Welcome to this weeks research digest article from Compassionate Nature which continues the consideration of biophobia. In this second part the focus is on how biophobia may translate into individual actions towards nature in the form of some of the least liked animals..
“bloated and grown fat with endless brooding on her feasts, weaving webs of shadow; for all living things were her food"
I am a huge fan of Tolkien’s books, and there are many parts of The Lord of the Rings I find memorable. The return of a king from the wildness. The hobbits being thrust out of their simple, country life to feature centre stage in the saga. The complexities of Gollum. Gandalf’s demise and return. I could go on endlessly, so indulge me one more.
Shelob.
If you are not aware of the story, there is a part where the two hobbits Frodo and Sam are on their way to destroy the One Ring, and are lead by their unfaithful guide Gollum into the lair of Shelob, a huge, monstrous spider. That is memorable too. And every time I read that part I squirm.
Compassionate nature is a free, weekly reader supported publication. Please consider subscribing for free to support my writing and to never miss a weekly post. You don’t need to use Substack to subscribe just an email address.
I wasn’t surprised that arachnophobia was found to be the most searched for biophobia from the study featured in the last article. Show me a spider and I’ll show you a grown man who shouts for his son. Mind you my son shouts for me when he encounters a moth, so each to their own phobia.
As covered in the last post biophobia is a negative psychological response to a natural stimuli, often an animal but can also be plants, which may be disproportionate to the threat the stimuli presents, in terms of actual risk. When used as a broad term it can mean an overall negative feeling and lack of connection with nature. As the research in the last post highlighted my reaction to a spider is very common and it is a wholly irrational behaviour on my part. I live in a country with around 650 species of spider of which only 12 are known to bite humans, resulting in something akin to a small insect bite as opposed to a fatal wound. In the balance of the threat relationship I am much bigger, stronger and more dangerous to a house spider that it is to me.
And yet they are like mini-Shelob’s to me. Does that make it more likely that I will take action to get rid of a spider, including killing it?
In the last article the fear of sharks appeared to fuel actions and policies that have contributed to the rapid decline in shark populations. Two recent studies provide an opportunity to explore further whether negative emotional reactions, such as fear or disgust, towards animals does inform behaviour. Rather than predatory animals, this time the focus was on animals we all encounter on most days. They are a group of animals who also suffer from decreasing species populations and yet don’t, apart from a small number of certain species, often appear as the “face” of conservation campaigns.
Insects.
Squashing the bugs.
Species of insects usually appear on lists of the least liked of animals and we often have very low tolerance towards them. Indeed an insect, the mosquito, usually appears as the animal responsible for the highest number of human deaths per year. A study by Moshe Gish and colleagues (2023) considered whether the use of insecticides was related to levels of entomophobia (the fear of insects). The study hypothesis was that levels of disgust towards insects, as a predictive indicator of entomophobia, would positively correlate with the use of insecticide. That is, the greater the disgust and fear felt towards an insect the more likely you are to kill it. One theoretical perspective is that entomophobia is on the increase due to increasing urbanisation, resulting in people encountering more insects alongside decreasing levels of knowledge about them. There is also often a simple solution to get rid of an insect, which may include using an insecticide, meaning that any negative emotional response may be easily addressed.
The study had a large sample of 2468 adult (average age of 37) women across urban settings in Japan, a country with high levels of urbanisation. Disgust levels towards animals was measured using a standard approach of asking participants to rate their disgust towards images of insects and other animals, in this case using a scale from very low (1) to very high (7). The participants were also asked about their exposure level to ants or cockroaches in their homes and on their use of insecticides.
A lot of disgust was shown towards the insects included in the images. The average disgust score was 6, with around 70% of the participants scoring 6 or 7 for the insects presented to them. The results showed some interesting relationships upon the use of insecticides. As expected the lower the disgust level a participant felt towards insects the less likely they reported they were to kill insects. However disgust levels only had a small effect on the reported use of insecticides.
The greater influence on use of insecticides was determined by the exposure to insects in the home. Where no exposure was reported the use of insecticides was 22%, while reported exposure correlated with a 53% use of insecticide. That may seem a very obvious result - you notice the presence of ants or a cockroach and you take action. Interestingly though exposure was also linked to lower levels of disgust, along with greater levels of knowledge of insects. This may suggest that those households who had less contact with insects as measured by the study (remember exposure was only to ants and cockroaches in the house) had greater levels of disgust and knew less about insects. Why does that matter? It is supportive of the view that as urbanisation increases there is less contact with nature resulting in less informed and more negative emotional response towards it.
The authors acknowledge that the households reporting no or low exposure to insects may be doing other biophobic behaviours, such as not opening windows very often as an insect control strategy, which unfortunately the study doesn’t capture. The study has other limitations, notably that the large sample is all female and there could be other factors influencing insecticide usage, such as prohibitions within a housing agreement. The 7-point disgust measure used may not be sufficiently nuanced to differentiate between high and extreme disgust, while determining household exposure to insects was also limited to only two species.
However the study findings do support the theoretical suggestion that individuals with reduced contact to insects appear more likely to be less knowledgeably about them and express greater disgust towards them.
In the garden.
That study was based on encountering insects in the home. Another study from Japan also considered contact with and knowledge of insects, this time during outdoor activities which may foster more opportunity to encounter insects and learn about them. As urbanisation increases, gardens present an opportunity to connect with nature, alongside local parks and green spaces. Gardeners can have a complicated relationship with insects though. Pollinators such as bees play a key role while veg munching bugs like caterpillars can work their way through a crop. In the recent past pesticides and insecticides were commonly used although there is now a return to more organic and non-chemical methods to sustainably manage and support insects.
A Japanese and Australian research team considered the relationship of exposure to nature upon biophobia through gardening, visiting local parks and visiting national parks across Japan. Amelie Vanderstock and colleagues 2022 paper describes an online survey of 443 Japanese adults designed to capture the participants frequency of gardening and/or visits to parks, along with their knowledge of and emotional reaction to 16 common insects. Just like the other study participants were shown images of those insects, although this time they were asked to provide 6 attributes of like or dislike towards each one and to also report whether they perceived the insect as beneficial or a pest.
The study found that 75% of the participants were able to identify at least half of the 16 insects. Overall 22% liked at least half of the insects, while on the more biophobic side 11% disliked, 9% feared and 8% were disgusted by at least half. The most liked insects were lady birds, honey bees and butterflies, while stink bugs, aphids and slugs were the least liked. The most feared were hornets, wasps and carpenter bees. Honey bees and worms were identified as the most beneficial while aphids and slugs were identified mainly as pests.
In terms of exposure to nature, the participants who regularly gardened or visited local parks were more likely to correctly identify an insect. Levels of disgust, dislike and fear towards the insects was reported more in those who spent less time in nature, with disgust and fear appearing stronger in younger participants. Participants who could identify more insects or were gardeners were also more likely to perceive them as beneficial. Of the three location types included in the study, gardens appeared to provide the greatest positive relationship with insects, while visiting local parks correlated with lower biophobia. In this study though visits to national parks was not influential on either biophilia or biophobia indicators. The authors highlight the findings support the need for accessible green spaces within urban settings to facilitate opportunities to engage with and connect with nature. The study findings are correlational, so no causal relationship can be determined e.g. individuals may garden because they have higher levels of biophilia rather than the garden increasing their positive attitude towards nature. Additionally the study did not quantify the quality of the experiences the participant experienced in the various natural settings and for me there was a missed opportunity to have captured participants level of nature connectedness as well. These points aside, the study results again support the view that individuals who have less exposure to and knowledge of nature are more likely to have a negative perception of natural stimuli such as insects.
Insects are in decline as much as the rest of the natural world is. The simple fact is they are critical to life on earth. It has been claimed that the physicist Albert Einstein warned that if bees disappeared then humans would only last for another four years. It is hugely doubtful that Einstein actually said that, but it is an eye-catching quote that underlines the importance of insects. A 2016 article in Nature by Simon Potts and others showed how declining pollinator species are directly impacting food production levels. And yet as urbanisation increases our understanding and appreciation of insects appears to be decreasing.
Context is important too. Discovering an ants nest in your kitchen will likely elicit a different emotional response and resulting actions to discovering one out in the garden. As always with understanding human emotional responses and behaviours nothing is as straightforward as just either liking or disliking insects.
Given the often poor perception of insects and perhaps the reduced awareness of their importance to many parts of our life, these studies support the view that increasing knowledge of insects is key to living alongside them sustainably. While writing this article I reflected on how this has been the case for myself. Having read around insects over the last few years, including the excellent The Garden Jungle by Dave Goulson, I notice a deeper appreciation of insects, especially those I had perceived to be more of a pest than beneficial in the past. When lifting up the compost bin lid I am always struck how much is going on in there.
Just don’t expect me to give Shelob a hug anytime soon though.
There will a final third part to this consideration of biophobia next week, with a look at how children can be encouraged to connect with nature and help address biophobia at an early age.
Thanks ever so much for reading this article from the Compassionate Nature research digest publication. If you think it would be helpful to someone else please do share on, it is a freely available public post. I would also love to hear what you think, so please leave a comment, send me an email at TheCompassionateNatureHub@gmail.com or leave a reply if you see it via social media.
You can also support my work for free by subscribing to the publication and join over a hundred other subscribers in never missing a weekly post. You don’t need to use Substack to subscribe just an email address. Your support means a great deal as an aspiring writer - thank you.
References
Gish, M., Hisano, M., & Soga, M. (2024). Does aversion to insects affect insecticide use? An elusive answer calls for improved methods in biophobia research. People and Nature. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10585
Potts, S. G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V., Ngo, H. T., Aizen, M. A., Biesmeijer, J. C., Breeze, T. D.,Dicks, L. V., Garibaldi, L. A., Hill, R., Settele, J., & Vanbergen, A. J. (2016). Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature, 540(7632), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20588
Vanderstock, A., Grandi-Nagashiro, C., Kudo, G., Latty, T., Nakamura, S., White, T. E., & Soga, M. (2022). For the love of insects: gardening grows positive emotions (biophilia) towards invertebrates. Journal of Insect Conservation, 26(5), 751-762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-022-00419-x
I am so glad you've highlighted this important issue, Chris! My conservation work at Runamuk focuses on beneficials: insects and soil microbial life. All of the "littles" who are so crucial to *every* ecosystem, yet often overlooked and devalued because of the "ick-factor" associated with them. Educating people about the roles these keystone species play is pivotal to their preservation. Great piece of writing! Thank you!🙏