In a study of 2,000 U.S. adults, the researchers tested how identity priming and message framing influence public attitudes toward trophy hunting. Participants were split into nine groups based on whether they received a “personal values” or “social identity” priming exercise (or no prime), followed by one of three message types: a neutral baseline, conservation‑benefits framing, or socioeconomic‑benefits framing (PLOS).
Key Findings:
- Baseline sentiment was predominantly negative, with low approval ratings for trophy hunting (mean ≈ 2.41 on a 1–5 scale: 1 = strong disapproval).
- Messages highlighting ecological or socioeconomic benefits slightly increased approval, but did not shift attitudes to overall support—mostly softening disapproval rather than reversing it (PLOS).
- Identity priming had no measurable effect on changing attitudes—neither political nor value‑based identity activation altered responses meaningfully (PLOS).
- Trust in the message source mattered: respondents expressed greater trust toward conservation‑focused organizations (e.g., WWF, Nature Conservancy) or agencies like U.S. Fish & Wildlife, which enhanced message credibility (PLOS).
Implications:
- Changing deep-seated negative beliefs about trophy hunting likely requires repeated, well‑tailored messaging instead of one-off communications.
- Identity‑based targeting may be less effective when public opposition is uniform across identity groups.
- Trusted messengers and stronger frames (possibly with refutation of counterarguments) could improve receptivity.
Overall, this study offers a data-driven framework for designing messaging around controversial wildlife policies—suggesting small attitude shifts are possible, but broader changes will require strategic, sustained communication efforts.
