Public Attitudes Toward Urban Arthropods
David N. Byrne, Edwin H. Carpenter,
Ellen M. Thoms, and Susanne T. Cotty
Abstract
To better understand the public's attitude toward arthropods, a telephone survey was conducted of 1,117 households in Arizona.
Only a small percentage (6.0%) took pleasure from arthropods encountered outside the home, whereas fewer still « 1.0%) enjoyed
those found inside the home. Conversely, over half of those interviewed said they either disliked or were afraid of outdoor arthropods,
and 88% were either afraid of or disliked indoor arthropods. Attitudes toward indoor and outdoor arthropods were separately
dependent (P < 0.05) upon sex, level of education, residence in a metropolitan area, and whether or not the respondents owned or
rented the home in which they lived. Attitudes toward outdoor arthropods were separately dependent upon age and family income.
A multivariate analysis indicated these variables were independent of one another in respondent relations toward arthropods. When
asked to rate certain animals relative to one another, we found that respondents readily discriminate between desirable and undesirable
arthropods. The gathering of precise information concerning public attitudes is thought to be a critical step in the implementation of
any urban pest management program. The information can be used to identify societal groups that are most receptive to educational
programs concerning urban pest biology and most willing to participate in urban pest management programs.
I
tis difficult for entomologists to assess the public's attitude toward arthropods primarily because we
commonly tend to dismiss negative public
reactions as being ill-founded and trivial.
A failure to appreciate the nonscientific
point of view could lead to inappropriate
policy decisions and research. If we assume that householders are willing to accept certain insect population levels
when they are not, control regimes predicated on that assumption are not likely
to succeed. If we measure the success of
a control strategy by its ability to minimize contact between humans and arthropods, when the public enjoys certain of
these animals, our research has been a disservice.
Several informative papers have been
published as a result of surveys that address questions concerning human interactions with urban arthropods. Although
these accounts primarily focused on both
chemical and nonchemical control efforts,
several did offer some insight into public
attitudes toward arthropods. Frankie and
Levenson (1978) found that individuals
who responded positively to insects were
more likely to be able to name a nonchemical method of insect control and
were less inclined to use insecticides.
They also found geographical differences
in attitudes toward insects. Robinson
(1980) found that Virginia homeowners
were selectively knowledgeable about
urban insects because most interviewees
had some understanding of termite biology, whereas they knew little about old
house borers, carpenter ants, or powderpost beetles. Levenson and Frankie
(1983), in a survey conducted in California, New Jersey, and Texas, found that
40
about half of the people interviewed responded positively to the question, "Are
there any insects that you like?",and these
people tended to be younger and white.
Bennett et al. (1983) found that 72% of
those interviewed were aware of beneficial insects.
The purpose of this Arizona study was
to gather information on the attitude of
state residents toward arthropods for use
in the implementation of a program to disseminate information on urban pest biology. In this study we wanted to determine specifically:how people react to the
presence of arthropods in and around
their homes; if individuals with different
demographic profiles react differently to
the presence of arthropods; how people
feel about arthropods relative to other animals; and if arthropods found in Arizona
are perceived as a threat to human welfare.
Materials and Methods
We used a telephone survey technique
involving 1,117 households. The survey
instrument was a 26-item questionnaire
designed to take less than 15 min to complete. It was drafted and tested following
the recommendations in Dillman (1978).
Residential numbers from all current telephone directories in Arizona served as the
universe from which the survey sample
was drawn. The number of households se·
lected from each directory was based on
the number of people serviced by that directory. Page numbers and position of
names on the page were selected randomly. To provide sufficient numbers of
non-metropolitan
respondents,
the
sample was split, with approximately
equal numbers being drawn from metropolitan and non· metropolitan areas. (A
metropolitan area is defined by the U.S.
Department of Commerce [1982] as one
which contains a city with greater than
50,000 inhabitants). This was necessary
because about 75% of Arizona residents
live in either the Phoenix or the Tucson
area, and drawing 75% of our sample from
those two cities would make comparisons
of urban and rural attitudes difficult.
Interviewers were members of a university student population who were not
involved in the entomological sciences.
The latter characteristic was important to
reduce the likelihood that interviewers
would attempt to interpret questions for
the respondents. When choosing interviewers, attention was paid to telephone
mannerisms such as courtesy, and to com·
munication skills such as diction. All in·
terviewers were trained in the interview
techniques outlined by Cannell and Kahn
( 1969).
Questions specifically addressing atti·
tudes toward arthropods were asked at
the beginning of each interview so that
later questions concerning such topics as
pestiferous species and control techniques would not bias the respondents.
Results and Discussion
A comparison of the demographics of
the survey's respondents with those for
the entire state's population (U.S.Department of Commerce 1982) indicated that
the compositions were approximately the
same. Of the survey respondents, 57.8%
were female versus 50.8% found in the
population census. Also,the percentage of
people found in our survey's five age
BULLETIN OF THE ESA
Table 1. Public responses to questions
concerning attitudes
toward urban arthropods
Question
Response
1. Which of the following state·
ments best describes how you
feci about insects you might find
in your yard? (n =0 1,027)
a. 1 am afraid of them
b. I dislike them
c. I tolerate them
d. I enjoy their presence
%
4.5
37.6
51.9
6.0
2. Which of the following state·
ments best describes how you
feci about insects you might find
inside your home? (Il =0 1,089)
a. I am afraid of them
b. I dislike them
c. I tolerate them
d. 1 enjoy their presence
4.6
83.5
11.2
0.7
groups did not vary by more than 1.7 percentage points from those found in the
census data.
In other surveys large portions of those
interviewed responded in a generally pos·
itive manner to questions
concerning
their attitudes toward arthropods. Fifty·
two percent of those interviewed by Levenson and Frankie (1983) answered yes
to the nonspecific question, "Are there
any insects that you like?" By contrast, we
found that, when asked the location of en·
counter and specifically
how they felt
about arthropods, very few of our interviewees took pleasure from their association with these animals (Table 1). When
asked how they felt about arthropods
found in the immediate area outside the
home (outdoor arthropods),
only 6.0%
said they enjoyed them. Only about half
the respondents were willing to tolerate
their presence, whereas the remainder
had a definite
negative reaction,
expressing an attitude of either fear or dislike. We found that people reacted even
more negatively to arthropods inside the
home (indoor
arthropods).
Approximately 88% of the interviewees reported
they were either afraid of or disliked indoor arthropods. Only about 11 % were
willing to tolerate an association with indoor arthropods, whereas less than 1%
claimed to enjoy these encounters.
No simple explanation exists for why
such a high percentage
of respondents
disliked or were afraid of indoor arthropods. Of those commonly reported by the
respondents (Table 5), none are capable
of doing extensive damage to the structure or its contents,
and few threaten
human physical health. Nonetheless, reSliMMER 1984
spondents may perceive arthropods
in
their homes as a liability by viewing them
as indicators of unsanitary conditions, or
as intruders, or because they feel arthropods are health hazards.
The results of the chi-square analyses
comparing attitudes toward indoor and
outdoor arthropods and separate demographic characteristics are shown in Tables 2 and 3. We found that attitudes toward indoor and outdoor
arthropods
were separately dependent (P < 0.05)
upon sex, level of education, residence in
a metropolitan area, and whether or not
the respondents
owned or rented the
home in which they lived. Additionally,
attitudes
toward outdoor
arthropods
were separately dependent (P < 0.05)
upon age and family income.
Females generally responded more negatively to both indoor and outdoor arthropods (Tables 2 and 3). Approximately
equal percentages of both sexes indicated
"dislike" of outdoor and indoor arthropods. Approximately
equal percentages
also reported that they enjoyed outdoor
and indoor arthropods. Males, however,
claimed to be more tolerant than females
of arthropods found in both situations.
The sexual dichotomy in attitudes toward arthropods is difficult to explain, but
it is not unreasonable to assume that it
may be a function of societal expectations
and early training rather than endogenous
sexual differences.
Distinct attitude patterns also emerged
when we examined their relationship
with the level of the respondent's formal
education (Tables 2 and 3). The over·
whelming majority of the interviewees
who had not graduated from high school
responded negatively when asked to describe their attitudes toward outdoor arthropods; i.e., they were either afraid of
or disliked them. This contrasts with the
proportion of college graduates who responded negatively to the presence of
outdoor arthropods-less
than one third.
More similar percentages of these two education groups reacted negatively to indoor arthropods.
It may be that the
greater willingness to tolerate or enjoy
the presence
of arthropods
results directly from knowledge obtained from participation in a biological science program
or is the by-product of intellectual flexi·
Table 2. Demographics of responses to question, "Which of the following statements
best describes how you feel about insects you might find in your yard?"
Response
No. of
respondents
Characteristic
Sex"
Female
Male
Age" (yr)
18-30
31-40
41-50
51-65
>65
Education"
<High school
Some high school
High school graduate
Trade school
Some college
College graduate
Postgraduate
Family income (S)"
5,000- 15,000
15,001- 25,000
25,001- 50,000
>50,000
Residence location"
Metropolitan
Non·metropolitan
Residence ownership"
Own
Rent
" Significance (P
< 0.05)
Afraid
Dislike
Tolerate
Enjoy
5.2%
7.3
646
471
6.8%
0.2
39.5%
35.1
48.5%
59.4
328
239
145
217
197
6.0
3.7
0.8
2.5
7.0
39.4
26.6
33.1
39.4
50.0
48.5
59.2
59.4
54.0
40.7
6.1
10.6
6.8
4.0
2.3
46
96
309
57
317
171
127
3.0
10.7
6.0
4.0
4.4
1.9
0.8
60.6
53.6
42.2
42.0
34.4
30.8
23.1
36.4
33.3
47.5
48.0
55.3
60.4
61.5
0.0
2.4
4.2
6.0
5.8
6.9
14.5
258
330
325
64
6.8
4.0
2.6
3.4
36.2
37.9
35.6
30.5
52.0
52.2
52.8
59.3
5.0
6.0
7.9
1.7
558
575
3.6
5.3
40.4
34.7
51.0
52.8
5.0
7.1
833
275
4.1
5.8
40.6
26.8
49.8
59.5
5.5
7.8
within subsets.
41
bility stimulated by higher education.
As indicated, attitudes toward both indoor and outdoor arthropods were dependent upon whether the respondent
lived in an area designated as either metropolitan or non-metropolitan.
Approximately 12% of the people living in nonmetropolitan
situations responded
that
they either enjoyed or tolerated indoor
arthropods, and 60% reported feeling the
same way toward outdoor arthropods.
People living in metropolitan
situations
responded
in this positive or neutral
manner to indoor arthropods II % of the
time and to outdoor arthropods 56% of
the time.
Finally, we found that renters
responded more positively to both indoor
and outdoor
arthropods
than homeowners. Approximately 16% of the reno
ters in our survey either enjoyed or tolerated indoor arthropods, whereas only
about 10% of the homeowners
did so.
About 67% of the renters responded that
they either enjoyed or tolerated outdoor
arthropods whereas 55% of the homeowners did so. These homeowners' feelings of antipathy to indoor arthropods
may again be a result of a nonspecific, perceived threat to their property, which
renters would not be as likely to experience. Renters, especially those living in
apartments, are thought to be less cognizant of the area immediately surrounding
their home and therefore feel less threatened by what might be found there.
There were two demographic characteristics, age and family income, for which
attitudinal dependency (P < 0.05) was
found for outdoor but not indoor arthro·
pods. Individuals in the two middle age
groups (31-40 years and 41-50 years)
enjoyed or tolerated outdoor arthropods
about 68% of the time, whereas individuals in the three age groups near the extremes (18-30,
51-65 and >65 years)
responded positively or neutrally about
52% of the time. Individuals who were
members of families making more than
$25,000 per year enjoyed or tolerated
outdoor arthropods
about 62% of the
time, whereas
members
of families
making less than 525,000 responded in
this manner 58% of the time.
By using a multivariate analysis, a hierarchical set of logit chi-square models was
fitted to the data. The best·fitting models indicated that the above descriptions
of
variables being independently related to
how people feel about arthropods,
indoors and outdoors, are complete and
parsimonious.
To determine how respondents in our
survey felt about arthropods as compared
42
with other animals, we asked them to rate
nine animals on a scale of 0 to100. They
were told to assume that a deer was worth
50 points. If they liked the animal more
than a deer they should give it more than
50 points, and if they liked it less than a
deer, it should receive less than 50 points.
The results of this rating are shown in
Table 4.
A nationwide study by Carpenter and
Blackwood (1979) included three animals that were also used in our survey.
These were the deer (which was given 50
points), the bald eagle, and the skunk. The
bald eagle was one of the highest rated
animals, with a mean rating of 62.7 points,
and the skunk was the lowest rated, with
a mean rating of 23.8. These compare favorably with the ratings received in our
survey (Table 4). Four arthropods in our
survey, garden spiders, crickets, ants, and
scorpions,
were rated lower than the
skunk. Scorpions were rated the lowest.
At the same time, the three other arthropods in our survey-honey
bees, ladybird
beetles, and butterflies-received
scores
ranging from 42.0 to 57.9.
These results support the fact that our
respondents do not hold certain arthropods in high regard, although it should be
noted that they did differentiate decidedly
between such arthropods
as scorpions
and butterflies.
A chi-square analysis also showed that
assigned ratings were consistently dependent (P < 0.05) on sex, and independent
of the other five demographic characteristics examined. Females rated butterflies
and ladybird beetles significantly higher
than did males, whereas males rated bald
eagles, honeybees, and scorpions significantly higher than did females. This may
also be a matter of societal expectation,
with males being somewhat more hesitant
to admit they they feel uneasy about scorpions or that they feel an affinity for butterflies.
To identify which arthropods Arizona
householders came in contact with and
which they regarded as pests, they were
asked the open-ended
question, "What
kind of insects have you noticed around
your home this past year?" Fifteen arthropods were mentioned by at least 3% of
Table 3. Demographics of responses to the question, "Which of the following
statements best describes how you feel about insects you might find
inside your house?"
Response
Characteristic
Sexa
Female
Male
Age
18-30 years
31-40 years
41-50 years
51-65 years
>65 years
Educationa
<High school
Some high school
High school graduate
Trade school
Some college
College graduate
Postgraduate
Family Income (S)
5,000-15,000
15,001-25,000
25,001- 50,000
>50,000
Residence locationa
Metropolitan
Non-metropolitan
Residence ownershipa
Own
Rent
a
No. of
respondents
Afraid
Dislike
Tolerate
Enjoy
642
468
6.6%
1.6
83.2%
83.5
9.4%
13.6
0.3%
1.4
323
233
144
211
193
7.0
3.9
2.1
1.9
6.0
81.8
79.6
84.4
88.8
80.0
10.5
15.2
12.0
9.2
8.5
0.6
1.3
1.4
0.0
0.5
46
96
306
56
316
169
127
9.5
9.7
5.8
5.7
5.2
0.0
0.8
83.3
77.4
84.4
83.0
85.7
82.0
82.0
4.8
12.9
8.5
9.4
8.8
16.8
15.6
2.4
0.9
0.3
1.9
0.3
1.2
1.6
254
322
323
61
8.1
4.4
1.9
3.3
77.7
85.4
87.1
85.2
13.0
9.6
10.4
9.8
1.2
0.6
0.6
1.6
550
561
3.5
5.7
85.1
81.8
11.0
11.4
0.4
1.1
818
268
4.2
6.1
85.4
78.3
9.8
14.4
0.5
1.1
Significance (P < 0.05) within subsets.
BULLETINOF THE ESA
the interviewees (Table 5). Crickets were
mentioned by more than 70% of the reo
spondents-almost
twice as frequently as
any other. Near 30 to 35% of those inter·
viewed reported seeings ants, spiders, and
black widow spiders specifically. Flies and
cockroaches
were reported
by about
20%; grasshoppers by 14%; scorpions by
abom 12%; and the remainder, including
butterflies,
earwigs, ladybird beetles,
ticks, silverfish and aphids, by less than
10%.
It may be significant in the social sense
that, whereas almost 30% of the people
interviewed report the presence of black
widow spiders, less than 10% reported
butterflies.
This is surprising. Because
black widow spiders are known to be nocturnal and generalIy reclusive animals,
whereas many butterflies are attractive,
conspicuous, diurnal insects, the reverse
would be expected. Perhaps the fact that
black widow spiders are recognized as
being a health hazard indicates that the
public is more apt to focus on the negative features associated with arthropods
than on the positive. This supports the
statements by Kellert and Berry (1980)
that, whereas the public has a rather limited knowledge of animals, they are more
aw,tn: of those which can injure humans.
The arthropod lists that interviewees
had generated were read back to them,
and they were asked to identify animals
they considered a problem. With the exception of butterflies and ladybird beetles,
which were a problem for less than 5%
of the respondents,
alI the arthropods
were identified as pests by at least 40%
of those interviewed (Table 5).
We were also interested to see ifpeople
exhibit more or less concern about ar·
thropods found in our state when comp;tred with those encountered elsewhere.
A large percentage (84.3%) had lived in
states other than Arizona. These people
were asked to describe how they feIt
about the arthropods found in Arizona as
compared with those found at their previous addresses. Approximately half said
they fclt no differently. The remainder
were almost evenly divided in their opin·
ions, with 25.1% saying they felt better
about the arthropods they found in Ari·
zona and 25.9% saying they felt better
about those found at their previous addresses.
The responses provided by those who
fclt better about the arthropods found in
Arizona (n :::: 231) again substantiated
the fact that people dislike arthropods.
The reason most often given ( 49.4% ) for
feeling better about Arizona's arthropods
was that the interviewees believed there
SliMMER 1984
were fewer of them. Approximately 30%
felt they caused fewer problems. Only
11 % of the respondents found them more
interesting. The remainder gave no spe·
cific reason.
The reasons given by the 224 people
who felt worse about Arizona's arthro·
pods were almost evenly divided among
the four detractors presented. Their reo
sponses to the question, "Why do you feel
that the insects in Arizona are more of a
problem?", were as folIows: (a) they are
less pleasing to look at, 21.9%; Cb) there
are more of them, 25.0%; (c) they are
more of a nuisance, 21.4%; Cd) they are
potentially
more harmful, 20.5%; Ce)
other, 11.2%.
such as pesticides. Further, it appears that
area-wide efforts to educate the public
must be attempted before going forward
with any pest management schemes.
Surveys such as ours can be used to
identify starting points for these efforts.
We might conclude, for example, that in
Arizona individuals who have spent more
time receiving formal education are more
tolerant and less fearful of arthropods and
would be more willing to accept arthro·
pods. They might therefore
be more
agreeable to spending time learning about
urban arthropod biology. The results of
Conclusions
Some caution should be exercised in
drawing general conclusions concerning
the public's attitude toward urban arthropods based on a study done in one state,
because some regional differences might
be expected; however, it would be inappropriate to conclude that Arizona residents are so different that they do not
share some attitudes with residents of
other states.
It is difficult to explain why our respondents hold arthropods in such low
regard in contrast to those surveyed in
previous studies, but the data from the
questions concerning their feelings toward these animals and the ratings as·
signed arthropods relative to other ani·
mals indicate overwhelmingly that that is
the case. We suspect that when respondents are asked how they feel about ar·
thropods in a particular "lifelike" circum·
stance, or when asked to make a direct
comparison with other animals, they are
more likely to express negative feelings
than when asked more general, nonspe·
cific questions.
Many of the management plans devel·
oped for dealing with urban pests require
that urban residents accept certain min·
imal arthropod populations
inside and
outside their homes. In the face of our
findings, one would conclude that most
people are not as comfortable in the close
presence of arthropods as was indicated
previously. If this is true, then dealing
with the negative attitudes of the public
must receive top priority when implementing any urban pest management program. We believe that the key to effecting
changes in these attitudes is education. As
an example, an effort on the part of en·
tomologists should be made to explain
urban arthropod
biology rather than
simply recommending control techniques
Table 4. Mean response to questions
concerning animal affinity (scale, 0- 100)
Animal
Rating
Bald eagle
Butterfly
Ladybird beetle
Honey bee
Skunk
Garden spider
Cricket
Ant
Scorpion
71.9
57.9
53.9
42.6
24.4
23.9
21.0
18.7
10.2
Table 5. Arthropods reported by
interviewees as being present
in urban settings
% Respon-
Animal
Cricket
Ant
Spider
Black widow
spider
Fly
Cockroach
Grasshopper
Scorpion
Beetle
Butterfly
Earwig
Ladybird
beetle
Tick
Silverfish
Aphid
dents
reporting
presence
% Perceived
as pests by
respondents
71.1
37.8
37.5
72.6
66.6
41.7
29.2
21.5
17.6
14.0
11.6
9.9
9.8
9.1
69.8
83.6
86.0
54.8
65.1
44.5
4.7
68.9
8.6
5.6
5.4
2.1
91.9
67.2
84.6
3.3
43
our survey indicate that the same might
be said of people living in non-metropolitan areas, of renters, and of people in
upper-income brackets.
Free
Color Slide
Catalog!
Acknowledgment
We thank H. E. DeVries of the University of
Arizona Council for Environmental Studies for
her valuable suggestions during an early review
of this manuscript.
References Cited
Bennett, G. W., E. S. Runstrom, and}. A.
Wieland. 1983. Pesticide use in homes. BulL
Entomol. Soc. Am. 29: 31-38.
Cannell, C. F., and R.1. Kahn. 1969. Interviewing, pp. 526-595. In G. Linzey and E.
Aronson [eds. I, The handbook of social psychology. Vol. 2. Addison Wesley, Readington,
Mass.
Carpenter,
E. H., and 1. G. Blackwood.
1979. The effect of question position on responses to attitudinal questions. Rural Sociol.
44: 56-72.
Dilbnan, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone sur·
veys: the total design method. John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd., New York.
Frankie, G. W., and H. Levenson. 1978. Insect problems and insecticide use: public
opinion, information and behavior, pp. 359399. In G.W. Frankie and C. S.Koehler [eds.I,
Perspectives in urban entomology. Academic
Press, New York.
KeUert, S. R., and}. K. Berry. 1980. Phase III:
knowledge affection and basic attitudes toward animals in American society. U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Levenson, H., and G. W. Frankie. 1981. Pest
control in the urban environment, pp. 251272. In T. O'Riordan and R. K. Turner [eds I.,
Progress in resource management planning.
Vol. 3. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New York.
Levenson, H., and G. W. Frankie. 1983. A
study of homeowner attitudes and practices
toward arthropod pests and pesticides in
three U.S. metropolitan areas. In G. W.
Frankie and C. S. Koehler [eds. I, Urban entomology: interdisciplinary perspectives.
Praeger Press, New York. (in press).
Robinson, W. H. 1980. Homeowner knowledge of wood-infesting insects. Meisheimer
Entomol. Ser. 29: 48-52.
U.S. Department
of Commerce.
1982.
Census of population: general population
characteristics. U.S.Government Printing Of·
fice, Washington, D.C.
Thousands of insects and related
structural pests in High Quality
COLOR slides. Super as teaching aids,
they are being used by universities and
governmental agencies to show proper
identification and life cycles.
Get your free color slide catalog·by
sending in this coupon today!
•
Van Waters & Rogers
2600 Campus Dr., San Mateo, CA 94403
Attn: Norm Ehmann
Ariz. Agric. Exp. Stn. Journal Series No.
3766. Received for publication 9 June
1983; accepted 13 February 1984.
Address: (Byrne) Dept of Entomology,
(Carpenter) Dept of Agricultural Economics, (Cotty) Council for Environmental Studies, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ 85721. (Thoms) Dept of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute,
Blacksburg, VA 24061.
•
44
Yes! Please send a free color catalog to:
Name
Address
City/State
Zip
BULLETINOF THE ESA