Montanans know spring has officially arrived when grizzly bears emerge from their dens. But unlike the bears, the contentious debate over their future never hibernates. New research from my lab reveals how people’s social identities and the dynamics between social groups may play a larger role in these debates than even the animals themselves.
Social scientists like me work to understand the human dimensions behind wildlife conservation and management. There’s a cliché among wildlife biologists that wildlife management is really people management, and they’re right. My research seeks to understand the psychological and social factors that underlie pressing environmental challenges. It is from this perspective that my team sought to understand how Montanans think about grizzly bears.
Listed species are managed by the federal government until they have recovered and management responsibility can return to the states. While listed, federal law prevents hunting of the animal and destruction of grizzly bear habitat. If the animal is delisted, some states intend to implement a grizzly bear hunting season.
People on both sides of the delisting debate often use logic to try to convince others that their position is right. Proponents of delisting say that hunting grizzly bears can help reduce conflict between grizzly bears and humans. Opponents of delisting counter that state agencies cannot be trusted to responsibly manage grizzly bears.
But debates over wildlife might be more complex than these arguments imply.
Humans perceive reality through the lens of their social identities. People are more likely to see a foul committed by a rival sports team than one committed by the team they’re rooting for. When randomly assigned to be part of a group, people will even overlook subconscious racial biases to favor their fellow group members.
Your social identities influence how you interpret your own reality.
Leaders can leverage social identities to inspire cooperation and collective action. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, people with strong national identities were more likely to physically distance and support public health policies.
People who hunt tend to have more negative experiences with grizzly bears than nonhunters – usually because hunters are more often living near and moving through grizzly bear habitat.
When hunters hear grizzly bear conflict stories from other hunters, they might favor grizzlies less, even if they’ve never had a negative experience with one themselves. Karl Weatherly/DigitalVision via Getty Images
In a large survey of Montana residents, my team found that one of the most important factors associated with negative attitudes toward grizzly bears was whether someone had heard stories of grizzly bears causing other people property damage. We called this “vicarious property damage.” These negative feelings toward grizzly bears are highly correlated with the belief that there are too many grizzly bears in Montana already.
But we also found an interesting wrinkle in the data. Although hunters extended empathy to other hunters whose properties had been damaged by grizzly bears, nonhunters didn’t show the same courtesy. Because property damage from grizzly bears was far more likely to affect hunters, only other hunters were able to put themselves in their shoes. They felt as though other hunters’ experiences may as well have happened to them, and their attitudes toward grizzly bears were more negative as a result.
For nonhunters, hearing stories about grizzly bears causing damage to hunters’ property did not affect their attitudes toward the animals.
Identity-informed conservation
Recognizing that social identities can play a major role in wildlife conservation debates helps untangle and perhaps prevent some of the conflict. For those wishing to build consensus, there are many psychology-informed strategies for improving relationships between groups.
Conservation groups and wildlife managers should take care when developing interventions based on social identity to prevent them from backfiring when applied to wildlife conservation issues. Bringing up social identities can sometimes cause unintended division. For example, partisan politics can unnecessarily divide people on environmental issues.
Wildlife professionals can reach their audience more effectively by matching their message and messengers to the social identities of their audience. Some conservation groups have seen success uniting community members who might otherwise be divided around a shared identity associated with their love of a particular place. The conservation group Swan Valley Connections has used this strategy in Montana’s Swan Valley to reduce conflict between grizzly bears and local residents.
Group dynamics can foster cooperation or create division, and the debate over grizzly bear management in Montana is no exception. Who people are and who they care about drives their reactions to this large carnivore. Grizzly bear conservation efforts that unite people around shared identities are far more likely to succeed than those that remind them of their divisions.
Alexander L. Metcalf has received funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the US Geological Survey, and the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Dr. Metcalf is an advisor to the Swan Valley Connections board of directors.
