Symbolic animals and the developing self

Myers, Gene

doi:10.2752/089279302786992766

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Defending an epistemologically credible theory of IV is challenging (see, e.g., Kupperman, 2005;Lemos, 1994;Svoboda, 2011 andSamuelsson, 2013 for efforts that may or may not be convincing), particularly when the theory must resonate among audiences culturally conditioned to accept statements of fact over judgments of value, and objective over subjective or relational knowledge (Plumwood, 1993;Putnam, 1992). The challenge of defending specifically nonhuman IV, however, is downright formidable given powerful audiences with potentially strong economic or political interests in denying the IV of nonhuman nature (see, e.g., Mathews, 2016;Myers, 2002). The challenge, nonetheless, was taken up with some enthusiasm by the environmental ethics community in the final decades of the 20th century, in a debate that largely focalized around the work of two philosophers, Holmes Rolston III and J. Baird Callicott.…”

Section: Objective Versus Subjective IVmentioning

confidence: 99%

For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care?

Batavia

Nelson

2017

Biological Conservation

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, conservation planning, policy, and communications have increasingly emphasized the human benefits, or "ecosystem services," provided by nonhuman nature. In response to this utilitarian, anthropocentric framing, some conservationists have countered that nonhuman nature is valuable for more than its instrumental use to humans. In other words, these critics maintain that nonhuman nature has intrinsic value, which the ecosystem services paradigm fails to duly acknowledge. Proponents of the ecosystem services approach have responded in turn, either by proposing that intrinsic value can be integrated into the ecosystem services framework, or by justifying the pull away from intrinsic value on the grounds that it does not motivate broad support for conservation. We suggest these debates have been clouded by an ambiguous conceptualization of intrinsic value, which in fact has a rich intellectual heritage in philosophy and environmental ethics. We therefore review some of the major work from these literatures, to provide members of the conservation community with a deeper understanding of intrinsic value that, we hope, will inform more focused and productive discourse. Following this review, we highlight two common ways intrinsic value has been misinterpreted in recent debates around ecosystem services. As a result of these misinterpretations, we argue, the non-anthropocentric ethical concerns raised by many critics of the ecosystem services approach remain effectively unaddressed. We conclude by offering logical, practical, and moral reasons why the concept of intrinsic value continues to be relevant to conservationists, even and especially in the emerging ecosystem services paradigm.

show abstract

Section: Objective Versus Subjective IVmentioning

confidence: 99%

For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care?

Batavia

Nelson

2017

Biological Conservation

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accordingly, people's answers on the RAPT are likely to reveal something about the extent to which they want to be fierce, dominant beings (Rojas & Tuber, 1991) independent of explicit queries along these lines (McClelland, 1987). Myers (2002) found that boys wanted to be predatory animals (e.g., lions) more than girls did, and Robinson et al (2017) found a similar trend among adults. Independent of possible trends of this type, we hypothesized that higher levels of predator self-identification on the RAPT would be linked to psychopathic tendencies, broadly defined.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…In the APT, people are asked which animal or animals they would like to be. A person might say “rabbit” if they wish to be cute and “lion” if they wish to be ferocious (Myers, 2002). Rojas (1981) found that people chose animals based on their aggressiveness, nurturance, autonomy, or aesthetic appeal, and Rojas and Tuber (1991) found some relationships between the APT and presenting clinical symptoms, including tendencies toward aggression.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Revised Animal Preference Test: An Implicit Probe of Tendencies Toward Psychopathy

Penzel

Bair

Liu

et al. 2018

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At least some forms of interpersonal violence could follow from a vision of the self as a fierce, dominant creature. This should be particularly true when psychopathic (more proactive, less reactive) tendencies are involved. Possible relations of this type were examined in two studies (total N = 278) in which college student samples were presented with a new, structured version of an old projective test typically used in psychotherapy contexts. Participants were presented with predator-prey animal pairs (e.g., lion-zebra) that were not explicitly labeled as such. For each pair, the person was asked to choose the animal that they would more prefer to be. Participants who desired to be predator animals more often, on this Revised Animal Preference Test (RAPT), tended toward psychopathy to a greater extent. In Study 1, such relations were manifest in terms of correlations with psychopathic traits and with an interpersonal style marked by hostile dominance. Further analyses, though, revealed that predator self-identifications were more strongly related to primary psychopathy than secondary psychopathy. Study 2 replicated the interpersonal style correlates of the RAPT. In addition, photographs were taken of the participants in the second study and these photographs were rated for apparent hostility and dominance. As hypothesized, participants who wanted to be predator animals to a greater extent also appeared more hostile and dominant in their nonverbal behaviors. These studies suggest that projective preferences can be assessed in a reliable manner through the use of standardizing procedures. Furthermore, the studies point to some of the motivational factors that may contribute to psychopathy and interpersonal violence.

show abstract

“…attitudes toward animals vary based on the nature and characteristics of the animals concerned (Kellert 1983;herzog and Burghardt 1988;Burghardt and herzog 1989;Driscoll 1992;Eddy, Gallup and Povinelli 1993;Plous 1993;Gunnthorsdottir 2001;myers 2002;Nakajima, arimitsu and lattal 2002). Religious, socio-economic, and cultural differences also play an important role in affecting people's attitudes toward animals (Bowd and Bowd 1989;Kendall, lobao and Sharp 2006).…”

Section: Please Scroll Down For Articlementioning

confidence: 96%

Public Attitudes in India and Australia toward Elephants in Zoos

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We surveyed the attitudes of people toward captive elephants in australia, where importation into zoos has been controversial recently, compared with India, where elephants are indigenous. Both australian (aR, n = 101) and Indian (IR, n = 101) respondents rated conservation as the most important reason for the role of zoos and sanctuaries. australian respondents were more concerned about the husbandry conditions for keeping wild animals in zoos and sanctuaries than Indian respondents (p = 0.02). this concern for captive animals increased with the higher educational level of the respondents. Female australian respondents were more concerned about the practice of keeping elephants in captivity than australian men. more australian respondents were prepared to pay extra to visit a zoo with elephants (aR 42.6%, IR 7.9%, p < 0.001). Indian respondents believed more than their australian counterparts that it was important for any zoo to display elephants, and wanted to interact with elephants by feeding, touching, and riding on them. While australian respondents' perceptions of captive elephants acknowledged their scientific value, Indian respondents viewed elephants primarily of religious, cultural, and historical significance. We conclude that australians and Indians have different requirements for keeping elephants in zoos, which should inform zoo directors about the best way to present them to the public.

show abstract

Symbolic animals and the developing self

Cited by 13 publications

References 5 publications

For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care?

For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care?

The Revised Animal Preference Test: An Implicit Probe of Tendencies Toward Psychopathy

Public Attitudes in India and Australia toward Elephants in Zoos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About