Abstract
Two parallel lines of inquiry, tolerance for and acceptance of wildlife populations, have arisen in the applied literature on wildlife conservation to assess probability of successfully establishing or increasing populations of controversial species. Neither of these lines is well grounded in social science theory, and diverse measures have been employed to assess tolerance, which inhibits comparability across studies. We empirically tested behavioral measures of tolerance against self-reports of previous policy-relevant behavior and behavioral intentions. Both composite behavioral measures were strongly correlated (r > .70) with two attitudinal measures of tolerance commonly employed in the literature. The strong correlation between attitudinal and behavioral measures suggests existing attitudinal measures represent valid, parsimonious measures of tolerance that may be useful when behavioral measures are too cumbersome or misreporting of behavior is anticipated. Our results demonstrate how behavioral measures of tolerance provide additional, useful information beyond general attitudinal measures.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
