Cited by 263Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal and Plant Science EducationRangeland and Wildlife Management

Longitudinal Analysis of Attitudes Toward Wolves

TREVES, ADRIAN, NAUGHTON‐TREVES, LISA, SHELLEY, VICTORIA·2013·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Understanding individual attitudes and how these predict overt opposition to predator conservation or direct, covert action against predators will help to recover and maintain them. Studies of attitudes toward wild animals rely primarily on samples of individuals at a single time point. We examined longitudinal change in individuals’ attitudes toward gray wolves (Canis lupus). In the contiguous United States, amidst persistent controversy and opposition, abundances of gray wolves are at their highest in 60 years. We used mailed surveys to sample 1892 residents of Wisconsin in 2001 or 2004 and then resampled 656 of these individuals who resided in wolf range in 2009. Our study spanned a period of policy shifts and increasing wolf abundance. Over time, the 656 respondents increased agreement with statements reflecting fear of wolves, the belief that wolves compete with hunters for deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and inclination to poach a wolf. Endorsement of lethal control of wolves by the state and public hunting of wolves also increased. Neither the time span over which respondents reported exposure to wolves locally nor self‐reported losses of domestic animals to wolves correlated with changes in attitude. We predict future increases in legal and illegal killing of wolves that may reduce their abundance in Wisconsin unless interventions are implemented to improve attitudes and behavior toward wolves. To assess whether interventions change attitudes, longitudinal studies like ours are needed. Análisis Longitudinal de las Actitudes Hacia Lobos

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cobi.12009

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Perceptions of large carnivores can rapidly change as a function of population size.

    “Similarly, perceptions of large carnivores, which often encompass both admiration and fear, can rapidly change as a function of population size (Zimmermann et al., 2001;Treves et al., 2013;Eriksson et al., 2015).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
TREVES, A., NAUGHTON‐TREVES, L., & SHELLEY, V.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01-07
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
315-323
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W1767177626
Cited by
263
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 4
FWCI
17.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Commerce
  • U.S. Department of the Interior
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
gray wolf, wolf, wolf conservation, human-wildlife conflict, attitude change over time, Wisconsin
MeSH terms
Animals, Attitude, Conservation of Natural Resources, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Wisconsin, Wolves

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review