How identity bias affects perceptions of conservation messages on social media

Le résumé fourni par la source

Public support is essential for conservation, as public opinion can influence decision-making and policy. Therefore, understanding whether bias toward conservationists due to their identity (identity bias) affects their perceived credibility and support for their recommendations is important. We conducted a vignette-style experiment to investigate the extent to which identity bias influences the U.K. public's perceptions of African lion (Panthera leo) conservation messengers on X. We chose this focal species because of its global appeal and high public engagement in lion conservation on social media. We created 24 fictitious X profiles with a pinned post about lion conservation and presented one profile to each of 1290 study participants (stratified to match the U.K. population regarding age, gender identity, and ethnicity). We held the lion conservation post constant across all profiles but manipulated four experimental variables-the gender, race, expertise, and nationality of the messenger. We evaluated the effects of these variables on three response variables: respondents' perception of the credibility of post content, the likelihood they would support implementing the lion conservation recommendation, and the trustworthiness of the messenger. Men were perceived to be more credible than women. Support for implementing a lion conservation strategy was stronger when communicated by White professors than by Black professors. Explicit trust in the source of lion conservation information followed the same pattern. Additionally, there was an interaction effect of gender and race, with Black women perceived to be the least trustworthy. As such, our study highlights that bias against conservation messengers based on their identity may affect their credibility and uptake of their recommendations. Such bias is particularly concerning given the ongoing injustices and entrenched power inequalities in global conservation efforts.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.