Animal Images Database: Validation of 120 Images for Human-Animal Studies

Abstract

Simple SummaryWith the general goal of increasing knowledge about how individuals perceive and evaluate different animals, we provide normative data on an extensive set of open-source animal images, spanning a total of 12 biological categories (e.g., mammals, insects, reptiles, arachnids), on 11 evaluative dimensions (e.g., valence, cuteness, capacity to think, acceptability to kill for human consumption). We found that animal evaluations were affected by individual characteristics of the perceiver, particularly gender, diet and companion animal ownership. Moral attitudes towards animals were predominantly predicted by ratings of cuteness, edibility, capacity to feel and familiarity. We hope this free resource may help advance research into the many different ways we relate to animals.AbstractThere has been increasing interest in the study of human-animal relations. This contrasts with the lack of normative resources and materials for research purposes. We present subjective norms for a set of 120 open-source colour images of animals spanning a total of 12 biological categories (e.g., mammals, insects, reptiles, arachnids). Participants (N = 509, 55.2% female, MAge = 28.05, SD = 9.84) were asked to evaluate a randomly selected sub-set of 12 animals on valence, arousal, familiarity, cuteness, dangerousness, edibility, similarity to humans, capacity to think, capacity to feel, acceptability to kill for human consumption and feelings of care and protection. Animal evaluations were affected by individual characteristics of the perceiver, particularly gender, diet and companion animal ownership. Moral attitudes towards animals were predominantly predicted by ratings of cuteness, edibility, capacity to feel and familiarity. The Animal Images Database (Animal.ID) is the largest open-source database of rated images of animals; the stimuli set and item-level data are freely available online.

The Ultimate List of the Most Frightening and Disgusting Animals: Negative Emotions Elicited by Animals in Central European Respondents

“…We aimed to employ specifically the species eliciting one strong discrete emotion to avoid interference in the evaluation and interpretation of the results. The stimuli were selected according to previous studies as follows: first, we selected top-rated species from studies using visual picture stimuli, from Polák et al [ 34 ] (red panda, rat, louse, roundworm, tapeworm, moth, fly larva, and cockroach), Rádlová et al [ 23 ] (rattlesnake), Frynta et al [ 25 ] (frog and toad), Janovcová et al [ 26 ] (crocodile, turtle, lizard, coral snake, and blind snake), Peléšková [ 35 ] (ostrich, shoebill, eagle, condor, and guineafowl), Possidónio et al [ 33 ] (elephant, lion, bear, wolf, tiger, shark, piranha, scorpion, crab, beetle, butterfly, giant panda, bat, tick, earthworm, leech, and rabbit), and Landová et al [ 31 ] (rhinoceros, hippopotamus, buffalo, hyena, mole rat, and porcupine). However, the research covering all animal taxa has not yet been completed (mainly in the case of extremely variable invertebrates).…”

“…Possidónio et al [ 33 ] used 120 pictures from 12 biological categories throughout the whole animal kingdom, but they examined dimensions other than basic emotions (e.g., valence, cuteness, dangerousness). Polák et al [ 34 ] investigated fear and disgust elicited by pictures of the 25 most common phobic animals.…”

Beyond aesthetic judgment: Beauty increases moral standing

“…As part of an unrelated study, perceived beauty of all images in the Animal Images Database (Possidónio et al, 2019) was assessed on a 11-point scale (0 = Not at all, 1 = Very much so; Nmean = 45.1). The beauty scale was comprised of the following items: beautiful, attractive, good-looking, appealing, ugly (reverse scored),…”

“…Images used in Study 5a (taken from Possidónio et al, 2019). Beautiful animals are displayed in the top row and ugly animals are displayed in the bottom row.…”

Do Animals’ Minds Matter Less, When Meat Gets Personal? Replications of Piazza and Loughnan (2016) in China

“…For instance, beliefs about animals' minds influence attitudes toward animal use among both adults (Knight et al, 2004) and children (Hawkins & Williams, 2016). When seeing images of various animals, people's moral attitudes toward animals are related to their evaluations of animals' mental capacities such as the capacity to feel and think (Possidónio et al, 2019). Evidence has shown that intelligence information about a hypothesized alien animal increases people's moral standing judgment, especially when the animal is described as harmful (Piazza et al, 2014).…”