What interferes with conducting free lists? A comparative ethnobotanical experiment

Table 1 Description of the scenario in which the interviews took place and the variables considered as external stimulus of the Altos dos Canutos Community, Municipality of Picos, PI

Variables	Percentage (%)
Location
Same location	61.16
Different location	38.84
Location type
Interviewee’s house	91.26
Neighbor’s house, work	8.74
Open place	57.28
Closed place	42.71
Third party presence
Absence	23.31
One event	54.36
Two events	22.33
Third party
Friend	6.77
Family (grandchild, uncle, mother in law, father, etc.)	42.37
Partner	42.37
Neighbor	8.47
Third party interference
No interference	33.01
Interfered in one free list	55.34
Interference in the two free lists	11.65
Presence of factors
Absence	63.10
One event	33.98
Two events	2.92
Type of factors
Watching TV	26.82
Working	19.52
Domestic activity	19.52
People chatting nearby	12.19
Caring for child	14.64
Others	7.31

To test the third hypothesis, we performed a Spearman correlation test with the number of interviewees that mentioned each species in the two free list events

ISSN: 1746-4269