Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal for Nature Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jnc Relationships between valence towards wildlife and wildlife value orientations Zulkhairi Azizi Zainal Abidin a,b , Maarten Jacobs a, ⁎ a Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, The Netherlands b Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Malaysia ARTICLEINFO Keywords: Cognition Emotion Wildlife conservation support Acceptability of lethal control ABSTRACT Research to understand human responses to wildlife and wildlife issues has predominantly focused on cognitions. Yet, as emotions are basic human responses to wildlife, emotions are important too. Integrating cognition and emotion concepts could foster the overall understanding of human-wildlife relationships. This study tested the re- lationships between valence (the pleasant-unpleasant dimension of emotion) regarding wildlife and wildlife value orientations (patterns of basic cognitions in the context of wildlife). Also, this study estimated the additional pre- dictive potential of emotion next to cognition for the acceptability of lethal control and support for wildlife con- servation. Analyses showed that valence was associated with wildlife value orientations. Valence had additional explanatory value next to cognition for conservation support. Valence, however, did not have additional predictive potential for acceptability of lethal control. Based on these findings, we recommend integrating cognition and emotion measurements in future research to understand human responses to wildlife issues. Also, wildlife managers could take the emotion of stakeholders into account in their communication and decision-making processes. 1. Introduction Successful wildlife conservation depends on public responses to management and policy actions. The concept of the public denotes a broader set of people than the concept of stakeholders, which usually refers to people with clearly recognised interests. People without direct interests can influence the effectiveness of conservation efforts as well, for instance through voting, donations, petitions, and obeying or dis- obeying rules. Diversity amongst the public presents a major challenge (Kaltenborn, Bjerke, Nyahongo, & Williams, 2006). Lethal control of problematic wildlife, for example, could be an efficient way to solve the problem and might therefore be supported by some, especially by those experiencing the problem. Yet, others might perceive the same action as a wrong way to treat of animals and therefore oppose the action (Treves & Karanth, 2003; Treves & Naughton-Treves, 2005). Reversely, some people appraise government conservation policies and actions that po- sitively affect species populations, but local inhabitants who have pro- blems with certain animals on a daily basis often have a negative attitude (Aziz, Clements, Giam, Forget, & Campos-Arceiz, 2017; Bjerke & Kaltenborn, 1999). Public diversity often leads to societal controversy and conflict. Understanding the views of the public is important to be able to identify the root causes of controversy and to think of potential solutions for wildlife conservation (Manfredo, 2008). Conservation social science aims to understand the human dimensions of wildlife conserva- tion by examining the social complexity of wildlife issues (Bennett et al., 2017; Prokop & Randler, 2018; Vaske & Manfredo, 2012). Psychological conservation research has traditionally focused on cognitions – units of thought – to understand people’s reasoning about and responses to wildlife (Jacobs, 2012; Manfredo, 2008). Cognition concepts that have typically guided human dimensions of wildlife re- search include wildlife value orientations, attitudes, and norms (Jacobs, Vaske, Teel, & Manfredo, 2018; Vaske & Manfredo, 2012). Wildlife value orientations are patterns of basic beliefs that give meaning and direction to fundamental values in the context of human-wildlife in- teractions (Fulton, Manfredo, & Lipscomb, 1996; Vaske & Manfredo, 2012). Research suggests that wildlife value orientations explain up to 45 per cent of the variation of more specific cognitions such as attitudes towards wildlife, wildlife issues, and wildlife management actions (Hermann, Voß, & Menzel, 2013; Jacobs, Vaske, & Sijtsma, 2014; Sijtsma, Vaske, & Jacobs, 2012; Teel & Manfredo, 2009; Whittaker, Vaske, & Manfredo, 2006). Next to cognitions, social scientists have started to address emotions towards wildlife (Jacobs, 2009; Prokop & Randler, 2018). This more recent strand of research is equally relevant as emotions lie at the heart of human attraction to, repulsion from, and conflict over wildlife (Manfredo, 2008). Studies indicate that emotions also explain a considerable portion of the variation in specific thought, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2019.02.007 Received 12 October 2018; Received in revised form 20 January 2019; Accepted 28 February 2019 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: maarten.jacobs@wur.nl (M. Jacobs). Journal for Nature Conservation 49 (2019) 63–68 1617-1381/ © 2019 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. T