Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

Abstract

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.

Interests, beliefs, experience and perceptions shape tolerance towards impacts of recovering predators

“…Furthermore, we show how the psychological concepts of attitude and acceptance regarding several recovering predator species differ, which was previously demonstrated for the grey wolf (Carlson et al., 2023). The relationship between attitude and acceptability highlights that before higher levels of impact are accepted, attitudes must be neutral or positive.…”

“…There is a growing need to promote and support coexistence between humans and wildlife, and tolerance and acceptance are identified as fundamental in achieving this (Frank, 2016; Glikman et al., 2021). However, a deeper understanding of these concepts and their relationships is needed as definitions, conceptual framing and measurement, in particular, of tolerance are still a work in progress (Brenner & Metcalf, 2020; Bruskotter et al., 2015; Carlson et al., 2023; Glikman et al., 2021; Hjerm et al., 2020). Many studies address the concept of tolerance towards a single species (Carter et al., 2012; Kansky et al., 2016; Lehnen et al., 2022; Struebig et al., 2018).…”

Understanding the demand for and value of pathogen‐free amphibians to US pet owners

“…All ordinal variables (AESTHETIC, SCIENTIFIC, SPILLOVER RISK, SPILLOVER PREVENTION, BEHAVIORAL CONTROL, EDUCATION, HOUSEHOLD SIZE, AMPHIBIANS) that were measured with at least a five‐point Likert scale were treated as continuous variables in the model. Textbooks in survey research methods suggest that ordinal variables can be treated as continuous if they include responses in order and contain five or more categories (Vaske, 2019, p. 83), and this has been common practice (Carlson et al, 2022; Cleary et al, 2021; Donelley & Vaske, 1995; Lubeck et al, 2019; Vayer et al, 2021). All other variables with fewer than five response categories (VETERINARY, CONCERN, YEARS, GENDER) were treated as categorical (Appendix S2).…”

Managing Wolves is Managing Narratives: Views of Wolves and Nature Shape People’s Proposals for Navigating Human-Wolf Relations

“…For example, Bauer et al, (2009) propose four different types of humannature relationships that also differ concerning their attitudes toward managing nature: "nature lovers," "nature sympathizers," "nature-connected users," and "nature controllers." These types combine aspects of anthropocentrism (seeing the human in the center of the world), ecocentrism (valuing the ecosystem as a whole), and biocentrism (focusing on individual human-and non-human beings) (Callicott, 2004;Dunlap, 2008;Wardropper et al, 2020), with the distinction of mutualism and domination (Teel & Manfredo, 2010;Carlson et al, 2020;Dietsch et al, 2017) define domination as prioritizing human interests over wildlife and mutualism as the importance of well-being and relationship with animals.…”

“…Second, due to the absence of evidence on the management options toward which different people's preferences naturally gravitate, we lack a basis for assessing a potential connection of these preferences to worldviews. Moreover, studies that provided evidence of such a connection were based on surveys and thus driven by a top-down deductive paradigm that may reproduce predefined conceptions, e.g., the concepts of dominance and mutualism (Teel & Manfredo, 2010;Dietsch et al, 2016;Carlson et al, 2020;Straka et al, 2020), or anthropocentrism and ecocentrism (Wardropper et al, 2020), rather than probing into participants' genuine apperceptions.…”