The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Values and Perceptions of Invertebrates
Abstract
Abstract: In this paper I explore the value of invertebrates to human society. I initially examine various ecological, utilitarian, scientific, and cultural benefits provided by invertebrate organisms. I then explore the extent of appreciation and understanding of these values among the American public. This assessment was based on a study of residents of the state of Connecticut, including randomly selected members of the general public, farmers, conservation organization members, and scientists. The general public and farmers were found to view most invertebrates with aversion, anxiety, fear, avoidance, and ignorance. Far more positive and knowledgeable attitudes toward invertebrates and their conservation were observed among scientists and, to a lesser extent, among conservation organization members. I finally examine the motivational basis for hostile attitudes toward invertebrates, particularly arthropods, among the general public. Important factors include the possibility of an innate learning disposition, the association of many invertebrates with disease and agricultural damage, differences in ecological scale between humans and invertebrates, the multiplicity of invertebrates, the apparent lack of a sense of identity and consciousness among invertebrates, the presumption of mindlessness among invertebrates, and the radical autonomy of invertebrates from human control.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Food Webs: Linkage, Interaction Strength and Community Infrastructure
Paine, R. T. (1980) · The Journal of Animal Ecology · doi:10.2307/4220 · Cited by 1,824
ÖHman, A. (1986) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00608.x · Cited by 738
Cited by
Edible Insects Acceptance by Belgian Consumers: Promising Attitude for Entomophagy Development
Caparros Megido, R., Sablon, L., Geuens, M., Brostaux, Y., Alabi, T., Blecker, C., Drugmand, D., Haubruge, É., & Francis, F. (2014) · Journal of Sensory Studies · doi:10.1111/joss.12077 · Cited by 371
Edible insects as future food: chances and challenges
Lange, K. W., & Nakamura, Y. (2021) · Journal of Future Foods · doi:10.1016/j.jfutfo.2021.10.001 · Cited by 344
Knight, A. J. (2008) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001 · Cited by 286
Economics of the endangered species act
Brown, G. M., & Shogren, J. F. (1998) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.12.3.3 · Cited by 224
Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach
Batt, S. (2009) · Bioscience Horizons · doi:10.1093/biohorizons/hzp021 · Cited by 183
Things We Like: Human Preferences among Similar Organisms and Implications for Conservation
Stokes, D. L. (2007) · Human Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10745-006-9056-7 · Cited by 158
Pain experience in hermit crabs?
Elwood, R. W., & Appel, M. (2009) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.01.028 · Cited by 154
Prokop, P., & Fančovičová, J. (2013) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1111/acv.12014 · Cited by 152
Pet Face: Mechanisms Underlying Human-Animal Relationships
Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2016) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00298 · Cited by 129
Cracknell, D., White, M. P., Pahl, S., & Depledge, M. H. (2017) · Landscape Research · doi:10.1080/01426397.2016.1243236 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- KELLERT, S. R.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 845-855
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2018626242
- Cited by
- 555
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.