Specificity and the Cognitive Hierarchy: Value Orientations and the Acceptability of Urban Wildlife Management Actions

Abstract This article tests theory suggesting cognitions at the same level of specificity have stronger associations than those at different levels. Using data from a survey of Anchorage, AK, residents (n = 971, response rate = 59%), we explored relationships between general wildlife value orientations and (1) the general acceptability of hunting urban wildlife populations, and (2) specific wildlife management actions (e.g., the acceptability of destroying a bear or moose after specific conflict situations). Consistent with previous research, patterns of basic wildlife beliefs aligned along two distinct value orientations (protection–use and wildlife appreciation) that differentially predicted management action acceptability. As hypothesized, general wildlife value orientations had more influence on the acceptability of hunting to reduce wildlife populations than destroying an animal involved in specific conflict situations. Findings suggested ways to improve measurement, ways to develop broader models that include values-related variables, and the importance of values-level information when addressing urban wildlife conflicts. Keywords: cognitive hierarchyspecificityurban wildlife managementwildlife value orientations Notes a Responses were on 7-point scales from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree," with a "no opinion" mid-point. Starred items were reverse coded in the confirmatory factor analysis. b Fit statistics: χ2 = 1,443 with 319 degrees of freedom; RMR = .047; GFI = .90; NFI = .91; CFI = .92. a Starred belief dimensions were reverse coded in the confirmatory factor analysis. b Fit statistics: χ2 = 234.5 with 17 degrees of freedom; RMR = .079; GFI = .95; NFI = .93; CFI = .93. a All standardized regression coefficients were significant (p < .05). b Percent reporting slightly, moderately, or highly acceptable on 7-point scale; when used as continuous variable in models, higher acceptability score = more acceptable. c Higher protection–use scores = more use oriented; lower scores = more protection oriented. d Higher appreciation scores = higher appreciation orientation. a All standardized regression coefficients were significant (p < .05). b Percent reporting slightly, moderately, or highly acceptable from 7-point scale; when used as continuous variable in models, higher acceptability score = more acceptable. c Higher protection–use scores = more use oriented; lower scores = more protection oriented. d Higher appreciation scores = higher appreciation orientation.