Public attitude towards science is influenced by individual-level variables such as: personal interaction, attitude, and awareness, but how communicators frame science is equally important. Framing refers to narratives that communicate information, why it matters, and can shape public response to scientific issues. We explore the impact of two alternative framings (‘endangered’ or ‘at risk’) of an endangered species in Nebraska, Swift Fox (Vulpes velox), on respondent beliefs about the impact of the species on five core industries (crop agriculture, ranching agriculture, energy, transportation, and tourism) of Nebraska. We administered a survey to random sample attendees of the state fair (drawing a representative population). Respondents were randomized to a framing treatment, where participants were exposed to a brief narrative about Swift Fox conservation and then asked a series of questions about the impact (positive, neutral, negative) of Swift Fox on the five industries. The only difference between the two treatments was the wording describing the status of the Swift Fox (‘endangered’ or ‘at risk’), all other language about the conservation efforts and ecology was the same. Self-identified landowners within each treatment were asked an additional open-ended question of “What they would do if they knew an ‘endangered’/’at risk’ swift fox was found on their land?” Impact of framing on participant perceptions were characterized descriptively in terms of proportion of respondents within each treatment (n=76 ‘endangered’, n=32 ‘at risk’). Landowner responses (n=17 ‘endangered’, n=13 ‘at risk’) were thematically evaluated and then coded.
Results/Conclusions
Across all five industries, the majority of the respondents felt that Swift Fox had no impact on any of the industries across both treatments. However, across all five industries, a greater proportion of respondents perceived Swift Fox as having a negative impact when framed as ‘endangered’ than ‘at risk.’ Interestingly, a greater proportion of respondents perceived Swift Fox as having a positive impact for three of the five industries (Crop Ag, Ranching Ag, and Tourism) when framed as ‘endangered’ than ‘at risk.’ This suggests that framing around Swift Fox as ‘endangered’ seems to be more polarizing (i.e., elicit more extreme views) than framing communication as ‘at risk.’ In terms of landowner responses, three main responses emerged for the both treatments (proportion respondents ‘endangered’/’at risk’): Do nothing (60%/70%), Trap or Kill animal (5%/0%), or Call Game and Parks (25%/30%). Taken together, this work suggests that being ‘endangered’ may carry underlying normative connotations that could influence people’s perceptions and potential behavior.