Evolutionary psychology of entomophobia and its implications for insect conservation

Self Cite

Insecticides are commonly used to control insects and other arthropods in homes (hereafter collectively referred to as ‘insects’). Although aversion to insects might encourage the use of insecticides, it is unclear whether such feelings truly influence the decision to use insecticides. We investigated the connection between feelings of disgust towards insects and the use of household insecticides. Our aim was to uncover the unexplored emotional drivers of insecticide use, in order to provide insights that might help develop new programmes to reduce exposure to household insecticides. We conducted an online survey (n = 2500) that focussed on insecticide use and disgust feelings towards six species commonly found in homes (cockroaches, ants, spiders, mosquitoes, flies and centipedes). Respondents rated their level of disgust towards these species and reported various beliefs and practices related to household insects and insect control. Approximately 70% of respondents expressed strong disgust towards these species (ratings of 6 or 7 on a scale of 1–7). More than half (53.3%) reported using aerosol insecticides in their homes in the 6 months prior to the survey. Path analyses highlighted several factors that influenced insecticide use, including infestation level, disgust intensity, lack of knowledge about arthropods and aversion to chemicals. However, the observed effect sizes were modest, particularly regarding the influence of disgust on insecticide use, which somewhat constrains our study's contribution to the understanding of the motivators driving household insecticide use. We explain how our findings potentially reflect a critical methodological limitation in the standard methods commonly used for measuring aversion in biophobia (fear of nature) research. This limitation originates from the fact that highly aversive animals often provoke extreme reactions from most participants, resulting in a very low data variation that hinders data analysis. We address this concern in the context of our findings and propose potential solutions that could pave the way for future research on how attitudes towards highly aversive animals affect individuals, society, and the relationships between people and nature. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Section: Key Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Does aversion to insects affect insecticide use? An elusive answer calls for improved methods in biophobia research

Gish,

Hisano,

Soga

2024

Self Cite

“…Evolutionary psychology, a sub-discipline of psychology, assumes that human psychology has been influenced and shaped by natural selection (Buss, 1995;Cosmides & Tooby, 2000;Nesse, 1998) and has been employed to investigate the evolutionary foundations of human relationships with nature (e.g. Fukano & Soga, 2023;Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2010;Joye & van den Berg, 2011;Kellert, 1993;Wilson, 1984).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greenery hypothesis: An evolutionary explanation for why presence/absence of green affects humans

Fukano,

Soga

2024

Self Cite

A growing body of empirical evidence shows that experiences of nature provide people with diverse psychological benefits, including improved cognitive function and mental health. While our understanding of the proximate causes of these positive psychological responses of humans to nature has advanced, the ultimate (evolutionary) drivers behind them remain poorly understood. In this study, we provide a summary of several widely accepted evolutionary hypotheses originating from Biophilia, reviewing their challenges and limitations. Subsequently, we propose a new evolutionary psychological hypothesis—the greenery hypothesis—that integrates recent findings in evolutionary psychiatry with many experimental results unexplained by existing hypotheses/theories. Our proposed hypothesis states that humans have adapted to periodic severe drought and re‐watering cycles by developing both negative and positive psychological responses to the absence or presence of greenery within the landscape as cues to optimise their own behavioural activity. The greenery hypothesis holds the potential to yield several insights into the fundamental understanding of human psychological responses to nature exposure with significant implications for various related fields, including psychiatry, urban planning, and biodiversity conservation and restoration. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Biophobia: What it is, how it works and why it matters

Soga,

Evans

2024

Self Cite

Throughout history, humans have maintained an intricate connection with nature, often finding fascination with, and deriving numerous benefits from, the natural world. This positive emotional bond with nature, which is considered to have a genetic basis, is known as “biophilia”. However, biophilia represents just one facet of our relationship with nature. People can also harbour strong negative emotions and attitudes towards nature, increasingly referred to as “biophobia”. Current evidence suggests that the prevalence of biophobia is high and increasing, especially in more developed and urbanised societies. Despite this, the importance of biophobia has largely been overlooked in discussions about human‐nature interactions. This special feature: ‘Biophobia: a hidden dimension of human‐nature relationships’ includes seven papers from different disciplinary perspectives, including biodiversity conservation, psychology, and behavioral science. These studies explore diverse aspects of biophobia, with a particular emphasis on its drivers and consequences. They also provide key insights into how to mitigate excessive phobic responses towards nature. In this introductory paper, we will briefly explore what biophobia entails, how it operates, and why it is important in the context of the human‐nature relationship. We outline that biophobia can manifest in response to a wide range of organisms and natural environments, and it can have significant adverse impacts on both human health and well‐being and efforts to address the ongoing biodiversity crisis. We hope that this special feature will serve as a catalyst for more biophobia research, encouraging collaboration among researchers from diverse backgrounds. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.