Talk:Bambi effect/Archive 1

Psychology?
I question the validity of this as a psychological effect; isn't this just basic human compassion? References would be nice. --Marco Passarani 18:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

wouldn't the fact that not everyone feels that a gut reaction to the hunting of animals based on cuteness, and not all of those people are hunters, indicate that this is not basic human compassion?
 * Good point; compassion is relative. Now let me pose something: gorilla skin makes up a large portion of a country's GDP.  Hunters of the gorillas kill them by bludgeoning them, because it keeps the skin in its best condition.  One day, a newspaper runs a story about how hunter's kill them, and suddenly there is massive public outcry.  People call for a ban on gorilla hunting.  Gorilla skin, however, makes up enough of the GDP that a hunting ban would collapse the economy.


 * My point is that this doesn't seem to be some mental illness; it seems more like ignorance. Situations like this occur in politics every day.  Because of the lack of sources, this whole thing seems like it was made up by hunters as a means of demeaning tree-huggers, not something with actual scientific grounding.  Couldn't you could just as easily say that it's the hunters who have a psychological condition?  "It is a condition among hunters in which profit dominates the afflicted's mind.  This leads hunters to kill animals in ineffective, often cruel methods.  The hunter will defend his actions thoroughly and always considers himself correct, even in the face of massive public outcry."


 * Anyway, this is quite excessive, especially considering how small the edit would be. Once again I'll ask whether this belong among psychology stubs.--Marco Passarani 23:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's a simple argument for it being a psychological effect. I eat deer meat, I eat rabbit meat, I eat buffallo meant, I've eaten kangaroo, crocodile, alligator, snail (escargot with garlic butter sauce... heaven), and wouldn't mind trying rat or bear or many other forms of meat.  Most people would balk at the idea of eating a rabbit (I'll use a cute example, to demonstrate the Bambi Effect; rabbit=Thumper) not because it is cute, but because of a psychological mindset that tells them that eating a (forgive my language, but it emphasises the piont) cow's ass, a chicken's boob, and a pigs thigh (pigs skin in some cases, quite a tasty snack :D) is acceptable and not "disgusting" while eating any part of a rabbit is not.  Some people have a psychological aversion to eating some meats, not a compassion-based argument against it.  The killing of a rabbit with a rifle and being taken home and skinned is far more humane than walking a cow into a booth, shooting it in the head and processing it as if it was a recycling plant.  The examples chosen for this article are wrong.  There are some public movements that are based on the Bambi Effect, but are caused by different motivations.  The torture of an animal will always invoke some measure of compassion, but it doesn't properly emphasise the psychological aversion to the hunting of certain animals.  Once again, it is considered far more acceptable to grow an animal simply to be eaten than it is to kill a relatively small number of wild animals (compared to the total number of such animals) for their pelts.  Of course, when you get into overhunting, it becomes an ecological and economic issue, but I believe I've made my point.--71.235.66.254 03:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of definition?
The article limits the definition to animals who are hunted by humans, whether for meat, sport, or other goods. Recently, I had to kill a mouse for my parents, who are both terrified of mice. I, however, find mice and rodents in general to be cute. Although I myself didn't have a problem killing it, I wonder if other people do. This situation doesn't fall into the current definition because rodents in a household are not hunted or killed for sport, meat, or other goods. I would add this if not for fear of it being deleted for being an opinion and not a supported fact. Additionally, the article doesn't cite a single source to begin with. Does anyone now any reputable sources for information on this topic? 71.188.64.147 21:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced
A classic example is the reaction of the seal pup hunt in Canada. While the hunt for the profitable white fur that seal pup was done for generations, the situation radically changed in the 1970s when the species received considerable mass media attention. For much of the general public, harp seal pups with their white fur and liquid black eyes looked so innocent and adorable that the footage of hunters killing them by bludgeoning to death to avoid damaging the fur was considered horrific. Hunters were frustrated because of their belief that arguments in favor of the hunt lost out in the face of such an emotional response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hunting Magazines
Note that both Outdoor Life and Field and Stream have stated that anything Bambi is all Bullshit and they had a cartoon of nearly naked women stating "Gimmie BS", and they were all dressed AS Bambi, making fun of PETA and all other "animal rights" groups as being "in it `for the money, fuck the animals` " kind of mentality. Can that be stated ? 65.163.112.205 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggest Article Outline: Bambi Effect in animal rights debates, use in entertainment industry
I believe this article is important, and should be elaborated upon. This topic spans several psychological subjects, as well as an important argument between the pro hunting/trapping/fishing/ranching body and the animal rights body. The entertainment industry also exploits Bambi Effect principles, primarily in animated features. I once saw a television program (I must research this to site it) where the appeal of Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny were explained. Creating "baby faces," with big eyes, big ears, a tiny button nose, all these factors touch something in the mammalian brain we humans possess, triggering a parental care response, and thus, affection. This psychological manipulation is subliminal, and it doesn't have much detrimental effect (in cartoons) in society, as entertainment is just entertainment. However, in the real world, the "Bambi Effect" can cause hesitation and anxiety among first-time hunters, livestock slaughterers, and trappers. Fur-bearing mammals, deer, and some rodents like weasels often have a "baby face" as explained above, even into adulthood. When a furbearer is perplexed, such as when it is confined to a trap that he can't understand, or when a doe stares at a hunter without running or recognizing danger, it can be difficult to overcome the parental/affection response the baby-face produces. With coaching from adults or peers, the Bambi Effect can be overcome, and any guilt produced by the effect eliminated. The pro-hunting body of people would argue that overcoming the Bambi Effect or Baby Face effect is a sign of gaining emotional maturity, while the opposing side would argue instead that this is a type of desensitization to an act that is unethical. The pro-hunting body counters this argument by pointing out the fact that sympathy for animals is usually extended only to "cute" ones, primarily mammals with baby faces. There is a distinct lack of "save the sharks!" T-shirts, and while protests of fur stores selling garments made from cute and cuddly mink, raccoon and river otter, one rarely sees a protest outside a fish market or deli serving turkey sandwiches. I believe the article should be written with an outline like this in mind:

1. Definition of Bambi Effect or Baby Face Effect. 2. Picture of Bugs Bunny, Bambi, or the Chip N' Dale chipmunks. 3. Elaboration of definition, describing facial characteristics that appeal to the parental instincts of mammals, cite psychology experts. 4. Use of Bambi Effect in the entertainment industry, cite industry leaders and tv programs, short list of cartoon characters displaying Bambi Effect baby-faces. 5. Paragraph here, listing any prominent psychologists that do not believe in the Bambi Effect and their views. 6. Section here, on how the Bambi Effect is part of a wider argument between pro animal use bodies and pro animal rights bodies. List the points of contention, such as "cute" animals depicted as suffering garner more public outcry than "ugly" animals like sharks and vultures. 7. Links to: -other psychology articles, such as Anthropomorphism -animal rights articles, such as Speciesism, Anthropocentrism -conservation and wildlife management links, Wildlife management, Conservation Movement

I do not feel personally qualified to write the entire article, as I am not a psychology major, but I can contribute to the sections outlining the animal rights debate. Hopefully, this outline will help an expert on psychology to create the bulk of the article.Tsarevna (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just make sure anything is verifable. MikeHobday (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)