Abstract
Human preferences will increasingly determine many species’ prospects for survival. However, aside from a small number of survey-based studies of preference among disparate taxa, human species preferences have received little attention. I determined human aesthetic preferences among a relatively homogenous group, the penguins, from representation in all recently published, comprehensive, popular books of photographs of penguins (n = 4 books; 304 photographs). Representation of visually distinguishable types of penguins, measured by total photograph area, was highly skewed and rankings were highly concordant across books, suggesting large and commonly held differences in aesthetic appeal. Multiple regression analysis indicated that amount of warm color was the only significant determinant of representation, and warm color was highly correlated (r 2 = 0.96) with mean representation of the penguin types. Body size and neotenic form, traits found to influence human preferences among other animals, were not significant, suggesting that the bases of human species preferences differ by species type. The results of this study indicate that human aesthetic preferences discriminate finely among species and may be based on minor features. Conservationists must be vigilant to the potential for aesthetic responses to influence conservation efforts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adobe Systems (2002). Photoshop 7.0. Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Bishop, R. C., and Heberlein, T. A. (1979). Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 926–930.
Boersma, P. D., and Stokes, D. L. (1995). Conservation: threats to penguin populations. In Williams, T. D. (ed.), The Penguins, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 127–139.
Boyd, D. (1997). Eucalyptus removal on Angel Island. California Exotic Pest Plant Council 1997 Symposium Proceedings, 1–3.
Brook, A., Zint, M., and De Young, R. (2003). Landowners’ Responses to An Endangered Species Act Listing and Implications for Encouraging Conservation. Conservation Biology 17: 1638–1649.
Burghardt, G. M., and Herzog, H. A. Jr. (1980). Beyond Conspecifics: Is Brer Rabbit Our Brother? BioScience 30: 763–768.
Chester, J. (1996). The World of the Penguin, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California.
Chester, J. (2001). The Nature of Penguins, Celestial Arts, Berkeley, California.
Coursey, D. L. (1998). The Revealed Demand for A Public Good: Evidence from Endangered and Threatened Species. New York University Environmental Law Journal 6: 411–449.
Czech, B., Krausman, P. R., and Borkhartaria, R. (1998). Social Construction, Political Power, and Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species. Conservation Biology 12: 1103–1112.
Davis, L. S., and Renner, M. (2003). Penguins, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Diamond, P. A., and Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 45–64.
Diradourian, A. (2003). Global Warming. www.armanddiradourian.com.
Gould, S. J. (1980). The Panda’s Thumb, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, pp. 95–107.
Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and Their Animal Companions. Journal of Consumer Research 20: 616–632.
Horne, P., Boxall, P. C., and Adamowicz, W. L. (2005). Multiple-use Management of Forest Recreation Sites: A Spatially Explicit Choice Experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 207: 189–199.
Hutchins, M. (1995). Olympic Mountain Goat Controversy Continues. Conservation Biology 9: 1324–1326.
IUCN (2004). IUCN red list of threatened species. www.redlist.org. Downloaded on 18 September 2005.
Kellert, S. R. (1993a). Value and Perception of Invertebrates. Conservation Biology 7: 845–855.
Kellert, S. R. (1993b). The biological basis for human values of nature. In Kellert, S. R., and Wilson, E. O. (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 42–69.
Kellert, S. R. (1996). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society, Island, Washington, DC.
Kellert, S. R., and Berry, J. K. (1980). Knowledge, affection, and basic attitudes toward animals in American society Phase III. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Kiester, R. A. (1997). Aesthetics of Biological Diversity. Human Ecology Review 3: 151–157.
Lanting, F. P. (1999). Penguin, Benedikt Taschen Verlag, Köln, Germany.
Lawrence, E. A. (1989). Neoteny in American perceptions of animals. In Hoage, R. J. (ed.), Perceptions of Animals in American Culture, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 57–76.
Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angborenen Formen mõglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 3: 235–409.
Lorenz, K. (1971). Part and parcel in animal and human societies. In Studies in Animal and Human Behavior, vol. 2, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 115–195.
Lynch, W. (1997). Penguins of the World, Firefly Books, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada.
McNamara, W. (2005). Representation of imperiled plants in botanic gardens: the influence of conservation status and human preference. Masters thesis, Hutchins School, Sonoma State University.
Montgomery, C. A. (2002). Ranking the Benefits of Biodiversity: An Exploration of Relative Values. Environmental Management 65: 313–326.
Morris, D. (1967). The Naked Ape, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Morris, D., and Morris, R. (1965). Men and Snakes, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Morris, D., and Morris, R. (1966). Men and Pandas, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Randall, A. (1986). Human preferences, economics, and the preservation of species. In Norton, B. G. (ed.), The Preservation of Species, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 79–109.
Schafer, K. (2000). Penguin Planet: Their World, Our World, NorthWord, Minnetonka, Minnesota.
Schuman, H., and Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitudes and Behavior. Annual Review of Sociology 2: 161–207.
Shepard, P. (1978). Thinking Animals, Viking, New York.
Stokes, D. L. (2006). Conservators of Experience. BioScience 56: 6–7.
Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In Kellert, S. R., and Wilson, E. O. (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 73–137.
Ward, P. I., Mosberger, N., Kistler, C., and Fischer, O. (1998). The Relationship between Popularity and Body Size in Zoo Animals. Conservation Biology 12: 1408–1411.
Warner Independent Pictures (2005). March of the Penguins, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
Williams, T. D. (1995). The Penguins, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wilson, E. O. (2002). The Future of Life, Knopf, New York.
Zar, J. H. (1996). Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Acknowledgments
Debbie Chiurco, Lily Douglas, and Andrea Freeman helped with data collection and refining the methodology. I thank Debbie Chiurco and Amy McKendry for valuable discussions of the ideas contained in the paper. I also thank Amy McKendry for her helpful critical review of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stokes, D.L. Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation. Hum Ecol 35, 361–369 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7