Psychologically Connecting with Wildlife: Using Human Intergroup Interaction Theories to Understand the Treatment of Animals and Nature Brittany Bloodhart, Ph.D. & Janet K. Swim, Ph.D. Pathways Conference October 8, 2014

Introduction Can Social Psychology inform Human & Wildlife interactions? – KEY: Connecting psychologically with the issue 1.Values 2.Empathy 3.Relativity

EcoFeminism Psychological Connection  Values Do we value: – All people equally? – Some groups more than others? (racism, sexism, etc) – The interdependence of people and nature? – Humans using and exploiting nature? Hegemonic / Dominance Values

Exploitation of Women Exploitation of the Environment Exploitation of the Environment Mastery vs. Harmony Mastery vs. Harmony Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism Hegemonic Values

Bloodhart & Swim, 2010

Exploitation of Women Exploitation of the Environment Exploitation of the Environment Mastery vs. Harmony Mastery vs. Harmony Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism Hierarchy vs. Egalitarianism Hegemonic Values B =.201* B =.822** B =.49*B =.28* ** p <.01, * p <.05

B =.822** B =.251*B =.269* B =.201* ** p <.01, * p <.05

Psychological Connection  Empathy Impacts of climate change on animals (Swim & Bloodhart, 2014) – Empathic message “Imagine how the animal feels, and what has happened to it” – Objective message “Remain objective and detached. Don’t get caught up in emotions”

Participants given $1 – Told they could donate it, keep it, or return it to the researchers. Money (in cents)

Psychological Connections Values ✔ Empathy ✔ Relativity

Psychological Connection  Relativity – Groups that are Relative to the Self Human Intergroup Relations – Prejudiced toward groups we see as “other” “Derogation of Out-group” – Prejudice Reduction Techniques Share common experiences and goals Work collaboratively on a task Recognize positive qualities / breakdown stereotypes

Relativity Relative Comparisons & Pro- Environmental Behavior – Being pro-environmental can sometimes mean perceived restriction or loss of “privileges” – If “everyone else” has same/more privilege, the anticipated loss of privilege seems unfair (deprivation) – BUT – if “everyone else” include those with LESS privilege, loss of privilege doesn‘t seem unfair

Reducing ARD: Increasing Relativity Expanded Relativity – Who deserves the same privileges Awareness of Harm – Toward those who are relative Knowledge about Responsibility – Your advantage is connected to others’ disadvantage

Target Groups Animals People in the Global South Women

Deprivation *Interaction is not significant *MEs are not significant * * Not Relative Relative

Feel Deprived *Interaction is not significant *MEs are not significant * *

Behavioral Willingness

Willingness *Interaction is not significant Marginal ME of SofJ expansion: F (1, 543) = 3.39, p <.07 * Not Relative Relative

Mediation *p <.05, ** p <.01 Indirect Effects: SP: B =.47, SE =.23, p <.05, F (4, 160) = 21.51, p <.001, R 2 =.35 ARD Willingness to engage in Pro- Environmental behaviors Information + Relevance B = -.70* B =.92* (c) B =.45, ns (c’) B = -.67**

Willingness to Engage in Pro- Environmental Behavior Effect of Target Group A A, B B

Questions? Thank you - Colorado State University Department of Psychology George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication