Understanding why Attitudes toward Predators Change

In the late 1970s, Dr. Stephen Kellert began a program of research on attitudes and values toward animals that has shaped a generation of researchers across a variety of fields of study (e.g., animal studies, wildlife... [ view full abstract ]

In the late 1970s, Dr. Stephen Kellert began a program of research on attitudes and values toward animals that has shaped a generation of researchers across a variety of fields of study (e.g., animal studies, wildlife conservation, human dimensions of wildlife). Kellert’s program also began lines of research on attitudes toward (or tolerance for) predators in the United States that have become increasingly relevant in shaping predator policy and management decisions for these charismatic species.  Yet, despite four decades of research, answers to two of the most intriguing questions raised by Kellert’s research remain uncertain; specifically: (i) Are attitudes toward predators changing? and, more importantly, (ii) If so, why?  Kellert and colleagues observed that policies toward predators shifted dramatically following World War II, and inferred that such policy changes were brought about by mass change in societal attitudes.  Yet subsequent studies specifically evaluating attitude change have come to widely divergent conclusions.  Some find no change, some find that attitudes have become more negative (at least among certain groups), while still others find that attitudes are more positive.  Understanding these divergent results necessarily depends upon the second question raised by Kellert’s research—why do attitudes change?  I argue that insight into this question can be gained by three theories that point toward different mechanisms working at the individual, group and societal levels—i.e., theories on risk, social identity, and modernization.  Taken together, these theories explain the diverse and opposing findings regarding changes in attitudes toward predators, and provide critical insight concerning how the attitudes of various groups may respond to changes in related policies and management practices.  More generally, this review shows how building an adequate understanding complex, socio-cultural phenomena is aided by approaches that transcend common disciplinary silos, a notion that transcends the work of Dr. Kellert.