Attitudes and emotions as predictors of support for wolf management

Vaske, Jerry J.; Miller, Craig A.; Pallazza, Samantha G.; Williams, Brent D.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101695

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We encourage adaptation of the present sampling strategy to capture a wider range of behaviors for specific groups of interest and, where possible, to assess those behaviors across multiple points in time (i.e., employ a longitudinal approach). We also acknowledge that other mechanisms may shape beliefs and behaviors beyond those examined herein––including one's level of support for specific management actions (e.g., lethal control) (Manfredo et al., 2021) and the affective components of such judgments (Vaske et al., 2021). Similarly, despite controlling for a wide range of cognitive, demographic, and place‐based characteristics––many of which have been quantified throughout the literature in equally diverse ways––the effect of some factors identified in other models (e.g., wildlife tolerance model [Kansky et al., 2016]) remains untested.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

Carlson

Dietsch

Slagle

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

Carlson

Dietsch

Slagle

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Negative emotions, overall, were not the predominant emotional states expressed. Even though we could reasonably expect rural populations to express higher levels of anger as was recently described in Illinois, United States (Vaske et al., 2021), this was, overall, not the case. This finding suggests that the emotion of anger, which is a reaction associated with perceived injustice (Nelson et al., 2016) and often mentioned in the heated debates of wolf conservation, is not strongly associated with the wolf itself, but may rather be the result of human conflicts over wolf management (König et al., 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Negative emotions, overall, were not the predominant emotional states expressed. Even though we could reasonably expect rural populations to express higher levels of anger as was recently described in Illinois, United States (Vaske et al, 2021), this was, overall, not the case. This finding suggests that the emotion of anger, which is a reaction associated with perceived injustice (Nelson et al, 2016) and often mentioned in the TA B L E 2 Results of ordinal regressions using cumulative link mixed models with emotional intensity as the dependent variable (ordinal variable), with context, wolf presence and their interaction as fixed effects and individual ID as a random factor.…”

Section: The Diversity Of Emotional Statesmentioning

confidence: 69%

Emotional states elicited by wolf videos are diverse and explain general attitudes towards wolves

Arbieu,

Taysse,

Gimenez

et al. 2024

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emotions are short, intuitive mental processes that are important components of people's cognitions. They can influence attitudes (i.e. positive or negative evaluations of objects), and they are involved in decision‐making processes. In the context of human‐wildlife coexistence, mostly emotional dispositions have been studied (i.e. people's decontextualized, stable tendencies to react in a certain way towards wildlife), in contrast to emotional states (i.e. quick reactions elicited in specific contexts), which have been overlooked. This limits our understanding of emotional states and the role of emotional diversity in shaping attitudes towards wildlife species. Here, we quantified emotional states elicited by context‐specific wolf encounters featured in a set of YouTube videos. We conducted a social survey in rural populations of 24 randomly selected cities in France (n = 795) to (i) quantify emotional diversity and (ii) test the relationship between emotional states and attitudes towards wolves, accounting for individual and regional factors. We found that emotional states that were most expressed across the six contexts of encounter were surprise, interest and fear, in this order. Emotional diversity was highly context‐specific, with significantly different emotional identity, dispersion and extremization across the six contexts of encounters. Most variance in attitudes was explained by emotional factors alone (28%) and the best model including all three groups of predictors (emotional, individual and regional factors) explained 57% of the variance. The strongest effects of emotional states on attitudes were those of anger and joy. Fear had only half the effect of joy on attitudes. Synthesis and applications: Our results highlight the importance and context‐specificity of emotional diversity for human‐carnivore coexistence. Complementary to previous studies focusing on single emotions and on decontextualized emotional dispositions, quantifying diverse, context‐dependent emotional states can be helpful to improve decision‐making in three different ways: (i) address relevant contexts triggering anger, which is a feeling rooted in perceived injustice, (ii) reduce emotional biases involving fear of carnivores given the extremely low probability of risks to human life and (iii) promote positive emotions like joy to better reflect costs and benefits of sharing landscapes with large carnivores. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

“…In this study, the decisions underlying the subscale divisions were based on the relevant international literature [ [23] , [24] , [25] ]. The emotion management subscale was divided into five dimensions: emotional cognition (B1) [ [26] , [27] , [28] ], emotion perception (B2), emotion influence (B3) [ [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] ], emotion control (B4) [ [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] ], and emotion regulation (B5) [ [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] ]; the benefit evaluation subscale was divided into outcome evaluation (A1) and process evaluation (A2). The question items initially 56 were developed mainly from our review and analysis of the previously mentioned master's and doctoral dissertations [ [25] , [26] , [27] ] relevant academic journals [ 22 , 23 , 26 ], the emotion measure ment scale [ 24 , 28 ]in the Sports Science Common Psychological Scale Evaluation Manual (edited by Mao Zhixiong), and published psychology and sports psychology books.…”

Section: Scale Development Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a scale for the impact of emotion management on young athletes’ training efficiency

Meng,

Liang,

Zhang

et al. 2024

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attitudes and emotions as predictors of support for wolf management

Cited by 15 publications

References 40 publications

Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

Emotional states elicited by wolf videos are diverse and explain general attitudes towards wolves

Development of a scale for the impact of emotion management on young athletes’ training efficiency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About