Book contents
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Conservation Biology
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Map
- 1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence
- 2 A Multilevel, Systems View of Values Can Inform a Move towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 3 Broadening the Aperture on Coexistence with Wildlife through the Lenses of Identity, Risk and Morals
- 4 Understanding Emotions As Opportunities for and Barriers to Coexistence with Wildlife
- 5 Tolerance for Wildlife
- 6 A Framework for Assessing and Quantifying Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas
- 7 Predators in Human Landscapes
- 8 Corridor of Conflict
- 9 A Collaborative Approach for Coexistence with Wildlife in Rural Regions of Japan
- 10 Towards Tolerance and Coexistence
- 11 Elephants and Bees
- 12 The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests
- 13 Conflict and Coexistence with Invasive Wildlife
- 14 Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 15 Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes
- 16 Conservation Marketing As a Tool to Promote Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 17 Leaping Forward
- 18 Towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence through the Integration of Human and Natural Systems
- 19 Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World
- 20 Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
5 - Tolerance for Wildlife
A Psychological Perspective
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2019
Book contents
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Conservation Biology
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Map
- 1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence
- 2 A Multilevel, Systems View of Values Can Inform a Move towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 3 Broadening the Aperture on Coexistence with Wildlife through the Lenses of Identity, Risk and Morals
- 4 Understanding Emotions As Opportunities for and Barriers to Coexistence with Wildlife
- 5 Tolerance for Wildlife
- 6 A Framework for Assessing and Quantifying Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas
- 7 Predators in Human Landscapes
- 8 Corridor of Conflict
- 9 A Collaborative Approach for Coexistence with Wildlife in Rural Regions of Japan
- 10 Towards Tolerance and Coexistence
- 11 Elephants and Bees
- 12 The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests
- 13 Conflict and Coexistence with Invasive Wildlife
- 14 Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 15 Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes
- 16 Conservation Marketing As a Tool to Promote Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 17 Leaping Forward
- 18 Towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence through the Integration of Human and Natural Systems
- 19 Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World
- 20 Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
Conceptualizing and measuring tolerance for wildlife as relevant human behaviour is not only intuitive, it also helps direct conservation efforts where they are likely to have the greatest conservation impact. Starting with the premise that human behaviour, and therefore coexistence, is rooted partly in psychology (i.e. an individual’s thoughts and emotions), we first discuss the concept of tolerance for wildlife drawing upon theory and empirical research from psychology. We then detail potential internal (psychological) and interpersonal mechanisms that foster tolerant attitudes and behaviours, focusing on two theories that have been broadly applied to human–wildlife conflicts.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Human–Wildlife InteractionsTurning Conflict into Coexistence, pp. 85 - 106Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
5.5 References
Agarwala, M., Kumar, S., Treves, A. & Naughton-Treves, L. (2010). Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: Comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biological Conservation, 143, 2945–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. & Cote, N. G. (2008). Attitudes and Attitude Change. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude–behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude–behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alhakami, A. S. & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085–96.Google Scholar
Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta‐analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–99.Google Scholar
Batt, S. (2009). Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: A multivariate approach. Bioscience Horizons: The International Journal of Student Research, 2, 180–90.Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruskotter, J. T. & Fulton, D. C. (2012). Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin. Society & Natural Resources, 25, 97–102.Google Scholar
Bruskotter, J. T., Singh, A., Fulton, D. C. & Slagle, K. (2015). Assessing tolerance for wildlife: Clarifying relations between concepts and measures. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20, 255–70.Google Scholar
Bruskotter, J. T., Vaske, J. J. & Schmidt, R. H. (2009). Social and cognitive correlates of Utah residents’ acceptance of the lethal control of wolves. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(2), 119–32.Google Scholar
Bruskotter, J. T. & Wilson, R. S. (2014). Determining where the wild things will be: Using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters, 7, 158–65.Google Scholar
Carpenter, L. H., Decker, D. J. & Lipscomb, J. F. (2000). Stakeholder acceptance capacity in wildlife management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 5, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, N. H., Riley, S. J. & Liu, J. (2012). Utility of a psychological framework for carnivore conservation. Oryx, 46(4), 525–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S. & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman, J. & Bargh, J., eds., Unintended Thought. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 212–52.Google Scholar
Cutting, H. (2012). Connecting the Dots: A Communications Guide to Climate Change and Extreme Weather. New York: Climate Nexus.Google Scholar
Cvetkovich, G. & Winter, P. L. (2003). Trust and social representations of the management of threatened and endangered species. Environment & Behavior, 35, 286–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decker, D. J. & Purdy, K. G. (1988). Toward a concept of Wildlife Acceptance Capacity in wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 16, 53–7.Google Scholar
De Groot, J. I., Steg, L. & Poortinga, W. (2013). Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 33(2), 307–17.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
Earle, T. (2004). Thinking aloud about trust: A protocol analysis of trust in risk management. Risk Analysis, 24, 169–83.Google Scholar
Earle, T. C. & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1–17.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Forgas, J. P. (2000). Introduction: The role of affect in social cognition. In Forgas, J. P., ed., Feeling and Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Frank, B. (2016). Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: An introductory comment. Society & Natural Resources, 29, 738–43.Google Scholar
Gore, M. L., Knuth, B. A., Curtis, P. D. & Shanahan, J. E. (2006). Stakeholder perceptions of risk associated with human–black bear conflicts in New York’s Adirondack Park campgrounds: Implications for theory and practice. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(1), 36–43.Google Scholar
Gore, M. L., Knuth, B. A., Curtis, P. D. & Shanahan, J. E. (2007). Factors influencing risk perception associated with human–black bear conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12(2), 133–6.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2013). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Heberlein, T. A. (2012). Navigating Environmental Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In Burke, P. J., ed., Contemporary Social Psychological Theories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 111–36.Google Scholar
Inskip, C., Carter, N., Riley, S., Roberts, T. & MacMillan, D. (2016). Toward human–carnivore coexistence: Understanding tolerance for tigers in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE, 11, e0145913.Google Scholar
Isen, A. M. (2008). Some ways in which positive affect influences decision making and problem solving. Handbook of Emotions, 3, 548–73.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kansky, R., Kidd, M. & Knight, A. T. (2016). A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human–wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation, 201, 137–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krange, O. & Skogen, K. (2011). When the lads go hunting: The ‘Hammertown mechanism’ and the conflict over wolves in Norway. Ethnography, 12, 466–89.Google Scholar
Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 58–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, R. R., Andersen, D. J. & Redlawsk, D. P. (2008). An exploration of correct voting in recent U.S. presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 395–411.Google Scholar
Lau, R. R. & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Lischka, S. A., Riley, S. J. & Rudolph, B. A. (2008). Effects of impact perception on acceptance capacity for white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 502–9.Google Scholar
Lodge, M. & Taber, C. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26, 455–82.Google Scholar
Lute, M. L. & Gore, M. L. (2014). Stewardship as a path to cooperation? Exploring the role of identity in intergroup conflict among Michigan wolf stakeholders. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19(3), 267–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manfredo, M. J. (2008). Who Cares about Wildlife? Social Science Concepts for Exploring Human–Wildlife Relationships and Conservation Issues. New York: Springer Science.Google Scholar
Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R. & Treves, A. (2003). Paying for tolerance: The impact of livestock depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology, 17, 1500–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S. & Young, J. (2015). Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx, 49, 222–5.Google Scholar
Riley, S. J. & Decker, D. J. (2000). Wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 931–9.Google Scholar
Rust, N. A., Tzanopoulos, J., Humle, T. & MacMillan, D. C. (2016). Why has human–carnivore conflict not been resolved in Namibia? Society & Natural Resources, 29, 1079–94.Google Scholar
Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195–204.Google Scholar
Siemer, W. F., Hart, P. S., Decker, D. J. & Shanahan, J. E. (2009). Factors that influence concern about human–black bear interactions in residential settings. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(3), 185–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1990). Alternative visions of rationality. In Moser, P. K., ed., Rationality in Action: Contemporary Approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–204.Google Scholar
Skogen, K. & Thrane, C. (2007). Wolves in context: Using survey data to situate attitudes within a wider cultural framework. Society & Natural Resources, 21, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slagle, K. M., Bruskotter, J. T. & Wilson, R. S. (2012). The role of affect in public support and opposition to wolf management. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17, 44–57.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1333–52.Google Scholar
Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J. & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8, 1–7.Google Scholar
Stone, S. A., Breck, S. W., Timberlake, J., Haswell, P. M., Najera, F., Bean, B. S. & Thornhill, D. J. (2017). Adaptive use of nonlethal strategies for minimizing wolf–sheep conflict in Idaho. Journal of Mammalogy, 98, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. (2016). The illusion of choice in democratic politics: The unconscious impact of motivated political reasoning. Political Psychology, 37, 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2, 7–24.Google Scholar
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A. & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self‐identity, social identity and group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 225–44.Google Scholar
Treves, A. (2012). Tolerant attitudes reflect an intent to steward: A reply to Bruskotter and Fulton. Society & Natural Resources, 25(1), 103–4.Google Scholar
Treves, A., Jurewicz, R. L., Naughton-Treves, L. & Wilcove, D. (2009). The price of tolerance: Wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodiversity & Conservation, 18, 4003–21.Google Scholar
Weigel, R. H. & Newman, L. (1976). Increasing attitude–behavior correspondence by broadening the scope of the behavioral measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 793–802.Google Scholar
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. & Rabinowitz, A. (2005). People and Wildlife, Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wyer, R. S. & Albarracín, D. (2005). Belief formation, organization, and change: Cognitive and motivational influences. In Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T. and Zanna, M. P., eds., The Handbook of Attitudes. London: Routledge, pp. 273–322.Google Scholar
Zajac, R. M., Bruskotter, J. T., Wilson, R. S. & Prange, S. (2012). Learning to live with black bears: A psychological model of acceptance. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76, 1331–40.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–75.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Feeling and thinking: Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In Forgas, J. P., ed., Feeling and Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–58.Google Scholar