Butterfly eyespots: Their potential influence on aesthetic preferences and conservation attitudes

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 11, 2015, Pages

  Manesi, Zoi ^a   Van Lange, Paul A M ^a   Pollet, Thomas V ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; BUTTERFLY; CONSERVATION BIOLOGY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FORELIMB; HUMAN; HUMAN VERSUS ANIMAL COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; SPECIES; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ANIMAL; ATTITUDE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ESTHETICS; EYE; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANIMALS; ATTITUDE; BEHAVIOR; BUTTERFLIES; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; ESTHETICS; EYE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84952815343     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141433     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Huxley J. New bottles for new wine: Essays. London: Chatto and Windus; 1957.
2. Sagan C. Cosmos. New York: Random House; 1981.
3. Martin JW. The Samurai Crab. Terra. 1993; 31: 30-34.
4. Liu J, Li J, Feng L, Li L, Tian J, Lee K. Seeing Jesus in toast: neural and behavioral correlates of face pareidolia. Cortex. 2014; 53: 60-77. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.01.013 PMID: 24583223
5. Voss JL, Federmeier KD, Paller KA. The potato chip really does look like Elvis! Neural hallmarks of conceptual processing associated with finding novel shapes subjectively meaningful. Cereb Cortex. 2011; 22: 2354-2364. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr315 PMID: 22079921
6. Dakin R, Montgomerie R. Peahens prefer peacocks displaying more eyespots, but rarely. Anim Behav. 2011; 82: 21-28. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.016
7. Sourakov A. Two heads are better than one, false head allows Calycopis cecrops (Lycaenidae) to escape predation by a Jumping Spider, Phidippus pulcherrimus (Salticidae). J Nat Hist. 2013; 47: 1047-1054. doi: 10.1080/00222933.2012.759288
8. Stevens M. The role of eyespots as anti-predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2005; 80: 573-588. doi: 10.1017/S1464793105006810 PMID: 16221330
9. Vallin A, Jakobsson S, Lind J, Wiklund C. Prey survival by predator intimidation: an experimental study of peacock butterfly defence against blue tits. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005; 272: 1203-1207. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.3034
10. Breuker CJ, Brakefield PM. Female choice depends on size but not symmetry of dorsal eyespots in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002; 269: 1233-1239. doi: 10.1098/rspb. 2002.2005
11. Robertson KA, Monteiro A. Female Bicyclus anynana butterflies choose males on the basis of their dorsal UV-reflective eyespot pupils. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2005; 272: 1541-1546. doi: 10.1098/ rspb.2005.3142
12. Stokes DL. Things we like: human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Hum Ecol. 2007; 35: 361-369. doi: 10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7
13. Kellert SR. The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, DC: Island Press; 1996.
14. Veríssimo D, Fraser I, Groombridge J, Bristol R, MacMillan DC. Birds as tourism flagship species: a case study of tropical islands. Anim Conserv. 2009; 12: 549-558. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009. 00282.x
15. De Pinho JR, Grilo C, Boone RB, Galvin KA, Snodgrass JG. Influence of aesthetic appreciation of wildlife species on attitudes towards their conservation in Kenyan agropastoralist communities. PLoS One. 2014; 9: e88842. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088842 PMID: 24551176
16. Baron-Cohen S. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Boston: MIT Press; 1995.
17. Langton SRH, Watt RJ, Bruce V. Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000; 4: 50-59. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01436-9 PMID: 10652522
18. Johnson MH, Dziurawiec S, Ellis H, Morton J. Newborns' preferential tracking of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition. 1991; 40: 1-19. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90045-6 PMID: 1786670
19. Simion F, Valenza E, Cassia VM, Turati C, Umiltà C. Newborns' preference for up-down asymmetrical configurations. Dev Sci. 2002; 5: 427-434. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00237
20. Tomalski P. Rapid orienting toward face-like stimuli with gaze-relevant contrast information. Perception. 2009; 38: 569-578. doi: 10.1068/p6137 PMID: 19522324
21. Stein T, Peelen MV, Sterzer P. Adults' awareness of faces follows newborns' looking preferences. PLoS One. 2011; 6: e29361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029361 PMID: 22216259
22. Farroni T, Johnson MH, Menon E, Zulian L, Faraguna D, Csibra G. Newborns' preference for face-relevant stimuli: effects of contrast polarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 17245-17250. doi: 10. 1073/pnas.0502205102 PMID: 16284255
23. Johnson MH. Subcortical face processing. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005; 6: 766-774. doi: 10.1038/nrn1766 PMID: 16276354
24. Turati C, Simion F, Milani I, Umiltà C. Newborns' preference for faces: What is crucial? Dev Psychol. 2002; 38: 875-882. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.875 PMID: 12428700
25. Cassia VM, Turati C, Simion F. Can a nonspecific bias toward top-heavy patterns explain newborns' face preference? Psychol Sci. 2004; 15: 379-383. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00688.x PMID: 15147490
26. Keaveney SM, Herrmann A, Befurt R, Landwehr JR. The eyes have it: How a car's face influences consumer categorization and evaluation of product line extensions. Psychol Mark. 2012; 29: 36-51. doi: 10.1002/mar.20501
27. Miesler L, Leder H, Herrmann A. Isn't it cute: An evolutionary perspective of baby-schema effects in visual product designs. Int J Des; 2011; 5: 17-31.
28. Landwehr JR, McGill AL, Herrmann A. It's got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive 'facial' expressions on product liking and sales. J Mark. 2011; 75: 132-146. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.75.3.132
29. Tam K-P, Lee S-L, Chao MM. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013; 49: 514-521. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001
30. Root-Bernstein M, Douglas L, Smith A, Veríssimo D. Anthropomorphized species as tools for conservation: utility beyond prosocial, intelligent and suffering species. Biodivers Conserv. 2013; 22: 1577-1589. doi: 10.1007/s10531-013-0494-4
31. Ahn H-K, Kim HJ, Aggarwal P. Helping fellow beings: Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt. Psychol Sci. 2014; 25: 224-229. doi: 10.1177/0956797613496823 PMID: 24192326
32. Nettle D, Harper Z, Kidson A, Stone R, Penton-Voak IS, Bateson M. The watching eyes effect in the dictator game: It's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something. Evol Hum Behav. 2013; 34: 35-40. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.08.004
33. Sparks A, Barclay P. Eye images increase generosity, but not for long: The limited effect of a false cue. Evol Hum Behav. 2013; 34: 317-322. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.05.001
34. Rigdon M, Ishii K, Watabe M, Kitayama S. Minimal social cues in the dictator game. J Econ Psychol. 2009; 30: 358-367. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.002
35. Haley KJ, Fessler DMT. Nobody's watching?: Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evol Hum Behav. 2005; 26: 245-256. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002
36. Baillon A, Selim A, Van Dolder D. On the social nature of eyes: The effect of social cues in interaction and individual choice tasks. Evol Hum Behav. 2013; 34: 146-154. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012. 12.001
37. Keller J, Pfattheicher S. Vigilant self-regulation, cues of being watched and cooperativeness. Eur J Pers. 2011; 25: 363-372. doi: 10.1002/per.797
38. Oda R, Niwa Y, Honma A, Hiraishi K. An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. Evol Hum Behav. 2011; 32: 166-171. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.11.002
39. Fathi M, Bateson M, Nettle D. Effects of watching eyes and norm cues on charitable giving in a surreptitious behavioral experiment. Evol Psychol. 2014; 12: 878-887. PMID: 25331033
40. Bourrat P, Baumard N, Mckay R. Surveillance cues enhance moral condemnation. Evol Psychol. 2011; 9: 193-199. PMID: 22947966
41. Oda R, Kato Y, Hiraishi K. The Watching-eye effect on prosocial lying. Evol Psychol. 2015; 13. doi: 10. 1177/1474704915594959
42. Powell KL, Roberts G, Nettle D. Eye images increase charitable donations: Evidence from an opportunistic field experiment in a supermarket. Ethology. 2012; 118: 1096-1101. doi: 10.1111/eth.12011
43. Nettle D, Nott K, Bateson M. 'Cycle thieves, we are watching you': Impact of a simple signage intervention against bicycle theft. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e51738. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051738 PMID: 23251615
44. Ernest-Jones M, Nettle D, Bateson M. Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: a field experiment. Evol Hum Behav. 2011; 32: 172-178. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.006
45. Bateson M, Nettle D, Roberts G. Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biol Lett. 2006; 2: 412-414. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509 PMID: 17148417
46. Panagopoulos C. Watchful eyes: implicit observability cues and voting. Evol Hum Behav. 2014; 35: 279-284. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.02.008
47. Ekström M. Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment. Exp Econ. 2012; 15: 530-546. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9312-6
48. Cai W, Huang X, Wu S, Kou Y. Dishonest behavior is not affected by an image of watching eyes. Evol Hum Behav. 2015; 36: 110-116. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.09.007
49. Fehr E, Schneider F. Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity? Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010; 277: 1315-1323. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1900
50. Raihani NJ, Bshary R. A positive effect of flowers rather than eye images in a large-scale, cross-cultural dictator game. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012; 279: 3556-3564. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0758
51. Vogt S, Efferson C, Berger J, Fehr E. Eye spots do not increase altruism in children. Evol Hum Behav. 2015; 36: 224-231. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.11.007
52. Carbon C-C, Hesslinger VM. Bateson et al.'s (2006) Cues-of-Being-Watched Paradigm Revisited. Swiss J Psychol. 2011; 70: 203-210. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000058
53. Tane K, Takezawa M. Perception of human face does not induce cooperation in darkness. Lett Evol Behav Sci. 2011; 2: 24-27. doi: 10.5178/lebs.2011.15
54. Haxby JV, Hoffman EA, Gobbini MI. The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000; 4: 223-233. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01482-0 PMID: 10827445
55. Emery N. The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000; 24: 581-604. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7634(00)00025-7 PMID: 10940436
56. Caldara R, Seghier ML, Rossion B, Lazeyras F, Michel C, Hauert C-A. The fusiform face area is tuned for curvilinear patterns with more high-contrasted elements in the upper part. Neuroimage. 2006; 31: 313-319. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.12.011 PMID: 16460963
57. Hadjikhani N, Kveraga K, Naik P, Ahlfors SP. Early (M170) activation of face-specific cortex by facelike objects. Neuroreport. 2009; 20: 403-407. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328325a8e1 PMID: 19218867
58. Burnham TC, Hare B. Engineering human cooperation. Hum Nat. 2007; 18: 88-108. doi: 10.1007/ s12110-007-9012-2 PMID: 26181843
59. Kurzban R. The social psychophysics of cooperation: Nonverbal communication in a public goods game. J Nonverbal Behav.2001; 25: 241-259. doi: 10.1023/A:1012563421824
60. Izuma K, Saito DN, Sadato N. The roles of the medial prefrontal cortex and striatum in reputation processing. Soc Neurosci. 2010; 5: 133-147. doi: 10.1080/17470910903202559 PMID: 19705330
61. Tomasello M, Hare B, Lehmann H, Call J. Reliance on head versus eyes in the gaze following of great apes and human infants: the cooperative eye hypothesis. J Hum Evol. 2007; 52: 314-320. doi: 10. 1016/j.jhevol. 2006.10.001 PMID: 17140637
62. Brakefield PM, Beldade P, Zwaan BJ. The African butterfly Bicyclus anynana: a model for evolutionary genetics and evolutionary developmental biology. In: Behringer RR, Johnson AD, Krumlauf RE, editors. Emerging model organisms: a laboratory manual; NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 2009. pp. 291-329.
63. Brakefield PM, Larsen TB. The evolutionary significance of dry and wet season forms in some tropical butterflies. Biol J Linn Soc Lond. 1984; 22: 1-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.1984.tb00795.x
64. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011; 6: 3-5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 PMID: 26162106
65. Van Lange PAM, De Bruin EMN, Otten W, Joireman JA. Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997; 733-746. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733 PMID: 9325591
66. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD, Mertig AG, Emmet Jones R. Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. J Soc Issues. 2000; 56: 425-442. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176
67. Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol. 1904; 15: 72-101. doi: 10.2307/1412159
68. IBM SPSS Statistics. IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL. 2011.
69. nd Ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2007.
70. Gardner W, Mulvey EP, Shaw EC. Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychol Bull. 1995; 118: 392-404. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909. 118.3.392 PMID: 7501743
71. nd Ed. London: Chapman and Hall; 1989.
72. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974; 19: 716-723. doi: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
73. st Ed. New York: Springer; 2002.
74. Efron B. Better Bootstrap Confidence Intervals. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987; 82: 171-185. doi: 10.1080/ 01621459.1987.10478410
75. st Ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
76. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods, Instruments, Comput. 2004; 36: 717-731. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553
77. Itier RJ, Alain C, Sedore K, McIntosh AR. Early face processing specificity: it's in the eyes! J Cogn Neurosci. 2007; 19: 1815-1826. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1815 PMID: 17958484
78. Sylwester K, Roberts G. Cooperators benefit through reputation-based partner choice in economic games. Biol Lett. 2010; 6: 659-662. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2010.0209 PMID: 20410026
79. Van Vugt M, Roberts G, Hardy C. Competitive altruism: Development of reputation-based cooperation in groups. In: Dunbar R, Barrett L, editors. Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2007. pp. 531-540.
80. Wedekind C, Milinski M. Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science. 2000; 288: 850-852. doi: 10.1126/science.288.5467.850 PMID: 10797005
81. Fehr E, Gächter S. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature. 2002; 415: 137-140. doi: 10.1038/ 415137a PMID: 11805825
82. Fehr E, Fischbacher U. The nature of human altruism. Nature. 2003; 425: 785-791. doi: 10.1038/ nature02043 PMID: 14574401
83. Boyd R, Gintis H, Bowles S. Coordinated punishment of defectors sustains cooperation and can proliferate when rare. Science. 2010; 328: 617-620. doi: 10.1126/science.1183665 PMID: 20431013
84. Tam KP. Are anthropomorphic persuasive appeals effective? The role of the recipient's motivations. Br J Soc Psychol. 2015; 54: 187-200. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12076 PMID: 24898876
85. Butterfield ME, Hill SE, Lord CG. Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012; 48: 957-960. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.010