The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Humans tend to prefer animals that are phylogenetically close to them and perceived as physically, behaviorally or cognitively similar; these aspects trigger more positive affect and attachment and caregiving behaviors, as well as greater empathy and a higher concern in terms of welfare and conservation [52,53,54,55,56,57].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [53]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 40
- Bishop, R. C., and Heberlein, T. A. (1979). Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 926–930. · DOI
- Boersma, P. D., and Stokes, D. L. (1995). Conservation: threats to penguin populations. In Williams, T. D. (ed.), The Penguins, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 127–139.
- Boyd, D. (1997). Eucalyptus removal on Angel Island. California Exotic Pest Plant Council 1997 Symposium Proceedings, 1–3.
- Brook, A., Zint, M., and De Young, R. (2003). Landowners’ Responses to An Endangered Species Act Listing and Implications for Encouraging Conservation. Conservation Biology 17: 1638–1649. · DOI
- Burghardt, G. M., and Herzog, H. A. Jr. (1980). Beyond Conspecifics: Is Brer Rabbit Our Brother? BioScience 30: 763–768. · DOI
- Chester, J. (1996). The World of the Penguin, Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, California.
- Chester, J. (2001). The Nature of Penguins, Celestial Arts, Berkeley, California.
- Coursey, D. L. (1998). The Revealed Demand for A Public Good: Evidence from Endangered and Threatened Species. New York University Environmental Law Journal 6: 411–449.
- Czech, B., Krausman, P. R., and Borkhartaria, R. (1998). Social Construction, Political Power, and Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species. Conservation Biology 12: 1103–1112. · DOI
- Davis, L. S., and Renner, M. (2003). Penguins, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
- Diamond, P. A., and Hausman, J. A. (1994). Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better Than No Number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 45–64. · DOI · Paper page
- Gould, S. J. (1980). The Panda’s Thumb, W. W. Norton & Co., New York, pp. 95–107.
- Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and Their Animal Companions. Journal of Consumer Research 20: 616–632. · DOI · Paper page
- Horne, P., Boxall, P. C., and Adamowicz, W. L. (2005). Multiple-use Management of Forest Recreation Sites: A Spatially Explicit Choice Experiment. Forest Ecology and Management 207: 189–199. · DOI
- Hutchins, M. (1995). Olympic Mountain Goat Controversy Continues. Conservation Biology 9: 1324–1326. · DOI
- Kellert, S. R. (1993a). Value and Perception of Invertebrates. Conservation Biology 7: 845–855. · DOI
- Kellert, S. R. (1993b). The biological basis for human values of nature. In Kellert, S. R., and Wilson, E. O. (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 42–69.
- Kellert, S. R. (1996). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society, Island, Washington, DC.
- Kellert, S. R., and Berry, J. K. (1980). Knowledge, affection, and basic attitudes toward animals in American society Phase III. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
- Kiester, R. A. (1997). Aesthetics of Biological Diversity. Human Ecology Review 3: 151–157.
- Lanting, F. P. (1999). Penguin, Benedikt Taschen Verlag, Köln, Germany.
- Lawrence, E. A. (1989). Neoteny in American perceptions of animals. In Hoage, R. J. (ed.), Perceptions of Animals in American Culture, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, pp. 57–76.
- Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angborenen Formen mõglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 3: 235–409.
- Lorenz, K. (1971). Part and parcel in animal and human societies. In Studies in Animal and Human Behavior, vol. 2, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 115–195.
- Lynch, W. (1997). Penguins of the World, Firefly Books, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada.
- McNamara, W. (2005). Representation of imperiled plants in botanic gardens: the influence of conservation status and human preference. Masters thesis, Hutchins School, Sonoma State University.
- Montgomery, C. A. (2002). Ranking the Benefits of Biodiversity: An Exploration of Relative Values. Environmental Management 65: 313–326.
- Morris, D. (1967). The Naked Ape, McGraw-Hill, New York.
- Morris, D., and Morris, R. (1965). Men and Snakes, McGraw-Hill, New York.
- Morris, D., and Morris, R. (1966). Men and Pandas, McGraw-Hill, New York.
- Randall, A. (1986). Human preferences, economics, and the preservation of species. In Norton, B. G. (ed.), The Preservation of Species, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 79–109.
- Schafer, K. (2000). Penguin Planet: Their World, Our World, NorthWord, Minnetonka, Minnesota.
- Schuman, H., and Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitudes and Behavior. Annual Review of Sociology 2: 161–207. · DOI
- Shepard, P. (1978). Thinking Animals, Viking, New York.
- Stokes, D. L. (2006). Conservators of Experience. BioScience 56: 6–7. · DOI
- Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In Kellert, S. R., and Wilson, E. O. (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis, Island, Washington, DC, pp. 73–137.
- Ward, P. I., Mosberger, N., Kistler, C., and Fischer, O. (1998). The Relationship between Popularity and Body Size in Zoo Animals. Conservation Biology 12: 1408–1411. · DOI
- Williams, T. D. (1995). The Penguins, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Wilson, E. O. (2002). The Future of Life, Knopf, New York.
- Zar, J. H. (1996). Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X., & Matthies, D. (2010) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.003 · Cited by 361
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Sherwen, S. L., Magrath, M. J. L., Butler, K. L., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2015) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2015.04.007 · Cited by 81
Cracknell, D., White, M. P., Pahl, S., & Depledge, M. H. (2017) · Landscape Research · doi:10.1080/01426397.2016.1243236 · Cited by 41
Of Rarity and Symbolism: Understanding Human Perceptions of Charismatic Color Morphs
Williams, T. D., Kreling, S. E. S., Stanton, L. A., Wilkinson, C. E., Estien, C. O., Schell, C. J., & Carlen, E. J. (2024) · Human Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10745-024-00492-7 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Stokes, D. L.
- Venue
- Human Ecology
- Published
- 2006-12-14
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 361-369
- ISSN
- 0300-7839
- 1572-9915
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
