Study explores how our feelings about gray wolves reflect our overall political beliefs

Mexican gray wolves continue to be one of the most controversial conservation issues in Arizona and across the region.

Republican Congressman Paul Gosar has introduced a bill to delist them from the Endangered Species Act. At the same time, the Center for Biological Diversity has sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over what the group claims is the agency’s refusal to develop a national recovery plan for the wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

A new study finds broad support of gray wolves — at least until respondents were reminded of their underlying political beliefs. At that point, those on the left said they felt more strongly about the wolves, while those on the right felt less good about them.

Alex Metcalf is an associate professor in the College of Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana, and worked on the research. The Show spoke with him about what questions the study was trying to answer.

University of Montana

/

Handout

Full conversation

ALEX METCALF: Yeah, so a lot of our research focuses on human relationships with wildlife and other natural resources. And a lot of those relationships have to do with, like, the realities of the species. But a lot of them have to do with our relationships with each other. And particularly with wolf conservation — and we do some work in grizzly bear conservation as well — it's those social relationships that seem to really dominate and really determine kind of how people talk about these issues, how they relate to one another, and whether or not there's conflict or kind of collaboration.

MARK BRODIE: Well, and so broadly speaking, what you found is that people in the study generally had similar feelings about wolves when they weren't thinking about politics, right? But once they sort of took their political viewpoints into consideration, those views changed. Is that an accurate representation?

METCALF: Yeah, that's pretty close. And we see this across all sorts of different studies. When we ask people about their attitudes towards wolves, we generally see pretty positive attitudes towards wolves. And as you can see in this study, that's true across the political spectrum.

But we also contain lots of different identities — our political identities being one of them. And so when we remind people of those political identities, they start to look at wolves and other issues through those lenses. And we start to get the polarization that we think exists out there, revealing itself in people's attitudes.

BRODIE: Do you get the sense that those political identities are maybe harder to put beneath the surface anymore? It seems like so many issues that typically have not been political are now seen through that lens.

METCALF: Yeah, I think clearly our political identities are becoming more salient to all sorts of different issues. But the idea that we look at the world through the lenses of our identities is not new, and the power of that is not new.

And even in this paper, we activated political identity in our second study. And then just by correcting people's assumptions about what Republicans probably think about wolves and what Democrats probably think about wolves, we could actually start to bring people back together. So I don't think it's necessarily that we have to avoid political identity ever, or else we're destined to conflict. But I think it's important to keep in mind that it can drive that conflict, and it takes some work to overcome it. And there's tools for doing that.

BRODIE: Yeah. So what are some of the more effective ways to actually do that? Because I would think it would be useful not just for wolves, but for any number of other interactions that we have in our daily lives and issues that we come across.

METCALF: Yeah. One of the really interesting but also kind of scary things about social identity theory is that when we get ourselves into groups and we think about our group and the other group, we tend to overestimate the extremism and negativity of the other group. And we overestimate the goodness of our own group.

And that can really drive conflict ... to some dark places between groups. But those assumptions are often wrong. And by providing people good information about their own group and about other groups that contradict those extreme assumptions, we can actually start to bring people together and lower that temperature.

BRODIE: I mean, it probably doesn't help that, you know, the two political parties tend to call each other extreme on a somewhat regular basis for people to think of the other as extreme.

METCALF: Yeah, that's right. I mean, and that applies to wolves, too. The story that we are told through our media, by politicians, by others, in the kind of wolf conservation space is a story of extreme conflict. And so when we look through those lenses at these issues, we are very good at getting into the right camp and kind of manifesting that conflict that we think is supposed to be there. Even when it, it doesn't have to be.

BRODIE: So did you have any success, then, after you reminded your study participants about their political identities, for those who thought negatively about wolves, were you able to get them back to feeling positively about them at some point?

METCALF: Yes, a little bit. So, when we reminded Democrats of what other Democrats actually think of wolves — and we used data from our study to do that — and reminded Republicans what other Republicans actually think about wolves, we were able to bring people back together. It wasn't overly dramatic, but for a 30-second treatment on a survey, it was a significant movement and it was a movement back together.

I think it reveals the opportunity that we have and the power of these forces. And we just need to do a better job of thinking about those in those conservation spaces.

BRODIE: Well, so it sounds like what you're saying is that it's important to look — and you alluded to this earlier — beyond just how we feel about a political party or a political issue. That there might be people with whom we disagree on politics, but we agree with on some other aspect of our social lives.

METCALF: Absolutely. Yep. And, so, you know, looking for those things that unite us and that build even the start of common ground are really important for avoiding, kind of, the pitfalls of assumed conflict that can really drive us apart quickly.

BRODIE: So at the risk of making a cynical statement here, that kind of seems easier said than done.

METCALF: Yeah. And one of the things that we came out of our paper with is a recommendation, first and foremost, to not accidentally be activating identities that give you more conflict and that people associate with conflict.

So the first step is to, like, don't make it worse. Bringing people together definitely takes time, but these identity forces are very powerful. And when you draw that circle wider around people who would otherwise be divided, we are very quick to extend empathy across those boundaries. And I think it's easier than you think.

BRODIE: So do you see wolves as a stand-in for other issues or other causes that might ... if you asked groups of people about, you would find consensus until you reminded them of their political opinions? Like, are there other issues that you think if you had asked about on this survey, you'd have gotten similar results?

METCALF: I do. I think we see that happening in our current events all the time. We see issues that Americans widely agree on. Those same Americans then get divided when we look at those issues through a political lens. This phenomenon is not a Democrat phenomenon or a Republican phenomenon. This is a people phenomenon.

When we reminded Democrats that they were Democrats, their attitudes increased significantly toward wolves. And when we reminded Republicans that they were Republicans, their attitudes decreased significantly.

So, it's not that this is a mistake that only one side of the political spectrum makes. This is something that we are all vulnerable to and that happens in all of our lives every day that we have to be aware of.