What medium measures fear best: written vs. video

Increasingly in the field of Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management we ask respondents to assess different scenarios of wildlife-human interactions and ask opinions about acceptability of lethal management, fear levels, and... [ view full abstract ]

Increasingly in the field of Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management we ask respondents to assess different scenarios of wildlife-human interactions and ask opinions about acceptability of lethal management, fear levels, and personal perceptions of risk. However, the effectiveness of measuring an emotional response to a situation described in a written statement within the research instrument could be questioned in terms of its validity. We hypothesise that video of a situation or scenario may offer a better way to measure emotional responses such as fear and perceptions of risk.

We personally interviewed 279 visitors to the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Centre using an intercept survey during their visit to a bear viewing area. Participants were either shown a video of three scenarios of a brown bear-human interaction (i.e., a brown bear feeding on berries, a brown bear slowly walking down the trail, and finally a brown bear charging) or were read the written statements describing these same scenarios. We hypothesized that participants receiving the video of a scenario would have smaller variances within their responses because participants were experiencing a consistent scenario rather than imagining the variations within the written scenario. We also hypothesized that fear and perceptions of likelihood would be higher with those experiencing the video and perceived sense of control would be less.

The differences between the video administered versus written statements groups were compared using the Potential for Conflict Index (PCI2) and t-tests.

The differences found suggest that the link between medium and perceived risk is complex. The strongest difference was found in the variable fear, where differences were observed in the first two scenarios but not in the third and most severe encounter. Significant differences were also found between the two groups about the likelihood of a bear encounter but only during the two riskier encounters. No significant differences were found regarding perceived control. Results suggest that researchers should further explore different medium to collect data and be cognizant that the medium may affect the results obtained.