Attitudes toward wildlife shape support for and opposition to myriad conservation actions worldwide. Scholars have long debated what are the most critical factors shaping these attitudes, and research on carnivores has often treated important factors such as values, identity, and place (VIPs), as independent of one another. To better integrate these factors in the context of explaining attitudes toward wolves (Canis lupus), we explore the effect of: (i) region of the United States [Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM), Western Great Lakes (WGL), and the remainder of the country], (ii) sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, income, urban/rural residency, and education), (iii) indicators of one's social identity (hunter, farmer, environmentalist, and animal rights advocate), and (iv) wildlife value orientations (mutualism and domination). Using one-way analysis of variance tests and hierarchical regression analyses, we found that attitudes do not statistically differ across regions with wolves (compared to regions without wolves), yet the people who identify with interest groups most likely to directly impact or be impacted by wolf populations, such as farmers/ranchers, are less tolerant of wolves when they live closer to them (i.e., in the NRM and WGL) even when accounting for individual-level values. By examining attitudes toward wolves at a spatial scale not commonly assessed, this study seeks to enhance current understandings of the impact of VIPs, while serving as a guide to inform future research and policies regarding carnivore management.

As conservation scholars increasingly recognize the critical role of human thought and behavior in determining the persistence of biodiversity across the globe, a growing line of inquiry regarding the validity and comparability of previous applications of core psychological concepts has emerged. Specifically, inconsistent measurement and use of terms, such as attitudes and acceptance, reveal important questions about previous approaches. Given that these concepts differ by definition, yet have been used interchangeably, we explored what drives differences in people's responses when each concept is operationalized in the context of a contested wildlife species, the gray wolf (Canis lupus). To do so, we used data from a 2014 survey of U.S. residents (n = 1287) to test how measures of six concepts (i.e., acceptance, attitudes, benefits, risks, [prior] behavior, and behavioral intentions) often employed in the conservation social sciences were related with a broad set of possible explanatory variables. Despite moderate to strong correlations between all concepts measured (| Pearson's r | = 0.39-0.65, p < 0.001), results revealed considerable variation in their respective relationships with identical explanatory variables. Specifically, although wildlife value orientation (i.e., domination or mutualism) operated fairly consistently across cognitive and behavioral concepts, the relationship between the six concepts and other factors, such as social trust, identification with various interest groups (i.e., hunter, farmer, or rancher, environmentalist, and animal rights advocate), and political ideology (i.e., liberal vs. conservative), varied considerably. Our findings underscore that differences exist in these measures, which could have serious implications for conservationists integrating social science findings in their decision-making processes if they are unaware of the theoretical underpinnings of and distinctions between core psychological concepts.

Different groups of people may desire and respond to social and ecological conditions in myriad ways (e.g., increased engagement, avoidance). Thus, managers of nature-based recreation sites open for public use (i.e., “public lands”) would benefit from understanding how people with different lived experiences respond under new conditions brought about by regulatory changes (e.g., infrastructural improvements, reduction of access) or environmental changes (e.g., drought, population declines). From a survey of visitors to public lands, specifically National Wildlife Refuges (i.e., refuges) in the United States, we examine gender differences in (a) participation in wildlife-dependent recreation, (b) visitor experiences, and (c) the effect of regulatory and environmental changes on future participation in preferred activities. Our sample (n = 9,918; 40% who self-selected female) included visitors to 69 refuges during 2018 and 2019. Results indicated that people who self-selected female were more likely to indicate that they don’t like being in nature by themselves, and that people close to them enjoy nature-based recreation. People who self-selected female were less likely to engage in hunting or fishing as their primary activity and noted that regulatory changes supporting these activities (specifically, fewer regulations on fishing, fewer regulations on hunting, and more acreage open to fishing/hunting) could decrease their future participation in their primary activity. Thus, respondents who self-selected female may be displaced or alienated from visiting a site if consumptive activities (e.g., hunting) are prioritized as regulatory mechanisms (e.g., for controlling abundant wildlife populations). Adaptive processes that anticipate - in advance of decisions being made - the potential ramifications of regulations on different subgroups of visitors to public lands can identify differential and inequitable impacts, and thus lead to inclusive management decisions when those impacts are preemptively addressed.