Search

Little is known about whether messaging strategies drawing from behavioral science theory may effectively change public attitudes, beliefs, and behavior with regard to biodiversity conservation. We conducted a randomized survey experiment with 1415 Colorado residents to examine how messaging approaches influence beliefs, voting intentions, and collective action intentions related to a proposed ballot initiative mandating wolf reintroduction to the state. We tested 6 different messages that drew from behavioral science literature on extreme versus moderate appeals, anthropomorphism, and perceived social norms. We find that overall, message framing has little impact on Coloradans' intentions to vote for or against wolf reintroduction. We find preliminary evidence that extreme arguments that do not address ranchers' concerns may decrease the willingness of individuals with neutral attitudes to share positive information about wolf reintroduction with others. Furthermore, moderate arguments discussing how ranchers' concerns will be addressed reduce intentions to engage in organized opposition to reintroduction (compared to arguments used by those opposed to wolf reintroduction). We find that providing descriptive normative information changes perceptions of norms regarding wolf reintroduction, but such changed perceptions do not lead to changes in behavioral intentions compared to control messages. Our study suggests that to increase the diffusion of positive information about a conservation program and prevent organized opposition, conservation practitioners should avoid extreme arguments that ignore the concerns of the opposition and utilize more moderate arguments that acknowledge and address those concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]