Susan A. Schroeder1*
Adam C. Landon
David C. Fulton- 1Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States
- 2Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN, United States
Social identity theory offers a means to understand attitudes about wolves, with consequences for management support. Using data from a mail survey about wolves, we explored relationships among seven identities (i.e., wolf advocate, hunter, environmentalist, nature enthusiast, farmer, trapper, conservationist) using multidimensional scaling (MDS) and principal components analysis (PCA). We examined how identities correlated with political ideology, trust in a wildlife management agency, wildlife value orientations (WVOs) and attitudes about wolves, and we evaluated whether WVOs mediated the relationship between identities and attitudes. PCA suggested two factors in identifying relationships among stakeholders, while MDS and correlations found diversity among stakeholders beyond these factors. Hunter identity was most strongly associated with a domination WVO and conservative political ideology. Farmer identity was most strongly associated with agency distrust and negative wolf attitudes. Wolf advocate was most strongly associated with a mutualism WVO (i.e., beliefs that humans are meant to coexist in harmonious relationships with wildlife), agency trust, and positive wolf attitudes. Conservationist identity was positively correlated with all other identities. WVOs partially mediated the relationship between identities and attitudes.
Introduction
There are numerous and competing constellations of human actors in nearly every wildlife conservation issue, and sometimes this diversity results in conflict over management decisions (Marshall et al., 2007). The issue of wolf (Canis lupus) management is particularly ripe for conflict given high interest among many stakeholders with heterogeneous experiences with wolves, wildlife values, and ideologies, among other individual and group differences (Lute and Gore, 2014; Carlson et al., 2020). Understanding the patterns of policy preference among parties affected by decisions related to wolf management is an important part of responsive wildlife governance (Decker et al., 2015). Identity, defined both as the meanings individuals ascribe to the self (Stryker and Burke, 2000) and the roles and categories they occupy in society (Tajfel, 1982), has emerged as a means to understand heterogeneity in wolf stakeholders’ values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors (Lute et al., 2014; Carlson et al., 2020; van Eeden et al., 2020a,b). Although recent studies have documented the relationship between constituents’ identities and their higher order cognitions related to wolves and wolf management (Schroeder et al., 2021), there is much to learn about identity processes in governance. Individuals, for instance, can identify with many categories or labels, each with varying degrees of prominence, salience, and commitment in a given context (Burke and Stets, 2009). Identities may be similar or dissimilar to one another, and there may be similar or dissimilar relationships between different identities and values, beliefs, and attitudes toward wolves and wolf management issues. Different groups of wolf stakeholders may make competing claims to the same identities, complicating normative narratives about stakeholders’ positions. Developing an understanding of the inter-relationships among the embodied self-meanings of constituents can aid in mapping the broad array of perspectives on a given topic, and clarify the relative sources of those perspectives. In this study, we used multidimensional scaling (MDS) to explore the relationships among seven putative identities held by stakeholders in wolf management in Minnesota, United States: (a) wolf advocate, (b) hunter, (c) environmentalist, (d) nature enthusiast, (e) farmer, (f) trapper, and (g) conservationist. We then tested the relationships between these identities and individuals’ wildlife value orientations, political ideology, trust in the state wildlife management agency (SWMA), and general attitudes toward wolves, to contextualize observed differences. Our analysis contributes to the literature by describing similarities and differences in the identities of wolf stakeholders and situating theses identities within the broader nomological network of cognitions pertinent to evaluations of wolves and wolf management. Past studies have shown relationships between social categories like hunter and farmer as determined by a priori sampling using survey methods and individuals’ attitudes toward wolves, but studies have not examined the relationships between the strength of ones’ identification with social identities and other important elements of the hierarchy of cognitions contributing to individuals’ evaluations of wolves and wolf policy. This study occurred in the context of the state’s effort to update its species management plan. Although the topic is limited to single species in a single state, the broader issue of stakeholder identity is one that transcends many natural resource governance contexts.
Theoretical Framework
Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory provides a foundation to understand differences in stakeholders’ attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife management. Social identity theory began as a theory of intergroup relationships (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), but has expanded to examine the role of self and identity related to in-groups and out-groups (Turner et al., 1987). Self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987) clarified how people make binary categorizations between the groups they identify with (i.e., in-groups) and groups they do not identify with (i.e., out-groups). Group prototypes are idealized members of a group. The group prototypes are both descriptive and prescriptive in that they model role expectations, and suggest ways that group members should think, feel, and act (Hornsey, 2008).
Social identities guide peoples’ values, ideologies, attitudes, and beliefs (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1994; Onorato and Turner, 2004; Mayer and O’Connor Shelley, 2018). Social identity and self-categorization offer theoretically plausible explanations for observed differences in attitudes among individuals who identify with different groups (Unsworth and Fielding, 2014). Research has demonstrated a relationship between stakeholder groups, and their attitudes about wolf management (Lute and Gore, 2014; von Essen and Hansen, 2015; Landon et al., 2018). With some exceptions (e.g., Bruskotter et al., 2019; van Eeden et al., 2019) many previous studies related to wolves have compared the attitudes of stakeholder categories targeted in sample designs (e.g., livestock producers, licensed deer hunters), rather than examine the strength of individuals reported identification with a given role, similarities and differences among different identities, and how those identities influence attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife management (Tucker and Pletscher, 1989; Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003; Landon et al., 2018). Studies examining attitudes and consensus about management of carnivores have also documented high levels of disagreement within stakeholder groups (Metcalf et al., 2017), suggesting that further research is needed to understand both individual and group level identities. Looking at self-reported strengths of various identities among individuals, rather than a priori stakeholder group membership, may enhance understanding of the diversity of perspectives on wolf management and their relative sources.
Research in the European context has also found evidence for the role of identity in shaping individuals’ positions on wolves and wolf management, sometimes with conflicting results. Bongi et al. (2022) found that among residents in northwest Italy, conservationists and hunters held much more positive views of wolves than did farmers, and this relationship held irrespective of exposure. Skogen and colleagues (Skogen and Krange, 2003; Skogen et al., 2008), described how negative perceptions toward wolves may be shaped by social processes in rural Norway and France. Similarly, Heberlein and Ericsson (2005) demonstrated place effects on Swedes’ attitudes toward wolves. Interestingly, and in contradiction to findings in the United States (Williams et al., 2002), Heberlein and Ericsson (2005) found that urban residents that lacked a tie to the countryside held the least positive attitudes toward wolves compared to rural or urban residents that engaged in nature-based recreation. While not identity per se, one’s place of residence correlates with values and ideologies reflective of heterogeneous identities (Creswell, 1996). The positions of Swedish stakeholders have not remained static overtime. Hunters were supporters of wolves in Scandinavia during the early part of reintroduction, but support has declined the longer hunters have coexisted with wolves (Ericsson and Heberlein, 2003; Dressel et al., 2014). Numerous studies on wolves in Europe highlight the complex social dynamics of living with wolves. Nilsson et al. (2020) highlight the dynamic nature of coalitions of wolf advocates and opponents in Sweden. These authors examined an alternate conceptualization of coalitions of humans drawing on both social identity theory and the advocacy coalition framework, to show that belief-based coalitions may offer greater explanatory power regarding stakeholder perspectives on wolves than identities per se. These results suggest some overlap in the beliefs of groups of humans defined by role identities, but that identities and beliefs are mutually constitutive elements of one’s self-concept. von Essen and Hansen (2015) further demonstrate how stakeholder dynamics, especially as it relates to classifications of individuals into groups, potentially serve to reify existing conflict and exacerbate identity-based evaluations of management problems and solutions.
Wildlife Value Orientation
Wildlife value orientations (WVO) are basic beliefs that characterize individuals’ and groups’ convictions about humans’ relationship with wildlife. A long-term research program (Fulton et al., 1996; Manfredo et al., 2009, 2020) has operationalized WVOs along two dimensions referred to as domination and mutualism (Teel and Manfredo, 2009; Manfredo et al., 2017). Domination reflects beliefs that humans have mastery over wildlife, human well-being has priority over that of wildlife, and that wildlife exists to benefit humans. Mutualism represents beliefs that humans are meant to coexist in harmonious relationships with wildlife, and that wildlife have rights similar to humans. The strength of individuals’ agreement with measures of mutualism and domination have been found to correlate with wildlife-related attitudes and behaviors (Teel and Manfredo, 2009). Previous research findings also indicate cultural level patterns of variance in WVOs, stemming from predictions of modernization theory (Manfredo et al., 2020; Jacobs et al., 2022).
Several recent studies have incorporated both social identity theory and WVOs to examine how personal values and group identity affect attitudes about wildlife management (Heeren et al., 2017; Landon et al., 2018; Bruskotter et al., 2019). Bruskotter et al. (2019) found identification with groups (i.e., farmer, environmentalist, hunter, gun rights advocate, animal rights advocate) correlated with WVOs. Heeren et al. (2017) found identity and WVO influenced attitudes among wildlife professionals. Landon et al. (2018) found stakeholder group (i.e., public versus agricultural producer) and WVOs predicted attitudes about recolonization of predators in Illinois, United States. Individuals with utilitarian beliefs about wildlife (traditionalist orientation) and agricultural producers were found to exhibit the most negative attitudes, while individuals who believed that wildlife have intrinsic rights (mutualist orientation) and members of the general public had more positive attitudes (Landon et al., 2018). This research suggests that group identity and WVOs correlate, but additional work could clarify the relationships between identity, WVOs, and attitudes about wildlife and wolves specifically. This paper will extend correlation analyses with mediation analysis to examine whether WVOs mediate relationships between identity and attitudes toward wolves. Mediation analysis provides a means to understand the process that underlies observed relationships between independent (i.e., predictor) and dependent (i.e., criterion) variables via the inclusion of a third mediator variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986; MacKinnon, 2011).
Political Ideology
The terms liberal and conservative arguably are motivated social cognitions that characterize political ideology across cultures (Jost et al., 2003). Jost (2006) and Jost et al. (2003) identified core dimensions differentiating liberals and conservatives: (a) attitudes toward inequality, and (b) attitudes toward social change versus tradition. The concept of political ideology is often captured with liberal-conservative or left-right scales in quantitative analysis (Mayer and O’Connor Shelley, 2018). This study examines political ideological identification along the scale ranging from liberal to conservative (Petrocik, 2009). Our use of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” is consistent with the operationalization of political ideology in the United States, and our results are specific to that national context. Researchers examining these issues in other cultural contexts may consider how members of those cultures interpret political ideology. We measured identification with these labels—or as middle of the road—rather than specifically examining attitudes about positions or values associated with liberals or conservatives (Mason, 2018), or affiliation with a political party. Our analysis explores correlations between identities and political ideology to understand differences among seven identities that may be associated with attitudes about wolves. Recent research (Schroeder et al., 2021) has documented relationships between political ideology and stakeholder groups, and between political ideology and WVOs. Yet, gaps remain in understanding how political ideology relates to stakeholders’ identification with roles pertinent to wolves and wolf management.
Agency Trust
Institutional trust reflects the willingness to rely on those with formal responsibility for decision-making and management of public resources and risks (Siegrist et al., 2000), and often represents the trust relationship between stakeholders and an institution (Winter and Cvetkovich, 2010; Zajac et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2013). In an attempt to understand the origins of trust, researchers have tested numerous antecedents of trust (Needham and Vaske, 2008; Schroeder and Fulton, 2017; Riley et al., 2018). One hypothesis regarding the source of trust is salient values similarity (Siegrist et al., 2000). Several studies about constituents’ trust in natural resource management institutions has operationalized institutional trust as shared values between constituents and an agency (Cvetkovich and Winter, 2003; Winter and Cvetkovich, 2010). Shared goals, values, and opinions (i.e., perceived similarity) are hypothesized foundations of institutional trust (Siegrist et al., 2000; Cvetkovich and Winter, 2003; Needham and Vaske, 2008). Beyond shared values, research has demonstrated the influence of process, outcomes, and technical competence on institutional trust (Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2003; Van Ryzin, 2011), and these concepts are examined in the trust literature related to natural resource management (Schroeder and Fulton, 2017; Riley et al., 2018).
Numerous researchers have explored the role of trust in the management of large carnivores, including wolves. Söjlander-Linquist et al. (2015) conceptualize the legitimacy of aspects of governance as a function of myriad individual and collective responses embedded in dynamic bio-physical, socio-cultural, and institutional contexts. These authors suggest that trust is “crucial for large carnivore management” (p. 180), and that a lack of trust can further exacerbate individual appraisals of risk and fear, and shape attitudes toward management (Johansson et al., 2012, 2016). Skogen and Krange (2020) argue that a mistrust of environmental institutions underpinned Norwegian hunters’ acceptance of illegal wolf killings, among other variables. Documenting the positive effects of trust, Ghasemi et al. (2021) demonstrated that trust in a wildlife management agency could reduce perceived risks from large carnivores including wolves, and increase support for their recovery in a landscape where viable populations of large carnivores do not exist currently. Similarly, Arbieu et al. (2019) found that individuals’ trust in information sources about wolves had a positive effect on their attitudes toward wolves. These results suggest that trust can influence the cognitive evaluations of wolves among individuals that have not had direct experience with wolves.
Trust, however, is a function of both direct experience with individuals and groups whom bear responsibility for shared resources, and broad patterns of values consistent with social identity processes and other cultural dimensions. Krange et al. (2021) provide evidence for this assertion in their investigation of Norwegian stakeholders’ beliefs about the anthropogenic cause of climate change. They found that trust influenced climate change beliefs directly, but that beliefs about nature in general and indicators of right wing populism including ant-elitism and beliefs about immigrants, partially mediated the effect. Other scholars have documented decline in social trust among Americans following value shift, with implications for collaborative governance of natural resources (Rahn and Transue, 2002).
Trust in government varies by political ideology, values, and stakeholder group, and, for this reason, examining trust may help clarify differences among identities associated with wolves. Political ideology consistently predicts trust of government in the United States, with conservatives more trusting of the private sector and liberals more trusting of government (Cacciatore et al., 2018). Research has also found stakeholder group, WVO, and political ideology to predict trust in a SWMA (Schroeder et al., 2021). Manfredo et al. (2017) examined relationships between WVOs and trust in SWMAs, finding that residents with domination values were less trusting of SWMAs. Similarly, Gigliotti et al. (2020) found utilitarian landowners less trusting of a SWMA. Our study examined similarities and differences in trust related to self-reported strengths of identities associated with wildlife management.
Scholars and wildlife managers have examined the role of several individual and group identities in wolf management. In this study, we limited our analysis to a subset of identities associated with individuals and groups engaged in discourse about wolves and wolf management including; wolf advocate, hunter, environmentalist, nature enthusiast, farmer, trapper, and conservationist.
Study Hypotheses
We offer the following hypotheses regarding the relationships between wolf stakeholders’ identities, WVOs, and trust in the SWMA. We did not establish a priori hypotheses regarding the relationships between identity and political ideology.
H1. Identities will correlate with WVOs.
H2. Identities will correlate with attitudes about wolves. Farmer and hunter identities are expected to correlate with negative attitudes.
H3. Domination WVO will correlate with negative attitudes about wolves.
H4. Mutualism WVO will correlate with positive attitudes about wolves.
H5. Domination WVO will negatively correlate with trust in the SWMA.
H6. Mutualism WVO will positively correlate with trust in the SWMA.
Materials and Methods
Study Context
Minnesota began revision to the state wolf plan in 2019 prior to recent federal wolf policy decisions. Regardless of the status of wolves under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code Sections 1531–1544), it is necessary to possess data regarding constituents’ values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors toward wolves. It is under this context that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) collaborated to conduct a survey of Minnesota wolf stakeholders described in the section to follow. Since collection of the data presented in this study, wolves have since been removed from and placed back under protection afforded by the ESA. In November 2020—more than 45 years after they were first listed under the ESA—gray wolves were delisted (United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2020). Beginning in 2021, state and tribal wildlife managers resumed responsibility for management and protection of gray wolves, with monitoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 5 years to ensure the continued success of the species (United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2020). State and tribal authority was short lived, when a federal court ruling placed wolves back on the ESA in February 2022 (Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 2022).
Sampling
The populations of interest in this study included (a) Minnesota residents, (b) Minnesota resident deer hunters, and (c) livestock producers (individuals who farm cattle and sheep) in the state’s wolf range. In each case, samples were drawn of individuals 18 years and older. We purchased the sample of state residents from Marketing Systems Group who derived the sample from postal addresses. The sampling frame used to draw the sample of deer hunters was the Minnesota DNR’s electronic licensing system. We obtained the sample of livestock producers from the state Board of Animal Health.1 We distributed questionnaires to 5,250 residents, 2,000 deer hunters, and 2,500 livestock producers.
Data Collection, Response Rate, and Nonresponse Check
Data were collected by researchers at the University of Minnesota (Twin Cities) for the Minnesota DNR using mail-back questionnaires following a process outlined by Dillman et al. (2014) to enhance response rates. Personalized cover letters, surveys, and business-reply envelopes were mailed to potential study participants between September and December 2019. In order to examine nonresponse bias, we examined mailing wave differences in stakeholder identities and respondent age. This assessment of nonresponse bias reflects extrapolation methods, which are based on the assumption that subjects who respond less readily resemble non-respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). We did not observe meaningful differences in identities or age by survey response wave [Effect size (Eta2) of ANOVA by wave < 0.00].
Of the 9,750 total questionnaires mailed, 1,059 were undeliverable and an additional 170 were unusable (i.e., deceased, non-resident, etc.). Of the remaining 8,521 questionnaires, a total of 3,500 questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 41.1%. The effective response rates for the three research strata were: 46.6% for hunters, 32.8% for the general public, and 53.4% for livestock producers. In order to provide accurate population estimates for the resident sample, we compared our respondents to demographic information available through the U.S. Census Bureau (2010) and known rates of hunting participation derived from SWMA license records. The resident sample was drawn using a stratified random sample within SWMA management regions defining the study strata. Data were weighted to reflect the proportion of the population in the different regions within cells representing two categories of hunter status, two categories of gender, and five categories of age (18–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, and 70+).
Measurement
Questions included in the analysis presented in this paper were a subset of those included in the study questionnaire. The analysis presented in this paper focused on respondents’ self-reported identity, political ideology, WVOs, agency trust, and attitudes about wolves. Respondents rated how much they identified with seven labels including: (a) wolf advocate, (b) hunter, (c) environmentalist, (d) nature enthusiast, (e) farmer, (f) trapper, and (g) conservationist. Identity was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). Political ideology was rated on a 7-point scale ranging from very liberal to very conservative. We measured WVOs using 22 items and scales derived from Manfredo et al. (2009; 2017; Appendix A), and trust using 17 items and scales derived from Riley et al. (2018) and Schroeder et al. (2020; Appendix B). WVOs and agency trust were both measured using 7-point Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Attitudes were measured using four 7-point semantic differential scales anchored by the words dangerous-harmless, bad-good, harmful-beneficial, and negative-positive, which were used in an equal-weighed scale.
Analysis
We conducted several analyses to examine respondent identity, and to look at how identity correlated with trust, WVOs, political ideology and attitudes toward wolves. First, we employed multidimensional scaling to visualize relationships among the seven identities. Next, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal components analysis with varimax rotation, and extraction based on eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Then, we conducted bivariate correlations between identities, political ideology, mutualism and domination WVOs, agency trust, and wolf attitudes. We interpret correlations using Cohen’s (1988) definitions of small (0.10), medium (0.30), and large (0.50) effect sizes. Finally, we conducted mediation analysis using multiple regression analysis. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS 27) and Stata (StataCorp, 2019).
Multidimensional Scaling
MDS creates a map displaying the relative positions of a number of objects, given a table of the distances between them referred to as a proximity matrix (Davison and Sireci, 2000). The map may consist of one, two, three, or even more dimensions. MDS techniques prove useful in circumstances where the actual coordinates of objects are not known, but some type of distance matrix is available. This is especially the case in psychology where people may not be able to draw an overall picture of a group of objects, but they can express how different individual pairs of objects are (NCSS, 2021). Stress values provide measures of goodness of fit in MDS, with the following fit levels: 0.000 (perfect), 0.025 (excellent), 0.050 (good), 0.100 (fair), and 0.200 (poor; Kruskal, 1964). A scree plot of stress values is often used to determine the number of dimensions to include (Kruskal and Wish, 1978). If the addition of a dimension provides little improvement in the stress value, it is unlikely the additional dimension is needed (Davison and Sireci, 2000). The MDS map is the chief outcome of MDS analysis, and interpretation of results in the map is largely subjective although external data can be used to help interpret the solution (Davison and Sireci, 2000).
Mediation Analysis
We conducted mediation analysis based on the three-step process described by Baron and Kenny (1986): (1) regress the mediators on the predictor (i.e., independent) variable, (2) regress the criterion (i.e., dependent) variable on the independent variable, and (3) regress the dependent variable on both the predictor and the mediator. Therefore, in the mediation analysis examining wolf attitudes, the three steps were to: (1) regress WVOs on the identities, (2) regress attitudes about wolves on identities, and (3) regress attitudes about wolves on both identities and WVOs. Separate coefficients were estimated for each equation. Mediation is found when the following three conditions occur: (1) the predictor affects the mediator variable, (2) predictor affects the criterion variable, and (3) the mediator affects the criterion variable in the third equation. If these conditions all hold in the predicted direction, then the effect of the predictor on the criterion variable must be less in the third equation than in the second. Full mediation holds if the predictor variable has no effect on the criterion variable, and partial mediation occurs if the predictor variable has a reduced effect on the criterion variable. We provide results from the Sobel test for mediator variables in the final regression analyses. The Sobel test provides a method to test the statistical significance of the reduction in the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable after including the mediator in the model (Baron and Kenny, 1986). We estimated regression models in Stata version 16 (StataCorp, 2019), and used to the rwolf package to derive Romano-Wolf stepped-down p-values for multiple comparisons in order to control for familywise error (Clarke, 2016).
Results
First, we employed MDS to explore relationships among identities. We used a scree test to determine the number of dimensions. The stress level dropped from 0.102 for one dimension to 0.003 for two dimensions, which provided a parsimonious description of the data. MDS suggested similarities among environmentalists, conservationists, and nature enthusiasts, and diversity among the other identities (i.e., hunters, farmers, trappers and wolf advocates; Figure 1). EFA suggested a two-dimensional solution with identities suggestive of benefits from wild wolves (i.e., environmentalist, nature enthusiast, conservationist, and wolf advocate) on the first factor and identities suggestive of costs from wild wolves (i.e., hunters, farmers, and trappers) on the other (Table 1).
Figure 1. Multidimensional scaling of putative identities of wolf stakeholders in Minnesota, United States.
Table 1. Principal component analysis of putative identity of wolf stakeholders in Minnesota, United States: Rotated component matrix (varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization).
Correlation analyses helped clarify the similarities and differences among identities. Bivariate correlations among the identities reinforce similarities among environmentalists, conservationists, and nature enthusiasts found in both the MDS and EFA (Table 2). Consistent with the EFA, identity as a wolf advocate was positively correlated with the environmentalist, conservationist, and nature enthusiast identities with medium to large effect sizes. Reflective of the MDS, environmentalist, conservationist, and nature enthusiast identities were correlated with large effect sizes. Also consistent with the MDS and EFA, we found hunter, farmer, and trapper identities were positively correlated with each other, with medium to large effect sizes. A conservationist identity was positively correlated with all six other identities; the effect size was large for environmentalists and nature enthusiasts, medium for wolf advocates, and small for hunters, farmers, and trappers.
Table 2. Bivariate correlations among identities for wolf stakeholders in Minnesota, United States.
Next, we looked at correlations between identities, with political ideology, trust in the SWMA, wildlife value orientations, and attitudes about wolves (Table 3). Environmentalists and wolf advocates reported the most liberal political ideologies with medium effect sizes, and hunters were the most conservative politically with a medium to large effect size. Conservationist identity was closest to neutral in political ideology, being slightly conservative with a small effect size. Wolf advocate identity was most strongly positively correlated with measures of trust in the SWMA, while farmer identity was most strongly negatively correlated with trust measures, with medium effect sizes. A wolf advocate identity was most positively correlated with mutualism and most negatively correlated with the domination wildlife value orientation, both with medium to large effect sizes. Hunter identity was most positively correlated with domination with a large effect size, and most negatively correlated with mutualism with a medium effect size. Wolf advocate was most strongly correlated with positive attitudes toward wolves with a large effect size, and farmer most strongly correlated with negative attitudes with a medium to large effect size. Conservationist identity was closest to neutral attitudes, but on the positive side with a small to medium effect size.
Table 3. Bivariate correlations of identities with political ideology and trust in the state wildlife management agency for wolf stakeholders in Minnesota, United States.
Results from mediation analysis found most identities and domination WVO influential on attitudes about wolves (Tables 4, 5). Results suggested that domination partially mediated the relationships between five of seven identities and attitudes. Mutualism did not mediate the relationships between identity and attitudes (Table 6).
Table 4. Bivariate correlations among political orientation, wildlife value orientations, and trust in the state wildlife management agency for wolf stakeholders in Minnesota, United States.
Table 5. Summary of regression mediation analyses examining of how identities and wildlife value orientations predict attitudes about wolves for wolf stakeholders in Minnesota, United States.
Table 6. Sobel test results.
Discussion
We found support for all of our hypotheses. These results reflect expected relationships between identities with WVOs and attitudes about wolves. They also support expected relationships between WVOs and attitudes about wolves and trust in the SWMA.
Understanding Identities That May Be Associated With Wolf Management
Our work helps distinguish among various identities to enhance understanding of diverse perspectives on wolves. Among identities that associated benefits with wild wolves, we found strong similarities among the identities of environmentalists, nature enthusiasts, and conservationists. The wolf advocate identity was also aligned with these three identities but differed from them by having more positive correlations with mutualism, trust in the SWMA, and attitudes about wolves. Results suggest that wolf advocates tend to be more liberal, more mutualists, and more trusting of the SWMA. This finding supports previous research documenting similar, close interrelationships among identity, values, political ideology, and trust in government (Bright et al., 2000; Manfredo et al., 2017; Cacciatore et al., 2018; Schroeder et al., 2021).
Although we identified similarities among environmentalists, nature enthusiasts, and conservationists, we found the conservationist identity to be more centrist in terms of their political ideology, WVOs, trust in the agency, and attitudes about wolves. This finding may reflect the association of the term conservationist with hunting and angling (Holsman, 2000; Snyder et al., 2021), and that Gifford Pinchot’s definition of conservation suggested the “wise use of the earth and its resources for the lasting good of men” (United States Department of the Interior [USDOI], 2021). A conservationist identity may resonate with a broader constituency because of its roots in the progressive conservation movement at the end of the 19th century (Mertig, 2015). This movement was narrowly focused on conservation of local wildlife and scenic areas, rather than the broader concerns of the modern environmental movement, which incorporates concerns about pollution, biodiversity, and climate change (Mertig, 2015). It is somewhat surprising that the conservationist identity did not have a stronger correlation with trust in the SWMA in this study. However, our results suggest that some individuals may not perceive strong differences between conservationist and environmentalist identities suggesting the definition of conservationist may be shifting over time.
We found less similarity among the identities that associate costs with wild wolves. The hunting identity was more strongly correlated with a conservative political ideology and a domination WVO, while the farmer identity was more strongly correlated with distrust in the SWMA and negative attitudes about wolves. Although hunters, trappers, and farmers may on average share negative attitudes about wolves, they differ in their trust in the management agency, political ideology and WVOs. Perhaps farmers interact with the SWMA less than hunters and trappers or in more antagonistic ways (e.g., denied wildlife damage claims), which leads to reduced trust (Gigliotti et al., 2020). Hunters and trappers may have more interaction with SWMA staff, or perceived greater salient values similarity with the agency (Gigliotti et al., 2020). Despite similarities in trust in the SWMA between hunters and trappers, trappers reported lower levels of political conservatism and domination compared to hunters. Previous work has suggested that trappers may think of themselves as part of nature or as fulfilling a stewardship function by controlling nuisance or problem animals and controlling the spread of wildlife disease (Daigle et al., 1998), and this may provide some explanation for a somewhat unexpected result.
Identity and Values as Predictors of Attitudes About Wolves
Our analyses demonstrate the importance of the domination WVO as a predictor of attitudes about wolves. Domination was more strongly correlated with attitudes about wolves than mutualism, which is in contrast to other published studies (Bruskotter et al., 2017). In addition, domination—but not mutualism—partially mediated the relationship between identity and wolf attitudes. Previous studies have found both domination and mutualism to predict wildlife-related attitudes and behaviors (Teel and Manfredo, 2009). In the context of identities and attitudes about wolves, the influence of domination may reflect the symbolic nature of the animal and what wolves can represent (Wilson, 1997; Bruskotter and Fulton, 2012). Among hunters, ranchers, and other individuals, wolves may represent a threat to desired game species and livestock (Treves, 2009; Bruskotter and Wilson, 2014; Hogberg et al., 2015; Schroeder et al., 2018). Beyond this, the presence of wolves may reflect loss of social power, property rights, and a utilitarian landscape (Wilson, 1997) for some individuals (Skogen and Krange, 2003; Skogen et al., 2008).
This study provides a step in exploring how identities may relate to attitudes about wolves. Our work is somewhat limited by the fact that we derived our data from a study related to wolf management, and response to our survey measurement items addressing identity and other social psychological constructs was influenced by this context. Additional work could explore the similarities and differences of these identities, and how the identities correlate with attitudes, values, and trust, in the context of other topics. Future research could clarify conservationist, environmentalist, nature enthusiast, and animal advocate identities, and how these identities relate to WVOs, trust in government, and attitudes about wildlife management. Psychological constructs found to explain patterns of policy preference like social dominance orientation (Pratto et al., 1994; Ho et al., 2015) and right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981, 1996) may also relate to identities associated with wildlife management issues and may be worthy of further consideration (Sinn, 2019). In addition, inclusion of other cognitive measures such as perceptions of risks and benefits of wildlife species that might mediate the relationship between identity and WVOs could also help clarify relationships among constructs (Bruskotter and Wilson, 2014).
Despite study results showing that liberal political ideology and mutualist WVO correlated with increased trust in SWMAs, little published research exists on the actual values and WVOs of SWMA professionals (Muth et al., 2006; Gamborg et al., 2019). Very limited research on SWMA staff suggests that their values may align more closely with those of traditional stakeholder groups (Muth et al., 2006). However, a study of wildlife management students (pre-professional) found a majority were mutualists, which may reflect changes in WVOs observed in larger society (Manfredo et al., 2003). In addition, given the relative difference in the domination WVO observed between hunters and trappers, work might examine WVOs among different consumptive recreation participants including hunters and trappers targeting different species, as well as anglers. Future research could replicate our analysis to examine how domination versus mutualism mediate relationships between identities and attitudes or behaviors in other wildlife and natural resource management contexts. Our results underscored domination, rather than mutualism, as a correlate of attitudes about wolves, but research is needed to clarify how WVOs interact with identity related to other potentially less symbolic wildlife species. This finding is especially important for identities that a wider swath of society have internalized, like conservationist.
Our results provide some insight for managers when working with multiple stakeholders in wolf management. We found strong similarities among environmentalists, nature enthusiasts, and conservationists, but clarified that a conservationist identity was correlated with all identities, including hunter, trapper, and farmer identities. This finding suggests that management communications that emphasize a conservationist, rather than an environmentalist or sportsperson perspective may garner support from a broader constituency and encourage trust in agency actions. However, conflicting attitudes about wolves, and the importance of a domination WVO to attitudes, may present a challenge to building consensus on wolf management.
Data Availability Statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics Statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
SS collected the data, conducted the analysis, and wrote portions of the manuscript. AL conceived the idea and wrote portions of the manuscript. DF edited the manuscript and provided support for the hypotheses. LM edited the manuscript and provided support for the hypotheses. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge their partners at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for funding support to the University of Minnesota for this project. The survey described in this report was organized and implemented by the University of Minnesota for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and was not conducted by or on behalf of the U.S. Geological Survey. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Footnotes
References
Arbieu, U., Mehring, M., Bunnefeld, N., Kaczensky, P., Reinhardt, I., Ansorge, H., et al. (2019). Attitudes towards returning wolves (Canis lupus) in Germany: exposure, information sources and trust matter. Biol. Conserv. 224, 202–210. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.027
Armstrong, J. S., and Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 14, 396–402. doi: 10.1177/002224377701400320
Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bongi, P., Baruffetti, M., Gazzola, A., and O’Mahony, K. (2022). Coexistence in ecological corridors: understanding tolerance of wolves in the northwestern Apennines, Italy. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2021.2010288
Bright, A., Manfredo, M., and Fulton, D. (2000). Segmenting the public: an application of value orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28, 218–226.
Bruskotter, J. T., and Fulton, D. C. (2012). Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25, 97–102. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2011.622735
Bruskotter, J. T., and Wilson, R. (2014). Determining where the wild things will be: using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conserv. Lett. 7, 158–165. doi: 10.1111/conl.12072
Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A., Dietsch, A., Slagle, K. M., Brooks, J. S., and Nelson, M. P. (2019). Conservationists’ moral obligations toward wildlife: values and identity promote conservation conflict. Biol. Conserv. 240:108296. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108296
Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A., Manfredo, M. A., Karns, G. R., Wolf, C., Ard, K., et al. (2017). Modernization, risk, and conservation of the world’s largest carnivores. BioScience 67, 646–655. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix049
Cacciatore, M. A., Meng, J., Reber, B. H., and Boyd, B. (2018). Globalization effects or a growing cultural divide? A three-year comparative analysis of trust predictors in the US and China. Chin. J. Commun. 11, 45–65. doi: 10.1080/17544750.2017.1334681
Carlson, S. C., Dietsch, A. M., Slagle, K. M., and Bruskotter, J. T. (2020). The VIPs of wolf conservation: how values, identity, and place shape attitudes toward wolves in the United States. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8:6. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2020.00006
Clarke, D. (2016). RWOLF: Stata Module to Calculate Romano-Wolf Stepdown p-Values for Multiple Hypothesis Testing. Boston, MA: Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Creswell, T. (1996). In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, Transgression. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Cvetkovich, G., and Winter, P. L. (2003). Trust and social representations of threatened and endangered species. Environ. Behav. 35, 286–307. doi: 10.1177/0013916502250139
Daigle, J., Muth, R. M., Zuick, R. R., and Glass, R. J. (1998). Sociocultural dimensions of trapping: a factor analytic study of trappers in six northeastern states. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 26, 614–625.
Davison, M. L., and Sireci, S. G. (2000). “Chapter 12: multidimensional scaling,” in Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling, eds H. E. A. Tinsley and S. D. Brown (Amsterdam: Elsevier), 323–352. doi: 10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50013-6
Decker, D. J., Forstchen, A. B., Pomeranz, E. F., Smith, C. A., Riley, S. J., Jacobsen, C. A., et al. (2015). Stakeholder engagement in wildlife management: does the public trust doctrine imply limits? J. Wildl. Manag. 79, 174–179. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.809
Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al. (2022). U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 21-cv-00344-JSW.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., and Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 4th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dressel, S., Sanstrom, C., and Ericsson, G. (2014). A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976-2012. Conserv. Biol. 29, 565–574. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12420
Ericsson, G., and Heberlein, T. A. (2003). Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biol. Conserv. 111, 149–159. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00258-6
Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., and Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 1, 24–47. doi: 10.1080/10871209609359060
Gamborg, C., Stamati, S., and Jensen, F. S. (2019). Wildlife value orientations of prospective conservation and wildlife management professionals. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 24, 496–500. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2019.1630694
Ghasemi, B., Landon, A. C., Miller, C. A., and Williams, B. D. (2021). Trust and emotion predict support for large carnivore recovery in the absence of real threats. Soc. Nat. Resour. 34, 1318–1337. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2021.1953202
Gigliotti, L. M., Swelkert, L. A., Cornicelli, L., and Fulton, D. C. (2020). Minnesota landowners’ trust in their department of natural resources, salient values similarity and wildlife value orientations. Environ. Syst. Decis. 40, 577–587. doi: 10.1007/s10669-020-09766-z
Heberlein, T. A., and Ericsson, G. (2005). Ties to the countryside: urban attitudes toward hunting, wildlife and wolves. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 10, 213–227. doi: 10.1080/10871200591003454
Heeren, A., Karns, G. R., Bruskotter, J. T., Toman, E., Wilson, R., and Szarek, H. (2017). Expert judgment and uncertainty regarding the protection of imperiled species. Conserv. Biol. 31, 657–665. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12838
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., et al. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109, 1003–1028. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000033
Hogberg, J., Treves, A., Shaw, B., and Naughton-Treves, L. (2015). Changes in attitudes toward wolves before and after an inaugural public hunting and trapping season: early evidence from Wisconsin’s wolf range. Environ. Conserv. 43, 45–55. doi: 10.1017/S037689291500017X
Holsman, R. H. (2000). Goodwill hunting? Exploring the role of hunters as ecosystem stewards. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 28, 808–816.
Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: a historical review. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2, 204–222. doi: 10.1037/bul0000156
Jacobs, M. H., Dubois, S., Hosaka, T., Ladanovic, V., Muslim, H. F. M., Numata, S., et al. (2022). Exploring cultural differences in wildlife value orientation using student samples in seven nations. Biodivers. Conserv. doi: 10.1007/s10531-022-02361-5
Johansson, M., Karlsson, J., Pedersen, E., and Flykt, A. (2012). Factors governing human fear of brown bear and wolf. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 17, 58–74. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2012.619001
Johansson, M., Sandström, C., Pedersen, E., and Erocsson, G. (2016). Factors governing human fear of wolves: moderating effects of geographical location and standpoint on protected nature. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 62, 749–760. doi: 10.1007/s10344-016-1054-5
Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. Am. Psychol. 61, 651–670. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.651
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, J., and Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol. Bull. 129, 339–375. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
Krange, O., Kaltenborn, B. P., and Hultman, M. (2021). “Don’t confuse me with facts” – how right wing populism affect trust in agencies advocating anthropogenic climate change as a reality. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 8:255. doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00930-7
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika 29, 1–27. doi: 10.1007/BF02289565
Landon, A. C., Miller, C. A., and Williams, B. D. (2018). Assessing Illinois residents’ support for natural recolonization of apex predators. Environ. Manage. 63, 260–269. doi: 10.1007/s00267-018-1129-z
Lute, M. L., and Gore, M. L. (2014). Stewardship as a path to cooperation? Exploring the role of identity in intergroup conflict among Michigan wolf stakeholders. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 19, 267–279.
Lute, M. L., Bump, A., and Gore, M. (2014). Identity-driven differences in stakeholder concerns about hunting wolves. PLoS One 9:e114460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114460
MacKinnon, D. P. (2011). Integrating mediators and moderators in research design. Res. Soc. Work Pract. 21, 675–681. doi: 10.1177/1049731511414148
Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., and Bright, A. D. (2003). Why are public values toward wildlife changing? Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 8, 287–306. doi: 10.1080/716100425
Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., and Henry, K. L. (2009). Linking society and environment: a multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Soc. Sci. Q. (Blackwell Publ. Limited) 90, 407–427. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00624.x
Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., Don Carlos, A. W., Sullivan, L., Bright, A. D., Dietsch, A. M., et al. (2020). The changing sociocultural context of wildlife conservation. Conserv. Biol. 34, 1549–1559. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13493
Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., Sullivan, L., and Dietsch, A. M. (2017). Values, trust, and cultural backlash in conservation governance: the case of wildlife management in the United States. Biol. Conserv. 214, 303–311. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.032
Marshall, K., White, R., and Fisher, A. (2007). Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: on the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management. Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 3129–3146. doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9167-5
Mason, L. (2018). Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mayer, A., and O’Connor Shelley, T. (2018). The dual importance of political identity in environmental governance: the case of oil and gas policy in Colorado. Soc. Nat. Resour. 31, 1230–1247. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1464235
Mertig, A. (2015). “From conservationists, to environmentalists: the American environmental movement,” in Cultural Dynamics of Climate Change and the Environment in Northern America, Vol. 3, eds C. Meinert and C. Leggewie (Leiden: Brill).
Metcalf, A. L., Metcalf, E. C., Khumalo, K., Gude, J., Kujala, Q., and Lewis, M. S. (2017). Public wildlife management on private lands: reciprocity, population status, and stakeholders’ normative beliefs. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 22, 564–582. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2017.1372534
Muth, R. M., Zwick, R. R., Mather, M. E., Organ, J. F., Daigle, J. J., and Jonker, S. A. (2006). Unnecessary source of pain and suffering or necessary management tool: attitudes of conservation professionals toward outlawing leghold traps. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34, 706–715. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[706:USOPAS]2.0.CO;2
NCSS (2021). Chapter 435: Multidimensional Scaling. Available online at: https://ncss-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/themes/ncss/pdf/Procedures/NCSS/Multidimensional_Scaling.pdf (accessed January 13, 2021).
Needham, M. D., and Vaske, J. J. (2008). Hunter perceptions of similarity and trust in wildlife agencies and personal risk associated with chronic wasting disease. Soc. Nat. Resour. 21, 197–214. doi: 10.1080/08941920701816336
Nilsson, J., Sandstrom, A., and Nohrstedt, D. (2020). Beliefs, social identity, and the view of opponents in Swedish carnivore management policy. Policy Sci. 53, 453–472. doi: 10.1007/s11077-020-09380-5
Onorato, R. S., and Turner, J. C. (2004). Fluidity in the self-concept: the shift from personal to social identity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 34, 257–278. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.195
Petrocik, J. R. (2009). Measuring party support: leaners are not independents. Elect. Stud. 28, 562–572. doi: 10.1016/j.electstud.2009.05.022
Poortinga, W., and Pidgeon, N. F. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Anal. 23, 961–972. doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00373
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., and Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 741–763. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Rahn, W. M., and Transue, J. E. (2002). Social trust and value change: the decline of social capital in American youth 1976-1995. Polit. Psychol. 19, 545–565. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00117
Riley, S. J., Ford, J. K., Triezenberg, H. A., and Lederle, P. E. (2018). Stakeholder trust in a state wildlife agency. J. Wildl. Manag. 82, 1528–1535. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.21501
Schroeder, S. A., and Fulton, D. C. (2017). Voice, perceived fairness, agency trust, and acceptance of management decisions among Minnesota anglers. Soc. Nat. Resour. 30, 569–584. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2016.1238987
Schroeder, S. A., Landon, A. C., Fulton, D. C., and McInenly, L. (2021). Social identity, values, and trust in government: how stakeholder group, political ideology, and wildlife value orientations relate to trust in a state agency for wildlife management. Biol. Conserv. 261:109285. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109285
Schroeder, S. A., Landon, A., Cornicelli, L., Fulton, D. C., and McInenly, L. (2020). Institutional trust, beliefs and evaluation of regulations, and management of chronic wasting disease (CWD). Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 26, 228–244. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2020.1808915
Schroeder, S. A., Fulton, D. C., and Cornicelli, L. (2018). How Minnesota wolf hunter and trapper attitudes and risk and benefit-based beliefs predict wolf management preferences. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 23, 552–568. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2018.1511876
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., and Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal. 20, 353–362. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.203034
Sinn, J. S. (2019). Mapping ideology: combining the Schwarz Value Circumplex with evolutionary theory to explain ideological differences. Evol. Psychol. Sci. 5, 44–57. doi: 10.1007/s40806-018-0165-5
Skogen, K., and Krange, O. (2003). A wolf at the gate: the anti-carnivore alliance and the symbolic construction of community. Sociol. Ruralis 43, 309–325. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00247
Skogen, K., and Krange, O. (2020). The political dimensions of illegal wolf hunting: anti-elitism, lack of trust in institutions and acceptance of illegal wolf killing among Norwegian hunters. Sociol. Ruralis 60, 551–573. doi: 10.1111/soru.12309
Skogen, K., Mauz, I., and Krange, O. (2008). Cry wolf!: narratives of wolf recovery in France and Norway. Rural Sociol. 73, 105–133. doi: 10.1526/003601108783575916
Smith, J. W., Leahy, J. E., Anderson, D. H., and Davenport, M. A. (2013). Community/agency trust and public involvement in resource planning. Soc. Nat. Resour. 26, 452–471. doi: 10.1017/S0021932020000553
Snyder, S. A., Floress, K., and Vokoun, M. (2021). Does having a hunter identity influence land management behaviors of family forest owners? Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 27, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2020.1871124
Söjlander-Linquist, A., Johansson, M., and Sandström, C. (2015). Individual and collective responses to large carnivore management: the roles of trust, reciprocity, knowledge spheres, communication and leadership. Wildl. Biol. 21, 175–185.
Stryker, S., and Burke, P. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Soc. Psychol. Q. 63, 284–297.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1979). “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict,” in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole), 33–37.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1986). “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior,” in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall), 7–24.
Teel, T. L., and Manfredo, M. J. (2009). Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv. Biol. 24, 128–139. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01374.x
Treves, A. (2009). Hunting for large carnivore conservation. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 1350–1356. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01729.x
Tucker, P., and Pletscher, D. H. (1989). Attitudes of hunters and residents toward wolves in northwestern Montana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 17, 509–514.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., and Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., and McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: cognition and social context. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20, 454–463. doi: 10.1177/0146167294205002
U.S. Census Bureau (2010). 2010 US Census Summary File: Minnesota. Suitland, MD: U.S. Census Bureau.
United States Department of the Interior [USDOI] (2021). Gifford Pinchot: A Legacy of Conservation. Available online at: https://www.doi.gov/blog/gifford-pinchot-legacy-conservation (accessed February 8, 2021).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] (2020). Gray Wolf (Canis lupus): Trump Administration Returns Management and Protection of Gray Wolves to States and Tribes Following Successful Recovery Efforts. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/home/wolfrecovery/ (accessed December 11, 2020).
Unsworth, K. L., and Fielding, K. S. (2014). It’s political: how the salience of one’s political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Glob. Environ. Change 27, 131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002
van Eeden, L. M., Newsome, T. M., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R., and Bruskotter, J. (2019). Social identity shapes support for management of wildlife and pests. Biol. Conserv. 231, 167–173. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.012
van Eeden, L. M., Slagle, K., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R., and Newsome, T. M. (2020b). Linking social identity, risk perception, and behavioral psychology to understand predator management by livestock producers. Restor. Ecol. 28, 902–910. doi: 10.1111/rec.13154
van Eeden, L. M., Slagle, K., Newsome, T. M., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R., and Bruskotter, J. (2020a). Exploring nationality and social identity to explain attitudes toward conservation actions in the United States and Australia. Conserv. Biol. 34, 1165–1175. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13488
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 21, 745–760. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-821
von Essen, E., and Hansen, H. P. (2015). How stakeholder co-management reproduces conservation conflicts revealing rationality problems in Swedish wolf conservation. Conserv. Soc. 13, 332–344. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.179881
Williams, C. K., Ericsson, G., and Heberlein, T. A. (2002). A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 30, 575–584.
Wilson, M. A. (1997). The wolf in Yellowstone: science, symbol, or politics? Deconstructing the conflict between environmentalism and wise use. Soc. Nat. Resour. 10, 453–468. doi: 10.1080/08941929709381044
Winter, P. L., and Cvetkovich, G. T. (2010). Trust mediates conservation-related behaviors. Ecopsychology 2, 211–219. doi: 10.1089/eco.2010.0046
Zajac, R. M., Bruskotter, J. T., Wilson, R. S., and Prange, S. (2012). Learning to live with black bears: a psychological model of acceptance. J. Wildl. Manag. 76, 1331–1340. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.398
Appendix A
Table A1. Wildlife value orientation survey items adapted from Teel and Manfredo (2009)1.
Appendix B
Table B1. Trust survey items adapted from Riley et al. (2018) and Schroeder et al. (2020)1.
Keywords: social identity theory, wolf management, human dimensions, conservation social science, wildlife value orientations, ideology
Citation: Schroeder SA, Landon AC, Fulton DC and McInenly LE (2022) On the Multiple Identities of Stakeholders in Wolf Management in Minnesota, United States. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10:798795. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.798795
Received: 20 October 2021; Accepted: 27 May 2022;
Published: 16 June 2022.
Edited by:
Yadvendradev V. Jhala, Wildlife Institute of India, IndiaReviewed by:
Spartaco Gippoliti, Storia della Fauna, ItalyBrent Patterson, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Canada
Ketil Skogen, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Norway
Copyright © 2022 Schroeder, Landon, Fulton and McInenly. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Susan A. Schroeder, sas@umn.edu