Introduction

It is a truth universally acknowledged that people like bees and dislike wasps. This imbalance in emotion does not accurately reflect the importance of both taxa in the environment. We value bees as pollinators and enjoy a long history of co‐habitation and domestication with a few bee species. In contrast, wasps are not valued (despite their role as apex predators), and human–wasp interactions are usually not enjoyable. The root of the problem appears to be our longstanding, culturally ingrained lack of appreciation for their role in ecology and economy. We lack quantitative assessment of the extent to which these stereotypes are upheld by the general public, and an evaluation of why wasps are so socially maligned. Perhaps if we valued wasps as we do bees, we would dislike wasps less.

2013 1921 New Jerusalem Bible, Deuteronomy 7:20; Exodus 23:28; Joshua, 24:12). Reasons for our revulsion are likely to have an evolutionary basis: there is strong selection to learn to recognise, avoid and fear organisms that could inflict pain (stings or bites), spread disease, or kill. Even committed wasp researchers recognise the negative emotions that wasps evoke in humans: … they terrorize housewives, ruin picnics, and build large aerial nests that challenge fleet‐footed stone‐throwing boys the world over. (Evans & Eberhard, 1970) Social wasps are among the least loved insects… yet, where statistics will not alter a general impression, another approach might. Every schoolchild … ought to sit watching a Polistes wasp nest for just one hour … I think that few will be unaffected by what they see. (W.D. Hamilton, 1996) Our disgust with regard to certain arthropods is deeply rooted in our culture and psychology (Lockwood,). Wasps, spiders, cockroaches, fleas, mites and flies are among the most revolted; they are the ‘children of filth’ (Lynd,); God sends hornets as punishment in three books of the Bible (, Deuteronomy 7:20; Exodus 23:28; Joshua, 24:12). Reasons for our revulsion are likely to have an evolutionary basis: there is strong selection to learn to recognise, avoid and fear organisms that could inflict pain (stings or bites), spread disease, or kill. Even committed wasp researchers recognise the negative emotions that wasps evoke in humans:

Our dislike of wasps is largely shaped by a group of wasps that represent less than 1% of the aculeate (stinging) wasps – the Vespines. These consist of 67 species of social wasps which most commonly come into contact with humans –yellowjackets (Vespula, Dolichovespula spp.) and hornets (Vespa, Provespa spp.) (Carpenter & Kojima, 1997). There are at least another 850 species of social wasps [Stenogastrinae (Carpenter & Kojima, 1996) and Polistinae (Ross & Matthews, 1991)]. However, the vast majority of wasps (an excess of 75 000 species) are solitary – these include at least 4000 species of solitary Vespidae [e.g. pollen wasps (Masarinae) and potter wasps (Eumenidae)], over 9000 species of Crabronidae, and some 5000 species of Pompilidae (Spradbery, 1973). There are at least another 650 000 species of parasitic wasps (Parasitica), many of which are undescribed (Aguiar et al., 2013); these insects are small, solitary and mostly lack a stinger and so are not largely recognised as ‘wasps’ by the public. The public's opinion of wasps, therefore, is limited to their experience with less than 1% of this highly diverse and specious group, and more specifically a handful of species (Lester, 2018).

Thanks to the Vespines, wasps are perceived as more dangerous than bees. All aculeate wasps sting, as do all bees, and bee and wasp stings are equally likely to illicit severe allergic reactions in humans. However, wasp stings are perceived as more of a threat than bee stings: over 2300 years ago Aristole (the first published entomologist) described the stings of Vespines (hornets and yellowjackets) as being ‘stronger’ than those of honey bees. More recently, Justin Schmidt has given us quantitative affirmation of Aristotle's observation: in his personal pain calibration scale of insect stings, wasps span the full range of the Schmidt pain scale (0.5–4) whilst bees are relatively less painful (Schmidt scale 0.5–2.5) (Schmidt, 2016). This is, perhaps, a quantifiable reason to dislike wasps more than bees.

Insects provide vital ecological functions in the natural systems on which we depend: they pollinate our crops, regulate populations of arthropod pests and vectors of disease, decompose organic matter and till soils (Losey & Vaughan, 2012; Schowalter et al., 2018). They are pivotal to the balance of our subsistence on this planet. The value of ecosystem services is defined as the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems, and include provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Pollination is a ‘headline’ ecosystem service that has enjoyed a long history of research interest and financial investment into understanding the ecological value of bees as pollinators (Dicks et al., 2013; Vanbergen & Initiative, 2013; Hanley et al., 2015); at least 1500 crop types depend on pollination (Klein et al., 2007) and 3–8% of global crop production depend on insects for this (Aizen et al., 2009). Pollination services are estimated to be worth annually $3 billion in the US alone (Losey & Vaughan, 2012) and upwards of $130 billion globally; but this is likely to be an underestimate, as putting a monetary value on ecosystem services is complex and overlooks the additional impact on people's well‐being (Hanley et al., 2015). Moreover, pollination services are not limited to bees: hoverflies, beetles, butterflies, wasps and bugs all contribute to pollination, but their contributions are not well recognised (Rader et al., 2016). A recent study found that in certain environments the social wasp Vespula pennsylvanica was a more effective pollinator than the honey bee (Thomson, 2018). Ecologists have a responsibility to ensure that the full potential of insects is realised in the health and economy of the global ecosystem (Prather & Laws, 2017).

Insect ecosystem services other than pollination are relatively poorly studied; this includes the regulatory services of insect carnivores, such as predatory and parasitic wasps, which are effective agents of biocontrol. The value of the Parasitica wasps as biocontrol agents is well studied (Narendran, 2001). In contrast, we understand little about the biocontrol potential of the Aculeata wasps. Most aculeate wasps are predatory, hunting other arthropods and feeding them to their brood (Grissell, 2010). The solitary species tend to be specialists (e.g. Pompylidae hunt spiders almost exclusively) whereas social species are thought to be generalists (Grissell, 2010). It is the social wasps (the ones that are so feared by the public), therefore, that are likely to provide important services as regulators of a wide range of insect pests and vectors of disease. By regulating both carnivorous and phytophagous arthropod populations, wasps also indirectly deliver protection to lower invertebrate taxa and various plants. Limiting arthropod population growth is essential as arthropods can reproduce rapidly, reaching population sizes that can have knock‐on detrimental effects on plants and other invertebrate taxa (Gaston & Lawton, 1988). Insectivorous birds, mammals and amphibians are important regulators of insect populations. However, the predatory impact of wasps is likely to be equal or more effective because of their short generation times; thus, insect predator populations can closely match fluctuations in prey populations (Archer, 1985). Social wasps are also likely to be important as biocontrol agents. The ecosystem services provided by biological control has an estimated value of US$417 billion a year (Costanza et al., 1997), and in America alone the value of natural control provided by insects was estimated at US$4.5 billion annually (Losey & Vaughan, 2012). But these estimates overlook the potential contributions to be made by predatory social wasps. Wasps clearly hold high potential for these ecosystem services. Why, therefore, do the public not value wasps as they do their stinging, pollinating counterparts?

Insect populations across taxonomic groups are declining at alarming rates due to land‐use change and/or climate change (Prather et al., 2013; Ollerton et al., 2014; Hallmann et al., 2017); such declines are likely to be affecting the associated ecosystem services (Prather et al., 2013; Oliver et al., 2015). Bee declines are a cause of great concern, with estimates of up to 75% population declines over the last few decades (Senapathi et al., 2015; Woodcock et al., 2016). Wasps are likely to be affected by the same anthropogenic challenges that bees currently face (e.g. agricultural practices, habitat loss) (Isaac et al., 2013; Senapathi et al., 2015) and the data suggest that wasps may be declining at similar rates to bees (Isaac et al., 2013). We cannot afford for cultural stigma to obscure scientific and societal efforts in understanding and conserving insects and the ecosystem services they offer (Hochkirch, 2016; Noriega et al., 2017).

The degree to which the public are informed about the ecological and/or economic value of biodiversity has a strong influence on their attitude and engagement with the environment (Novacek, 2008; Lewandowski & Oberhauser, 2017; Loyau & Schmeller, 2017). This is especially concerning at a time when human–nature interactions are rapidly declining – the ‘extinction of experience’ (Soga & Gaston, 2016). The public's passionate embrace of the importance of bees is one of the few natural world experiences that may not be in danger of extinction. Global societal concerns about the decline of our pollinators has led to a ground‐swell of action from the public, non‐governmental organisations and charities. Scientists have taken advantage of the public's keen interest in bees using citizen science approaches to gather data on bee populations and response to land‐use change. As a result, bees have received a great deal of public exposure and are very popular subject choices for science engagement activities, popular science books and community projects. In contrast, media coverage of wasps is largely negative and restricted to the nuisance they cause in late summer (Sumner & Brock, 2016), or as inspiration for the latest Sci‐Fi movie (Ant‐Man and The Wasp, 2018) or blockbuster thriller (Dhand, 2018). The high (and positive) engagement agenda and media profile of bees and their importance as pollinators are therefore likely to engender positivity among the public towards bees. Equally, the low (and exclusively negative) engagement agenda and media profile of wasps and the lack of information in the public arena on their role in ecosystems are likely to drive the negativity among the public towards wasps (Livingstone et al., 2018). Scientists have the potential to drive the publicity and engagement agenda with respect to the public's exposure to biodiversity issues; the level of research effort on bees and wasps may therefore help to explain the imbalance of exposure that bees and wasps have in the public arena.

We conducted a survey of 748 members of the public to determine whether the contrasting perceptions of wasps and bees are upheld by data, and to better understand the reasons behind the differences. Specifically, we predicted that people would feel more positive to bees and butterflies, and less positive towards wasps and flies (Prediction 1). We then focused on the pairwise comparison of bees and wasps: we tested the prediction that the general public recognises ecosystem services that wasps offer (i.e. as natural pest controllers) less than they do the ecosystem services of bees (i.e. as pollinators) (Prediction 2). Next, we examined to what extent these biases were upheld among the scientific community: we test the prediction that research effort on wasps in general and with respect to ecosystem services is under‐represented relative to that on bees (Prediction 3). The results show that wasps are unpopular among both the public and scientists; the data suggest that lack of knowledge (among the public) and lack of research effort (among scientists) with regard to the ecosystem value of wasps are likely to be at the root of the negative perception.

We discuss how the general negative emotion toward wasps is likely to be a form of the culturally ingrained implicit bias, and that this is being perpetuated by the lack of sufficient scientific research on the ecosystem value of wasps; this may reinforce a positive feedback loop between the public (through their dislike of wasps) and the scientists (through their reluctance to study wasps). We suggest that positive action to overhaul the public relations image of wasps via outreach and the media could help to reset the imbalance in appreciation of two of the world's most ecologically important taxa. Shifting cultural perceptions of wasps will encourage conservation and management strategies that work with these important facets of natural capital, rather than against them.