Sharks are often depicted in the media as violent killers that actively seek out opportunities to harm humans. This framing may impact human tolerance and support of shark conservation, underscoring the need to identify strategies that counteract these negative representations. Social media, given its widespread use, could be an effective platform for shaping public tolerance for sharks and other wildlife species. In this experimental study, we conducted an online pre‐post survey in Spring 2020 to determine how viewing shark‐related YouTube videos impacted tolerance for sharks among residents (n = 335) in the coastal state of North Carolina (NC), USA and neighboring states. The study employed framing theory, which suggests that the ways in which information is presented influence how it is processed and the actions that result from it. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two video treatments where sharks were framed positively or negatively. Each video treatment impacted tolerance for sharks in the direction of their framing: positive framing influenced positive changes in tolerance (70% more positive attitudes toward sharks, a 130% increase in acceptance of sharks and a 46% increase in intended shark conservation behaviors), and negative framing influenced negative changes (25% more negative attitudes toward sharks, a 18% decrease in acceptance of sharks and a 3% decrease in intended shark conservation behaviors). These findings suggest positive messages about sharks on social media promote tolerance of sharks and can be more impactful than negative messages. At least one form of social media, YouTube, appears to be a valuable tool for encouraging tolerance for sharks.

No abstract

Conservation of snakes is influenced by humans’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward these often-maligned animals. We investigated public attitudes toward snakes through an online survey of undergraduate students (n = 743) at a large public university in a southeastern U.S. state. We used behavioral intent (i.e., how a person would react if they encountered a snake) to assess tolerance of different snake species. We also examined various predictors of tolerance including demographic attributes and a variety of cognitive (e.g., knowledge, value orientations) and affective (e.g., emotions) social-psychological variables. Tolerance of snakes varied based on whether the snake was venomous or non-venomous: about 36% of students said they were likely to kill venomous snakes they encountered, compared with 9% who said they would kill non-venomous snakes and 21% of students who said they would kill snakes whose identity was uncertain. However, most students (54%) could not distinguish between venomous and non-venomous species. Value orientations and emotions were strong predictors of tolerance for snakes, suggesting snake outreach and management strategies should account for both cognitive and affective antecedents of behavior.