Evaluating cognitive and behavioral measures of tolerance for wildlife in an invasive species context: a study of Alabama hunters’ tolerance for wild pigs

Figures & data

Figure 1. The frequency of response options for the general attitude question: “overall, do you think it’s more harmful or beneficial to have wild pigs in Alabama?”.

Figure 2. The frequency of response options for the wildlife acceptance capacity (WAC) question: “what change would you like to see in wild pig population numbers in Alabama?”.

Figure 3. The frequency of response options for the acceptability of management actions question: “how acceptable is it to you that each of the following wild pig control methods are used in Alabama?”¹.

Figure 4. The frequency of response options for the prior behaviors question: “in the past 2 years, have you done any of the following things relating to wild pigs?”.

Figure 5. The frequency of response options for the behavioral intentions question: “how likely are you to do the following things at some point in the next year?”.

Table 1. Correlations between cognitive and behavioral measures of tolerance.

	Pearson’s r or rpb
	General attitudes	WAC	Acceptability of management actions
Prior supportive behaviors
(A) Contact agency to voice support for maintaining wild pig populations	−.07**	−.06**	.02
(B) Write a social media post or letter to a newspaper to highlight the benefits of having wild pigs	−.04	−.02	.03
(C) Donate or join an organization that supports maintaining wild pig populations	−.01	< −.01	−.03
(a) Summary measure of prior supportive behaviors (A+B+C)	−.06**	−.05*	.01
Prior oppositional behaviors
(D) Contact agency to voice support for reducing wild pig populations	−.14**	−.16**	.08**
(E) Write a social media post or letter to a newspaper to highlight the need to reduce wild pig populations	−.09**	−.08**	.08**
(F) Donate or join an organization that supports reducing wild pig populations	−.09**	−.11**	.05**
(a) Summary measure of prior oppositional behaviors (D+E+F)	−.15**	−.17**	.10**
Composite measure of prior behaviors [(A+B+C) – (D+E+F)]	.14**	.16**	−.11**
Mean absolute correlation with prior behavior measures	−.03	−.02	.01
Supportive intentions
(A) Contact agency to voice support for maintaining wild pig populations	.01	.02	−.03
(B) Write a social media post or letter to a newspaper to highlight the benefits of having wild pigs	.02	.03	.02
(C) Donate or join an organization that supports maintaining wild pig populations	.09**	.08**	−.07**
(a) Summary measure of supportive intentions (A+B+C)	.05*	.05*	−.04
Oppositional intentions
(D) Contact agency to voice support for reducing wild pig populations	−.30**	−.32**	.20**
(E) Write a social media post or letter to a newspaper to highlight the need to reduce wild pig populations	−.21**	−.24**	.17**
(F) Donate or join an organization that supports reducing wild pig populations	−.30**	−.33**	.19**
(a) Summary measure of oppositional intentions (D+E+F)	−.29**	−.32**	.19**
Composite measure of behavioral intentions [(A+B+C) – (D+E+F)]	.35**	.39**	−.24**
Mean absolute correlation with behavioral intention measures	.02	.03	−.01

**Significant at p < .001.

*Significant at p < .05.

Data availability statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available from the corresponding author, H. Ellis, upon reasonable request.