Mini-Review: Einstellung zum Wolf

Themen, die den Wolf im Allgemeinen betreffen.
Benutzeravatar
Dr_R.Goatcabin
Beiträge: 938
Registriert: 29. Jan 2016, 13:36
Kontaktdaten:

Re: Mini-Review: Einstellung zum Wolf

Beitrag von Dr_R.Goatcabin »

Meta-Analysen: immer billig & gutes Mittel, sich eine Menge Arbeit zu sparen, wenn es andere schon gemacht habe. ;) Nach Studium des Papers musste ich aber feststellen - ok, das war dann doch auch schon klar, im Lichte der bisher hier angeführten Publikationen.

Dressel et al. (2015): A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12420.

Abstract
The ranges of wolves (Canis lupus) and bears (Ursus arctos) across Europe have expanded recently, and it is important to assess public attitudes toward this expansion because responses toward these species vary widely. General attitudes toward an object are good predictors of broad behavioral patterns; thus, attitudes toward wolves and bears can be used as indicators to assess the social foundation for future conservation efforts. However, most attitude surveys toward bears and wolves are limited in scope, both temporally and spatially, and provide only a snapshot of attitudes. To extend the results of individual surveys over a much larger temporal and geographical range so as to identify transnational patterns and changes in attitudes toward bears and wolves over time, we conducted a meta‐analysis. Our analysis included 105 quantitative surveys conducted in 24 countries from 1976 to 2012. Across Europe, people's attitudes were more positive toward bears than wolves. Attitudes toward bears became more positive over time, but attitudes toward wolves seemed to become less favorable the longer people coexisted with them. Younger and more educated people had more positive attitudes toward wolves and bears than people who had experienced damage from these species, and farmers and hunters had less positive attitudes toward wolves than the general public. For bears attitudes among social groups did not differ. To inform conservation of large carnivores, we recommend that standardized longitudinal surveys be established to monitor changes in attitudes over time relative to carnivore population development. Our results emphasize the need for interdisciplinary research in this field and more advanced explanatory models capable of capturing individual and societal responses to changes in large carnivore policy and management.
Um Kritik vorweg zu nehmen, dass da wieder nicht alles an Material erfasst wurde ..

Methods
We designed our study to avoid the common criticisms of meta-analytical approaches (Borenstein et al. 2009).Meta-analyses are often weakened by the so-called filedrawer problem or by publication bias, which results from the fact that studies with significant results, high effect sizes, or that support a common thesis are more likely to be published. In turn publication bias, may lead to ignorance of unpublished null results (Borenstein et al.2009). We purposefully searched for unpublished studies to minimize this bias.
[...]
Because some relevant surveys were not published inpeer-reviewed journals (e.g., dissertations, theses, and project reports), we included grey literature in our analysis to avoid the risk of bias toward published studies.
Results
Of the 105 surveys included in our analysis, 45% dealt with wolves, 20% focused on bears, and 35% investigated attitudes toward both species. The most surveyed countries were Norway (14), Sweden (12), Italy (11), and Croatia (10).
Discussion
Our meta-analysis represents one of the first attemptsto understand the relationship between the return andpresence of European large carnivore populations andpeople’s attitudes toward them. We found that theproportion of people with positive attitudes towardwolves decreased as the duration of their coexistenceincreased. We interpret this to mean that residents findit easy to support the hypothetical return of large carni-vores in areas where such animals are currently absentbecause they have not experienced conflicts with such predators. We suggest that after the species returns, conflicts become more common and attitudes become less positive. This is consistent with previous findings that attitudes toward wolves and bears are negatively affected by the animals’ presence and the associated policies,media attention, and encounters (Ericsson & Heberlein2003; Bisi et al. 2007; Røskaft et al. 2007).
After returning to their former habitats, carnivore populations will increase and more people will interact with them directly or indirectly. Increases in perceived carnivore abundance have been associated with more negative attitudes (Bjerke et al. 1998; Røskaft et al. 2007). This relationship was apparent in our data: 100% of the wolf surveys and 87% of the bear surveys (Table 2) found thatpeople who had experienced damage due to carnivores held more negative attitudes toward them than peoplewho had not experienced such damage. In addition, me-dia coverage of the carnivores is likely to increase duringthe return phase, which will influence people’s attitudeformation. A North American content analysis showedthat media reports about wolves were significantly morenegative and frequent in areas with newly establishedwolf populations than in areas without wolves (Houstonet al. 2010).
[...]
We found that year had a significant positive effect on attitudes toward bears. This suggests that people’sattitudes, and potentially their behaviors, may become more positive over time. However, this interpretation isquestionable because it is not derived from longitudinal studies that follow the same group of respondents over time. Other variables (e.g., presence of the species, region, country, sample group) may explain the variation in the data.
[...]
We speculate that the ability to hunt bears may be one reason bears were regarded more positively than wolves.Being a huntable species in some countries gives bears a higher value (Treves & Karanth 2003) than wolves, which are causing substantial economic losses across Europe (Kaczensky 1999) and are often the primary drivers of discourses about large carnivores (Sharpe et al. 2001).
Wieviele Paper gibt es inzwischen darüber, dass "Schutzjagd" und Obergrenzen bei Wölfen zu noch mehr Wilderei und Schäden an Nutztieren führt?! Bären & Wölfe, schon wieder Äpfel mit Birnen und so? Und so ein Knuffelbär wird wohl anders wahrgenommen, scheint´s.
Our results thus are consistent with the conclusions of Bruskotter and Wilson (2014): we found little consistency in the conceptualization and measurement of attitudes toward large carnivores across the included surveys. The limited or nonexistent contributions of experienced social science researchers to the design of the surveys may explain theabsence of the rigorous theoretical approaches required to obtain generalizable results that provide deep understanding (Vaske & Manfredo 2012).
[...]
Half the surveys used nonprobability sampling methods (e.g., convenience sampling), and several used small samples that limited their validity. Our results show that attitudes toward large carnivores is still a relatively new field of research (70% of all surveys conductedafter the year 2000), so there is scope for exploring new approaches in future.Our results support the idea that the period when animals actually return is critical for conservation because public attitudes are likely to change once people startcoexisting with bears or wolves. Conservationists must therefore continuously monitor public attitudes to assess the effects of management actions and policies and to enable prompt strategic changes if public opinions shift. Because attitudes toward bears and wolves seem to change as their populations become established, longitudinal surveys should be encouraged in countries where large carnivores are returning.
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't ..."

TheOnikra

Re: Mini-Review: Einstellung zum Wolf

Beitrag von TheOnikra »

Dr_R.Goatcabin hat geschrieben:
2. Jun 2019, 12:09
We speculate that the ability to hunt bears may be one reason bears were regarded more positively than wolves.Being a huntable species in some countries gives bears a higher value (Treves & Karanth 2003) than wolves, which are causing substantial economic losses across Europe (Kaczensky 1999) and are often the primary drivers of discourses about large carnivores (Sharpe et al. 2001).
Wieviele Paper gibt es inzwischen darüber, dass "Schutzjagd" und Obergrenzen bei Wölfen zu noch mehr Wilderei und Schäden an Nutztieren führt?! Bären & Wölfe, schon wieder Äpfel mit Birnen und so? Und so ein Knuffelbär wird wohl anders wahrgenommen, scheint´s.
Das ist genau wie beim Linnell-Report dort heißt es auch das Jagd die Akzeptant steigern kann
Beides ist von daher nur geraten und nicht auf der Basis von Untersuchungen und genau so sollte man das auch bewerten.

Um mal den Vergleich von Bären und Wölfen aufzugreifen. Ich finde es erstaunlich das Bären in der fiktiven Ebene sehr gut wegkommen.
Während Wölfe sehr oft als Antagonisten verwendet werden, werden Bären sogar herorisch dargestellt. Wenn man jetzt nicht die zahlreichen Auflagen von Wolfsblut und Dschungelbuch einzeln auffast, gibt es sogar mehr (selbstverständlich alle positiv) Werke zu Eisbären, als positive zu Wölfen.
Umgekehrt ist mir nur eine einzige Serie bekannt wo Bären als Hauptantagonisten wirklich bösartiger dargestellt werden, als sie sind.

Wäre auch mal eine Untersuchung wert wie sich fiktive Werke sich auf die Einstellung zum Wolf auswirken und nicht nur Grimms Märchen.

Benutzeravatar
Dr_R.Goatcabin
Beiträge: 938
Registriert: 29. Jan 2016, 13:36
Kontaktdaten:

Re: Mini-Review: Einstellung zum Wolf

Beitrag von Dr_R.Goatcabin »

Habe hier noch was gefunden, was meiner Meinung nach einmal in wesentlich breiterem Umfang aufgegriffen werden könnte - kultureller Rucksack respektive Wolfsgeschichten. ;) In der Buchliste fand ich aber auch nichts, was dem nahe käme.

Prokop et al. (2011): Good predators in bad stories: cross- cultural comparison of children’s attitudes towards wolves. Quelle.

Abstract
In this study 103 children (aged 7 – 12 years) from two distinct countries with relatively low (Slovakia) and high (Turkey) wolf population density were interviewed to examine children’s overall interest in wolves, their knowledge of wolves, the effects of their keeping pets and their reading stories about wolves. Children in both countries showed considerable factual knowledge about wolves, but the importance of wolves in nature was poorly understood. Perceptions of wolves in stories were generally negative and there was a significant effect from stories which generated fear and sympathy towards wolves suggesting that stories may have a significant impact on children’s emotions. Turkish children reported their experience with less drastic stories about wolves and their interest in wolves was significantly higher and their fear of wolves was conversely lower, compared to the reactions of Slovakian children. The more the students were engaged in nature related activities, e.g. watching natural history films and walking in areas of nature, the less they demonstrated fear of wolves. Key words: animals, children, perception, predators, wolf.
Introduction (Absätze und Anführungen leicht bearbeitet)
In many European and Asian countries wolves never became the cultural ‘‘heroes.’’ Instead, they have long since been identified as the images of evil (He, 2009). As Christianity began to dominate life in Europe, the Roman Church promulgated the view that the wolf (and its mythical counterpart, the werewolf) was an animal incarnation of evil itself (Case, 2008). Red Riding Hood or other similar stories depicting a wolf as bloodthirsty predator that kills other animals or humans are well known worldwide (Table 1). Although we could not find any research explicitly examining how these stories may influence children’s attitudes towards wolves, there is some evidence which indirectly supports the view that stories may have had a positive or negative impact on what children think and how they behave. Moreover, some suggestions reveal that this impact may have been negative, rather than positive probably reflecting the negative image of the wolves in myths and legends (Table 2).

# Firstly, stories may contain factual mistakes which may result in misconceptions or wrong understanding. For example, Rice (2002) examined 50 popular children’s trade books and documented numerous errors such as labelling mushrooms as plants and describing snakes as slimy (despite the fact that mushrooms are fungi and snakeskin is dry).

# Secondly, false “facts” from stories are also learned especially by younger children. For example, when Marsh, Meade and Roediger (2003) investigated how people learn information from fictional sources with their general knowledge of the world, they found that reading errors in the short stories increased the production of those specific incorrect answers and reduced correct responding below the baseline. In addition, Fazio and Marsh (2008) showed that early elementary school aged children learned information from fictional stories. Hearing misinformation in a story increased the likelihood that children of all ages would choose the misinformation answer on a later multiple-choice general knowledge test. The effects of false facts in stories were lower as the child’s age increased.

# Thirdly, there is evidence that frightened voices in stories attracted the child’s attention. Very young children (7- to 18 – month-olds) look longer at movies of snakes paired with a frightened human voice than at movies of snakes paired with a happy human voice (DeLoache & Lobue, 2009). Considering that attention enhances learning (Shirey & Reynolds, 1988), children would learn from stories with frightened voices, which are typical for stories with predators, more than from other stories.

# Fourthly, watching films may influence subsequent behaviour of the child. Anderson et al. (1995) and Anderson (1997) found that violent films may increase aggression by increasing hostile feelings and the accessibility of aggressive thoughts. Furthermore, smoking exposure in a film was significantly associated with an increased risk of smoking initiation (Titus-Ernstoff, Dalton, & Adachi-Mejia et al., 2008).
In the report on the conservation status and threats against wolves (Canis lupus) in Europe (Salvatori & Linnell, 2005), the wolf population in Slovakia is over 900 single wolves, whereas, in Turkey it is estimated to be about 5000-7000 single wolves. [...]

These results show that the wolf is not a fully protected species in either country. Wolf persecution by hunters or poachers as well as forest fragmentation and other factors are responsible for the wolf decline in Slovakia and Turkey. These two countries, however, differ in their estimated number of wolves. Considering the most optimistic numbers of wolf populations in these countries (see above), there are 0.018 of wolves per km2 in Slovakia (especially in the eastern and central parts) and much less (0.009/km2) wolves in Turkey (no specific details about distribution exist). These values are important because they can influence overall attitudes towards animals.
Methods
One hundred and three children, between the ages of 7 to 12, from four public primary schools (two schools per country) in Slovakia (n = 40 children, N 48°10’ , E 17°34’ ) and Turkey (n = 63 children, N 36° 42’ , E 26° 45’), participated in this research. These schools located in the urban residence were chosen at random. The number of boys and girls was similar (51 and 52, respectively). These children were selected randomly from five classes in each country by the researchers. Because all participants were from public schools, the majority of them came from middle social class. The majority of Turkish children were Muslims (about 98%) and most of the Slovakian children were Roman Catholic.
Results
Many children expressed their sorrow for the killing of the roe-deer by a wolf. Children told the reporters that it was unfair for a roe-deer to be killed by a wolf, or that the roe-deer was protected by law, thus, it should not be killed by wolves. Also, children told that the roe deer was “innocent” or a “very nice” animal that did not deserve to be killed. There was no influence of gender on the children’s opinions [...], but a difference between the two countries was significant [...]. While 58 % of Slovakian children had moral problems with the roe-deer being killed by the wolf, 79 % of Turkish children did not. Typical responses of Turkish children were that the roe-deer was the natural prey of the wolf or that the roe-deer had been created by God as a prey of the wolf. Preliminary analyses did not show any gender differences in attitudes toward wolves. However, there were significant differences between countries: Turkish children showed a greater sympathy, interest and lower fear of wolves.
Ich vermisse mehr Filme und Geschichten, wo ein Wolf / eine Wolfsfamilie von Jägern verfolgt und/oder massakriert wird, und die Jäger sind nicht die Protagonisten. Irgendwie finde ich sehr vorhersagbar, wie dann die Sicht auf den Wolf ausfällt .. Kinder haben natürliche Verbundenheit mit Opfern und Schwachen.
The food of the wolves was well known. About 83% of all the children reported that the wolves solely hunted for wild animals like deers, roe-deers, rabbits and so on. The remaining 17% reported farm animals or wild and farm animals as the main dietary habit of a wolf. One Turkish and one Slovakian child also noted that the human being was also prey of a wolf.
Das waren wohl jeweils die "Oberschlauen" der jeweiligen Gruppe. ;)

Discussion (gekürzt)
1. Children are influenced by perceptions of wolves presented in stories. The more negatively the wolf is perceived, the more negative attitudes towards the wolf are expressed. This hypothesis was evidenced by our data. There was a moderate correlation between both sympathy and perceptions or fear of wolves which suggests that children who think that the perceptions of wolves depicted in stories are mostly negative also have a greater fear of and less sympathy for wolves. These results indicate that wolves in stories are perceived negatively (Rice 2002) which could only be a very subjective view shared by some. Our data, therefore, provides overall support for the association between watching stories about wolves and children’s emotional appreciation of wolves (sympathy, fear), but does not support the idea that stories influence behaviour which is consistent with the reports of Anderson, Deuser and DeNeve (1995), Anderson (1997), and Titus-Ernstoff et al. (2008); because there are no association resulting from the perceptions of wolves with regards to the children’s decision to exterminate the wolf population by having it shot. Thus, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution because we have not checked on the time that children spent on watching or reading stories about wolves.

2. Females have a greater fear of wolves because of their less favourable attitudes towards large carnivores. Although previous research on children above the age of 10 (Prokop & Tunnicliffe, 2010) and on older participants (Kellert 1985a,b,c; Bjerke et al., 1998; Røskaft et al., 2003, 2007) revealed that females have a more negative attitude towards wolves, this study found no gender differences in overall perception or knowledge of the wolf.

3. Children’s out-of-school nature activities (like watching natural history films, walking in nature or reading natural history books) are associated with positive attitudes towards wolves. Supporting hypothesis 3, a moderate correlation was found b etween the fear of wolves and the watching of natural history films. Thus, watching natural history films is associated with lower level of fear of wolves. Furthermore, children who reported more frequent nature walks had lower concern for crossing a wolf in nature.

4. Slovakian children would have more negative attitudes toward wolves compared with Turkish children. This study showed some differences in the fear of wolves between the Turkish and Slovakian children. A significantly lower number of Turkish children showed a sorrow for killing roe-deer by a wolf, with a typical creationist explanation (Roe-deer was created by God as a prey for the wolf ) which would be responsible for these results. Moreover, having less sorrow for killing a roe-deer does not itself explain the lower level of fear of wolves among the Turkish children. Another very strong cultural explanation that could not be ruled out relates to the Turkish epic “Grey Wolf Epos (Bozkurt Destanı)”. In this legend all Turkish people were killed by king of the Lin. There was only one baby boy who survived in this war. He was cared for by a female wolf called Bozkurt (Grey Wolf ). According to this legend, this baby boy was the father of Turks (Sepetçioglu, 1986; Akyuz, 2009). Therefore, some of the Turkish children who have read this epic are interested in wolves.
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't ..."

Benutzeravatar
Lone Wolf
Beiträge: 432
Registriert: 15. Dez 2012, 13:02

Re: Mini-Review: Einstellung zum Wolf

Beitrag von Lone Wolf »

Kleiner Einwurf ins Thema:
Das Rezo Video war wohl eine astroturfing Kampagne eines Konzern, aber vom Feinsten... Viel mehr gibts zur Vermischung von Fakten, Halbwahrheiten, Behauptungen und... nicht zu sagen.
Das beispielsweise dieses lange schon widerlegte Argument des s.g.wissenschaftlichen Konsens immer noch nachgeplappert und noch schlimmer, auch unhinterfragt übernommen wird, mal davon abgesehen dass Theorien in der Wissenschaft gerade nie einen absoluten Wahrheitsanspruch haben sollten, dann würden wir nämlich von Dogmen reden, hat der Wahrheitsgehalt einer wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnis nichts aber auch gar nichts mit einer Einigung nach Abstimmung zu tun.
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/nat ... 92213.html

T Online gehört übrigens auch zum gleichen Konzern der Rezo so toll in Szene setzte und nach deren Recherche haben immerhin 2/3 aller AfD Anhänger auch keine Angst vor dem Wolf...Was solls also.
Würde ich beispielsweise nach Anhängern von Parteien aufschlüsseln, wer der Meinung ist, noch zu Lebzeiten wegen anthropogenen CO2 Emissionen verbrennen zu müssen, würde es anders aussehen und was sagt uns das dann? Mühsig, der meisten Menschen Überzeugungen entstehen durch unhinterfragte Urteile anderer...
In der Tat scheints aber so, dass insbesondere die Jäger-Schäferlobby, nicht nur innerhalb der AfD, aber dort eben besonders laut und sehr rührig ist.
Gute Nacht und eine schöne Woche den Forenteilnehmern
Grüße
LW
In der ganzen Natur ist kein Lehrplatz, lauter Meisterstücke
Johann Peter Hebel

Benutzeravatar
Dr_R.Goatcabin
Beiträge: 938
Registriert: 29. Jan 2016, 13:36
Kontaktdaten:

Re: Mini-Review: Einstellung zum Wolf

Beitrag von Dr_R.Goatcabin »

Vielleicht ging es vorher etwas unter: in diesem Thread geht es nicht um Skepsis zum Klimawandel oder sonstigen Verschwörungstheorien; auch nicht, dass man generell bei abweichender Meinung zu einem Thema (ich schreibe extra: Meinung, nicht Wissen) die übergroße Mehrheit an Übereinstimmung in der Wissenschaft deswegen als ahnungslos, gekauft & "politisch motiviert" abstempelt. Als würd das auch nur irgendwas am Kern ändern, ob da 97, 90 oder 85% zustimmten. Persönliche Befindlichkeiten mit (anderen) belasteten Themen und Kritik an Wissenschaft sollen anderswo stattfinden. Hier dreht es sich um Einstellungen zum Wolf.

Bild
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't ..."

Benutzeravatar
Dr_R.Goatcabin
Beiträge: 938
Registriert: 29. Jan 2016, 13:36
Kontaktdaten:

Re: Mini-Review: Einstellung zum Wolf

Beitrag von Dr_R.Goatcabin »

Mit einem älteren Paper zurück in die Staaten, wo der Wolf teils mit unfasslicher Wut (wieder) bekämpft wird. Ob die stärkere religiöse Wurzel der Bevölkerung da eine Rolle spielt? Hier kamen wohl verschärfend zwei Dinge zusammen: die prekäre Lage der ersten Siedler (Wolf fraß ihnen Nutzvieh UND "ihr" Wild weg) sowie die ohnehin schlechte Rolle des Wolfes im christlichen Weltbild. - Hier nur ein paar Auszüge; der Artikel ist nur voll von munteren Geschichten, die damals kursierten. :(

Fogleman (1989): American attitudes towards wolves: a history of misperception. DOI: 10.2307/3984536.
The colonists viewed wolves as threatening not merely their livestock but also their supply of game mammals. Because of the scarcity of livestock, game was a staple food of the early colonists. A steady supply of game entailed year-roundhunting, however, which led to a rapid decline in elk, moose, and deer populationsaroundsettlements. Thedeclinein moose and elk habitatcaused by expandingsettlementscompoundedthe problem. As game populations decreased to criticallevels, colonial governments reactedby passing laws closing certain seasons to hunting. Colonists who were forbidden to hunt during the closed seasons, therefore,especially resented wolf predation on game mammals.

Although colonists undoubtedly hatedwolves because of predationon livestock and game, they do not appear to have feared wolf attacks on people. In the early 1600s,one colonist wrote that "'[it was never known yet that a wolf ever set upon a man or woman." A contemporary described wolves as fleeing from people and being "afraidof us." An account of a woman and a wolf falling into the same pit during one night in 1630 indicates that both occupants of the pit spent the night in opposite corners,each afraid of the other.
[...]
Although the colonists may not have believed that wolves would attack them, they believed that the animals threatened their spiritual wellbeing. Wolves were considered capable of murdering a person's soul. The earlycolonists did not merely follow the New Testament's teaching that wolves were evil, they identified with the sheep and lambs that were the wolves' Biblical prey.
[...]
Wolves were creatures of the godless wilderness that the colonists believed they had a moral duty to subdue. Sometimes hatred of wilderness and wolves merged until a description of one became an analogy of the other.
[...]
As Robert Marshall wrote, "the only serious thought ever devoted to the wilderness [in the 17th and 18th centuries] was how it might be demolished."'5 Wilderness was occasionally destroyed simply because it provided habitatfor wolves. Wolves were "the naturalenemies to civilization." They were "a stain, a foul stigma, on...civilization and enterprise."''
...
It is impossible to distinguish fictional accounts of encounters with wolves from "factual" accounts. The author's objective was usually the same: to create"a marvellous story...shocking,blood-curdling,never-to-be-forgotten... ."52 For example, Willa Cather's story of the Russian bridal party being chased by wolves vividly described the party's panic as hundreds of wolves killed and ate people and horses as all the sledges except one overturned in the snow. The story ended with the two surviving membersof the party throwing the bride to the wolves in order to escape.53
Achso, ununterscheidbar. Auch wenn da vorgeblich 200-300 Wölfe gleichzeitig anstürmten. :shocked:
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't ..."

Antworten