernandez, S.M.; Carroll, J.P.; Abernathy, K.J.; Marshall, G.J. Quantifying free-roaming domestic cat predation using animal-borne video cameras. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 160, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apostol, L.; Rebega, O.L.; Miclea, M. Psychological and socio-demographic predictors of attitudes toward animals. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 78, 521–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, E.S.; Podberscek, A.L. Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Vet. Rec. 2000, 146, 269–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Albert, A.; Bulcroft, K. Pets, Families, and the life course. J. Marr. Fam. 1988, 50, 543–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albert, A.; Bulcroft, K. Pets and Urban Life. Anthrozoös 1987, 1, 9–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seps, C.D. Animal law evolution: Treating pets as persons in tort and custody disputes. U. Ill. L. Rev. 2010, 1339. [Google Scholar]
- McDonald, S.E.; Collins, E.A.; Nicotera, N.; Hageman, T.O.; Ascione, F.R.; Williams, J.H.; Graham-Bermann, S.A. Children’s experiences of companion animal maltreatment in households characterized by intimate partner violence. Child Abuse Neglect. 2015, 50, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tschanz, B.; Hegglin, D.; Gloor, S.; Bontadina, F. Hunters and non-hunters: Skewed predation rate by domestic cats in a rural village. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2011, 57, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coleman, J.S.; Temple, S.A.; Craven, S.R. Cats and Wildlife: A Conservation Dilemma; University of Wisconsin—Extension: Madisson, WI, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Rosemary-Claire Collard. Apocalypse Meow. Cap. Nat. Soc. 2013, 24, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loyd, K.A.T.; Hernandez, S.M.; McRuer, D.L. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2017, 41, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blancher, P. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 2013, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loss, S.R.; Will, T.; Marra, P.P. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bisgould, L. Power and irony: One tortured cat and many twisted angles to our moral schizophrenia about animals. Subj. Ethical Read. Posthum. World 2008, 8, 259. [Google Scholar]
- Stocker, M. The schizophrenia of modern ethical theories. J. Philosoph. 1977, 73, 453–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dauphiné, N.; Cooper, R.J. Pick one: Outdoor cats or conservation. Wildl. Profess. 2011, 5, 50–56. [Google Scholar]
- Nagasawa, M.; Kikusui, T.; Onaka, T.; Ohta, M. Dog’s gaze at its owner increases owner’s urinary oxytocin during social interaction. Hormon. Behav. 2009, 55, 434–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filippi, M.; Riccitelli, G.; Meani, A.; Falini, A.; Comi, G.; Rocca, M.A. The ‘vegetarian brain’: Chatting with monkeys and pigs? Brain Struct. Funct. 2013, 218, 1211–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monaghan, R. Not quite terrorism: Animal rights extremism in the United Kingdom. Stud. Confl. Terr. 2013, 36, 933–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagtzaam, G. From Environmental Action to Ecoterrorism?: Towards a Process Theory of Environmental and Animal Rights Oriented Political Violence; Edward Elgar Publishing: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 1-78536-735-8. [Google Scholar]
- Bartneck, C.; Kulić, D.; Croft, E.; Zoghbi, S. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. Int. J. Soc. Rob. 2009, 1, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallverdú, J.; Trovato, G. Emotional affordances for human–robot interaction. Adapt. Behav. 2016, 24, 320–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veloso, M.M.; Rybski, P.E.; Lenser, S.; Chernova, S.; Vail, D. CMRoboBits: Creating an intelligent AIBO robot. AI Mag. 2006, 27, 67–82. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, C.; Seligman, M.E. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; Volume 1, ISBN 0-19-516701-5. [Google Scholar]
- Cardinale, B.J.; Duffy, J.E.; Gonzalez, A.; Hooper, D.U.; Perrings, C.; Venail, P.; Narwani, A.; Mace, G.M.; Tilman, D.; Wardle, D.A. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 2012, 486, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jacobs, M.H. Why Do We Like or Dislike Animals? Hum. Dim. Wildl. 2009, 14, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, M.H.; Vaske, J.J.; Teel, T.L.; Manfredo, M.J. Human dimensions of wildlife. In Environmental Psychology: An Introduction; Steg, L., de Groot, J., Eds.; Wiley & Sons: London, UK, 2018; pp. 85–94. [Google Scholar]
- Sumner, S.; Law, G.; Cini, A. Why we love bees and hate wasps. Ecol. Entomol. 2018, 43, 836–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarić, I.; Bellard, C.; Courchamp, F.; Kalinkat, G.; Meinard, Y.; Roberts, D.L.; Correia, R.A. Societal attention toward extinction threats: A comparison between climate change and biological invasions. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Castillo-Huitrón, N.M.; Naranjo, E.J.; Santos-Fita, D.; Estrada-Lugo, E. The Importance of Human Emotions for Wildlife Conservation. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Criscuolo, F.; Sueur, C. An evolutionary point of view of animal ethics. Front. Psychol 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Destoumieux-Garzón, D.; Mavingui, P.; Boetch, G.; Boissier, J.; Darriet, F.; Duboz, P.; Fritsch, C.; Giraudoux, P.; Le Roux, F.; Morand, S.; et al. The one health concept: 10 years old and a long road ahead. Front. Vet. Sci. 2018, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factors | Estimate | Std. Error | t-Value | Pr(>|t|) | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 2.136 | 0.076 | 28.143 | <0.0001 | *** |
Age [20 to 35 yo] | −0.046 | 0.040 | −1.147 | 0.252 | |
Age [36 to 50 yo] | −0.091 | 0.042 | −2.19 | 0.029 | * |
Age [51 to 65 yo] | −0.095 | 0.043 | −2.213 | 0.027 | * |
Age [over 65 yo] | −0.118 | 0.052 | −2.255 | 0.024 | * |
Gender [Man] | −0.064 | 0.017 | −3.708 | 0.0002 | *** |
Academic Level [Brevet] | 0.072 | 0.072 | 1.006 | 0.315 | |
Academic Level [Baccalauréat] | −0.025 | 0.065 | −0.377 | 0.706 | |
Academic Level [Bachelor degree] | −0.015 | 0.064 | −0.236 | 0.814 | |
Academic Level [Master degree] | −0.048 | 0.064 | −0.755 | 0.450 | |
Academic Level [PhD] | −0.168 | 0.066 | −2.551 | 0.011 | * |
Profession involving animals [Yes] | −0.162 | 0.016 | −10.113 | <0.0001 | *** |
Has at least one pet at home [Yes] | −0.037 | 0.018 | −2.05 | 0.041 | * |
Animal Protection Association membership [Yes] | 0.075 | 0.017 | 4.507 | <0.0001 | *** |
Order of questions (monkey or sparrow first) | −0.089 | 0.015 | −5.973 | <0.0001 | *** |
Factors | Estimate | Std. Error | t-Value | Pr(>|t|) | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 1.431 | 0.064 | 22.29 | <0.0001 | *** |
Age [20 to 35 yo] | 0.001 | 0.033 | 0.04 | 0.968 | |
Age [36 to 50 yo] | 0.034 | 0.035 | 0.981 | 0.327 | |
Age [51 to 65 yo] | 0.042 | 0.036 | 1.184 | 0.236 | |
Age [over 65 yo] | 0.073 | 0.043 | 1.707 | 0.088 | |
Gender [Man] | 0.036 | 0.013 | 2.694 | 0.007 | ** |
Academic Level [Brevet] | 0.001 | 0.061 | 0.014 | 0.989 | |
Academic Level [Baccalauréat] | 0.077 | 0.055 | 1.397 | 0.163 | |
Academic Level [Bachelor degree] | 0.057 | 0.054 | 1.052 | 0.293 | |
Academic Level [Master degree] | 0.082 | 0.054 | 1.507 | 0.132 | |
Academic Level [PhD] | 0.116 | 0.055 | 2.112 | 0.035 | * |
Profession involves animals [Yes] | 0.135 | 0.012 | 10.972 | <0.0001 | *** |
Has at least one pet at home [Yes] | 0.029 | 0.014 | 1.981 | 0.048 | * |
Animal Protection Association membership [Yes] | −0.049 | 0.013 | −3.677 | 0.0002 | *** |
Order of questions (monkey or sparrow first) | 0.047 | 0.012 | 4.012 | <0.0001 | *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sueur, C.; Forin-Wiart, M.-A.; Pelé, M. Are They Really Trying to Save Their Buddy? The Anthropomorphism of Animal Epimeletic Behaviours. Animals 2020, 10, 2323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122323
Sueur C, Forin-Wiart M-A, Pelé M. Are They Really Trying to Save Their Buddy? The Anthropomorphism of Animal Epimeletic Behaviours. Animals. 2020; 10(12):2323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122323
Chicago/Turabian StyleSueur, Cédric, Marie-Amélie Forin-Wiart, and Marie Pelé. 2020. "Are They Really Trying to Save Their Buddy? The Anthropomorphism of Animal Epimeletic Behaviours" Animals 10, no. 12: 2323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122323
APA StyleSueur, C., Forin-Wiart, M.-A., & Pelé, M. (2020). Are They Really Trying to Save Their Buddy? The Anthropomorphism of Animal Epimeletic Behaviours. Animals, 10(12), 2323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122323