Tolerance of Frogs among High School Students: Influences of Disgust and Culture

Abstract

Amphibians play an important role in the functioning of ecosystems and some of them inhabit human gardens where they can successfully reproduce. The decline of amphibian diversity worldwide suggests that people may play a crucial role in their survival. We conducted a cross-cultural study on high school students' tolerance of frogs in Chile, Slovakia, South Africa and Turkey (n = 655 high school students). We found that about 6 % of students reported active killing of frogs and 30 % reported moving frogs away from their home gardens. Pathogen disgust negatively correlated with frog tolerance suggesting that people who are more sensitive to pathogen conoting cues are less tolerant toward frogs. Tolerance of frogs in parents or other family members appears to significantly influence student tolerance of frogs. Females tended to show higher tolerance of frogs than males. This study highlights the importance of the emotion of disgust in human willingness to protect frogs from a cross-cultural perspective.

Are wildlife value orientations useful tools to explain tolerance and illegal killing of wildlife by farmers in response to crop damage?

“…On the other hand, famers with a domination wildlife value orientation were not likely to kill wildlife, in response to crop damage. The low predictive power of domination can underlie the existence of other important drivers of wildlife killing by farmers, e.g., emotions towards wildlife (Manfredo 2008;Jacobs 2012;Jacobs et al 2012Jacobs et al , 2014aFrank et al 2016;Prokop et al 2016). In our study, the majority of respondents (c. 62%) had suffered crop damaging prior to the questionnaire and we believe that the existence, the extent, and the frequency of previous crop damaging can be other important factors guiding decision-making.…”

Perceptions and attitudes of the local people towards bats in the surroundings of the Escaba dam (Tucumán, Argentina)

“…In relation to gender, the studies are not conclusive, because many results showed no differences between men and women (Ohemeng et al, 2017; Shafie et al, 2017; De Prada and Barragán Tabares 2018; Musila et al, 2018. However, considering that that frogs are unpopular like bats, it was found that women show greater tolerance to frogs than men (Prokop et al, 2016). While some studies suggest that the occupation or work task does not significantly affect the perceptions and attitudes towards the species (Shafie et al, 2017), other authors argue that people can evaluate and value wildlife according to their daily routine and where they live and work (Miller and Hobbs, 2002).…”

The role of cultural norms in shaping attitudes towards amphibians in Cape Town, South Africa

“…It is not clear if lack of accurate knowledge was driven by disliking frogs or if disliking frogs meant that individuals were disinterested in accurate knowledge. Many previous studies have determined that direct experiences of animals, pets, and nature increases the retention of knowledge about these creatures and improves attitudes [37]. Those who reported direct positive experiences with frogs in their childhood also scored higher on knowledge and beliefs and this may be a precursor to retaining accurate knowledge.…”

“…and it was most likely to be classified as "gross". The dislike of the rain frog is likely triggered by a strong disgust reflex which has been demonstrated as the primary driver for frog dislike amongst Slovakian respondents [37,45]. Those that liked the rain frog, tended to laugh at it and see it as 'funny' or 'grumpy', personifying its ugliness into something relatable.…”

“…In contrast to Tarrant's [21] questions, which were measured on a 10-point Likert scale, we asked instead that respondents select from a list which best describes the feelings towards amphibians with choices between, 'I like frogs', 'frogs are ok', 'frogs are gross', 'frogs are scary' and 'I have no feelings about frogs'. This sought to address distinctions between the disgust and fear responses [27,37,38]. Although blunt, this self-identified response held valid as a position and framework throughout the cases.…”