Perceived Similarity , Social Trust , & Perceived Risk Jerry J. Vaske

1. Perceived Similarity, Social Trust, & Perceived Risk Jerry J. Vaske Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Colorado State University Mark D. Needham Department of Forest Resources Oregon State University Craig A. Miller Illinois Natural History Survey University of Illinois

2. Similarity, Trust & Risk • Perceived similarity • the public often lacks the knowledge to make complex trust attributions • trust is often based on perceptionsof the agency • people trust agencies perceived to share similar views • salient value similarity (SVS), perceived similarity

3. Similarity, Trust & Risk • Social trust • implies that the person trusts the individual with decision making ability • adjective social suggests that the person may not know individual in charge • when people trust the managing agency, they tend to perceive less risk from the hazard

4. Similarity, Trust & Risk • Perceived Risk • extent to which people feel are exposed to a hazard(e.g., CWD risk, wildfires) • important because risk can influence behavior (e.g., stop hunting, adopt defensible space)

5. Objectives • 1. Examine extent to which individuals: • perceive themselves to be similar to wildlife (natural resource) agencies • trust agencies to manage CWD / disease / wildfire • perceive personal risks associated with CWD / disease / wildfire • Examine generalizability of findingsacross different data sets

6. Data sets

7. Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) • Transmissible disease in deer, elk, & moose • Similar to mad cow or scrapie(sheep) • Caused by abnormal brain protein (prion) • Loss of body functions, always fatal • Not known to be transmissible to humans • Free-ranging herds in USA & Canada • 2 provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan • 19 states

8. _ + Perceivedsimilarity Socialtrust Perceivedpersonal risk Hypotheses • H1: positive relationship between similarity & social trust • e.g., Hunters who perceive they have similar views as agency more likely to trust agency • H2: negative relationship between social trust & personal risk • e.g., Hunters who trust agency are less likely to perceive risks associated with CWD

9. n= 9,567 all 22 strata (308 – 564 per stratum) • 44% overall response rate • non-response check (n = 785), no differences • 2004 Regional CWD Mail Survey • Gundeer & elk hunters • Residents & Non-residents • 3 mailings (July – October 2004) • deer hunters: 8 states (AZ, CO, ND, NE, SD, UT, WI, WY) • elk hunters: 3 states (CO, UT, WY)

10. Perceived Similarity I feel the (agency) … Shares similar values as me Shares similar opinions as me Shares similar goals as me Thinks in a similar way as me Takes similar actions as I would Cronbach alpha: .94 – .97

11. Social Trust I trust the (state wildlife agency) to … Provide best available information on CWD Provide enough info to decide what actions to take RE: CWD Provide truthful information about human safety &CWD Provide timely information about CWD Make good deer / elk management decisions regarding CWD Properly address CWD in (state) Cronbach alpha: .94 – .97

12. Personal Risk Inadvertently eat meat from an animal infected with CWD Become ill as a result of contracting a disease caused by CWD Because of CWD, how concerned are you about your health Because of CWD, I have concerns about eating deer / elk Cronbach alpha: .77 – .85

13. Similarity → Trust Trust → Risk β R2 β R2 CFI* RMSEA* .63 *** .40 – .06 .00 .91 .08 .50 *** .25 – .21 *** .05 .92 .08 .47 *** .22 – .25 *** .06 .92 .07 .65 *** .42 – .05 .00 .94 .08 .54 *** .29 – .28 *** .08 .94 .07 .63 *** .40 – .11 * .02 .94 .07 .62 *** .38 – .14 * .02 .90 .09 .61 *** .37 – .14 * .02 .94 .07 .60 *** .36 – .01 .00 .94 .07 .52 *** .27 – .02 .00 .95 .06 .45 *** .21 – .16 * .03 .91 .09 .56 *** .32 – .14 * .02 .93 .08 .56 *** .31 – .08 .01 .93 .08 .64 *** .40 – .11 * .02 .94 .08 .61 *** .37 – .13 * .02 .95 .07 .65 *** .43 – .03 .00 .94 .08 .66 *** .44 – .11 * .02 .92 .08 .70 *** .49 – .07 .01 .95 .08 .63 *** .39 – .19 *** .04 .93 .07 .68 *** .46 – .04 .00 .94 .08 .50 *** .25 – .13 * .02 .90 .09 .67 *** .45 – .16 * .03 .95 .07 SEM Results Arizona nonresident deer Arizona resident deer Colorado nonresident deer Colorado resident deer Colorado nonresident elk Colorado resident elk Nebraska nonresident deer Nebraska resident deer North Dakota nonresident deer North Dakota resident deer South Dakota nonresident deer South Dakota resident deer Utah nonresident deer Utah resident deer Utah nonresident elk Utah resident elk Wisconsin nonresident deer Wisconsin resident deer Wyoming nonresident deer Wyoming resident deer Wyoming nonresident elk Wyoming resident elk

14. Summary of 2004 CWD study • All 22 strata, hunters perceived • slight to moderate similarity with wildlife agencies • slight to moderate social trust in agencies • some personal risk associated with CWD • Hypotheses • H1: hunters who perceive they have similar views as agency more likely to trust agency supported: all 22 strata, up to 49% variance in trust explained by similarity • H2: hunters who trust agency are less likely to perceive risk associated with CWD partially supported: for 14 strata, negative but insignificant for rest, only up to 8% variance in risk explained by trust

15. CWD Management Implications • Trust → risk: negative, but weak • relatively new & spreading wildlife disease • hunters may feel the risks beyond agencies control • Relatively high similarity & trust • can influence support of agency goals & management • continue to foster positive relationship with hunters • Relatively high personal CWD risk • feel at risk of becoming ill from CWD • agencies may want to reinforce no link between CWD & human health • educate on CWD & BSE (mad cow) differences

16. _ + Perceivedsimilarity Socialtrust Perceivedpersonal risk Generalizability of Findings • H1: Positive and strong relationship between similarity & social trust • Coefficients tended to .4 to .6 range • H2: Negative relationship between social trust & personal risk • Mixed results

17. Research Implications • Strong positive similarity → trust: consistent with past research • Weak negative trust → risk:other dimensions influence risk • Knowledge • Species (e.g., deer vs. beaver) • Context (e.g., wildlife disease vs. wildfire) • General risk sensitivity • High reliability & construct validity all 3 concepts

18. Questions or Comments?