Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how attitudes toward different nonhuman animal species (including emotional empathy, cognitive empathy, and harm avoidance) are shaped by the coevolutionary histories between the ancestors of contemporary humans and these different nonhuman animal species. We compared the explanatory power of alternative categorization frameworks for classifying attitudes toward animals across several cross-cultural samples (Arizona, California, Costa Rica, Spain, and Mexico). Analytical Approach 1 directly compared two alternative frameworks. Adapa categories were generated as purely functional ones based upon the ecological niches occupied by each species within the biotic community generated by human–nonhuman animal relations, and Tuxtla categories were generated as cognitive ones based upon the degrees of consciousness commonly ascribed to the constituent species. Analytical Approach 2 tested the alternative hypothesis that both categories were part of a general scheme organized into three superordinate categories reflecting concentric circles around our own, consistent with fitness interdependence theory. Results supported this alternative hypothesis. The concentric circles model (Kith & Kin Animals, Domesticated Animals, and Wild Animals) better explained empathy and harm avoidance scores, suggesting that attitudes toward specific animal species are partly shaped by which circles they fall into, the product of the coevolutionary relationship shared between them and humans.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Materials
The correlation matrix can be made available upon request.
Code Availability
The SAS code can be made available upon request.
References
Abramson, L., Uzefovsky, F., Toccaceli, V., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2020). The genetic and environmental origins of emotional and cognitive empathy: Review and meta-analyses of twin studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 114, 113–133.
Cohen, C. (1986). The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. The New England Journal of Medicine, 315(14), 865–870.
Cohen, C., & Regan, T. (2001). The animal rights debate. Rowman & Littlefield.
Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.
Crosby, A. W. (2004). Ecological imperialism: The biological expansion of Europe, 900–1900. Cambridge University Press.
Diamond, J. (2013). Guns, germs, and steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years. Random House.
Figueredo, A. J., McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K. M., & Sidani, S. (2000). Multivariate modeling of missing data within and across assessment waves. Addiction, 95(Supplement 3), S361–S380.
Figueredo, A. J., & Olderbak, S. G. (2008). Generalizability theory analysis for psycholinguistic applications. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 426–433.
Figueredo, A. J., Cox, R. L., & Rhine, R. J. (1995). A generalizability analysis of subjective personality assessments in the Stumptail macaque and the Zebra finch. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(2), 67–197.
Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
Hertler, S. C., Figueredo, A. J., & Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M. (2020). Multilevel Selection: Theoretical Foundations, Historical Examples, and Empirical Evidence. Springer.
Hertler, S., Figueredo, A. J., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., Fernandes, H. B. F., & Woodley of Menie, M. A. (2018). Life History Evolution: A Biological Meta-Theory for the Social Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.
Herzog, H. (2010). Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why it’s so Hard to Think Straight About Animals. Harper.
Herzog, H. A. (2007). Gender differences in human–animal interactions: A review. Anthrozoös, 20(1), 7–21.
Herzog, H., Rowan, A., & Kossow, D. (2001). Social attitudes and animals. In D. J. Salem & A. N. Rowan (Eds.), The state of the animals 2001 (pp. 55–69). Humane Society Press.
Hines, L. M. (2003). Historical perspectives on the human-animal bond. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 7–15.
Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. N. (2013). Social learning. Princeton University Press.
Hutchinson, G. E. (1957). Concluding Remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 22, 415–427.
Kellert, S., & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press.
Knight, S., Vrij, A., Bard, K., & Brandon, D. (2009). Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 463–483.
Mace, R., Holden, C. J., Shennan, S., Clare, H., & Shennan, S. J. (Eds.). (2005). The evolution of cultural diversity: a phylogenetic approach. Psychology Press.
McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K. M., Sidani, S., & Figueredo, A. J. (2007). Missing Data: A Gentle Introduction. New York, NY: Guilford.
Morris, I. (2010). Why western science conquered the world. New Scientist, 208(2784), 32–34.
Nunn, C. L. (2011). The comparative approach in evolutionary anthropology and biology. University of Chicago Press.
Oh, M., & Jackson, J. (2011). Animal rights vs. cultural rights: Exploring the dog meat debate in South Korea from a world polity perspective. Journal of intercultural studies, 32(1), 31–56.
Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. New York: Oxford University Press.
Paul, E. S. (2000). Empathy with animals and with humans: Are they linked? Anthrozoös, 13, 194–202.
Podberscek, A. L. (2009). Good to pet and eat: The keeping and consuming of dogs and cats in South Korea. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 615–632.
Regan, T. (2003). Animal rights, human wrongs : An introduction to moral philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield.
Seibold, I., & Helbig, A. (1995). Evolutionary History of New and Old World Vultures Inferred from Nucleotide Sequences of the Mitochondrial Cytochrome b Gene. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 350(1332), 163–178.
Serpell, J. A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, 145–151.
Serpell, J. A. (2018). Companion animals. In G. Hosey & V. Melfi (Eds.), Anthrozoology: Human-animal interactions in domesticated and wild animals (pp. 17–31). Oxford University Press.
Serpell, J. A., & Paul, E. S. (2011). Pets in the Family: An Evolutionary Perspective. In C. A. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary family psychology (pp. 297–309). Oxford University Press.
Sevillano, V., & Fiske, S. T. (2016). Warmth and competence in animals. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(5), 276–293.
Sevillano, V., & Fiske, S. T. (2019). Animals as social groups: An intergroup relations analysis of human-animal conflicts. In K. Dhont & G. Hodson (Eds.), Why We Love and Exploit Animals: Bridging Insights from Academia and Advocacy (pp. 260–283). Routledge.
Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Rowley, G. L. (1989). Generalizability theory. American Psychologist, 44(6), 922–932.
Signal, T. D., & Taylor, N. (2007). Attitude to animals and empathy: Comparing animal protection and general community samples. Anthrozoos, 20, 125–130.
Sober, E. (1983). Parsimony in systematics: Philosophical issues. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 14(1), 335–357.
Straffon, L. M. (Ed.). (2016). Cultural Phylogenetics: Concepts and Applications in Archaeology (vol. 4). Springer.
Tam, K. P. (2013). Dispositional empathy with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.05.00434V
Taylor, N. & Signal, T. D. (2005). Empathy and attitudes toward animals. Anthrozoös, 18(1), 18–27.
Williams, E. E. (1983). Ecomorphs, faunas, island size, and diverse end points in island radiations of Anolis. In R. B. Huey, E. R. Pianka, & T. W. Schoener (Eds.), Lizard Ecology: Studies of a Model Organism (pp. 326–370). Harvard University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
Wise, S. M. (2002). Drawing the line : science and the case for animal rights. Perseus Books.
Yang, Z. (1996). Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony and likelihood methods. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 42(2), 294–307.
Funding
The authors received no external funding to conduct this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors have contributed to every stage of this research.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Statement
The proposal for this study was reviewed and approved by the University of Arizona Internal Review Board (IRB).
Consent to Participate
All survey respondents gave informed consent to participate in this study.
Consent for Publication
All authors have consented to be listed on this publication.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no financial interests in the outcome of this work.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Figueredo, A.J., Steklis, N.G., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M. et al. The Adapa Tablets and the Tuxtla Glyphs: Coevolution Between Human and Nonhuman Animals. Evolutionary Psychological Science 8, 316–332 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-022-00320-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-022-00320-5