Abstract wildlife is nice, concrete wildlife less so

If people think about a topic on an abstract level, they have a tendency to be idealistic. In contrast, thought that is directed to more concrete cases or practices, is less idealistic, and influenced by a variety of... [ view full abstract ]

If people think about a topic on an abstract level, they have a tendency to be idealistic. In contrast, thought that is directed to more concrete cases or practices, is less idealistic, and influenced by a variety of contextual factors. In the context of wildlife, these factors may include nuisance and risk perception associated with various consequences of human-wildlife interactions. This may lead to a less positive image of wildlife if thought is directed to a concrete level. We conducted explorative research amongst Malaysian residents to address two research questions: (a) What are the principal components of salient thought about wildlife? (b) Is abstract thought more positive than concrete thought?  

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample of 30 residents to include different ages, sexes, professions and places of residence. Prompts to tap into associations with wildlife included: (a) What comes to mind when you think about wildlife? (b) How are humans and wildlife related? (c) How should humans treat wildlife? These prompts allow interviewees to express both abstract and concrete thought, and are neutral with respect to eliciting positive or negative responses.

As a main categorization, the well-known distinction between cognitive, conative and affective categories was perfectly applicable. Predominant cognitive thought included physical and behavioural attributes of wildlife, and population status. Conative thought expressed wildlife as a threat to humans, a hierarchical relationship with wildlife, and human exploitation of habitat and wildlife. Affective associations reflected both positive emotional bonds and negative feelings such as worries.

Across responses to the different prompts, abstract thought about wildlife was associated with long-term goals pertaining to wildlife and habitat protection, importance of wildlife as components of healthy ecosystems, and belongingness and the need to care for wildlife. Concrete thought reflected negative consequences of human-wildlife interactions such as danger and economic damage, and functional relationships such as wildlife being a food source. Hence, abstract wildlife was appraised much nicer than concrete wildlife.