Human dimensions of wildlife

Re

vi s

ed

Steg—Environmental Psychology: An Introduction

R

8 Human dimensions of wildlife

Maarten H. JacobsWageningen University, The Netherlands

Jerry J. VaskeColorado State University, USA

Tara L. TeelColorado State University, USA

Michael J. ManfredoColorado State University, USA

C h a p t e r O u t l i n e

8.1 intrODuCtiOn 78

8.2 earlY WOrK: attituDeS tOWarDS WilDliFe 78

8.3 the COGnitiVe hierarChY 79

8.4 WilDliFe Value OrientatiOnS 81

8.5 preDiCtinG nOrMS anD attituDeS tOWarDS WilDliFe 83

8.6 eMOtiOnS tOWarDS WilDliFe 83

8.7 SuMMarY 85

GlOSSarY 85

SuGGeStiOnS FOr Further reaDinG 86

reVieW QueStiOnS 86

steg_6388_c08_main.indd 77 1/19/2012 9:33:19 AM

Re

vi s

ed


R

78 enVirOnMental pSYChOlOGY: an intrODuCtiOn huMan DiMenSiOnS OF WilDliFe 79

8.1 intrODuCtiOn

Imagine walking in a forest and encountering a deer. You might remember this moment because it is special, perhaps the highlight of the trip. Humans are strongly attracted to wildlife. Wildlife-based tourism and recreation are increasingly popular (Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001) and wildlife TV documentaries attract large audi-ences ( Jacobs, 2009). Negative relationships with wildlife (e.g. snake phobias), however, are also common (Öhman & Mineka, 2003). In general, the relationships between humans and wildlife are complex, as they are closely tied to the evolution of humans in natural environments, and are also manifestations of socialisation and past individual experiences. Because the human brain evolved in part to meet wildlife-related challenges, research into human thought, emotion and action can reveal insights into the general workings of the human mind. Research into human dimen-sions of wildlife is also of practical relevance as it helps to understand current opin-ions and public debates about wildlife-related issues such as the reintroduction of predators or the killing of species that cause harm to humans or damage crops.

In this chapter, we first discuss a descriptive typology of attitudes towards wildlife (Kellert, 1976). Subsequent sections describe a more theory-driven approach to understanding human relationships with wildlife, guided by the cognitive hierarchy. This theoretical framework differentiates among the various thought processes that form the basis for human behaviour (Manfredo, Teel, & Henry, 2009; Teel & Man-fredo, 2009). While research on human dimensions of wildlife has predominantly focused on cognitive aspects, new avenues are beginning to emphasise the impor-tance of emotional factors, which will be explored in the last section. To some extent, the research and theorising discussed in this chapter overlaps with a broader research domain in which people’s responses to nature and landscapes and views of the rela-tionship between humans and nature are studied (see Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 14). However, as we will see, research on the human dimension of wildlife has increas-ingly generated its own network of experts and literature, and is becoming an inde-pendent field of research.

8.2 earlY WOrK: attituDeS tOWarDS WilDliFe

Kellert (1976) presented a typology of attitudes towards wildlife that has received wide attention. Based on personal interviews and large-scale surveys, Kellert distinguished nine basic attitudes (Kellert has also referred to these as values) towards wildlife (Box 8.1).

Environmental Psychology: An Introduction, First Edition. Edited by Linda Steg, Agnes E. van den Berg, Judith de Groot.© 2012 the British Psychological Society and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2012 by the British Psychological Society and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

78


Re

vi s

ed


R


Kellert’s typology has been mostly applied to describe the attitudes of different groups of people. For example, a study among hunters and non-hunters (Kellert, 1978) found that hunters could be divided into three groups based on their attitudes towards wildlife: utilitarian hunters who supplement their diet by shooting game, naturalistic hunters with close ties to, and appreciation for, nature, and dominionistic hunters who seek to dominate animals and nature. Non-hunters could be classified into a group with humanistic attitudes and a group with moralistic attitudes. A large-scale survey in the United States showed that women had higher scores than men on humanistic, moralistic and negativistic attitudes, while men scored higher on utilitarian, dominionistic, naturalistic and ecologistic attitudes (Kellert & Berry, 1987). Additional research has shown that favourable responses towards predators were positively related to naturalistic, moralistic and ecologistic attitudes, but nega-tively related to negativistic and utilitarian attitudes (Kellert, 1985).

By revealing this diversity in public responses to wildlife and wildlife-related issues, Kellert has opened up the study of human–wildlife relationships. Theoretically, however, his work is not informed by a clear conceptual foundation and conclusive evidence about the reliability and validity of the measurement instrument is lacking.

8.3 the COGnitiVe hierarChY

Manfredo and colleagues (Fulton, Manfredo, & Lipscomb, 1996; Manfredo, 2008; Teel & Manfredo, 2009; Whittaker, Vaske, & Manfredo, 2006) have developed a

BOX 8.1 tYpOlOGY OF attituDeS tOWarDS WilDliFe

Kellert (1976, 1996) has developed a typology consisting of nine basic attitudes towards wild-life, also referred to as ‘values of wildlife’:

• Utilitarian: Practical and material exploitation of wildlife.

• Naturalistic: Direct experience and exploration of wildlife.

• Ecologistic-scientific: Systematic study of the structure, function and relationships in the realm of wildlife.

• Aesthetic: Physical appeal and beauty of wildlife.

• Symbolic: Use of wildlife for language and thought.

• Humanistic: Strong emotional attachment and ‘love’ for aspects of wildlife.

• Moralistic: Spiritual reverence and ethical concern for wildlife.

• Dominionistic: Mastery, physical control and dominance of wildlife.

• Negativistic: Fear, aversion and alienation from wildlife.


Re

vi s

ed


R


theory for studying human thought and behaviour towards wildlife, labelled the ‘cognitive hierarchy’. Building on insights from social psychology (Homer & Kahle, 1988), this framework stresses that values belong to a hierarchy of cognitions that form the basis for human behaviour and includes values, value orientations, attitudes and norms, and behavioural intentions. In this hierarchy, values are the most abstract cognitions, while behavioural intentions are the most specific cognitions and immedi-ate antecedents of actual behaviour (see Figure 8.1).

Because values are often formed early in life, are culturally constructed, transcend situations and are tied to one’s identity (Schwartz, 2006), they are extremely resistant to change and are unlikely to explain much of the variability in specific behaviours within cultures. For example, two persons may both find the value ‘freedom’ impor-tant. In the context of wildlife, one person may project this value onto humans only and find hunting acceptable, while another person may project freedom onto both humans and wildlife and find hunting unacceptable. The fundamental value, then, does not directly explain specific thought and behaviour. Manfredo and Teel (Man-fredo et al., 2009; Teel & Manfredo, 2009) have proposed that ideologies (e.g. egali-tarianism) give direction and meaning to values in a given context. The resulting value orientations are reflected in a schematic network of basic beliefs that organise around fundamental values and provide contextual meaning to them within a given domain such as wildlife. Wildlife value orientations thus relate more directly to wild-life than general values and are therefore more useful in explaining individual varia-

Figure 8.1 The cognitive hierarchy framework.Reprinted from Vaske, J. J. & Donnely, M. P. (1999). A value–attitude–behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 523–537, with permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd (http://www.tandfonline.com).

Behaviours

Behavioural intentions

Attitudes and norms

Value orientations

(basic belief patterns)

Values Few in numberSlow to changeCentral to beliefsTranscend situations

NumerousQuick to changePeripheralSpecific to situations


Re

vi s

ed


R


tion in wildlife-related attitudes and behaviours. Wildlife value orientations mediate the relationship between general values and attitudes or norms in specific situations involving wildlife (Manfredo et al., 2009).

8.4 WilDliFe Value OrientatiOnS

Two predominant wildlife value orientations have been identified: domination (previously referred to as utilitarianism) and mutualism (e.g. Fulton et al., 1996; Man-fredo, 2008; Manfredo et al., 2009; Teel & Manfredo, 2009). People with a domination wildlife value orientation believe that wildlife should be used and managed for human benefit and are more likely to prioritise human well-being over wildlife. Those with a mutualism wildlife value orientation see wildlife as part of an extended family, deserving of care and rights like humans. Teel and Manfredo (2009) argue that mutualism entails the belief that wildlife is capable of relationships of trust with humans, reflecting an egalitarian ideology, in which all living things are treated as having equal worth. A measurement instrument consisting of 19 survey items (Box 8.2) has been developed to assess these orientations. The domination value orienta-tion is based on two basic belief dimensions: appropriate use beliefs and hunting beliefs. The mutualism value orientation is also based on two basic belief dimensions: social affiliation beliefs and caring beliefs. Composite indices are constructed from the basic belief items to reflect the extent to which a respondent holds a domination and/or mutualism orientation towards wildlife.

Research in the United States (Manfredo et al., 2009; Teel & Manfredo, 2009) and the Netherlands (Vaske, Jacobs, & Sijtsma, 2011) has demonstrated the reliability of this measurement instrument. Conclusive evidence for the cross-cultural existence of domination and mutualism is largely absent, although qualitative studies in the Netherlands ( Jacobs, 2007), China (Zinn & Shen, 2007), Estonia (Raadik & Cottrell, 2007), Mongolia (Kaczensky, 2007) and Thailand (Tanakanjana & Saranet, 2007), as well as an exploratory quantitative study (that included a subset of the 19 items) in 10 European countries (Teel et al., 2010), suggest that these orientations may exist in various cultures.

According to Inglehart (1997), modern societies are undergoing a shift from mate-rialist values (focus on economic well-being and safety) to post-materialist values (focus on quality of life, belonging and self-actualisation), associated with increasing urbanisation, income and education levels. Research suggests that these societal-level trends are contributing to an intergenerational shift from domination to mutualism wildlife value orientations in the United States (Manfredo et al., 2009; Teel & Man-fredo, 2009). Data collected in 19 Western states revealed that the percentage of those with a mutualism orientation was higher in states with a higher average state-level income, education and urbanisation, suggesting that ongoing demographic changes could contribute to a shift in wildlife value orientations from domination to mutual-ism. Because the findings also revealed a strong relationship between wildlife value


Re

vi s

ed


R


BOX 8.2 MeaSureMent OF WilDliFe Value OrientatiOnS

Research has identified two predominant wild-life value orientations: domination and mutual-ism (Manfredo et al., 2009; Teel & Manfredo, 2009). To measure these value orientations, an instrument has been developed that measures the degree to which individuals agree with the beliefs that are typical for the orientations. For each wildlife value orientation, two belief domains are distinguished. The items for each value orientation and belief domain are listed below. Response options range from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

Domination: Appropriate use beliefs

• Humans should manage fish and wildlife populations so that humans benefit.

• The needs of humans should take priority over fish and wildlife protection.

• It is acceptable for people to kill wildlife if they think it poses a threat to their life.

• It is acceptable for people to kill wildlife if they think it poses a threat to their property.

• It is acceptable to use fish and wildlife in research even if it may harm or kill some animals.

• Fish and wildlife are on earth primarily for people to use.

Domination: Hunting beliefs

• We should strive for a world where there is an abundance of fish and wildlife for hunting and fishing.

• Hunting is cruel and inhumane to the animals (reverse-coded).

• Hunting does not respect the lives of animals (reverse-coded).

• People who want to hunt should be provided the opportunity to do so.

Mutualism: Social affiliation beliefs

• We should strive for a world where humans and fish and wildlife can live side by side without fear.

• I view all living things as part of one big family.

• Animals should have rights similar to the rights of humans.

• Wildlife are like my family and I want to protect them.

Mutualism: Caring beliefs

• I care about animals as much as I do other people.

• It would be more rewarding to me to help animals rather than people.

• I take great comfort in the relationships I have with animals.

• I feel a strong emotional bond with animals.

• I value the sense of companionship I receive from animals.


Re

vi s

ed


R


orientations and wildlife-related attitudes and behaviours (Teel & Manfredo, 2009), these changes may additionally result in continued declines in public acceptance of traditional forms of wildlife management that are typically acceptable for those with a domination orientation (e.g. hunting, lethal control of wildlife).

8.5 preDiCtinG nOrMS anD attituDeS tOWarDS WilDliFe

The usefulness of studying wildlife value orientations depends on the concept’s predictive validity. Wildlife value orientations should predict people’s attitudes, norms and behaviours towards wildlife in specific situations. Research has shown that wildlife value orientations are effective in predicting reported behaviours such as participation in wildlife-related recreation activities (e.g. hunting, wildlife viewing) and support for wildlife management interventions across various issues and situa-tions (e.g. Bright, Manfredo, & Fulton, 2000; Dougherty, Fulton, & Anderson, 2003; Fulton et al., 1996; Teel & Manfredo, 2009; Whittaker et al., 2006). These studies have consistently revealed that mutualists are more likely to participate in wildlife viewing, whereas those with a domination orientation are more likely to be hunters and anglers. Those with a mutualism value orientation are less likely than individuals with a domination orientation to support management interventions that harm wildlife or favour human interests over wildlife protection (e.g. Teel & Manfredo, 2009). Overall, the two wildlife value orientations have been shown across studies to explain approximately half of the variability in attitudes, norms and behaviours (e.g. Fulton et al., 1996; Jacobs et al., 2011; Whittaker et al., 2006).

8.6 eMOtiOnS tOWarDS WilDliFe

The cognitive approach described above does not explicitly consider emotions. The concepts and measurements may reflect emotional content (e.g. attitudes and values are often emotion-laden), but they are not intended to directly capture emotional dispositions or responses. While fear towards wildlife has occasionally been empiri-cally addressed ( Johansson & Karlsson, 2011; Kaltenborn, Bjerke, & Nyahongo, 2006; Öhman & Mineka, 2003), research on emotions towards wildlife is far less extensive than research on cognitions. Yet emotions can play a key role in our experiences with, and responses to wildlife and reflect basic reactions to wildlife and the natural environment (Herzog & Burghardt, 1986; Manfredo, 2008; see also Chapter 7). Emotions influence other mental phenomena, such as perception and


Re

vi s

ed


R


memories. Most people can easily recall intense positive and negative emotional wildlife experiences (e.g. being delighted to see a deer in the wild, being afraid of snakes).

emotional responses are characterised by valence (e.g. positive or negative, good or bad) and may comprise: (a) expressive reactions (e.g. smiling), (b) physiological reactions (e.g. increased heartbeat), (c) behavioural tendencies or coping (e.g. approaching, avoiding), (d) thoughts (e.g. interpreting the situation, identifying a supposed cause of the emotion), and (e) emotional experiences (e.g. feeling happy) (Cornelius, 1996). These components of emotional responses can be influenced by biological factors as well as by cultural and individual learning ( Jacobs, 2009). In the course of biological evolution, emotional bodily reactions emerged as automatic adaptive responses to situations of life-importance, and facilitated the survival and well-being of animals and humans (Damasio, 2001; LeDoux, 1996). For example, an increased heartbeat as part of a fear reaction to a predator prepares a human for optimal fight or flight reactions (see also Chapter 3). Many bodily reactions are automatic; if the person had to think about increasing the heartbeat the optimal bodily condition for an immediate adequate reaction would set in too late. How people interpret feedback from bodily reactions into an emotional experience is influenced by past experience and knowledge. The knowledge that a bear behind bars in a zoo cannot attack, for example, might block out an automatic fear response. Thus, knowledge can influence emotional experiences via feedback from the cogni-tive to the emotional system and can even suppress an initial emotional bodily fear reaction.

Different psychological mechanisms can cause emotional responses to wildlife ( Jacobs, 2009). First, humans have innate preferences for watching biological move-ment over non-biological movement, as demonstrated by experiments with newborn babies (Simion, Regolin, & Bulf, 2008). Consequently, people are genetically inclined to attend to and respond to animals. Second, some emotional responses towards wildlife species relevant for survival (e.g. fear responses to snakes) are learned quickly and unlearned slowly because of innate quick learning programs (Öhman & Mineka, 2003; see also Chapter 7). Third, people have mental dispositions to respond emotionally to wildlife that result from conditioning. Through condition-ing, a previously neutral stimulus is associated with an emotional stimulus and then becomes an emotional stimulus as well. For example, scavengers such as crows and ravens tend to be seen in places associated with death and might thus become fear triggers for some people (Marzluff & Angell, 2005). Fourth, we tend to react emo-tionally to the emotional expressions of wildlife; for example, animals that behave calmly tend to make us feel calm ( Jacobs, 2009). Fifth, knowledge about animals may reinforce or transform the way a bodily emotional reaction to an animal is interpreted into a conscious experience (Lazarus & Alfert, 1964). For example, as pointed out before, seeing a bear in the zoo and knowing that it can do no harm may convert an initial fear reaction into a positive fascination. Sixth, acquired knowl-edge about wildlife can prompt emotional reactions. For instance, birdwatchers enjoy encountering a bird that is rarely seen because they know it is a special event (McFarlane, 1994). Different emotional responses to wildlife may be caused by


Re

vi s

ed


R


various combinations of these mechanisms ( Jacobs, 2009). For example, many ancient and contemporary myths depict spiders and snakes as symbols of danger and evil (e.g. Shelob the spider in Lord of the Rings and Voldemort’s snake Nagini in Harry Potter). Cultural learning thus reinforces our biologically constituted ten-dency to fear spiders and snakes.

8.7 SuMMarY

Wildlife can evoke strong positive and negative thoughts, feelings and actions in people. In this chapter, we reviewed theories and corresponding empirical evidence on these human dimensions of wildlife. In particular, the cognitive hierarchy frame-work stresses that human cognitions exist on different levels of abstraction and comprise the concepts of values, value orientations, attitudes and norms, and behav-ioural intentions (values being the most abstract and behavioural intentions the most specific cognitions in the continuum). Wildlife value orientations are patterns of basic beliefs that give direction and meaning to fundamental values in the domain of wildlife. Research has revealed two primary wildlife value orientations: domination and mutualism. People with a domination wildlife value orientation believe that wildlife should be used and managed for human benefit and are more likely to pri-oritise human well-being over wildlife. Those with a mutualism wildlife value orien-tation see wildlife as part of an extended family, deserving of rights and care. These value orientations predict attitudes and norms towards wildlife-related activities and management issues, as well as wildlife-related behaviours. Along with cognitions, emotions are important components of human behaviour towards wildlife. Emo-tional responses to wildlife can be caused by general (e.g. conditioning) and specific (e.g. innate quick learning programmes) psychological mechanisms. In general, future research on human dimensions of wildlife may benefit from the combined study of both cognitive and emotional responses to wildlife.

GlOSSarY

attitudes mental dispositions to evaluate an attitude object (i.e. a person, place, thing, or event) with some degree of favour or disfavour.

basic beliefs thoughts about general classes of objects or issues within a given domain (e.g. wildlife).

cognitions mental dispositions that are used in perceiving, remembering, thinking and understanding.

cognitive hierarchy theoretical framework that stresses that cognitions exist on different levels of abstraction that are causally related, including values (most abstract), value orientations, attitudes, norms and behavioural intentions (most specific).


Re

vi s

ed


R

86 enVirOnMental pSYChOlOGY: an intrODuCtiOn

reVieW QueStiOnS

1. Which core concepts are included in the cognitive hierarchy framework? How are they defined and differentiated?

2. Name and describe the two primary wildlife value orientations.3. What are the components of emotional responses and can you give examples pertaining to

responses to wildlife?4. Some emotional dispositions towards wildlife are shared by all humans while other emotional

dispositions vary across humans. Give examples of both kinds of dispositions.

domination a wildlife value orientation that comprises beliefs that wildlife should be used and managed for human benefit and that human well-being is more important than wildlife.

emotional response positive or negative response that is characterised by expressive reactions, physiological reactions, behavioural tendencies or coping, specific emotion-related thoughts and emotional experiences.

ideologies consensually held beliefs that enable people who share them to understand meaning, to know who they are, and to relate to one another.

mutualism a wildlife value orientation that comprises the beliefs that wildlife is part of an extended family, deserving of care and rights like humans.

norms what is commonly done or (dis)approved.value orientations schematic networks of basic beliefs, reflective of cultural ideologies, that

give direction and meaning to fundamental values in a particular domain (e.g. wildlife).values desirable trans-situational goals varying in importance, which serve as guiding principles

in the life of a person or other social entity.wildlife non-domesticated fauna.

SuGGeStiOnS FOr Further reaDinG

Jacobs, M. H. (2009). Why do we like or dislike animals? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(1), 1–11.

Manfredo, M. J. (2008). Who cares about wildlife? New York: Springer.Teel, T. L., & Manfredo, M. J. (2009). Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife

conservation. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 128–139.Vaske, J. J. & Manfredo, M. J. (in press). Social-psychological aspects of wildlife management. In

D. J. Decker, S. Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of wildlife management. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.


Date post:	13-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	wur
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Human dimensions of wildlife

Documents