This article was downloaded by: [University of Wyoming Libraries]On: 07 September 2013, At: 16:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human Dimensions of Wildlife: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

Factors Governing Human Fear of BrownBear and WolfMaria Johansson a , Jens Karlsson b , Eja Pedersen c & Anders Flykt da Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and BuiltEnvironment, Lund University, Lund, Swedenb Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, Grimsö, Swedenc Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and BuiltEnvironment, Lund and BLESS, Halmstad University, Lund, Swedend Academy of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of SocialWork and Psychology, University of Gävle, Gävle, SwedenPublished online: 08 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Maria Johansson , Jens Karlsson , Eja Pedersen & Anders Flykt (2012) FactorsGoverning Human Fear of Brown Bear and Wolf, Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An InternationalJournal, 17:1, 58-74, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2012.619001

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.619001

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17:58–74, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1087-1209 print / 1533-158X onlineDOI: 10.1080/10871209.2012.619001

Factors Governing Human Fear of Brown Bearand Wolf

MARIA JOHANSSON,1 JENS KARLSSON,2 EJA PEDERSEN,3

AND ANDERS FLYKT4

1Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment,Lund University, Lund, Sweden2Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,Grimsö, Sweden3Environmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment,Lund and BLESS, Halmstad University, Lund, Sweden4Academy of Health and Occupational Studies, Department of Social Work andPsychology, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden

This article analyzes people’s subjectively experienced fear in areas with presenceof brown bear or wolf. Departing from the Human-Environment Interaction Model(Küller, 1991), a hypothetical model of environmental and individual antecedents offear was tested using structural equation modeling of survey data (n = 391). In themodel of fear of brown bear, the main predictor was the appraisal of the species asdangerous/uncontrollable and unpredictable. In the model of fear of wolf, the greaterexperience with the species and a stronger appraisal of wolf as dangerous, uncontrol-lable, and unpredictable led to low social trust and this, together with the appraisal ofwolf as dangerous/uncontrollable and unpredictable, increased the likelihood of fear.Efforts to reduce human fear of wolves should focus on building trust between the pub-lic and authorities, whereas efforts to reduce fear of brown bear should focus on theindividual’s appraisal of the species.

Keywords subjectively experienced fear, brown bear, wolf, cognitive vulnerabilitymodel, social trust, structural equation modeling

Introduction

The presence of large carnivores such as brown bear (Ursus arctos) and wolf (Canislupus) is exciting to some people while others see these species as a nuisance or sourceof stress (Manfredo, 2008). In a recent survey, 44% of Swedes reported they were afraid ofencountering brown bear in the forest, and 25% reported they were afraid of encounteringwolves in the forest (Ericsson, Sandström, Kindberg, & Stoen, 2010; see also; Ericsson &Heberlein, 2003; Johansson, Sjöström, Karlsson, & Brännlund, in press; Karlsson, Bjärvall,& Lundvall, 1999). Over the last decade, an average of 1–2 persons per year are injured inbrown bear incidents in Sweden, while no human has been injured by wolves in Sweden for

The research was funded by grants from the Swedish Wildlife Foundation and the SwedishResearch Council Formas. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Henrike Hensel inthe data collection.

Address correspondence to Maria Johansson, Environmental Psychology, Department ofArchitecture and Built Environment, Lund University, Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden. E-mail:Maria.Johansson@mpe.lth.se

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Fear of Brown Bear and Wolf 59

the last 200 years (Karlsson, unpublished data; Linnell et al., 2003; Swenson et al., 1999).Regardless of whether fear of brown bear and wolf is regarded as rational or not, people’sfeelings cannot be disregarded in a sustainable management of the carnivores. In this arti-cle we propose and empirically test a model of experienced fear of brown bear and wolf inhuman settlements with presence of these species, using an environmental psychologicaltheory as a point of departure.

Theoretical Framework: Application of the HEI Model

Küller’s (1991) model of Human-Environment Interaction (the HEI model) was used toidentify factors that may contribute to an understanding of the individual’s experiencedfear (i.e., feeling) of brown bear and wolf. This model focuses on the continuous interac-tion between humans and the surrounding environment. The HEI model is based on thetheory that emotional processes are affected by different levels of appraisal of stimuli inthe external natural and social environment (e.g., Leventhal & Scherer, 1987). At a lowlevel of appraisal responses are elicited more or less automatically by trigger stimuli, suchas responses of evolutionary old fear-driven neural circuits (e.g., LeDoux, 1996; Öhman& Mineka, 2001; Panksepp, 1996). With more elaborated appraisal, the outcome varieswith the activity at hand, the perception of the environmental and social contexts, as wellas individual factors (e.g., sociodemographic background, experiences, personality). Thehigher-level appraisal outcomes could be based on accumulations of stimulus evaluationchecks such as novelty, unexpectedness, intrinsic pleasantness, goal conduciveness, andimportance for further consequences (e.g., Scherer, 1984, 2001). It has been shown that rat-ings of intrinsic pleasantness and goal conduciveness can explain ratings of valence, whileratings of unexpectedness and importance for further consequences can explain ratings ofarousal (Scherer, Dan, & Flykt, 2006). Emotional responses have been shown to be expe-rienced along these two dimensions: valence, varying along unpleasantness–pleasantness,and arousal, varying along deactivation–activation (Küller, 1991; Mehrabian & Russell,1974). These affective qualities can be regarded as basic building blocks in experiencedemotion (Russell, 2003).

In this article, the HEI model is applied to fear of brown bear and wolf, based on thepsychological literature on animal fear. The activity in focus here is living close to carnivorepopulations (i.e., in a wolf territory or in an area with reproducing brown bears). As for theindividual factors, two major groups of determinants of the subjective experience of ani-mal fear have been proposed (Armfield, 2006): biological predispositions (e.g., the degreeof stimulus exposure needed to elicit a fear responding) and individual personality traitson the one hand, and experiential factors including affective as well as cognitive learningexperiences on the other. The role of personality traits seems unclear. Anxiety is includedin most theories of personality traits (e.g., Funder, 2001), and it has been suggested as ahigher-order construct partly overlapping with more specific fears, such as fear of animals(e.g., Arrindell, 2000; Cutshall & Watson, 2004; Taylor, 1998). However, a meta-analysison the relationship between anxiety sensitivity and anxiety disorders showed low correla-tions with animal phobia (Naragon-Gainey, 2010). Consequently, it is not surprising thatthe State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970), whichhas previously been used to measure anxiousness in studies of animal fear, generally resultsin low scores that do not differ between spider- and snake-fearful groups and control groups(e.g., Rinck & Becker, 2006). To our knowledge, however, this has never been assessed withrespect to fear of large carnivores.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

60 M. Johansson et al.

The experience of large carnivores is usually studied in terms of presence of thespecies. People living in areas of large carnivores have previously been reported to beless afraid than people outside these areas (Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003; Røskaft, Bjerke,Kaltenborn, Linell, & Andersen, 2003). At the time of these studies, the Scandinavian wolfpopulation inhabited few and newly established territories (Aronson et al., 2003). Recentstudies point to greater fear among people who are actually at risk, (i.e., those who livewithin carnivore areas) (Ericsson et al., 2010; Johansson et al., in press). In the presentarticle all participants lived in areas with presence of brown bear or wolf, therefore itemsdiscriminating between those who had seen/not seen brown bear or wolf were formulatedto capture the level of personal experience of the carnivores.

The perception of the natural environmental context is linked to the two species. Fearof high-predatory animals is commonly associated with harm and pain, whereas fears oflow-predation animals are associated with disgusting outcomes indicating either contami-nation or disease (Davey, Cavanagh, & Lamb, 2003; Webb & Davey, 1992). Brown bear andwolf are usually categorized as predatory fierce/threat-related animals (Davey et al., 1998;Ware, Jain, Burgess, & Davey, 1994). However, the cognitive vulnerability model (CVM)provides a more elaborate approach than the previous mutually exclusive categorizationof animal fear (Armfield, 2006). The CVM model suggests that subjectively experiencedfear is modified by the individual’s cognitive interpretation (i.e., appraisal of the animal).Four perceptions or appraisal dimensions seem important to the interpretation of a species:(a) the perceived degree of danger or harm the animal represents, (b) the disgust-evokingproperties that the animal may have, regardless of its potential danger, (c) the perceivedunpredictability of the animal’s movement (i.e., uncertainty about the animal approachingor attempting to attack the person), and (d) perceived uncontrollability (i.e., the person’slack of control when responding to an encounter with an animal). Any particular speciesdemonstrates a specific vulnerability profile, implying that associations between vulner-ability perceptions and fear are species-specific functions (Armfield & Mattiske, 1996).Johansson and Karlsson (2011) studied the four-dimensional structure in relation to largecarnivores, and found that dangerousness and uncontrollability of the species merged intoone factor. This factor largely predicted the experienced fear of brown bear and wolf.

With regard to the social context, the experience of fear might be attenuated by therelationship with the managing authorities. Trust constitutes a fundamental factor in thedevelopment of secure human relations. The concept of social trust has been introducedto describe the willingness to rely on those who are formally responsible for developingpolicies and taking measures (Cvetkovich & Winter, 2003). According to the Salient-Value-Similarity model, social trust is affected by a person’s comparison between his or her ownsalient values and those values concluded to be salient for the person whose trustworthinessis being judged (Cvetkovich & Winter, 2003). The management of large carnivores, espe-cially of wolf, is heavily debated in Sweden (Cinque, 2008). Previous research suggests thatthe present relationship between Scandinavians who live in large carnivore areas and themanaging authorities may be inflated by diverging values, due to a perceived dominanceof the authorities’ urban environmental values over the rural population’s traditional values(Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003; Skogen & Krange, 2003). Moreover, people who live in therural areas with presence of large carnivores are likely to differ from managing authoritiesin their appraisal of the large carnivores, which might further contribute to lower socialtrust. Hunters and farmers (i.e., groups that are frequent in the rural areas with presence oflarge carnivores) rate brown bear and wolf higher on the CVM variables than do officials(Johansson & Karlsson, 2011). Social trust is negatively associated with perceived risks(Cvetkovich & Winter, 2002, 2007), and people with low trust in institutions tend to favor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Fear of Brown Bear and Wolf 61

a smaller wolf population size (Skogen & Thrane, 2008). The question still remains aboutthe extent to which social trust in managing authorities will affect the experience of fear ofbrown bear and wolf.

The pattern of interacting individual and environmental variables in the subjectivelyexperienced fear of brown bear and wolf may differ between different groups. Women usu-ally report a higher level of fear of animals than men, including fear of brown bear and wolf(e.g., Arrindell, 2000; Røskaft et al., 2003; Tucker & Bond, 1997). Older people are moreafraid than younger people of wolf and brown bear (Røskaft et al., 2003). Moreover, theappraisal of large carnivores differs among demographic groups and stakeholders (Harker& Bates, 2007; Johansson & Karlsson, 2011). Hunters, for example, report lower levelsof fear than non-hunters (Kaczensky, Blazic, & Gossow, 2004) and livestock owners inCanada are more afraid of cougars than non-livestock owners (Thornton & Quinn, 2009).

Objective

The objective of the present article was to explore the roles of the appraisal of natural andsocial environmental properties and individual factors behind the subjectively experiencedfear of brown bear and wolf, among people who live in areas with established populationsof these species.

In terms of the HEI model, fear would be the result of several interacting psychologicalconstructs: (a) the individual factors of trait anxiety and personal experience of the species,(b) the perception of the species (i.e., the appraisal according to the CVM), and (c) theperception of the social context expressed as social trust in authorities managing large-carnivore issues. The interactional pattern would further depend on the individual’s lifesituation, as defined by age, gender, and household characteristics.

The hypothetical model (Figure 1) is based on the following hypotheses:

H1 Variation in subjectively experienced fear depends on the individual’s level of the CVMvariables, so a higher level of perceived dangerousness, uncontrollability, disgust, andunpredictability is related to a stronger fear.

H2 Variation in the experienced fear also depends on the individual’s social trust in themanaging authorities (i.e., trust in the County Administrative Board (CAB) and theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)). People with low social trust are expected tobe more fearful.

H3 Variation in social trust depends on the appraisal of the species. A higher level of per-ceived dangerousness, uncontrollability, disgust, and unpredictability (i.e., an appraisalthat deviates from the appraisal made by officials is related to less social trust).

H4 Variations in the CVM variables and the trust variables depend on the individual’slevel of trait anxiety and experience of wolf or brown bear from the area they live in.

+

_

_

Trait anxiety CVM

Fear

Experience Trust

Figure 1. A hypothetical model predicting subjective fear of brown bear or wolf.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

62 M. Johansson et al.

Relatively high scores of anxiety and level of personal experience were expected to bepositively associated with fear.

H5 Animal species (i.e., brown bear and wolf), and sociodemographics, gender, age, hunterin household, and dog in household have a moderating effect on the experienced fear.Women, older people, and people with a dog in the household were expected to reportrelatively high fear, whereas hunters were expected to report relatively low fear.

Methods

Sample and Procedure

The respondents were 391 persons with experience of living in areas with either presence ofbrown bear (n = 198) or wolf (n = 193) in Sweden. Their ages ranged from 18 to 75 years(M = 53 years); 47% were males and 53% females.

A questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 733 persons aged 18–75, selected fromthe local telephone directory, in November 2009. Approximately 2 weeks later, 524 per-sons who had not yet returned the questionnaire were telephoned, and 36% were reached.In January 2010 a reminder with a new questionnaire was sent by post.

The final response rate was 53%. The respondents were sampled from two areas insouth-central Sweden with well-documented presence of wolf territories (Wabakken et al.,2009) and two areas somewhat more to the north, with well-documented resident bearpopulations (Schneider, 2006).

Instruments

Most of the data were collected using previously published self-report measurements. Theinstruments comprised a six-page questionnaire. Personal experience of brown bear/wolfwas measured by two questions: “Have you ever seen brown bear/wolf close to where youlive?” and “Have you ever seen tracks of brown bear/wolf close to where you live?” Theresponse scale was 1 = No, never, 2 = Yes, a few times, 3 = Yes, several times. Anxiety wasmeasured by the 20 items of STAI-T translated into Swedish (Lisspers, 1994; Spielbergeret al., 1970). The CVM variables of brown bear/wolf were was measured by 16 items(Table 1) (Armfield & Mattiske, 1996; Johansson & Karlsson, 2011). Social trust wasmeasured by two items presented as statements: “I trust that the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) manage the bear/wolf- populations with consideration to people who livein the countryside” and “I trust that the County Administration Board (CAB) manage thebear/wolf- populations with consideration to people who live in the countryside” derivedfrom the Salient-Value-Similarity model (Winter & Knap, 2001). (Note that all participantslived in the countryside.) The responses were given on a 5-point scale (1 = Completelydisagree to 5 = Completely agree). The subjective experience of fear with regard to the fre-quency of occurrence was measured by the item “Have you during the past year been afraidthat brown bear/wolf would attack livestock, pets or people?” The response was given on a10-cm scale ranging from Never to Always. The affective quality in the experienced fear interms of arousal and valence was addressed by asking “How did you feel the last time youheard about the presence of brown bear/wolf in the area where you live?” The response wasgiven in a grid (Russell, Weiss, & Mendelsohn, 1989). The present grid provided five steps,capturing the relative strength, of the two dimensions of unpleasantness–pleasantness (1 =

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Fear of Brown Bear and Wolf 63

Table 1Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the 16 items measuring appraisal

of animal species

How do you perceive brown bear/wolf? M SD

Dangerousness/uncontrollabilityI believe that if I came close to a brown bear/wolf I would be

harmed2.22 1.16

I believe that I would be able to deal effectively with a brownbear/wolf by myself if encountered

3.00 1.27

I think that if I encountered an unknown brown bear/wolf I wouldnot be harmed in any way

2.40 1.26

I believe brown bears/wolves could be dangerous to me. 2.86 1.49If I encountered a brown bear/wolf, I would feel that I could

handle the situation.∗3.53 1.27

I think that the majority of brown bears/wolves are harmless to me. 2.33 1.40If a brown bear/wolf was nearby I would probably not feel in

control2.84 1.38

I believe that I would lose control over my action if a brownbear/wolf came right towards me.

3.33 1.39

UnpredictabilityI think that the movement of brown bears/wolves is impossible to

guess in advance2.13 1.27

I never know what a brown bear/wolf is going to do. 2.14 1.24I find most brown bears/wolves to be predictable in their

movements.1.84 1.07

I think I know how brown bears/wolves would react if they saw ahuman.

3.13 1.43

DisgustingnessI think that it would be pleasant to touch a brown bear/wolf.∗ 3.79 1.42The thought of getting in contact with a brown bear/wolf make me

feel sick.2.30 1.47

I would be disgusted if I felt the smell of brown bear/wolf. 2.08 1.34I think I would find it attractive to stroke a brown bear/wolf 3.91 1.41

∗Inverse scale.

Unpleasant and 5 = Pleasant; in the analyses reversed to 1 = Pleasant and 5 = Unpleasant)and non-arousal–arousal (1 = Not aroused to 5 = Aroused). The questionnaire alsocollected sociodemographic data including age, gender, education, employment, childrenin household. Some questions that have previously been shown to be related to people’sattitudes toward large carnivores, such as being a hunter and having a dog in the household,were also included.

Data Analysis

The missing data was 1–2% for most items. The exceptions were trust in CAB (4.6%),trust in EPA (4.9%), and valence (8.4%). Missing data were replaced with the sample mean

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

64 M. Johansson et al.

values before further analysis. As far as possible, data obtained by previously publisheditems/instruments were transformed into constructs in accordance with the instructionsgiven for the corresponding instruments. The 20 items measuring trait anxiety wereadded into a total score in accordance with Lisspers (1994), resulting in an anxiety scorebetween 1 and 4 for each respondent (α = .85). The 16 items measuring the CVM vari-ables were initially designed to measure four dimensions: dangerousness, disgustingness,unpredictability, and uncontrollability. Based on the results of Johansson and Karlsson(2011), the dimensional structure of the CVM variables was explored in an explorative prin-ciple component analysis, which showed that dangerousness and uncontrollability couldnot be distinguished as separate constructs. These two dimensions were treated together asone dimension. Three variables were constructed by averaging the score of the includeditems: dangerousness/uncontrollability (8 items; α = .90), unpredictability (4 items; α =.77) and disgust (4 items; α = .77). The responses to the grid were analysed in terms ofvalence (as previous described here from 1 = pleasant to 5 = unpleasant), and arousal(1 = not aroused and 5 = aroused) (Russell et al., 1989). Only 1% of the responses indi-cated non-arousal in the grid (i.e., below the vertical center represented by the code 3). Thearousal dimension was dropped from further analyses because of the low variation in theresponses. Based on a visual inspection of how the responses on the 10-cm scale measuringfrequency of fear clustered along the line, the responses were classified into seven cate-gories representing verbal descriptions: never (0–0.25 cm), very seldom (0.25–1.25 cm),seldom (1.25– 3.25 cm), sometimes (3.25–6.25 cm), rather often (6.25–8.25 cm), often(8.25–9.75 cm) and always (9.75–10.0 cm). An index of level of experience was computedby adding the value of the two items measuring personal experience and dividing it by two,resulting in a score that could vary between 1 and 3. Background variables were, if notalready binary, dichotomized to form two sub-samples (i.e., age (cutoff point 50 years),hunter in the household (yes or no), and dog in the household (yes or no)). All othervariables used in this article were kept as measured by the questionnaire and previouslydescribed.

Differences in means between two sub-samples were statistically tested with Student’st-test (t), differences in proportions with Mann Whitney U-test (ZMWU) and correlationswith Pearson’s product-moment correlation (r). All tests were two-sided.

A two-step approach (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006) was usedfor designing and testing a structural model corresponding to the hypothetical model(Figure 1). In the first step, a measurement model was tested to ensure that the manifestvariables loaded satisfactorily on their respective latent variables. In the next step, possiblecausal relationships were tested in a structural model among people living in the areas ofbrown bear (n = 198) or wolf (n = 193) respectively, using maximum likelihood estima-tions for regression weights. The size of each sub-sample allowed a model with 10 degreesof freedom (Kline, 1998). Four indices of how well the model fitted the data were used:(a) χ2 which is the magnitude of the discrepancy between the sample covariance matrixand the estimated covariance matrix, (b) normed χ2, which is the ratio between χ2 andits degrees of freedom with a value < 3.00 considered as an acceptable fit (Kline, 1998),(c) comparative fit index CFI which indicates how well the covariance of the data is cap-tured; a value >.90 is acceptable (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), and (d) root mean square errorof approximation RMSEA which is the discrepancy per degree of freedom for the model;values <.06 indicates close fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1995) and <.095 acceptable fit(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The construct reliabilities for the latent variables were calculated inaccordance with Bagozzi and Yi (1988) where >.60 is acceptable reliability.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Fear of Brown Bear and Wolf 65

Results

Descriptive Findings and Comparisons of Sub-Samples

Hearing about situations where a brown bear or wolf had been close to one’s residence wereconsidered arousing by the respondents, regardless of whether it was rated as a positive ornegative experience. The situation generally elicited a slight unpleasantness, as indicatedby the valence ratings. Most respondents had felt fear at some point during the past yearbut the variation was large, with some people who never experienced fear and others whoexperienced fear at all time (Table 2). The valence did not differ between the brown bearand the wolf sample (t = 1.42, df = 389, p = .16). Occurrence of experienced fear wason average in the middle between never and always, interpreted as “sometimes,” with nodifference between sub-samples (t = 0.60, df = 389, p = .55). The other manifest vari-ables also showed, with two exceptions, great correspondence. Respondents in the brownbear sub-sample were more likely to have seen a brown bear, or tracks of one, compared torespondents in the wolf sub-sample seeing a wolf or wolf tracks (t = 8.47, df = 389, p <

.01). The average perceived dangerousness/ uncontrollability was higher in the brown bearsub-sample than in the wolf sub-sample (t = 2.86, df = 389, p < .01). Anxiety was, onaverage, low and the variation was small. All variables showed satisfactory normal distri-bution; the critical ratio (sample skewness and kurtosis respectively, divided by its standarderror) was <5.00.

No statistically significant differences regarding gender or age were found betweenthe two sub-samples. However, it was more common that someone in the household was a

Table 2Distribution of manifest variables in the model described with mean (M) and standarddeviation (SD) and for background variables described with proportions; for the brown

bear and wolf sub-sample respectively as well as the total sample

Brown bear(n = 198)

Wolf(n = 193)

Total(n = 391)

Variables in the model M SD M SD M SD

Occurrence of fear (1–7) 3.71 1.66 3.82 2.13 3.77 1.90Valence (1–5) 3.34 1.06 3.51 1.25 3.43 1.16Trust EAP (1–5) 2.24 1.10 2.25 1.21 2.25 1.15Trust CAB (1–5) 2.40 1.15 2.31 1.21 2.35 1.18Experience (1–3) 2.19 .58 1.67 .62 1.94 .66Dangerousness/Uncontrollability (1–5) 2.96 .92 2.67 1.07 2.82 1.01Unpredictability (1–5) 3.76 .87 3.62 1.03 3.69 .96Disgustingness (1–5) 3.06 1.01 2.96 1.11 3.01 1.06Trait anxiety (1–4) 1.56 .33 1.51 .33 1.54 .34

Background variables % % %Gender female 45.4 49.0 47.2Age <50 32.3 41.9 37.0Hunters within the household 54.0 39.9 47.1Dogs within the household 52.0 34.2 43.2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

66 M. Johansson et al.

hunter (ZMWU = -2.80, p < .01), and the household more likely to contain a dog (ZMWU =-3.55, p < .01), in the brown bear sample.

The Measurement Model

Occurrence of fear and valence were more strongly correlated to each other than to anyother variables. This finding is not surprising as stimulus materials depicting threats arerepeatedly shown to be rated as highly unpleasant (e.g., Bradley, Lang, & Cuthbert, 1993,Table 1; Bradley, Cuthbert, & Lang, 1999, Figure 8.2). Consequently, fear and valence weredeemed suitable as measurements of the latent variable fear (Table 3). The same was foundfor the two measurements of social trust (i.e., trust EPA and trust CAB). Experience wasweakly correlated (r ≤ .25) to several of the other variables, confirming that this variableshould be treated separately. The three CVM constructs were correlated, but to differentdegrees. Disgust was not as highly correlated to unpredictability compared with other vari-ables proposed in the model. The two manifest variables dangerousness/uncontrollabilityand unpredictability were therefore chosen as measurements of the latent variable CVM.Trait anxiety did not correlate to any of the other variables and was excluded from furthermodeling.

A measurement model was set up and tested. In the model, latent variables were con-structed from each manifest variable and all latent variables were allowed to correlate witheach other, as well as with the manifest variable experience. All loadings of the measuredvariables on the latent constructs were highly significant statistically (Table 4). Calculationsof construct reliability showed satisfactory internal consistency and many of the variancesin the measured variables were explained. Furthermore, the test of the measurement modelresulted in good fit indices (χ2 = 15.9, df = 10: p = .07; normed χ2 = 1.77; CFI = .99;RMSEA = .04 (90% CI: .00 to .08)). The measurement model showed a weak correlationbetween CVM and experience (r = .05; p = .35) and it was assumed that experience hadno impact on CVM.

Table 3Pearson’s product moment correlations between manifest variables proposed for the

model. Relationships between variables that initially were hypothesised to measure thesame latent variable are underlined

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Occurrence of fear2 Valence .63∗∗3 Trust EAP −.45∗∗ −.43∗∗4 Trust CAB −.47∗∗ −.41∗∗ .70∗∗5 Experience .25∗∗ .16∗∗ −.25∗∗ −.19∗∗6 Dangerousness/

Uncontrollability.55∗∗ .47∗∗ −.36∗∗ −.38∗∗ .05

7 Unpredictability .44∗∗ .45∗∗ −.38∗∗ −.38∗∗ .04 .64∗∗8 Disgustingness .56∗∗ .55∗∗ −.39∗∗ −.39∗∗ .16∗∗ .61∗∗ .50∗∗9 Trait anxiety −.03 .00 .07 .06 −.10∗ .03 .03 .02

∗∗p < .01, ∗p < .05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Fear of Brown Bear and Wolf 67

Table 4Loading of the manifest indicators on their respective latent variable, construct reliability,

and variance explained

Fear Trust CVM

Occurrence of fear .84Valence .75Trust EAP .84Trust CAB .84Dangerousness/Uncontrollability .85Unpredictability .75Construct reliability .69 .77 .70Variance explained, % 63 70 64

All loadings (standardized regression weights) were statistically significant (p < .001).

The Structural Model

The hypothetical model (Figure 1) was used as a base for the directions of the pathsin a structural model explaining the variance in Fear, taking into account the findingsdescribed above. The model was tested among respondents in brown bear areas, withthe dependent variable referring to fear of brown bear, and among those in wolf areas,this time referring to fear of wolf. The main predictor for fear of brown bear was CVM

.75***

–.45***

–.16–.23**

Brown bear

.33***

–.60***

–.63***–.40***

Wolf

Trust

CVM

Experience

Fear

Trust

CVM

Experience

Fear

χ2 = 15.4, df = 10, p = .12, normed χ2

= 1.54, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .05, (90% CI: .00 to .10)

χ2 = 27.3, df = 10, p = .00; normed χ2

= 2.73; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .09 (90% CI: .05 to .14)

Figure 2. The structural model and results of the tests (standardized regression weights and goodnessof fit) in the brown bear sub-sample (n = 198) and the wolf sub-sample (n = 193). (∗∗p < .01; ∗∗∗p <

.001).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

68 M. Johansson et al.

Table 5Standardized regression weights and model fit for the tested sub-samples

Standardized regression weights Model fit indices

nCVM->Fear

Trust->Fear

Exper.->Trust

CVM->Trust χ2; df ; p-value

Normedχ2 CFI

RMSEA (90%CI)

GenderWomen 183 .64 −.27 (.01) −.29 (.01) −.52 18.4; 10; .05 1.84 .98 .07 (.01 to .12)Men 205 .46 −.44 −.16 (.02) −.58 13.8; 10; .18 1.38 .99 .04 (.00 to .09)

Age<50 143 .50 −.53 n.s. −.54 18.9; 10; .04 1.89 .98 .08 (.02 to .13)>50 243 .55 −.32 −.32 −.52 24.7; 10; .01 2.47 .98 .08 (.04 to .12)

HuntersYes 184 .46 −.44 −.18 (.01) −.55 10.4; 10; .40 1.04 .99 .02 (.00 to .08)No 207 .79 n.s. −.15 (.03) −.53 14.3; 10; .16 1.43 .99 .05 (.00 to .10)

DogYes 169 .50 −.40 −.18 (.02) −.54 16.8; 10; .08 1.68 .98 .06 (.00 to .12)No 222 .62 −.33 −.22 −.51 26.3; 10; .00 2.63 .97 .09 (.05 to .13)

All standardized regression weights were statistically significant (p < .001) except those annotatedn.s. (p > .05) or those with the p-value in parentheses (.001 < p < .05).

while the influence of trust was non-significant (Figure 2). In the model of fear of wolf,extensive experience and the appraisal of wolf as dangerous/uncontrollable and unpre-dictable led to low social trust, and a low social trust, together with the appraisal of wolfas dangerous/uncontrollable and unpredictable, increased the likelihood of the fear. Themodel fitted the data from the wolf sub-sample somewhat better than those of the bearsub-sample.

The structural model was also tested among women in comparison to men, amongthose who were younger than 50 in comparison to those that were 50 or older, among thosewho were hunters, or had a hunter in the family, in comparison to those who were/had not,and among those who had a dog in the family and those who had not. No large differenceswere found between the compared groups, except for between hunters and non-hunters(Table 5). For hunters, the variance of fear was explained almost equally by CVM andby social trust while among non-hunters the influence of CVM was much larger and theinfluence of social trust not statistically significant. The difference was also reflected, butto a lesser degree, in the comparison between men and women: among men the impactof CVM on fear was almost equal to that of social trust but among women CVM hada larger impact on fear than social trust. Of the women, 41% reported that they werehunters or had someone in the household that was a hunter, while 52% of the men reportedthe same.

Discussion

This article reflects the antecedents of people’s subjectively experienced fear in a real-lifeenvironment with presence of carnivores. The HEI model (Küller, 1991) was employedto identify relevant environmental and social properties in order to develop the theoreticalmodel of subjective experience of fear of brown bear and wolf. The structural model wasfound to satisfactorily fit the data for the two main sub-samples, and so the theoreticalmodel on which it was based was confirmed. Hence, the subjectively experienced fear ofbrown bear and wolf is most likely to be partly due to an elaborated level of appraisal. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Fear of Brown Bear and Wolf 69

implies that people’s fear must be considered in a wider context of human–environmentinteractions acknowledging the individual’s life situation, as well as appraisal of the speciesand trust in managing authorities.

A major finding was a difference in the relative importance of the antecedents ofthe experience of fear of brown bear and fear of wolf. Using an approach in whichconstructs of measured variables and associations between constructs are tested simul-taneously, also allowing for error variance, makes it possible to reason about possiblepathways and the strength of influence of the proposed hypothetical model. Previousresearch suggests that subjectively experienced fear of brown bear and wolf among Swedesmay have much in common (Johansson et al., in press).When we in the present arti-cle looked into the antecedents of fear, subtle but important differences were identified.It was found that the direct and positive relationship with the appraisal of the species asdangerous/uncontrollable and unpredictable (i.e., appraisal dimensions proposed by theCVM model to be relevant for animal fears, Armfield, 2006) was stronger for fear of brownbear than for fear of wolf. One explanation might be that brown bears, due to their size,are perceived as more threatening than wolves (Røskaft et al., 2003). Another is that brownbears are more often than wolf involved in attacks and injuries on humans (Herrero, 2003).The perceived disgustingness was of little relevance to the fear experienced; suggestingthat fear of the large carnivores is not as strongly mediated by associations with disgust,dirt and disease as those for spiders and snakes (Davey, 1993). Our result is also in line withprevious categorical studies showing that brown bear and wolf are categorized as predatoryfierce/threat-related animals (Davey et al., 1998; Ware et al., 1994).

However, the negative correlation between social trust and fear was substantially higherin the case of fear of wolves than in fear of brown bears. In Sweden, the brown bearpopulation recovery started 100 years ago and the population size is presently ten timesthat of the wolf population, which started recovering 20 years ago (Swenson & Andrén,2005). Consequently, wolves and bears have been managed differently during the pastdecades, with a regulated hunting quota for brown bears and complete protection forwolves. Due to the smaller population size more conservation and management measuresare applied in wolf management as compared to brown bear management (GovernmentBill 2008/09:210). The authorities are therefore more active in wolf issues than in bearissues, which may affect social trust, particularly in a rural population with traditional val-ues (Skogen & Krange, 2003). The presence of wolf constitutes a more recent change in therural environment than the presence of brown bear, and the active management of the wolfpopulation has opened up for more situations that may cause conflict between the publicand the managing authorities. Cinque (2008) identified insufficiencies in the Swedish lawregarding the present management strategies of wolf and the actual ability of governmentalofficials to administer these issues with regard to public participation.

Participants who had more experience of brown bear and wolf or who perceived thespecies as more dangerous/uncontrollable and unpredictable expressed less trust in the EPAand the CAB. The negative correlation between CVM and social trust might be foundedin a discrepancy between the respondents’ view of carnivores and how they should bemanaged, and their view of officials and the management strategies (largely focusing uponspecies protection) actually implemented by the authorities, that is, the EPA and the CAB(Johansson & Karlsson, 2011). This conclusion is supported by the fact that people high inCVM generally hold more favorable attitudes toward management strategies limiting largecarnivore population sizes (Karlsson, Johansson, & Flykt, work in progress). It cannot,however, be disregarded that the relationship between the appraisal of the large carnivores

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

70 M. Johansson et al.

and social trust might also be inverted, (i.e., a low social trust would increase the perceptionof brown bear and wolf as dangerous/uncontrollable and unpredictable).

The structural model does not lend any support to the proposed relationship betweenthe individual factor trait anxiety and CVM, nor between trait anxiety and social trust.Plausible explanations are that the anxiety scores as measured by STAI-T were gen-erally low (i.e., we captured too little variation in the sample). This implies that aperson does not need to be very anxious in order to interpret brown bear or wolfas high in dangerousness/uncontrollability or unpredictability or to mistrust authoritiesin the carnivore issues. This is a finding that matches fear of spiders (e.g., Rinck &Becker, 2006). The level of experience of brown bear and wolf did not affect CVMeither. This result may be due to the measurement of experience. Among people wholive in areas with presence of the large carnivores, it might not be the frequency ofencounters, but the affective quality of the experience that matters, including the qual-ity of indirect experiences via friends, neighbors, and media (Siemer, Hart, Decker, &Shananen, 2009). This should be addressed in the measurement of experience in furtherresearch.

The fit of the measurement model was somewhat better for wolf than for brown bear(i.e., the complexity of fear of wolf was better captured). It is plausible that perceived fearof brown bear and fear of wolf have additional antecedents. Some of these are external andothers internal, such as basic neurological functions (LeDoux, 1996; Öhman & Mineka,2001; Panksepp, 1996). It might be that fear of brown bear is more based on such basicfunctions, operating at a low level of appraisal compared to fear of wolf. From an evolu-tionary perspective it has been proposed that humans have been selected based on adaptiveresponse to reptiles and spiders, and that, for example, detection mechanisms for snakesand spiders outside consciousness are part of the genetic make-up in humans (e.g., Öhman& Mineka, 2001). To better understand the human fear of brown bear and wolf, furtherresearch should strive to identify the impact of our basic functions.

In the present article, subjectively experienced fear was operationalized with regard tothe frequency of occurrence of the experience and to the strength of the affective qualityin the emotional experience (as measured on a scale ranging from very pleasant to veryunpleasant). The affective quality connoted to one specific situation, likely to elicit a fearresponse in subjects fearful of animals (Klorman, Weerts, Hastings, Melamed, & Lang,1974). The extent of one year was chosen to capture how recurrent the individual expe-rienced fear. The present operationalization of fear is a wider operationalization than thatcovered by the more commonly employed single item “How afraid are you of encounter-ing brown bear/wolf in nature?” (e.g., Ericsson et al., 2010; Karlsson et al., 1999). Thebenefit of the wider operationalization is that it is more likely to hold ecological validityfor the impact of fear on people’s daily life. This operationalization does not discriminatebetween fear of carnivores attacking the individual, children, pets or livestock. It mightbe argued that fear of carnivore attacks on humans and fear of attacks on pets wouldbe very different, but our unpublished data shows that, in the present group of peoplewho live within large carnivore areas, the self-reported fear of attacks on an individualis consistently and positively correlated with the other aspects. It might also be argued thatself-reports of fear would rather be an expression of a general negative attitude towardsthe species. We attempted to avoid capturing pure expressions of attitude by employingindices based on several items with varying wordings, which is less sensitive to this typeof bias than single items. However, the problem can never be fully solved in studies basedon self-reporting. Forthcoming experimental data will shed light on this issue. Also, an

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Fear of Brown Bear and Wolf 71

integration of the present model of subjectively experienced fear with the constructs of thecognitive hierarchy framework (Manfredo, 2008) would help clarify how self-reported fearinteracts with previously studied predictors of public response to wildlife management,such as people’s values, value orientations and attitudes.

The response rate is comparable to other Swedish surveys on public attitudes towardslarge carnivores (Ericsson et al., 2010) and includes persons with favorable as well asunfavorable attitudes toward brown bear and wolf (Karlsson, Johansson, & Flykt, work inprogress). As in other studies on controversial issues, people with a neutral opinion tend tobe underrepresented. The data allows for a theoretical discussion regarding the relationshipsbetween the investigated variables, but the response rate puts limits on the generalizationof the results in terms of the exact level of the assessed psychological constructs.

Human dimensions of wildlife management have previously been approached by usingtheories of risk perception (e.g., Gore et al., 2009). Findings from these different researchfields point in the same direction, as well as complement the knowledge base for manage-ment implementations. According to Slovic and Peters (2006), emotions play a role in riskperception. For example, fear seems to amplify the perceived risk (Lerner & Keltner, 2001).This implies that by addressing public fear of brown bear and wolf, the perceived risks ofcarnivore attacks might also be affected. There are also notable similarities between thepsychological antecedents of fear in the present model and those of Slovic’s (1987) theoryof risk perception. Perceived dangerousness can be compared with dread and catastrophicpotential, while perceived unpredictability/uncontrollability is the opposite of perceivedcontrol, and social trust corresponds to trust in risk managers. Strategies to address publicfear might therefore also be identified from the literature on perceived risks.

Conclusions and Implications for Management

In many respects, fear of brown bear and of wolf is similar, yet they partly differ in theirantecedents. Fear of wolf seems to be more closely mediated via the relation with the man-aging authorities of wolves and mitigation of predation on livestock and pets, whereas fearof brown bear seems more closely linked to expectations related to encountering a brownbear in the wild (Lescureux & Linnell, 2010). These fears should be addressed in differ-ent ways. Efforts to reduce human fear of wolves ought to focus on building trust betweenthe public and the managing authorities. One approach might be to increase the mutualunderstanding of interacting beliefs underpinning particular perceived risks linked to thepresence of large carnivores (Breakwell, 2001; Cvetkovich & Winter, 2007), including theperceived voluntariness or involuntariness of the situation (Barnett & Breakwell, 2001).Efforts to reduce fear of brown bear should focus on the individual’s appraisal of the species(Armfield, 2007). Measures could include exposing people to brown bears under controlledconditions and guidance (e.g., observing bears grazing berries on hill slopes and clear-cutswith a spotting scope, accompanying researchers and managers capturing and immobilizingbears).

When authorities and wildlife managers approach the public, they should be awarethat subjectively experienced fear and distrust are not likely to be founded in trait anxiety.Consequently, fearful persons should not be dismissed as “generally anxious” individuals.Moreover, the antecedents of the subjectively experienced fear of brown bear and wolf mustbe understood differently in different socio demographic groups. Efforts to reduce humanfear of brown bear and wolf must therefore also be adapted to the socio demographic groupapproached.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

72 M. Johansson et al.

References

Armfield, J. M. (2006). Cognitive vulnerability: A model of the etiology of fear. Clinical PsychologyReview, 26, 746–768.

Armfield, J. M. (2007). Manipulating perceptions of spider characteristics and predicted spiderfear: Evidence for the cognitive vulnerability model of the etiology of fear. Journal of AnxietyDisorders, 21, 691–703.

Armfield, J. M., & Mattiske, J. K. (1996). Vulnerability representation: The role of perceiveddangerousness, uncontrollability, unpredictability and disgustingness in spider fear. BehaviorResearch Therapy, 34, 899–909.

Arrindell, W. A. (2000). Phobic dimensions: IV. The structure of animal fears. Behavior Researchand Therapy, 38, 509–530.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.

Barnett, J., & Breakwell, G. M. (2001). Risk perception and experience: Hazard profiles andindividual differences. Risk Analysis, 21, 171–177.

Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affect and startle reflex. In M. E. Dawson, A.M. Schell, & A. H. Böhmelt (Eds.), Startle modification. Implications for neuroscience, cognitivescience, and clinical science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., & Cuthbert, B. N., (1993). Emotion, novelty, and the startle reflex:Habituation in humans. Behavioral Neuroscience, 107, 970–980.

Breakwell, G. M. (2001). Mental models and social representations of hazards: The significance ofidentity processes. Journal of Risk Research, 4, 341–351.

Cinque, S. (2008). I vargens spår [In the wolf track]. Doctoral dissertation. Gothenburg: Universityof Gothenburg.

Cutshall, C., & Watson, D. (2004). The phobic stimuli response scales: A new self-report measure offear. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1193–1201.

Cvetkovich, G., & Winter, P. L. (2003). Trust and social representations of the management ofthreatened and endangered species. Environment and Behavior, 35, 286–307.

Cvetkovich, G., & Winter, P. L. (2007). The what, how and when of social reliance and cooperativerisk management. In M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle, & H. Gutscher (Eds.), Trust in cooperative riskmanagement (pp. 187–209). London, England: Earthscan.

Davey, G. C. L., Cavanagh, K., & Lamb, A. (2003). Differential aversive outcome expectancies forhigh- and low-predation fear relevant animals. Journal of Behavior Therapy and ExperimentalPsychiatry, 34, 117–128.

Davey, G. C. L., McDonald, A. S., Hirisame, U., Prabhu, G. G., Iwawaki, S., Jim, C. I., . . .

Reimann, B. C. (1998). A cross-cultural study of animal fears. Behaviour Research and Therapy,36, 735–750.

Ericsson, G., & Heberlein, T. A. (2003). Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Swedennow that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation, 111, 149–159.

Ericsson, G., Sandström, C., Kindberg, J., & Stoen, O.-G. (2010). Om svenskars rädsla för storarovdjur, älg och vildsvin. [On Swedes’ fear of large carnivores, moose and wildboar]. Report2010:1. Umeå, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.Gore, M. L., Wilson, R. S., Siemer, W. F., Wieczorek Hudenko, H., Clarke, C. E., Hart, P. S., . . .

Muter, B. (2009). Application of risk concepts to wildlife management: Special issue introduction.Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 301–313.

Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis.London, England: Prentice-Hall.

Harker, D., & Bates, D. C. (2007). The black bear hunt in New Jersey: A constructionist analysis ofan intractable conflict. Society & Animals, 15, 329–353.

Herrero, S. (2003). Bear attacks: Their causes and avoidance. Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Fear of Brown Bear and Wolf 73

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equationmodelling. Concept, issues, and applications. London, England: Sage.

Johansson, M., & Karlsson, J. (2011). Subjective experience of fear and the cognitive interpretationof large carnivores. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16, 15–29.

Johansson, M., Sjöström, M., Karlsson, J., & Brännlund, R. (in press). Is human worry affectingpublic support of management and conservation of large carnivores? Society & Natural Resources

Kaczensky, P., Blazic, M., & Gossow, H. (2004). Public attitudes towards brown bears (Ursus arctos)in Slovenia. Biological Conservation, 118, 661–674.

Karlsson, J., Bjärvall, A., & Lundvall, A. (1999). Svenskarnas inställning till varg—en intervjuun-dersökning [Swedes’ attitudes towards wolf—An interview study]. Report 4933. Stockholm: TheSwedish Environmental Protection Agency.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York, NY: TheGuilford Press.

Klorman, R., Weerts, T. C., Hastings, J. E., Melamed, B. G., & Lang, P. J. (1974). Psychometricdescriptions of some specific fear questionnaires. Behavior Therapy, 5, 401–409.

Küller, R. (1991). Environmental assessment f.rom a neuropsychological perspective. In T. Gärling& G. W. Evans (Eds)., Environment, cognition, and action (pp. 78–95). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. NewYork, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Leventhal, H., & Scherer, K. (1987). The relationship of emotion to cognition: A functional approachto a semantic controversy. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 3–28.

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 18, 146–159.

Lescureux, N., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2010). Knowledge and perceptions of Macedonian huntersand herders: The influence of species ecology of bears, wolves, and lynx. Human Ecology, 38,389–399.

Linnell J. D. C., Solberg, E. J., Brainerd, S., Liberg, O., Sand, H., Wabakken P., & Kojola, I. (2003). Isthe fear of wolves justified? A Fennoscandian perspective. Acta Zoologica Lituanica, 13, 27–33.

Lispers, J. (1994). Swedish translation of STAI. Östersund, Sweden: Mid Sweden University.Manfredo, M. J. (2008). Who cares about wildlife? Social science concepts for exploring human-

wildlife relationships and conservation issues. New York, NY: Springer.Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.Naragon-Gainey, K. (2010). Meta-analysis of the relations of anxiety sensitivity to the depressive and

anxiety disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 128–150.Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of

fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483–522.Panksepp, J. (1996). Affective neuroscience: A paradigm to study the animate circuits for human

emotions. In R. D. Kavanaugh, B. Zimmerberg, & S. Fein (Eds.), Emotion: Interdisciplinaryperspectives (pp. 29–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2006). Spider fearful individuals attend to threat, then quickly avoid it:Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 231–238.

Røskaft, E., Bjerke, T., Kaltenborn, B., Linell, J. D. C., & Andersen, R. (2003). Patterns of self-reported fear towards large carnivores among the Norwegian public. Evolution and HumanBehavior, 24, 184–198.

Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affects and the psychological construction of emotion. PsychologicalReview, 110, 145–172.

Russell, J. A., Weiss, A., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect grid: A single-item scale of pleasureand arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 493–502.

Scherer, K. (1984). Emotion as a multicomponent process: A model and some cross-cultural data.Review of Personality & Social Psychology, 5, 37–63.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

yom

ing

Lib

rari

es]

at 1

6:09

07

Sept

embe

r 20

13

74 M. Johansson et al.

Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a multi-level sequential checking. K. R. Scherer, A.Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp.92–120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Scherer, K. R., Dan, E., & Flykt, A. (2006). What determines a feeling’s position in affective space?Cognition & Emotion, 20, 92–113.

Schneider, M. (2006). Monitoring the Brown Bear Ursus arctos in Västerbotten County. In C.Hurford & M. Schneider (Eds.), Monitoring nature conservation in cultural habitats. A practicalguide and case studies (pp. 195–214). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

Siemer, W., Hart, P. S., Decker, D., & Shananen, J. (2009). Factors that influence concern abouthuman-black bear interactions in residential settings. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 185–197.

Skogen, K., & Krange, O. (2003). A wolf at the gate: The anti-carnivore alliance and the symbolicconstruction of community. Sociological Ruralis, 43, 309–325.

Skogen, K., & Thrane, K. (2008). Wolves in context: Using survey data to situate attitudes within awider cultural framework. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 17–33.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 15, 322–325.Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R., & Lushene, R. (1970). Manual for the State-trait anxiety inventory.

Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Swenson, J. E., & Andrén, H. (2005). A tale of two countries: Large carnivore depredation and

compensation schemes in Sweden and Norway. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, & A. Rabinowitz(Eds.), People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence? (pp. 323–339). London, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Swenson, J. E., Sandegren, F., Söderberg, A., Heim, M., Sørensen, O. J., Bjärvall, A., . . . Wabakken,P. (1999). Interactions between brown bears and humans in Scandinavia. Biosphere Conservation,2, 1–9.

Taylor, S. (1998). The hierarchic structure of fears. Behavior Research and Therapy, 36, 205–214.Thornton, C., & Quinn, M. (2009). Coexisting with cougars: Public perceptions, attitudes and

awareness of cougars on the urban-rural fringe of Calgary, Alberta. Human-Wildlife Conflicts,3, 282–295.

Tucker, M., & Bond, N. W. (1997). The roles of gender, sex role, and disgust in fear of animals.Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 135–138.

Wabakken, P., Aronson, Å., Strömseth, T., S and, H., Svensson, L., & Kojola, I. (2009). The wolfin Scandinavia: Status report of the 2008–2009 winter. Högskolan i Hedmark, Viltskadecenter,Grimsö forskningsstation, Vilt- och fiskeriforskningen, Oulu. Norway: Høgskolen i Hedmark.

Ware, J., Jain, K., Burgess, I., & Davey, G. C. L. (1994). Disease-avoidance model: Factor analysisof common animal fears. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1, 57–63.

Webb, K., & Davey, G. C. L. (1992). Disgust sensitivity and fear of animals: Effect of exposure toviolent or repulsive material. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 5, 329–335.

Winter, P. L., & Knap, N. E. (2001). An exploration of recreation and management preferences relatedto threatened and endangered species. Report. Riverside, CA: Pacific Southwest Station, USDAForest Service.D

ownl

oade

d by

[U

nive

rsity

of

Wyo

min

g L

ibra

ries

] at

16:

09 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2013