Trust And Social Representations Of The Management Of Threatened And Endangered Species

Using quantitative analysis of questionnaire responses, observations during focus group discussions, and qualitative assessment of discussion statements, the present study examined trust and social representations of the U.S. Forest Service’s management of Southern California national forests for the protection of endangered species. Supporting expectations based on the salient values similarity (SVS) model, it was found that (a) trust was highly correlated to assessments of shared salient values, and (b) trust and both the evaluation and acceptance of specific forest management practices were strongly related. Four patterns of social representations of shared value saliency and trust of U.S. Forest Service forest management to protect species were identified. Results demonstrate the importance of trust to the acceptance of forest management practices. They also suggest the need to recognize the influence of perceived variations in saliency of values in the SVS model.

[1]  B. Johnson.  Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach , 2002 .

[2]  Uta Frith,et al.  The Biological Basis of Social Interaction , 2001 .

[3]  Matthew D. Lieberman,et al.  The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. , 2001, The American psychologist.

[4]  J. Stevenson.  The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution , 2001 .

[5]  L Sjöberg,et al.  Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Kenneth R. Hammond,et al.  Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice , 2000 .

[7]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[8]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Dual-Process Models in Social and Cognitive Psychology: Conceptual Integration and Links to Underlying Memory Systems , 2000 .

[10]  M. Siegrist.  The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[11]  Michael C. Corballis,et al.  The Descent of Mind: Psychological Perspectives on Hominid Evolution , 2000 .

[12]  S. Clayton.  New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Models of Justice in the Environmental Debate , 2000 .

[13]  Uta Frith,et al.  The physiological basis of theory in mind , 2000 .

[14]  M. Baldassare,et al.  California in the New Millennium: The Changing Social and Political Landscape , 2000 .

[15]  P. Stern.  New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior , 2000 .

[16]  R. Dunlap,et al.  Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale , 2000 .

[17]  C. Frith,et al.  Interacting minds--a biological basis. , 1999, Science.

[18]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[19]  Patricia L. Winter,et al.  Anticipated responses to a fee program: the key is trust. , 1999 .

[20]  Motoko Kosugi,et al.  Trust, Gullibility, and Social Intelligence , 1999 .

[21]  R. Löfstedt,et al.  Social Trust and the Management of Risk , 1999 .

[22]  S. Baron-Cohen.  The evolution of a theory of mind. , 1999 .

[23]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Incorporating respondent uncertainty when estimating willingness to pay for protecting critical habitat for threatened and endangered fish , 1998 .

[24]  Paul R. Krausman,et al.  Social Construction, Political Power, and the Allocation of Benefits to Endangered Species , 1998 .

[25]  Judith Petts,et al.  Trust and waste management information expectation versus observation , 1998 .

[26]  Motoki Watabe,et al.  Uncertainty, Trust, and Commitment Formation in the United States and Japan1 , 1998, American Journal of Sociology.

[27]  L. Sjöberg.  Risk Perception: Experts and the Public , 1998 .

[28]  M. Bergman.  Social representations as the mother of all behavioural pre-dispositions? Notes on the relations between social representations, attitudes and values. , 1998 .

[29]  K. Boyle,et al.  A COMPARISON OF OPINIONS OF WILDLIFE MANAGERS AND THE PUBLIC ON ENDANGEREDSPECIES MANAGEMENT , 1998 .

[30]  M. Gauvain.  Culture, development, and theory of mind: comment on Lillard (1998) , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  L. Kruger.  Environmental Values in American Culture , 1997 .

[32]  David L. Morgan,et al.  Planning Focus Groups , 1997 .

[33]  Timothy C. Earle,et al.  Culture, Cosmopolitanism, and Risk Management , 1997 .

[34]  Kathryn A. Schoenecker,et al.  Attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of Mexican gray wolves in Arizona , 1997 .

[35]  G. Nabhan.  Cultures of Habitat: On Nature, Culture, and Story , 1997 .

[36]  T. Cable,et al.  Attitudes toward state—level threatened and endangered species protection in Kansas , 1996 .

[37]  D. Decker,et al.  Human dimensions of wildlife management: Knowledge for agency survival in the 21st century , 1996 .

[38]  W. Galston.  Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity , 1996 .

[39]  R. Putnam.  Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America , 1995, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[40]  G. Gottfried,et al.  Biodiversity and management of the Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands of southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico , 1995 .

[41]  P. Krausman,et al.  The Decline of Bighorn Sheep in the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona , 1995 .

[42]  F. Fukuyama.  Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity Penguin London , 1995 .

[43]  P. Stern,et al.  The Value Basis of Environmental Concern , 1994 .

[44]  Susan V. Opotow.  Predicting Protection: Scope of Justice and the Natural World , 1994 .

[45]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[46]  S. Kellert.  Values and Perceptions of Invertebrates , 1993 .

[47]  D. Morgan.  Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art , 1993 .

[48]  Peter M. Wiedemann,et al.  Public participation in waste management decision making: Analysis and management of conflicts , 1993 .

[49]  W. Irvin.  Endangered species act. , 1993, Science.

[50]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[51]  B. Wolff,et al.  Focus groups and surveys as complementary research methods: examples from a study of the consequences of family size in Thailand. , 1991 .

[52]  J. Asquith.  The effects of group size and composition on the outcome of focus group sessions , 1990 .

[53]  M. Patton.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[54]  S. Moscovici.  Notes towards a description of Social Representations , 1988 .

[55]  Stephen R. Kellert,et al.  Social and Perceptual Factors in Endangered Species Management , 1985 .

[56]  R. Peyton.  A COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES HELD BY BLM BIOLOGISTS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC TOWARDS ANIMALS , 1985 .

[57]  R. Golembiewski.  Trust and Power Two Works by Niklas Luhmann . By Niklas Luhmann. (New York: John Wiley, 1980. Pp. xix + 208. $28.95.) , 1981, American Political Science Review.

[58]  C. Herzlich.  Health and illness;: A social psychological analysis , 1973 .