Summary: We apply risk theory to understand human tolerance for large, terrestrial carnivores, and highlight how psychological theory on hazard acceptance can help conservation scientists explain, and ultimately increase, human tolerance for these species. For hazards in general, and for carnivores in particular, the majority of variation in acceptability judgments can be explained by the perceptions of risks and benefits associated with the hazard. Factors such as affective (emotional) reaction to a species, personal control over the risks, and trust in managing agencies are important, but secondary factors. Experimental research highlights the importance of communicating the benefits of a species to increase tolerance. In combination, these findings point to a need to rethink communications about carnivores that focus solely on lowering perceived risk by increasing individual control over the hazard. Such efforts may inadvertently decrease tolerance by overlooking the distinct and important role that the positive outcomes (i.e., benefits) associated with carnivores can play when evaluating the acceptability of a particular population or management action.
Publications
Slagle, K.M., G. Karns, J.T. Bruskotter & R.S. Wilson (2022) Research note: human behavior and effective chronic wasting disease management, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2022.2075492
Slagle KM, Wilson RS and Bruskotter JT (2022) Tolerance for Wolves in the United States. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10:817809. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.817809
Slagle, K., J.T. Bruskotter, R.S. Wilson and E. Toman. 2019. “The symbolic wolf: A construal level theory analysis of the perceptions of wolves in the United States”. Society & Natural Resources, 32(3): 322-337.
Bruskotter, J. Vucetich, K. Slagle, R. Berardo, A. Singh, and R.S. Wilson. 2018. “Support for the U.S. Endangered Species Act over time and space: Controversial species do not weaken public support for protective action”. Conservation Letters. 11(6): e12595
Karns, G., A. Heeren, E. Toman, R.S. Wilson, H. Szarek and J.T. Bruskotter. 2018. “Should grizzly bears be hunted or protected? Social and organizational affiliations influence scientific judgments”. Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management, 7(1): 18-30.
Heeren, A., Karns, G., Bruskotter, J., Toman, E., Wilson, R., & Szarek, H. 2017. “Expert judgment and uncertainty regarding the protection of imperiled species”. Conservation Biology, 31(3), 657-665.
K.A. George, K.M. Slagle, R.S. Wilson, S.J. Moeller, and J.T. Bruskotter. 2016. “Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014”. Biological Conservation, 201: 237-242.
Bruskotter, J. and R.S. Wilson. 2013. “Determining where the wild things will be: Using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores.” Conservation Letters, 7(3): 158-165.
Slagle K.M., Zajac R., Bruskotter J.T., Wilson R.S., Prange S. 2013. “Building tolerance for bears: A communications experiment.” Journal of Wildlife Management and Wildlife Monographs. 77(4): 863-869.
Slagle, K., J.T. Bruskotter, and R.S. Wilson. 2012. “The role of affect in public support and opposition to wolf management.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife. Vol. 1, no. 17: 44-57.
Zajac, R., J.T. Bruskotter, R.S. Wilson, and S. Prange. 2013. Learning to live with large carnivores: A psychological model of black bear acceptance. Journal of Wildlife Management. 76: 1331-1340.
Wilson, R.S. and J.T. Bruskotter. 2009. “Assessing the impact of decision frame and existing attitudes on support for wolf restoration in the United States.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife. Vol. 14, no. 5: 353-365.
Gore, M.L., R.S. Wilson, W.F. Siemer, H. Wieczorek-Hudenko, C.E. Clarke, P.S. Hart, L.A. Maguire and B.A. Muter. 2009. “Application of risk concepts to wildlife management: Special issue introduction.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife. Vol. 14, no. 5: 301-313.