Effect of semantics in the study of tolerance for wolves

• Published in: Conservation Biology
• Main Authors: Carlson, Shelby C., Dietsch, Alia M., Slagle, Kristina M., Bruskotter, Jeremy T.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2022
• Subjects: Canis lupus; gray wolf
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14003; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cobi.14003; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full-xml/10.1111/cobi.14003

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.