Abstract

Conservation of biodiversity is determined in part by human preferences. Preferences relevant to conservation have been examined largely via explicit measures (e.g., a self-reported degree of liking), with implicit measures (e.g., preconscious, automatic evaluations) receiving relatively less attention. This is the case despite psychological evidence from other contexts that implicit preferences are more informative of behavior. Thus, the type of measure that predicts conservation intentions for biodiversity is unknown. We conducted three studies to examine conservation intentions in light of people’s explicit and implicit preferences toward four endangered species (sea otter, American badger, caribou, yellow-breasted chat) and four biomes (forest, ocean, grassland, tundra). In Study 1 (n = 55), we found that people implicitly preferred caribou most, but explicitly preferred sea otter most, with a significant multiple regression where participants’ explicit preferences dictated their stated intended donations for conservation of each species. In Study 2 (n = 57) we found that people implicitly and explicitly preferred forest and ocean over grassland and tundra. Explicit rather than implicit preferences predicted the intended donation for conservation of the ocean biome. Study 3 involved a broader online sample of participants (n = 463) and also found that explicit preferences dictated the intended donations for conservation of biomes and species. Our findings reveal discrepancies between implicit and explicit preferences toward species, but not toward biomes. Importantly, the results demonstrate that explicit rather than implicit preferences predict conservation intentions for biodiversity. The current findings have several implications for conservation and the communication of biodiversity initiatives.

Highlights

  • Human attitudes can determine actions toward biodiversity conservation, and are informed by people’s explicit preferences, values, emotions, and unconscious motives [1,2]

  • Implicit versus explicit preferences regarding important social norms have been key to understanding the difference between what people state as their belief or as important, versus positions revealed through the elicitation of less conscious preferences

  • Implicit preferences can be measured through the use of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), developed by Greenwald et al (1998), which measures the strength of association between a particular subject and its positive and negative attributes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Human attitudes can determine actions toward biodiversity conservation, and are informed by people’s explicit preferences, values, emotions, and unconscious motives [1,2]. As such, understanding human preferences and intended actions toward biodiversity can contribute to overall conservation goals. Implicit versus explicit preferences regarding important social norms have been key to understanding the difference between what people state as their belief or as important, versus positions revealed through the elicitation of less conscious preferences. Axt et al (2014) surveyed almost 98,000 people about their preferences toward different racial groups and did not find statistically significant differences across the ratings of explicit preferences for participants who were White, Asian or Hispanic p>0.05. They only found a significant difference for how Black participants explicitly rated the third and fourth highest rated racial group p = 0, but not the other groups [6]. Implicit preferences have been shown to guide behavior more strongly than explicit preferences, due to people’s tendency to conceal their explicit preferences in order to conform to social norms [7]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call