为何有些人会「不兽控」?——探讨兽迷的演化心理学意义

 

根据生物多样性之父Wilson的亲生命假说(biophilia hypothesis)[71],人类一直有着亲近动物的本能,且也有研究指出即使在人类幼儿时期就已反应出这种倾向[18,38,49],至于为什么动物对人类构成如此诱人的刺激,目前尚未完全阐明。
与物体相比,生物的确更能吸引人的注意力,据推测这种反应背后的演化学原因,可能源自于关注其他生物之于个体适合度(fitnesss)的重要性[48,50]
虽然还未有准确的定义,但兽迷/兽控(furries)被广泛认为是一群喜欢拟人化[注1]动物(anthropomorphic animals)或拟兽化(zoomorphic)的人类与非生物创作的粉丝,而兽圈(furry fandom / furry community)就是由这些粉丝所组成的社群[23,58,61]。许多关于兽文化(furry culture)的学术文章都在讨论兽迷族群内的自我认同、社交情况或是兽圈污名化等议题[23,29,45,60,61,62],甚少提及喜欢拟人化动物这类行为的成因。这回,我们将用文献回顾的方式,带大家厘清兽迷背后可能会涉及到的演化心理学机。
14843099909_b36d1dfac1_k-1-925x628-1兽迷被广泛认为是一群喜欢拟人化动物或拟兽化的人类与非生物创作的粉丝。图/Julia Wolf

一、可爱是什么?

有没有想过为什么比起养小孩,人们越来越偏好于养猫猫狗狗这些宠物?而拟人化动物的卡通形象更是充斥着各类媒体与商品中,他们究竟是拥有怎样独特魅力?

1.可爱就是正义?可爱与生物生存的关系

一个生物之所以会拥有「可爱」的特征,其目的不外乎是促进其亲本或其他生物个体对自己的保护行为及降低被伤害的可能性[1,15,24,51,66]。在幼年时完全依靠照料者的维持和保护的物种中,这种反应具有明显的适合度价值,有助于增加后代的生存机会[39],并帮助母亲专注于新生儿和依恋调节[67]

2.可爱吸引人的原因——幼态延续现象

虽然兽迷常被描述成喜欢拟人化动物的族群,但一定程度上,某些现实物种早已经被我们当成是拟人化动物了,例如最常见的宠物物种(即狗和猫等),同时具有形态与行为上的人类婴儿特征,因此,可爱某方面也与拟人化脱不了关系。
幼年期的可爱特征保留至成年期被认为是的驯化副产品[10,14,21],而这个过程称为幼态延续现象(neoteny),它被认为是由于人类对非攻击性行为的有意识或无意识的选育所造成的[10]
而据推测,终生幼年特征(长不大或是婴儿脸)的存在可能是构成我们对动物特别是宠物的吸引力的基础[3,13]

giphy-4幼年期的可爱特征保留至成年期,这个过程称作「幼态延续现象」。图/GIPHY

3.可爱的标准——婴儿图式

那有没有一种标准样貌,是所有物种都认为可爱的呢?答案是有的!
婴儿图式(kindchenschema)由动物行为学家Lorenz首次提出[39],是指一组常见于人类和动物婴儿的面部特征(如大头和圆脸额头高且突出</ strong>、大眼睛小鼻子和嘴巴),在动物行为学中,这种特定的特征配置被描述为一种能够触发用于照顾和对婴儿情感定向的先天释放机,并且在神经生理学上藉由神经成像也证明了其在促进人类养育行为中的作用[25]
虽然Lorenz表示婴儿图式反应不仅限于人类[39],但几乎目前所有的研究及调查都还是在探讨人类对于人类或其他动物的婴儿图式反应[4,36,37,66],果然可爱的标准似乎还满主观的,最终就算是只是对于动物的关注也难以逃离人类中心主义的影响[30]

4.只要可爱,无论真假都可以

前面讨论了关于人们喜欢可爱生物的理论,但这距离解释兽迷为什么喜欢兽图还有一段距离,毕竟前面讨论的,多半是指自然状态下的生物,而非人为加工后的兽图。为了能更好解释兽控对兽图的喜爱,我们可以用超常刺激(supernormal stimuli)的概念,来解释自然生物与人造物的效果差异。
超常刺激首次由动物行为学家Tinbergen所提出[68],是指能够引发生物产生出比自然状态下更强烈回馈的一种刺激,而这种刺激多为人为造,其中提到蛎鹬(Oystercatcher)、鸣禽(Songbird)及灰雁(Greylag goose)等鸟类都有偏好去孵育比起自己更大更醒目的假蛋的现象。参照Barrett所提到的[6,7],超常刺激的型式与载体其实是非常多元的,而其中仅次于「性」的「可爱」,就是最常被各类媒体与商业利用的元素,虽然其文中未提及原因,但可爱确实往往与非人动物连接在一起,而根据许多文献,人类的确会倾向于偏爱他们认为主观上具有吸引力或可爱的真实或非真实动物[4,26,28,34,72]

giphy根据许多文献,人类的确会倾向于偏爱他们认为主观上具有吸引力或可爱的真实或非真实动物。图/GIPHY

5.「人类喜欢拟人化动物」与「人类喜欢动物」要怎么模拟?

Barrett表示在人类的日常生活中充斥各种超常刺激[7],例如: 垃圾食物、电玩、电视、色情创作及网络等,除此以外Barrett举出一款叫做 Cow Clickers 的社群游戏做例子,里面就有各式各样拥有超出常态可爱特征的卡通乳牛,并且认为这类超常刺激有足够魅力去吸引人们去游玩,以及拥有悠久历史的泰迪熊玩偶,因为相较于真实物种拥有更大的前额及更短的鼻口部等婴儿特征,它们才得以流行至今[6]。综上所述,以兽迷的角度,拥有上述特征的拟人化动物,一定程度上也可以被视为一种基于触发亲生命假说里亲近动物的本能及婴儿图标反应的超常刺激那么〝人类喜欢拟人化动物〞与〝人类喜欢动物〞是具有行为同源性[注2]behavioral homology)的可能性的确是值得被探讨的。

二、人们对动物的态度

除了可不可爱外,当然还有许多杂的机也会影响人类对非人动物的态度,而且令人耐人寻味的,在某些方面兽圈里似乎也能看得到人类对其他动物态度的缩影。

1.人类或兽迷喜欢某些物种的前提

根据Roberts等人的研究[61],在兽圈这个社群里,成员与动物的连接也存在多样的面向,他们认为有三大因素: (1)对一个物种的欣赏或好感(2)与此物种有精神或神秘联系的感觉,以及(3)与这物种的认同感。事实上人类对动物态度的研究的确是一个极其杂的问题,它涉及到演化、心理和文化等方面[65]。但是即使不考虑这些,人们对动物的物种倾向也很大程度上取决于动物本身固有的某些属性,如各种物种的身体和行为特征很大程度上地影响着人类对动物的感知,并可以解释道为什么人们喜欢某些动物或讨厌某些动物[65]

2.影响物种偏好差异的因素

看到这里必需承认的是,不管是ㄧ般人或是兽迷,现实上对所有动物的态度不可能都一致,如Kellert提到有许多因素决定了人类对于其他物种的偏好,如自然价值、人文价值、实用价值、美学价值……等[33]。关于对于某些物种的人类态度和相似性的大量文献表明,在亲缘关系上与人类接近,或在生理、行为或认知上与人类相似的动物往往是首选,且因为它们会对人们产生更多正向的影响,所以它们在动物福利和保育方面上往往就会获得更多的关注[8,28,34,44,56,69]。相比之下,人类对亲缘关系距离遥远的动物表现出消极态度(例如: 爬虫类、鱼类、无脊椎动物等[11,32,57])。类似的现象也反映在兽迷在兽设[注3](fursona)上面的选择,例如根据Plante等人调查到的样态可以发现,去除掉非现实物种,相比于亲缘关系较远的爬虫类及昆虫等,有更大比例的兽迷都比较偏好选择哺乳类(尤其是有长远驯化史的猫科及犬科)做为兽设[53,54](表1)。

16SvtLaZBzNhVEeSO381DXLgbNXnC-2clNz-2uuy-28EuWN5Ka7CSjs7g5P-K0N5BR1nKr_pN3FYQd3NgpUqFYV0elW2IsDFuNqkFyYwLvFFtGA5a_gUfsVA_3fFd54RuXVblhJP(表1)各物种在兽迷中做为兽设的比例。
由左至右分别是: 混种、狼、狐狸、狗、大型猫、龙、神话生物、猫、其他、啮齿动物、兔子、浣熊、爬虫类、水獭、鸟类、熊、马、水生动物、鬣狗、臭鼬、有袋动物、恐龙、鹿、其他猫科、松鼠、雪貂、其他犬科及昆虫。图/参考文献53 

3.其他不同的观点

所以照上面所述,照理来讲特征越接近人类的物种或虚拟形象会获得人类喜爱,但事实上并非如此,例如根据恐怖谷理论(uncanny valley)[47]过于拟人化恐怕产生反效果[46,64],而其中可能的演化学机也有很多研究在探讨,例如避免病原体[63]、死亡凸显性[注4]

五、參考資料

1. Alley, T. (1983). Infantile head shape as an elicitor of adult protection. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29(4), 411-427.

2. Anand, S., Binoy, V. V., & Radhakrishna, S. (2018). The monkey is not always a god: Attitudinal differences toward crop-raiding Pet Face: Mechanisms Underlying Human-Animal Relationships. macaques and why it matters for conflict mitigation. Ambio, 47(6), 711-720.  doi: 10.1007/s13280-017-1008-5

3. Archer, J. (1997). Why do people love their pets? Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(4), 237-259, doi: 10.1016/S0162-3095(99)80001-4

4. Archer, J., & Monton, S. (2011). Preferences for infant facial features in pet dogs and cats. Ethology, 117(3), 217-226. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01863.x

5. Bailey, N. W., & Zuk, M. (2009). Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(8), 439-446. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.014

6. Barrett, D. (2010). Supernormal stimuli: How primal urges overran their evolutionary purpose. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

7. Barrett, D. (2020). Supernormal Stimuli in the Media.  In L. Workman, W. Reader &  J. Barkow (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. (pp. 527-537). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8.Batt, S. (2009). Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach. Bioscience Horizons, 2(2), 180-190. doi: 10.1093/BIOHORIZONS/HZP021

9. Beatson, R. M., & Halloran, M. J. (2007). Humans rule! The effects of creatureliness reminders, mortality salience and self-esteem on attitudes towards animals. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 619-632. doi: 10.1348/014466606X147753

10. Belyaev, D. K. (1979). Destabilizing selection as a factor in domestication. Journal of Heredity, 70(5), 301-308. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a109263

11. Bjerke, T., Odegardstuen, T., & Kaltenborn, B. (1998). Attitudes toward animals among Norwegian children and adolescents: species preferences. Anthrozoös 11(4), 227-235. doi: 10.2752/089279398787000544

12. Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2015). Attitudes toward animals among kindergarten children: species preferences. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 45-59. doi: 10.2752/089279315X14129350721939

13. Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2016). Pet Face: Mechanisms Underlying Human-Animal Relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 298. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00298

14. Borgi, M., Cogliati-Dezza, I., Brelsford, V., Meints K, & Cirulli F. (2014). Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 411. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00411

15. Brosch, T., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). That baby caught my eye…attention capture by infant faces. Emotion 7(3), 685-689. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.685

16. Brown, C. M., & McLean, J. L. (2015). Anthropomorphizing Dogs: Projecting One’s Own Personality and Consequences for Supporting Animal Rights. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 73-86. doi: 10.2752/089279315×14129350721975

17. Bruni, D., Perconti, P., & Plebe, A. (2018). Anti-anthropomorphism and Its Limits. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2205. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02205

18. Butterfield, M. E., Hill, S. E., & Lord, C. G. (2012). Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 957-960. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.010

19. DeLoache, J. S., Pickard, M. B., & LoBue, V. (2011). How very young children think about animals.  In P. McCardle, S. McCune, J. A. Griffin, & V. Maholmes (Eds.), How animals affect us: Examining the influences of human–animal interaction on child development and human health. (pp. 85-99). American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/12301-004

20. Effie. (2007). Izabela Bujniewicz as Jennyanydots and Wojciech Socha as Skimbleshanks in the musical “Cats” in Roma Musical Theatre in Warsaw, December 2007 r. URL available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koty_IzaBujniewicz_WojtekSocha.jpg

[accessed 15 June 2021]

21. Frank, H., & Frank, M.G. (1982). On the effects of domestication on canine social development and behavior. Applied Animal Ethology, 8(6), 507-525. doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(82)90215-2

22. Ganea, P. A., Canfield, C. F., Simons-Ghafari, K., & Chou, T. (2014). Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children’s knowledge about animals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00283

23. Gerbasi, K. C., Paolone, N., Higner, J., Scaletta, L. L., Bernstein, P. L., Conway, S., & Privitera, A. (2008). Furries from A to Z (anthropomorphism to zoomorphism). Society & Animals: Journal of Human-Animal Studies, 16(3), 197-222. doi: 10.1163/156853008X323376

24. Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Gur, R. C., and Sachser, N. (2009a). Baby schema in infant faces induces cuteness perception and motivation for caretaking in adults. Ethology, 115(3), 257-263. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01603.x

25. Glocker, M. L., Langleben, D. D., Ruparel, K., Loughead, J. W., Valdez, J. N., Griffin, M. D., … Gur, R. C. (2009b). Baby schema modulates the brain reward system in nulliparous women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(22), 9115-9119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0811620106

26. Gould, S. J. (1979). Mickey mouse meets Konrad Lorenz. Natural History Magazine, 88(5), 30-36.

27. Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of the need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189-212). New York, NY, USA.

28. Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation. Anthrozoös, 14(4), 204-215. doi: 10.2752/089279301786999355

29. Hsu, K. J., Bailey, J. M. (2019). The “Furry” Phenomenon: Characterizing Sexual Orientation, Sexual Motivation, and Erotic Target Identity Inversions in Male Furries. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(5), 1349-1369. doi: 10.1007/s10508-018-1303-7

30. Jenkins, L. (2015). The Touch of Nature Has Made the Whole World Kin: Interspecies Kin Selection in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. doi: 10.1016/s0378-777x(78)80028-6

31. Julia, W. (2014). Anthrocon 2014. URL available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/foxgrrl/14843099909

[accessed 17 June 2021]

32. Kellert, S. R. (1993). Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conservation Biology, 7(4), 845-855. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1993.740845.x

33. Kellert, S. R. (1997). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society.

Washington: Island Press.

34. Knight, A. (2008). “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 94-103. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.10.001

35. Knight, J. (1999). Monkeys of the move: the natural symbolism of people-macaque conflict in Japan. The Journal of Asian Studies, 58(3), 622-647. doi: 10.2307/2659114

36. Lehmann, V., Huis in‘t Veld, E. M. J., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2013). The human and animal baby schema effect: Correlates of individual differences. Behavioural Processes, 94, 99-108. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.01.001

37. Little, A. C. (2012). Manipulation of infant-like traits affects perceived cuteness of infant, adult and cat faces. Ethology 118(8), 775-782. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2012.02068.x

38. Lobue, V., Bloom Pickard, M., Sherman, K., Axford, C., and DeLoache, J. S. (2013). Young children’s interest in live animals. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 57-69. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02078.x

39. Lorenz, K. (1943). Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 5(2), 233-519. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1943.tb00655.x

40. MacDorman, K. F. (2005). Mortality salience and the uncanny valley. 5th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 2005., 399-405. doi: 10.1109/ICHR.2005.1573600

41. MacDorman, K., Green, R., Ho, C., Koch, C. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny

responses to computer-generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3),

695-710. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.026

42. Mann, J. (2006). Establishing trust: socio-sexual behaviour and the development of male-male bonds among Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins. In  V. Sommer &  P. L. Vasey (Eds.), Homosexual Behaviour in Animals (pp. 107-130). Cambridge

University Press.

43. Margulies, J. D., & Karanth, K. K. (2018). The production of human-wildlife conflict: A political animal geography of encounter. Geoforum, 95, 153-164. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.011

44. Martín-López, B., Montes, C., and Benayes, J. (2007). The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 139(1-2), 67-82. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.005

45. Mock, S.E., Plante, C., Reysen, S., & Gerbasi, K. (2013). Deeper leisure involvement as a coping resource in a stigmatized leisure context. Leisure/Loisir 37(2), 111-126. doi: 10.1080/14927713.2013.801152

46. Moosa, M. M., & Ud-Dean, S. M. M. (2010). Danger Avoidance: An Evolutionary Explanation of Uncanny Valley. Biological Theory, 5(1), 12-14. doi: 10.1162/biot_a_00016

47. Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33-35.

48. Mormann, F., Dubois, J., Kornblith, S., Milosavljevic, M., Cerf, M., Ison, M., et al. (2011). A category-specific response to animals in the right human amygdala. Nature neuroscience, 14(10), 1247-1249. doi: 10.1038/nn.2899

49. Muszkat, M., de Mello, C. B., Muñoz, P., Lucci, T. K., David, V. F., Siqueira, J., & Otta, E. (2015). Face scanning in autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: human versus dog face scanning. Frontiers in psychiatry, 6, 150. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00150

50. New, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(42), 16598-16603. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703913104

51. Nittono, H., Fukushima, M., Yano, A., & Moriya, H. (2012). The Power of Kawaii: Viewing Cute Images Promotes a Careful Behavior and Narrows Attentional Focus. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e46362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046362

52. Nolan, M. (2019). The problem with Cats, The Lion King & the uncanny valley. URL available at: https://www.rte.ie/culture/2019/0730/1065967-the-problem-with-cats-the-lion-king-the-uncanny-valley/

[accessed 20 May 2021]

53. Plante, C. N., Mock, S., Reysen, S., & Gerbasi, K. C. (2011). International Anthropomorphic Research Project: Winter 2011 Online Survey Summary. URL available at: https://sites.google.com/site/anthropomorphicresearch/past-results/international-online-furry-survey-2011 [accessed 20 May 2021]

54. Plante, C. N., Reysen, S., Roberts, S. E., & Gerbasi, K. C. (2016). FurScience! A summary of five years of research from the International Anthropomorphic Research Project. Waterloo, Ontario: FurScience. URL available at: https://sites.google.com/site/anthropomorphicresearch/past-results/international-online-furry-survey-2011 [accessed 20 May 2021]

55. Plante, C. N., Reysen, S., Roberts, S. E., & Gerbasi, K. C. (2018). “Animals Like Us”: Identifying with Nonhuman Animals and Support for Nonhuman Animal Rights. Anthrozoös, 31(2), 165-177. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2018.1434045

56. Plous, S. (1993). Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals. Journal of Social Issues, 49(1), 11-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00907.x

57. Prokop, P., Tolarovićová, A., Camerik, A., & Peterková, V. (2010). High school students’ attitudes towards spiders: a cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Science Education, 32(12), 1665-1688. doi: 10.1080/09500690903253908

58. Půtová, B. (2013). Prehistoric sorcerers and postmodern furries: Anthropological point of view. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 5(7), 243-248. doi: 10.5897/IJSA12.052

59. Rahman, Q., & Hull, M. S. (2005). An empirical test of the kin

selection hypothesis for male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(4),

461-467. doi: 10.1007/s10508-005-4345-6

60. Reysen, S., Plante, C. N., Roberts, S. E., & Gerbasi, K. C. (2015). Ingroup bias and ingroup projection in the furry fandom. International Journal of Psychological Studies 7(4): 49-58. doi: 10.5539/ijps.v7n4p49

61. Roberts, S. E., Plante, C. N., Gerbasi, K. C., & Reysen, S. (2015a). The Anthropomorphic Identity: Furry Fandom Members’ Connections to Nonhuman Animals. Anthrozoos A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 28(4), 533-548. doi: 10.1080/08927936.2015.1069993

62. Roberts, S. E., Plante, C. N., Gerbasi, K. C., & Reysen, S. (2015b). Clinical interaction with anthropomorphic phenomenon: Notes for health professionals about interacting with clients who possess this unusual identity. Health and Social Work, 40(2), e42-e50. doi: 10.1093/hsw/hlv020

63. Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23-41.

64. Schwind, V., Leicht, K., Jäger, S., Wolf, K., & Henze, N. (2018). Is there an uncanny valley of virtual animals? A quantitative and qualitative investigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 111, 49-61. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.11.003

65. Serpell, J. A. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, 145-151.

66. Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing cute images increases behavioral carefulness. Emotion, 9(2), 282-286. doi: 10.1037/a0014904

67. Sprengelmeyer, R., Perrett, D. I., Fagan, E. C., Cornwell, R. E., Lobmaier, J. S., Sprengelmeyer, A., … Young, A. W. (2009). The Cutest Little Baby Face. Psychological Science, 20(2), 149-154. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02272.x.

68. Tinbergen, N. (1953). The Herring Gull’s World. London: Collins.

69. Tisdell, C., Wilson, C., & Swarna Nantha, H. (2006). Public choice of species for the ‘Ark’: phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival. Journal for Nature Conservation, 14(3-4), 266-267. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2006.07.001

70. Wenzel, J. W. (1992). Behavioral Homology and Phylogeny. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23(1), 361-381. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.002045

71. Wilson, E. (1984). Biophilia: The Human Bond with Other Species. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

72. Woods, B. (2000). Beauty and the beast: preferences for animals in Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies, 11(2), 25-35. doi: 10.3316/ielapa.200110918

未经允许不得转载:涨姿势 » 为何有些人会「不兽控」?——探讨兽迷的演化心理学意义

赞 (0) 打赏

觉得文章有用就打赏一下文章作者

支付宝扫一扫打赏

微信扫一扫打赏