Cardiff Metropolitan University

Prifysgol Fetropolitan Caerdydd

B.Sc (Hons) Applied Psychology

Final Year Project

Are Conservation Tendencies Influenced by A Species Dietary Behaviour?

2018

S

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Cardiff Metropolitan University for the degree of Bachelor of Science DECLARATION I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own independent investigation under the supervision of my tutor. The various sources to which I am indebted are clearly indicated. This dissertation has not been accepted in substance for any other degree, and is not being submitted concurrently for any other degree.

i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor for supporting me throughout this project. I enjoyed completing this and has been the most enjoyable time throughout my experience at this university. I am grateful that through this I was able to discover an area which I think is suiting for me. I would also like to thank my family for encouraging throughout my time at university. Without them I do not believe I would have made it this far, as without their constant motivation, especially from my nan and my mum, I do not think I would have stayed on. Furthermore, I have to thank my Grandad, for without him I wouldn’t have made it to university everyday as he always gave me a lift there.

Next, I would also like to offer my friends my thanks. I do not think I have laughed as much and survived the long breaks between lectures without them there, despite the very little work we did by playing with a pack of cards and simply chatting in general. Finally, I would also like to thank those who had taken part in my project. Despite a few who did not show up, I would like to thank those who took the time to come up and complete my study, even if it only took the majority a few minutes. Without you, I would not have been able to complete this and I hope that I answered the questions you had adequately.

ii ABSTRACT Background: Pervious research has suggested that knowledge of a species diet can both positively influence conservation attitudes and negatively influence conservation attitudes. However earlier research has not focused of a multiple different type of diets that can influenced and has not looked into whether sex can play a role in attitudes towards species dietary behaviour, due to similarity biases. Aim: Therefore, with a focus on the species of , this study will aim to explore whether knowledge of a species dietary behaviour will have an influence over the likelihood of conservation, and whether this will differ between males and females. Method: A mixed design was employed as the design consisted of two between subject independent variables (With or without information and sex) and one within- subject variable (presentation of the five species). There were 66 Participants (n=33 in the with-information condition and n=33 in the without information condition) which consisted of 22 males and 44 females. A 0-10 continuous rating scale was created to obtain a rating of the likelihood of saving each of the bat species and a 2 x 2 x 5 Mixed ANOVA was used to analyse the results. Results: There is support for the first hypothesis as there was a significant difference between bats who are frugivorous and bats who are and there was partial supported for the second hypothesis as both carnivorous diets and piscivorous diets was significantly different when participants had either received knowledge of the diet or imagines, however there was no support for the role of sex. Conclusion: In conclusion it has supported previous research as it has demonstrated that certain diets, such as carnivores and frugivorous, are more influential, whether it decreases the likelihood of conservation (carnivores) or increases the likelihood of conservation (Frugivorous).

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Declaration...... I Acknowledgements...... II Abstract...... III Table of Contents...... IV List of figures...... V

Chapter one - Introduction……………………………………………………….………….1 1.1 - Biodiversity decline……………………………………………………………………....1 1.2 - Species ‘flagships’ and public involvement……………………………………………....1 1.3 - Knowledge factor for species conservation………………………………………………2 1.4 - Knowledge of species diet as a factor for conservation…………………………………...3 1.5 - Sex differences influence………………………………………………………………….4 1.6 - Justification for using bats as the species of focus……………………………………….5 1.7 - Aims and Hypothesis……………………………………………………………………...5 Chapter two - Method……………………………………………………...... 7 2.1 - Sample…………………………………………………………………………………....7 2.2 - Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………………...7 2.3 - Design…………………………………………………………………………………….7 2.4 - Materials………………………………………………………………………………….8 2.5 – Procedure……………………………………………………………………………....10 2.6 - Method of Analysis……………………………………………………………………...10 Chapter three – Results……………………………………………………………………..12 Chapter four – Discussion…………………………………………………………………..16 Chapter five – References…………………………………………………………………..19 Chapter seven – Appendix………………………………………………………………….25

iv

LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 - Headshot of the Common Bat for Hematophagy Bat Species group, with dietary description beside

1.2 - Headshot of the Big Brown Bat for Bat Species group, with dietary description beside

1.3 - Headshot of the Fringe-Lipped Bat for Carnivorous Bat Species group, with dietary description beside.

1.4 - Headshot of the Greater Bulldog Bat for Piscivorous Bat species group, with dietary description beside.

1.5 - Headshot of the Egyptian Fruit Bat for Bat Species group, with dietary description beside. Figure 3.1: Showing the results of the differences between sex’s and, with information (dietary description of bats) condition and without information (images of bats) condition, on the likelihood of saving each of the species of bats

v

CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION

1.1 – Biodiversity decline Conservation efforts are not achieving a significant reduction in biodiversity loss (Carwardine et al, 2012), with rates of biodiversity rapidly on the decline (Rands et al, 2010; Hoffmann et al, 2010; Cooke, 2008). This is with a growing list of species classified as threatened and an average of fifty-two species a year becoming one step closer to facing extinction (Hoffmann et al, 2010). Due to this, we as a species are faced with issues such as the alteration of Earth’s ecosystem as species extinction can affect productivity and decomposition, two processes that are important in any ecosystem (Hooper et al, 2012). However, with problems such as cost of conservation and the benefits of each species playing a factor (Shoo et al, 2003; Bower et al, 2017), the choice on which species we should conserve has become more important than ever (Bower et al, 2017).

1.2 – Species ‘flagships’ and public involvement Therefore, it is inevitable that species that are viewed as more ‘favourable’, are going to be the most likely to receive the most funding for their conservations (Brisson, 2012). Such favouritism or bias are influenced by a range of factors such as, appearance/attractiveness, location, and popularity (Home, Keller, Nagel, Bauer & Hunziker, 2009; Sitas, Baillie & Isaac, 2009; Small, 2011; Prokop & Randler, 2018). Furthermore, public involvement has played an increasingly significant role in the conservation of species (Batt, 2009; Stokes, 2007) as many conservation efforts rely on the support and funding from the public (Grantham et al, 2010; Jacobson, Organ, Decker, Batcheller & Carpenter, 2010). Consequently, conservationists take advantage of ‘favourable’ species and use them as ‘flagships’ (Veríssimo et al, 2014; Clucas, McHugh & Caro, 2008; Veríssimo et al, 2014). The term ‘flagship’ is used to describe when ‘charismatic’ species are used as a symbol or a brand for a conservation effort (Ducarme, Luque & Courchamp, 2013; Wright et al, 2015; Curtin & Papworth, 2018; Clucas et al, 2008). The use of them are extremely useful because they can encourage tourism (Caro, 2010; Xiang et al, 2011), can establish funding for that species (Caro, 2010; Xiang et al, 2011; Bennett, Maloney & Possingham, 2015; Curtin & Papworth, 2018; Clucas et al, 2008), can increase support from the public (Caro, 2010; Barua, Tamuly & Ahmed, 2010; Bennett et al, 2015) and lastly increase public awareness of the conservation efforts (Caro, 2010; Xiang et al, 2011; Bennett et al, 2015; Curtin & Papworth, 2018; Clucas et al, 2008). ‘Charismatic’ species are the choice of species to use for ‘flagships’ because the public already has some sort of liking towards them (Colléony et al, 2017), due to several reasons such as the species size, the amount of intelligence they process, whether they are predatory or not, or simply because of their physical appearance (Webb, 2013; Prokop & Randler, 2018). Due to this, large (Home, Keller, Nagel, Bauer & Hunziker, 2009; Clucas et al, 2008; Liordos, Kontsiotis, Anastasiadou & Karavasia, 2017) and large (Clucas et al, 2008) are used as flagships because they allow conservationists to link a positive attitude towards conservation efforts (Smith, Veréssimo & MacMillan, 2010) and will allow some members of

1

the public to feel sympathy towards the species (Home et al, 2009). Nevertheless, research has been focused on attitudes towards species appearances as the research demonstrates that it does affect the publics attitudes in conservation endeavours (Brambilla, Gustin & Celada, 2013; de Pinho, Grilo, Boone, Galvin & Snodgrass, 2014). However, when it comes to other influences, little amount of research has been conducted (St John, Edwards-Jones & Jones, 2011), which suggests that either other factors do not influence as well or simply it has not been considered as much.

1.3 – Knowledge factor for species conservation Due to the lack of focus with other factors being influential in conservation efforts, it is has been proposed that a factor that can be a main influencer of conservation attitudes could be whether members of the public has been given detailed knowledge of the species in focus or already process this knowledge (Mulder, Schacht, Caro, Schacht & Caro, 2009; Toomey & Domroese, 2013; Friedrich, Jefferson & Glegg, 2014; van der Ploeg, Cauilan-Cureg, van Weerd & De Groot, 2011). For example, public knowledge could be influential when it is directly related to the species, as suggested by Friedrich et al (2014). They found that despite public fears of sharks, due to the negative stereotype of common shark attacks in the oceans (Pepin-Neff & Wynter, 2017), when participants were provided with general knowledge and information of the dangers that sharks face, or already processed this knowledge, participants were overwhelmingly positive towards this species. Additionally, because of this awareness or understanding, participants were more likely to favour the conservation of sharks. This suggests that knowledge of the species itself can positively influence conservation efforts. Furthermore, knowledge can also improve attitudes towards conservation when it is related indirectly to the species as suggested by van der Ploeg et al (2011). They found that, despite Philippine crocodiles facing issues such as being killed for food or because of public fears, when participants were provided with education of the environment and the legalisation that surround the protection of the environment, then most tended to show more positive conservation attitudes towards the crocodiles. Additionally, not only did it raise awareness of conservation efforts, but it also provided the starting of a community-based conservation. This suggests, that although not directly related, knowledge of the environment can also positively influence attitudes towards conservation. However, knowledge of a species may also have an opposite effect of attitudes towards species conservation (Ahnström et al, 2009). This is especially when you consider the roles of fear factors (Liordos et al, 2017), as those whose fear was directly related to carnivores (Meat eaters), were less likely to support those species conservation (Johansson, Sjöström, Karlsson & Brännlund, 2012; Treves, 2009; Carter, Riley & Liu, 2012; Treves, Naughton-Treves & Shelley, 2013; Bruskotter & Willson, 2014). Furthermore, knowledge from the locals can also affect conservation attitudes, especially if the knowledge is focused on negative aspects such as; if the locals feel as if there are not enough benefits for the species and if the risks of cohabiting with the species is not minimized (Madden, 2008; Treves, 2009; Carter et al, 2012; Morehouse & Boyce, 2017). These risks are usually focused on farms and livestock’s being destroyed, the danger towards people living there (Baird, Leslie & McCuabe, 2009; Treves et al, 2013; Suryawanshi, Chatia, Chatnager, Redpath & Mishra, 2014; Grey, Bell & Hill, 2017) or because there is the danger of losing other species in the environment (Treves et al, 2013;

2

Suryawanshi et al, 2014). Regardless of this, when people are given more knowledge that separates the risk from the benefits, then they are more likely to be tolerant towards carnivorous species (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014; Pinherio, Rodrigues & Borges-Nojosa, 2016). Additionally, knowledge that is gained from the use of folklores can also have a negative effect on conservation attitudes, especially since the species of focus are usually reptiles or amphibians (Ceríaco, 2012; Pinherio et al, 2016). This is because folklores often suggest that these species can be dangerous, for example, Geckos can be viewed as poisonous or carriers of dermatological diseases because of the way they are portrayed in folklores (Ceríaco, Marques, Madeira, Vila-Vicosa & Mendes, 2011). Furthermore, knowledge of folklore can also affect attitudes towards species that are mammals, such as wolves who are often viewed as sly and or dangerous (Mech & Boitani, 2010). However, this can easily be changed as when people are given more knowledge of the species benefits and are able to interact with species, then they would have an improved attitude towards the species (Pinherio, et al, 2016). Furthermore, carnivores are still used as ‘flagships’ for conservation efforts (Home et al, 2009; Clucas et al, 2008), suggesting that fear factors do not influenced as much as it is thought, or because the knowledge factor may have a greater influence over attitudes towards species conservation.

1.4 – Knowledge of species diet as a factor for conservation One area that has not been a focus in research is how knowledge of a species diet can affect conservation attitudes. It was found by Clucas et al, (2008) that those species who are often chosen, by conservationists, as ‘flagships’ have their diets consist of either carnivorous, piscivorous ( ), herbivorous (fruit and vegetable eating) or insectivores (insect eating). This suggests that diet may have some sort of influence in the decision of ‘flagships’ as most species seen as “charismatic” are those who are carnivores or (Home et al, 2009; Clucas et al, 2008) and not all diets are conveyed. Furthermore, knowledge of a species diet can be linked to a positive attitude towards species conservation efforts as suggested by Lopes-Fernandes, Espírito-Santo, & Frazão-Moreira, (2018). They found that even though, there was a number of negative attitudes directed towards Iberian lynx because they are viewed as dangerous towards people. When people understood that their diets consisted of mainly wild rabbits, then they were more likely to have positive attitudes towards the species integration in the surrounding wildlife. This suggests that knowledge of diets can aid in the positive attitudes towards species conservation. However, knowledge of a species diet can also have a negative effect of attitudes towards species conservation efforts as suggested by Echverri, Chan & Zhao (2017). They found that even species that are seen as “charismatic”, such as sea otters, can be negatively viewed, especially if knowledge of their diets focuses of negative aspects such as their diets being harmful to humans in terms of an economic loss. This suggests that diets can play a significant role in shaping people’s attitudes towards a certain species. This is especially important as carnivores’ conservation efforts can suffer because of the attitudes towards their diets, as they are often seen as creatures that should be feared (Johansoon et al, 2012; Treves, 2009; Carter et al, 2012; Treves et al, 2013; Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014). Once more, because of their diet, carnivores can also be viewed as a menace on live stocks and other species in the surrounding wildlife (Ngongolog et al, 2017; Baird et al, 2009; Treves et al, 2013; Suryawanshi et al, 2014; Grey et al, 2017) which further promotes a negative attitude.

3

1.5 – Sex differences influence From an early age, sex differences can demonstrate a bias towards different kind of species, for example it was found that boys were more likely to favour species who are stereotypically seen as ‘bad’ or ‘ugly’, such as bats (Almeida, Vasconcelos & Strecht-Ribeiro, 2014), whereas females tend to express and are more sensitive to feelings of fear and disgust to these species (Randler, Hummel & Prokop, 2012). It was originally thought that males would be more likely to agree that the conservation of species was a good thing to do (Ebua, Agwafo & Fonkwo, 2011), however recent studies seem to suggest that females are the sex that is more likely to support the conservation efforts of species in general (Liordos et al, 2017; McCune et al, 2017; Lute & Attari, 2017). This is especially the case when the female has achieved a higher level of education (Liordos et al, 2017). One factor for this response could be because of similarity bias, as individual may be predisposed to having a positive attitude towards species that share a similar bio-behavioural trait such as lifespan, weight, parental investment, and social organization (Batt, 2009). Due to this, diets may be a bio-behavioural factor that can also influence our attitudes towards species, as it can also be a similarity (Batt, 2009). For example, because males have been found to consume more red meat produce such as beef or lamb in their diet than females (Rothgerber, 2013; McAfee et al, 2010; Ruby, 2012; Fox & Ward, 2008), it could be predicted that males would have a positive predisposition towards carnivorous species as they will share a similar diet. Furthermore, the same could be said for females as they are more likely to endorse and consume a vegetarian diet (Ruby, 2012; Fox & Ward, 2008) and a healthier lifestyle than males (Arganini, Saba, Comitato, Virfili & Turrini, 2012). Therefore, because of this healthier diet, it could be predicted that females will have a positive predisposition towards species that consume more fruit and vegetables such as frugivores because they will also share a similar diet. These dietary preferences may have been developed due to evolutionary changes. For example, it has been long agreed that one of the main reasons for the evolutionary change for our species, was the fact that we, particularly males, had begun hunting other species as a food source instead of solely concentrating on gathering plants as a food source. (O’Connell, Hawkes, Lupo & Jones, 2002; Potts, 2017; Wright, 2010; Van Vugt, 2017). Not only does the ability to hunt bring positive social attention to males, but because of the calorie consuming nature of hunting, males would have spent most of their foraging time towards hunting as it would be inefficient for females to do so (Hawkes & Bliege , 2002). Thus, in evolutionary terms, men should be more likely to favour a diet that consists of red meat because of evolutionary changes from their ability to hunt other species to provide and to essentially produce a positive social reaction. Furthermore, because it would be inefficient for females to hunt (Hawkes & Bliege Bird, 2002), females were more efficient when gathering for other food sources such as plants (Venkataraman, Kraft, Dominy & Endicott, 2017; Tiger, 2017), something in which males would spend less time doing so (Tiger, 2017). Thus, in evolutionary terms, females should prefer a diet that consists of fruit and vegetables because of the evolutionary changes from their ability to gather food sources more efficiently. However, little research has been conducted into how knowledge of a species diets can influence the likelihood of conservation and how the difference of the sexes can be an influence too.

4

1.6 – Justification for using bats as the species of focus With the rates of bats diversity on the decline, conservation efforts for the species depend on the change of human attitudes towards the species (Kingston, 2016). Bats, among other groups such as snakes and spiders, suffer when it comes to conservation efforts as their appearance can be linked to irrational fears or phobias (Knight, 2008), due to the concept of (Gnomes, Neto, Medeiros & Alvarez, 2017) and because they can incite feelings of disgust (Kingston, 2016), which is due to the high rate of media influence suggesting that bats are harmful to humans in terms of deadly diseases (López‐Baucells, Rocha & Fernández‐ Llamazares, 2018; Gnomes et al, 2017). However, attitudes towards bats can also be influenced when there is a variety of positive knowledge gained about them, which can improve attitudes towards the species (Williams, 2014). This is further supported as it was found that when individuals had less information about the species of bats, then they were more likely to have adverse reactions towards the species (Gnomes et al, 2017). This suggests that the knowledge of species can greatly influence our attitudes towards them. Additionally, bats were selected as the species of focus because of their variety of diets (Wilson, Reeder & Simmons, 2008). This is because their diets can change between each species as some can consume a carnivorous diet (Rodrigues, Reis & Braz, 2014; Wilson et al, 2008), a frugivorous diet (Farneda et al, 2018; Wilson et al, 2008), a insectivores diet (Thiagavel et al, 2017; Wilson et al, 2008), a piscivorous diet (Aizpurua et al, 2013; Wilson et al, 2008) and lastly some species of bats have a hematophagous ( drinking) diet (Sarkis et al, 2018; Wilson et al, 2008). Therefore, they are the species of focus because their diets may show an influence of attitudes towards similar species.

1.7 – Aims and Hypothesis So, are these biases for species formed by conservationists to gain funding and awareness of endangered species, or are they the biases of the members of the public who would only support ‘charismatic’ species? Clucas et al (2008) suggest that these biases are formed by conservationists looking to improve their conservation efforts, even though little research have been focused on members of public who play an increasingly significant role in the conservation effort (Batt, 2009; Stokes, 2007). Therefore, with a focus on the species of bats, this study will aim to explore whether knowledge of a species dietary behaviour will have an influence over the likelihood of conservation, and whether this will differ between males and females. This is because little research has been focused in this area, and because it could highlight how the publics lifestyle proclivities and choices can affect conservation attitudes. To explore this aim, participants were invited to imagine a scenario in which a bat sanctuary has been caught ablaze, or in other terms, has been set of fire, during their visit there. This scenario was given to set participants in a mind frame of only having a certain time limit to state the likelihood of saving each bat species and has the purpose of directing participants focus onto the information (either dietary information or images) that was given to them, instead of focusing on the bat species in general. Thus, there will be four hypotheses for this study. The first hypothesis it that bats who are frugivorous will be rated higher for likelihood of conservation compared to bats who are

5

carnivores, as it is predicted that because of the prevalence of more negative attitudes that can be projected onto carnivores, this will decrease the likelihood of those species conservation. The second hypothesis is that those who only receive the knowledge of the dietary behaviour of the bats will rate higher for the likelihood of conservation, compared to those who will only receive image-based information of the bats, because knowledge of the species diet should positively influence attitudes towards the conservation of the species. The third hypothesis is that there will be a difference with males and females and their likelihood of which species of bats to conserve, as it has been predicted that males will rate carnivorous species of bats higher for conservation than females, and that females will rate frugivorous species higher for conservation than males, due to individuals’ lifestyle proclivities and choices which may affect conservation attitudes. Lastly, the fourth hypothesis is that there will be a difference between males and females and their overall likelihood of conserving the species in general, as it has been suggested that females will be more likely to score the species higher for conservation compared to males.

6

CHAPTER TWO - METHOD 2.1 – Sample N=66 participants (n=33 in the with-information condition and n=33 in the without information condition) were collected with use of an opportunity sampling method on a voluntary basis, and with use of the Universities psychology research participant panel. Participants consisted of both males (n=22) and females (n=44), all eighteen and over, whose ages ranged from eighteen to fifty and over. For both sexes, the most occurring age group was those who were eighteen to twenty-one. All participants were currently undergraduates, where the only exclusion criteria was if participants possessed any phobias of bats, then they were advised not to take part.

2.2 – Ethical Considerations Ethical approval was granted before any participants were collected. This ethical approval was obtained during November 2017 by Cardiff Metropolitan University’s ethics panel. Participants were given a participant information sheet (See appendix A), which informed them what the study entailed, what they will be required to do, potential risks and benefits, and lastly their rights to withdraw, and the assurance that anonymity and confidentiality would be respected. The details about anonymity and confidentiality, included information such as not being asked to reveal any personal information, and that all information regarding the date would be kept on a password protected computer and that all data would be deleted after the dissertation had been submitted. Furthermore, participants were given a consent form (see appendix B) to sign after reading the information sheet. Additionally, although this study had very slight chance of potential risk, participants were also verbally debriefed afterwards to remind them that the scenario of the a bat sanctuary being caught ablaze was purely imaginary and did not occur, and if in case that participants may produce a fear response to the bat stimuli, then they were reminded that they have full right to withdraw and also were given helplines towards aiding phobias. These helplines can be accessed by https://www.nopanic.org.uk – Tel: 08449674848 (No panic) and www.touk.org – Tel: 01225571740 (Triumph Over Phobia, Top UK).

2.3 – Design A mixed design was employed as the design consisted of two between subject independent variables (IV) and one within-subject variable. The first IV comprised of two levels and was whether participants would receive information (with information condition). This information related to the dietary description of the bat species. In the non-information condition, participants would receive just the images of the same bat species (without information condition). The second between-subjects IV also had two levels, and was the sex of participants, so, whether they were male or females. The within-subject variable was the presentation of five bats species (with or without information) each of which represented one dietary type; hematophagy, insectivores, carnivorous, piscivorous and frugivorous. The dependent variable was the mean likelihood of saving each of the bat species, which was rated

7

on a 0-10 continuous rating scale, where 0 is the least likely to save that species and 10 equated to most likely to save that species.

2.4 – Materials The materials used was a description of the dietary preferences of the bats species (See figure 1.1-1.5). Each description shared a similar format, where the only differences were the diet terminology and the examples of the diets. For example, for a carnivorous diet, examples of what the bats ate included other species such as frogs, lizards, rodents, and small birds. The descriptions were created with aim to not show a preference by the researcher to minimize any effects of researcher bias and was used for one of the questionnaires, for those who would be participating in the with information condition. Other materials included images of the same bat species (See figure 1.1-1.5). The images were selected with the aim to show only the headshots of the species of bats as this had provided a close-up image that would be able to demonstrate a clear difference with each of the bats species. Furthermore, the images were also selected with the aim to either have a black background or a plain background as the background would not be able to distract participants from the appearance of the bat species. These were used for the second questionnaire, for those who would be participating in the without information condition only. Each questionnaire was presented on a computer with the use of google forms, where the dietary description of bats and the images of bats were presented to participants in a randomized order (see appendix C & D) to minimize the possibility of order effect. Furthermore, a 0-10 continuous rating scale was created to obtain a rating of the likelihood of saving each of the bat species. The continuous rating scale was also presented on the computer with the use of google forms, where participants would have to click the number of scale to mark their response. Furthermore, a verbal scenario was also created in order to allow participants to be set in a mind frame to only focus on the information given about the bats instead of the looking at the bats in general. The scenario given was that participants will be attending a bat sanctuary, when suddenly the bat sanctuary would be caught ablaze or, in simpler terms, set on fire. As the scenario includes an emergency situation of a bat sanctuary being caught ablaze or set on fire, this was meant to induce quick decision making with the participants instead of allowing them to have time to think over their decisions, in the prediction that it would be the information pertaining to their dietary habits that would affect the likelihood to initiate the saving of a given species rather than simply their aesthetic appear (non-dietary information condition). Figure 1: Headshots of bat species, with dietary description beside. (1.1-1.5)

1.1 - Headshot of the Common for Hematophagy Bat Species group, with dietary description beside

8

Their diet consists of a number of different species of mammals, however their diet mainly consists of drinking blood.

1.2 - Headshot of the Big Brown Bat for Insectivores Bat Species group, with dietary description beside

Their diet consists of a number of different species of insects, such as the Ground beetles, Diving beetles and Scarabs.

1.3 - Headshot of the Fringe-Lipped Bat for Carnivorous Bat Species group, with dietary description beside.

Their diet consists of a number of different small , such as frogs, lizards, rodents, and small birds.

1.4 - Headshot of the Greater Bulldog Bat for Piscivorous Bat species group, with dietary description beside.

9

Their diet consists of a number of different species of fish, which is often caught in waterbeds.

1.5 - Headshot of the Egyptian Fruit Bat for Frugivores Bat Species group, with dietary description beside.

Their diet consists of a number of different species of fruit such as plums, apples pomegranates and peaches.

2.5 – Procedure The study was conducted within one of the psychology lab cubicles, where each participant was tested in isolation and in a noise attenuated conditions. Participants were greeted by the researcher and were provided with a participation information sheet to give them information about the study and if they were happy to continue, then they would be provided with a consent form to sign. Once that was completed participants would be given the scenario, in which they were told that they would have to imagine that they are attending a bat sanctuary, having a good time looking at the species of bats when all of the sudden the bat sanctuary would be set ablaze or in simpler terms, set on fire. This was in order to have participants prioritse their thoughts and focus on urgently obtaining information to inform their conservation choices. They were then told that based on the information they were about to receive, either the dietary description of the bats (With information), or the images of the bats (without information), that they would have to state the likelihood of saving each of the individual bat species. They were also given instructions to rate the likelihood of saving each of the bat species on 0-10 continious rating scales (see above). Furthermore, participants were also told the five-bat species they would be looking at, which were the Big Brown Bat, the Egyptian Fruit Bat, the Fringe-lipped

10

Bat, the Greater Bulldog Bat and lastly, the . The information of the names of each of the species also appeared in the questionnaires as a reminder. Depending on the condition in which they were participating, they would either be receiving the dietary description of the bat species (See appendix C) or the images of the bat species alone (See appendix D), however both questionnaires had also included instructions that had been told verbally first (See appendix C & D) and both questionnaires used the same 0-10 continuous rating scales. Participants were told that they were able to complete this in their own time, however they were also informed that the questionnaires were short and on average would be completed within five minutes. Once participants were happy and understood what they had to do, then participants would be left alone to complete the questionnaire, which would be completed online with use of Google Forms. Upon clicking on the submit button, the study would have concluded, and the data recorded.

2.6 – Method of Analysis A 2 x 2 x 5 mixed ANOVA with appropriate post-hoc analysis was conducted as the data collected from the continuous rating scales was interval data. Furthermore, a 2 x 2 x 5 mixed ANOVA with appropriate post-hoc analysis was also conducted because the study aims to compare sex differences and whether there will be a difference between those who receive the dietary description of the five-bat species or whether they receive the images of the five-bat species and interactions between these variables.

11

CHAPTER THREE - RESULTS Figure 3.1 demonstrates differences between sex, with and without information and the five different dietary types which occur with each of the five-bat species. The figure shows that when comparing males and females, overall females were more likely to save the species of bats in general in both conditions of receiving information of the dietary behaviour or not receiving this information. Interestingly, male participants who had received information of the dietary types had seemed to rate the bats species lower than the without information participants, apart from the dietary types carnivores and piscivorous. Furthermore, female participants seem to also show this pattern as well, apart from the diet frugivorous which was also rated higher for the with information condition rather than the without information condition. Additionally, out the five dietary types, frugivorous bat species were rated the highest in both conditions, and carnivorous species were rated the lowest in both conditions. Comparison of sex's and whether they recieve information (Dietary knowledge) or no information (Images).

With Information

Without information

With information

Without information

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mean liklihood to conserve species of bats (0-10) Frugivorous Piscivorous Carnivores Insectivores Hematophagy

Figure 3.1: Showing the results of the differences between sex’s and, with information (dietary description of bats) condition and without information (images of bats) condition, on the likelihood of saving each of the species of bats

Data was analysed using a 2 x 2 x 5 mixed-design ANOVA, with the within subjects’ factors of dietary types of the bat species (hematophagy, insectivores, carnivorous, piscivorous and frugivorous) and the two between subject factors of sex (Male & Female) and information received (with or without information conditions). Mauchly’s test of sphericity had indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated, [X2(9) = 29.27, P < .05], therefore the degrees of freedom were corrected using the Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity which indicated that there was an significant effect of dietary type of the species of bats [F 3.24, 201.10 2 = 13.80, P < .05, ηp = .18] and a significant interaction between effect of dietary type of the 2 species of bats x the information that was received [F (3.24, 201.10) = 8.02, P < .05, ηp = .12]. However, results from this test had also indicated that there was no significant interaction 2 between dietary types of the species of bats x sex [F (3.24, 201.10) = .61, P > .05, ηp = .01]

12

and there was no significant interaction between dietary types of the species of bats x 2 information received x sex [F 3.24, 201.10 = .63, P > .05, ηp = .01]. Furthermore, results from tests of between-subjects’ effects had also showed that there was no 2 significant main effect of sex [F 1, 62 = 2.99, MSE =52.42, P > .05, ηp = .05] indicating that for both males and females results were generally similar, and that there was no significant effect 2 of information received [F 1, 62 = .35, MSE = 1.24, P > .05, ηp = .01] indicating that for the with information condition and the without information condition results were not significantly different. All further effects are reported as significant at P < .05 where is a significant effect of whether 2 participants received information and the dietary types of the bats [F 4, 59 = 3.09, F < .05, ηp = 2 .17] or whether participants did not receive information [F 4, 59 = 17.95, F < .05, ηp = .55]. Pairwise comparisons shows that when both sexes had received the information of the dietary behaviour of each of the bat species then they were more likely to rate frugivorous species higher when compared to hematophagy species (Mean difference (MD) = 1.96, Standard deviation (SD) = .71), insectivorous species (MD = 1.14, SD = .50), carnivorous species and piscivorous species (MD = 1.48, SD = .47). Which suggests that when receive knowledge of frugivorous bat species diet, then participants are more favourable towards that species. However, pairwise comparisons also show that participants who did not receive knowledge of the species diet then they were more likely to rate hematophagy species higher than carnivorous species (MD = 3.41, SD = .63) and piscivorous species (MD = 2.84, SD = .63). Participants were also likely to rate insectivorous species higher than carnivorous species (MD = 3.48, SD = .63) and piscivorous species (MD = 2.91, SD = .54) and lastly participants also rated frugivorous species higher than carnivorous species (MD = 3.73, SD = .56) and piscivorous species (MD = 3.14, SD = .47). This suggest that when giving no information of the species diet then carnivorous and piscivorous species were the least likely to be saved.

2 There was a significant effect of the dietary types of the bat species [F 4, 59 = 14.38, P < .05, ηp = .49]. Pairwise comparisons suggest that the dietary type Hematophagy in bats species were more favourable with participants when compared to bats who consumed a carnivorous diet (MD = 1.50, SD = .45), as participants were more likely to support saving hematophagy diets in bats than their carnivorous contemporaries’ species. Furthermore, bats who were insectivores were also more favourable towards participants when they were compared to carnivorous bat species (MD = 1.90, SD = .44) and piscivorous bat species (MD = 1.63, SD = .38). Most importantly, frugivorous were the most favourable for participants when compared to species of bats who were piscivorous (MD = 2.31, SD = .33) and species of bats who were carnivorous (MD = 2.58, SD = .40) for both males and females This suggest support for first hypothesis which was bats who are frugivorous will be rated higher for likelihood of conservation compared to bats who are carnivores, as this was indeed the case with frugivorous species being more favourable than carnivorous species. There was a significant effect of comparing dietary types and whether participants received information or did not receive information for carnivorous species of bats [F 1, 62 = 4.38, P < 2 2 0.5, ηp = .12] and piscivorous bat species [F 1, 62 = 6.41, P < 0.5, ηp = .09]. Pairwise comparisons show that when participants received the knowledge of what carnivorous bat species ate, then they were more likely to support saving carnivorous species compared to

13

participants who did not receive this knowledge. (MD = 2.27, SD = .77) This is also the case for species of bats who consumed a piscivorous diet, as participants were also likely to support saving these species of bats when receiving knowledge of their diets compared to those who did receive this knowledge (MD = 1.68, SD = .66). This provided partial support for the second hypothesis, which was those who only receive the knowledge of the dietary behaviour of the bats will rate higher for the likelihood of conservation, compared to those who will only receive image-based information of the bats, as this was the case for both carnivorous bat species and piscivorous bet species. Results furthered showed that there was a significant effect of comparing the different dietary 2 2 types for males [F 4, 59 = 6.92, P < .05, ηp = .32] and females [F (4, 59) = 9, P < .05, ηp = .32] Pairwise comparisons suggests that both males and females had rated species of bats similarly as there was a number of similar outcomes. This was especially the case as males were more likely to rate frugivorous species higher when compared to carnivorous species (MD = 2.55, SD = .65) and piscivorous species (MD = 2.68, SD = .54), which was similar to females who had also rated frugivorous species higher than carnivorous species (MD = 2.61, SD = .46) and piscivorous species (MD = 1.93, SD = .38). This also the case for males rating insectivorous species higher than piscivorous species (MD = 1.77, SD = .63) and carnivores species (MD = 1.64, SD = .72) , which was similar to females rating insectivorous higher than piscivorous species (MD = 1.48, SD = .44), and carnivorous species (MD = 2.16, SD = .51). The only difference that these pairwise comparisons show is that males were more likely to rate hematophagy species higher than piscivorous species (MD = 1.77, SD = .72) and carnivorous species (MD = 1.64, SD = .73), whereas females tended to rate hematophagy species higher than carnivorous species (MD = 1.27, SD = .52) but not piscivorous species.. This indicates partial support for the third hypothesis which was there will be a difference with males and females and their likelihood of which species of bats to conserve, as although males and females did perform similarly for the majority of the species diets, they also demonstrated differences when it came to species who were hematophagy when compared to the other diets of the species. Interestingly, with most of the bat species dietary type, there was no significant differences between each of the sexes. However, despite the results showing that there was no difference for the other dietary types, there was a significant difference between males and female when 2 it came to bats who had a piscivorous diet [F 1, 62= 4.80 , P < .05, ηp = .07] as females tended to be more likely to save piscivorous bat species than males (MD = 1.50, SD = .66). This also provided some support towards the third hypothesis as females were more likely to support piscivorous bat species than males, showing a difference in the species they would save. Furthermore, there was significant differences of comparing sex x whether participants received information or not x the different dietary types, where there was a significant 2 difference with males and the dietary type carnivores [F 1, 62 = 4.37, F < .05, ηp = .07] and a 2 significant difference with females and dietary types carnivores [F 1, 62 = 4.59, F < .05, ηp = 2 .07] and piscivorous [F (1, 62) = 6.20, F < .05, ηp = .09] Pairwise comparisons demonstrates that when males received information of the carnivores species diets, then they would rate these species higher than participants who did not receive this information (MD = 2.64, SD = 1.26). This was similar for females who also rated carnivorous species higher when receiving information of their diets compared to participants who did not receive this information (MD

14

= 1.91, SD = .89) and unlike males, this was also the case for species of bats who were piscivorous (MD = 1.91, SD = .77) which demonstrates that females are more likely to save certain species.

15

CHAPTER FOUR - DISCUSSION The study explored whether knowledge of a species dietary behaviour will have an influence over the likelihood of conservation, and whether this will differ between males and females. This is because although we know that physical appearances do influence the likelihood of conservation (Home et al, 2009; Sita et al, 2009l Small, 2011; Propkop & Randler, 2018), there has been very little research which has explored the possibility that dietary knowledge of the species can have an influence as well. Although any species could have been used for as an example of the diets, especially since earlier research has often focused on more carnivorous species (Lopes-Fernandes et al, 2018), the species of bats were the most suitable choice because of their variety of dietary behaviour, which changes when looking at each individual bat species. This creates more of a focus on the variety of diets which may have an influence over conservation attitudes, instead of simply focusing on one type of dietary behaviour which earlier research has been focusing on. There were several hypotheses which it intended to test. These were; bats who are frugivorous will be rated higher for likelihood of conservation compared to bats who are carnivores; those who only receive the knowledge of the dietary behaviour of the bats will rate higher for the likelihood of conservation, compared to those who will only receive image-based information of the bats; there will be a difference with males and females and their likelihood of which species of bats to conserve, and lastly, there will be a difference between males and females and their overall likelihood of conserving the species in general. Although not all the hypotheses were fully supported due to the role of sex not being significantly different between the sexes, results do show that there is support for the first hypothesis as there was a significant difference between bats who are frugivores and bats who are carnivores, as in both condition (those who received dietary knowledge or receive imagines) had demonstrated that bats who had more of a frugivorous diets were rated much higher than bats who had more of a carnivorous diet. The second hypothesis was also partially supported as both carnivorous diets and piscivorous diets was significantly different when participants had either received knowledge of the diet or imagines. In both cases, those who received knowledge of the species dietary behaviour had rated them higher than those who had only received the images of the bat species. In addition, despite sex not being fully significant, three were some small difference between the sexes, as females showed a tendency to rate the piscivorous species higher than males, suggesting that females are more likely to conserve certain species compared to males. Furthermore, both males and females showed a tendency to conserve frugivorous species higher than carnivorous species, suggesting that frugivorous species were more favourable or ‘charismatic’. Despite not being able to produce a significant difference across all the results, this study was able to provide support for the previous studies looked at. One point was that it was able to support the assumption that when receiving knowledge of a species can increase the likelihood of that species conservation (Mulder et al, 2009; Toomey & Domroese, 2013; Friedrich et al, 2014; van der Ploeg et al, 2011). This was because with at least three of the species (fringe-lipped bat, Greater bulldog bat, and the Egyptian fruit bat) the likelihood of conservation had increased overall compared to the group who had only received the imagines of these bats, suggesting that knowledge gained had increased conservation attitudes. However, although it also partially supported the idea that knowledge about the species diet can influence the likelihood of conservation efforts as suggested by Williams

16 (2014), this did not occur with all five-bat species. There were two bats species (the Common vampire bat and the Big brown bat) whose diets consisted of hematophagy and insectivores, where the knowledge of these species dietary behaviour did not increase the likelihood of conservation compared to those who had received the images of these bat species. If knowledge of a species diet did have a positive influence so likelihood of conservation, you would expect the result to portray an increase in likelihood with those receiving the dietary knowledge. This therefore suggests that another factor may have influenced participants attitudes, such as perhaps feels of disgust (Kingston, 2016) from the diets or a sense of fear (Knight, 2008), which may have negatively influenced participants attitudes. Although this cannot be certain due to the nature of quantitative methods, this could be solved for future research by applying a slightly more qualitative approach by simply asking participants why they had rated that species in a particular way. Furthermore, this study also supports previous findings that carnivorous species are often the victim to the lack of support for conservation from members of the public (Johansson et al, 2012; Treves, 2009, Carter et al, 2012; Treves et al, 2013; Bruskotter & Willson, 2014), s results from this study demonstrated that carnivorous species were rated the lowest with those who had received the dietary knowledge and with those who only received the images of the bats. This suggests that carnivorous species do suffer for negative attitudes from people, which does effect tendencies to support conservation efforts. However, because carnivorous species are still used of flagships for conservation efforts (Clucas et al, 2008), it may not be there diet that is influencing the negative attitudes but another factor which should be explored. Lastly, the study also partially supports the notion that similarity bias may be cause for positive attitudes towards certain species and their diets because of the shared similar bio- behavioural traits (Batt, 2009). As suggested by Ruby (2012), Fox & Ward (2008) and Aragnini et al (2012), females are more likely to costume a healthier diet and a more vegetarian diet. Due to this you should expect females to be more positive towards frugivorous bats species because of diet similarities. This was the case, with females rating the likelihood of conservation for frugivorous species compared to carnivorous species, suggesting that due to the similar diets, females were more favourable towards those species. However, if similarity bias was such a main influence over the attitudes from participants then we would expect the same for males. As suggested by Rothergerber (2013), McAfee et al (2012), Ruby (2012), and Fox & Ward (2008), males are more likely to consume a diet that consists of more red meat produce such as lamb and beef. Therefore, you should expect males to favour more carnivorous species because of the diet similarities. This was not the case, with males rating carnivorous species lower than frugivorous, with those who received dietary knowledge of the species and with those who only received images of the species, which suggests that similarity bias did not play as a factor in this case. Although one limitation has been mentioned already, which the study being unable to provide the reason behind why participants had rated each of the bat species the way they did, which could be solved by adopted a slightly more qualitative method for future research, there is another limitation that needs to be solved. Participants were required to rate their likelihood of conservation for each of the five-bat species on a 0-10 Likert scale. The issue with this was that participants had the opportunity to mark the Likert scale at either 0 or 10 for all the five species, which a few participants did do. Due to this, we can be uncertain whether this reflect

17

participants opinions on the species or whether this was done in order to complete the study is as short as amount of time as possible. However, this again is a limitation that can be solved for future research. One way in which to solve this issue is by creating a sliding scale that begins at 0 and end in 100. This way participants will be able to slide the scale to where they feel like is the most suitable to them and should reduce the chance that participants will select either the lowest or highest end. One other way this issue could be solved is by having labels such as, highly likely, or somewhat likely, so participants would be able to select the option that is most suitable to their attitudes. Lastly, the study has produced several positive results that can be beneficial in terms of future research in this area. One benefit is that it found that some diets of a species can play a role when it comes to conservation efforts and because of this, it can demonstrate a benefit to discover which diets can have a positive or negative affect. Further research could look at a variety of more diets that this study could not look at, and again can look at these diets with other species in mind, which could be useful for conservation projects because it could increase public involvement and can aid in the conservation efforts to receive more funding for those particular species. Additionally, this study has also showed that although sex may not be as much as a crucial factor, similarity bias may have an effect as females did show this. Therefore, in terms of future research, it would be more beneficial to discover participants regular diets and then seeing whether participants will produce similarity bias with species who would share a similar diet to themselves. This could be especially useful for conservation projects, because they could then market their conservation efforts to certain groups of people who may be more like to support that conservation effort. Furthermore, it could also show that similarity can play a significant role in our decision making. In conclusion, the study was conducted in order to explore whether knowledge of a species dietary behaviour will influence individuals’ likelihood to conserve the species. It has built up on research that suggests that knowledge of a species diet can play an important factor in the decisions on others (Williams, 2014) because it has demonstrated that certain diets, such as carnivores and frugivores, are more influential, whether it decreases the likelihood of conservation (carnivores) or increases the likelihood of conservation (Frugivores). There is a number of practical uses for this study, the most important it that it aids in the suggestion that conservation projects should advertise certain species to certain members of the public in order to achieve more public support and funding for that conservation, due to the public playing an increasingly large role (Batt, 2009; Stokes, 2007). Furthermore, despite sex not playing a huge role in the likelihood of conservation, this study has also highlighted a need in future research, where research should now investigate whether similarity bias based on individual’s diets play an important, instead of a similarity bias based on sex expectations.

18

CHAPTER FIVE - REFRENCES

Ahnström, J., Höckert, J., Bergeå, H. L., Francis, C. A., Skelton, P., & Hallgren, L. (2009). Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation?. Renewable agriculture and food systems, 24(1), 38-47.

Aizpurua, O., Garin, I., Alberdi, A., Salsamendi, E., Baagøe, H., & Aihartza, J. (2013). Fishing long-fingered bats (Myotis capaccinii) prey regularly upon exotic fish. PloS one, 8(11), e80163.

Almeida, A., Vasconcelos, C., & Strecht-Ribeiro, O. (2014). Attitudes toward animals: A study of Portuguese children. Anthrozoös, 27(2), 173-190.

Arganini, C., Saba, A., Comitato, R., Virgili, F., & Turrini, A. (2012). Gender differences in food choice and dietary intake in modern western societies. In Public health-social and behavioral health. InTech.

Baird, T. D., Leslie, P. W., & McCabe, J. T. (2009). The effect of wildlife conservation on local perceptions of risk and behavioral response. Human Ecology, 37(4), 463-474.

Barua, M., Tamuly, J., & Ahmed, R. A. (2010). Mutiny or clear sailing? Examining the role of the Asian elephant as a flagship species. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15(2), 145-160.

Batt, S. (2009). Human attitudes towards animals in relation to species similarity to humans: a multivariate approach. Bioscience horizons, 2(2), 180-190.

Bennett, J. R., Maloney, R., & Possingham, H. P. (2015). Biodiversity gains from efficient use of private sponsorship for flagship species conservation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 282(1805), 20142693.

Bower, S. D., Brownscombe, J. W., Birnie‐Gauvin, K., Ford, M. I., Moraga, A. D., Pusiak, R. J., ... & Bennett, J. R. (2017). Making Tough Choices: Picking the Appropriate Conservation Decision‐Making Tool. Conservation Letters.

Brambilla, M., Gustin, M., & Celada, C. (2013). Species appeal predicts conservation status. Biological conservation, 160, 209-213.

Brisson, A. M. (2012). The Face of Extinction: Are Charismatic Species More Vulnerable To Endangerment?.

Bruskotter, J. T., & Wilson, R. S. (2014). Determining where the wild things will be: using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 158- 165.

Caro, T. (2010). Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Island Press.

Carter, N. H., Riley, S. J., & Liu, J. (2012). Utility of a psychological framework for conservation. Oryx, 46(4), 525-535.

19

Carwardine, J., O’Connor, T., Legge, S., Mackey, B., Possingham, H. P., & Martin, T. G. (2012). Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Letters, 5(3), 196-204.

Ceríaco, L. M. (2012). Human attitudes towards herpetofauna: The influence of folklore and negative values on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8(1), 8.

Ceríaco, L. M., Marques, M. P., Madeira, N. C., Vila-Viçosa, C. M., & Mendes, P. (2011). Folklore and traditional ecological knowledge of geckos in Southern Portugal: implications for conservation and science. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 7(1), 26.

Clucas, B., McHugh, K., & Caro, T. (2008). Flagship species on covers of US conservation and nature magazines. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(6), 1517.

Colléony, A., Clayton, S., Couvet, D., Saint Jalme, M., & Prévot, A. C. (2017). Human preferences for species conservation: charisma trumps endangered status. Biological Conservation, 206, 263-269.

Cooke, S. J. (2008). Biotelemetry and biologging in endangered species research and animal conservation: relevance to regional, national, and IUCN Red List threat assessments. Endangered species research, 4(1-2), 165-185.

Curtin, P., & Papworth, S. (2018). Increased information and marketing to specific individuals could shift conservation support to less popular species. Marine Policy, 88, 101-107. de Pinho, J. R., Grilo, C., Boone, R. B., Galvin, K. A., & Snodgrass, J. G. (2014). Influence of aesthetic appreciation of wildlife species on attitudes towards their conservation in Kenyan agropastoralist communities. PloS one, 9(2), e88842.

Ducarme, F., Luque, G. M., & Courchamp, F. (2013). What are “charismatic species” for conservation biologists. BioSciences Master Reviews, 10(2013), 1-8.

Ebua, V. B., Agwafo, T. E., & Fonkwo, S. N. (2011). Attitudes and perceptions as threats to wildlife conservation in the Bakossi area, South West Cameroon. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 3(12), 631-636.

Echeverri, A., Chan, K. M., & Zhao, J. (2017). How Messaging Shapes Attitudes toward Sea Otters as a Species at Risk. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22(2), 142-156.

Farneda, F. Z., Rocha, R., López-Baucells, A., Sampaio, E. M., Palmeirim, J. M., Bobrowiec, P. E., ... & Meyer, C. F. (2018). Functional recovery of Amazonian bat assemblages following secondary forest succession. Biological Conservation, 218, 192-199.

Friedrich, L. A., Jefferson, R., & Glegg, G. (2014). Public perceptions of sharks: Gathering support for shark conservation. Marine Policy, 47, 1-7.

Gomes, M. D. C. B., Neto, C., Medeiros, E., & Alvarez, M. R. D. V. (2017). Ethnozoology of bats (Mammalia, Chiroptera) in Feira de Santana Municipality, Bahia State, Northeastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biological Sciences, 4(7), 147-156.

20

Grantham, H. S., Bode, M., McDonald-Madden, E., Game, E. T., Knight, A. T., & Possingham, H. P. (2010). Effective conservation planning requires learning and . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(8), 431-437.

Grey, J. N. C., Bell, S., & Hill, R. A. (2017). Leopard diets and landowner perceptions of human wildlife conflict in the Soutpansberg Mountains, South Africa. Journal for Nature Conservation, 37, 56-65.

Hawkes, K., & Bliege Bird, R. (2002). Showing off, handicap signaling, and the of men's work. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 11(2), 58-67.

Hoffmann, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., Böhm, M., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H., ... & Darwall, W. R. (2010). The impact of conservation on the status of the world’s vertebrates. science, 330(6010), 1503-1509.

Hooper, D. U., Adair, E. C., Cardinale, B. J., Byrnes, J. E., Hungate, B. A., Matulich, K. L., ... & O’Connor, M. I. (2012). A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature, 486(7401), 105-108.

Home, R., Keller, C., Nagel, P., Bauer, N., & Hunziker, M. (2009). Selection criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations. Environmental Conservation, 36(2), 139-148.

Jacobson, C. A., Organ, J. F., Decker, D. J., Batcheller, G. R., & Carpenter, L. (2010). A conservation institution for the 21st century: implications for state wildlife agencies. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(2), 203-209.

Johansson, M., Sjöström, M., Karlsson, J., & Brännlund, R. (2012). Is human fear affecting public willingness to pay for the management and conservation of large carnivores?. Society & Natural Resources, 25(6), 610-620.

Kingston, T. (2016). Cute, Creepy, or Crispy—How values, attitudes, and norms shape human behavior toward bats. In Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World (pp. 571-595). Springer International Publishing.

Knight, A. J. (2008). “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 94-103.

Liordos, V., Kontsiotis, V. J., Anastasiadou, M., & Karavasias, E. (2017). Effects of attitudes and demography on public support for endangered species conservation. Science of The Total Environment, 595, 25-34.

López‐Baucells, A., Rocha, R., & Fernández‐Llamazares, Á. (2018). When bats go viral: negative framings in virological research imperil bat conservation. Review, 48(1), 62-66.

Lopes-Fernandes, M., Espírito-Santo, C., & Frazão-Moreira, A. (2018). The return of the Iberian lynx to Portugal: local voices. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 14(1), 3.

21 Lute, M. L., & Attari, S. Z. (2017). Public preferences for species conservation: choosing between lethal control, habitat protection and no action. Environmental Conservation, 44(2), 139-147.

Madden, F. M. (2008). The growing conflict between humans and wildlife: law and policy as contributing and mitigating factors. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 11(2-3), 189-206.

McAfee, A. J., McSorley, E. M., Cuskelly, G. J., Moss, B. W., Wallace, J. M., Bonham, M. P., & Fearon, A. M. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat science, 84(1), 1-13.

McCune, J. L., Carlsson, A. M., Colla, S., Davy, C., Favaro, B., Ford, A. T., ... & Martins, E. G. (2017). Assessing public commitment to endangered species protection: A Canadian case study. FACETS, 2(1), 178-194.

Mech, L. D., & Boitani, L. (Eds.). (2010). Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago Press.

Morehouse, A., & Boyce, M. (2017). Troublemaking carnivores: conflicts with humans in a diverse assemblage of large carnivores. Ecology and Society, 22(3).

Mulder, M. B., Schacht, R., Caro, T., Schacht, J., & Caro, B. (2009). Knowledge and attitudes of children of the Rupununi: Implications for conservation in Guyana. Biological Conservation, 142(4), 879-887.

Ngongolo, K., Lugelo, A., Mtoka, S., Mahulu, A., Sigala, A., & Mwanginde, J. (2017). Challenges of Conserving the Endangered Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus). Journal of Zoological And Bioscience Research, 2(1).

O'Connell, J. F., Hawkes, K., Lupo, K. D., & Jones, N. B. (2002). Male strategies and Plio- Pleistocene archaeology. Journal of Human Evolution, 43(6), 831-872.

Pepin‐Neff, C., & Wynter, T. (2017). Shark Bites and Shark Conservation: An Analysis of Human Attitudes Following Shark Bite Incidents in Two Locations in Australia. Conservation Letters.

Pinheiro, L. T., Rodrigues, J. F. M., & Borges-Nojosa, D. M. (2016). Formal education, previous interaction and perception influence the attitudes of people toward the conservation of snakes in a large urban center of northeastern Brazil. Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 12(1), 25.

Potts, R. (Ed.). (2017). Early Hominid Activities at Olduvai: Foundations of Human Behaviour. Routledge.

Prokop, P., & Randler, C. (2018). Biological Predispositions and Individual Differences in Human Attitudes Toward Animals. In Ethnozoology (pp. 447-466).

22 Rands, M. R., Adams, W. M., Bennun, L., Butchart, S. H., Clements, A., Coomes, D., ... & Sutherland, W. J. (2010). Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science, 329(5997), 1298-1303.

Rodrigues, F. H., Reis, M. L., & Braz, V. S. (2014). Food habits of the frog-eating bat, Trachops cirrhosus, in Atlantic Forest of Northeastern Brazil. Chiroptera Neotropical, 10(1-2), 180-182.

Rothgerber, H. (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(4), 363-375.

Ruby, M. B. (2012). Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58(1), 141-150.

Sarkis, S., Lise, M. C., Darcissac, E., Dabo, S., Falk, M., Chaulet, L., ... & Lacoste, V. (2018). Development of molecular and cellular tools to decipher the type I IFN pathway of the common vampire bat. Developmental & Comparative Immunology, 81, 1-7.

Shoo, L. P., Hoffmann, A. A., Garnett, S., Pressey, R. L., Williams, Y. M., Taylor, M., ... & Williams, S. E. (2013). Making decisions to conserve species under climate change. Climatic Change, 119(2), 239-246.

Sitas, N., Baillie, J. E. M., & Isaac, N. J. B. (2009). What are we saving? Developing a standardized approach for conservation action. Animal Conservation, 12(3), 231-237.

Small, E. (2011). The new Noah's Ark: beautiful and useful species only. Part 1. Biodiversity conservation issues and priorities. Biodiversity, 12(4), 232-247.

Smith, R. J., Veréssimo, D., & MacMillan, D. C. (2010). Marketing and conservation: how to lose friends and influence people (pp. 215-232). Wiley‐Blackwell.

St John, F. A., Edwards-Jones, G., & Jones, J. P. (2011). Conservation and human behaviour: lessons from social psychology. Wildlife Research, 37(8), 658-667.

Stokes, D. L. (2007). Things we like: human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Human Ecology, 35(3), 361-369.

Suryawanshi, K. R., Bhatia, S., Bhatnagar, Y. V., Redpath, S., & Mishra, C. (2014). Multiscale factors affecting human attitudes toward snow leopards and wolves. Conservation , 28(6), 1657-1666.

Thiagavel, J., Cechetto, C., Santana, S. E., Jakobsen, L., Warrant, E. J., & Ratcliffe, J. M. (2018). Auditory opportunity and visual constraint enabled the evolution of echolocation in bats. Nature communications, 9(1), 98.

Tiger, L. (2017). Female hierarchies. Routledge.

Toomey, A. H., & Domroese, M. C. (2013). Can citizen science lead to positive conservation attitudes and behaviors?. Human Ecology Review, 50-62.

Treves, A. (2009). The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife around protected areas. Wildlife and society: The science of human dimensions, 214-228.

23 Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., & Shelley, V. (2013). Longitudinal analysis of attitudes toward wolves. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 27(2), 315. van der Ploeg, J., Cauilan‐Cureg, M., van Weerd, M., & De Groot, W. T. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of environmental education: mobilizing public support for Philippine crocodile conservation. Conservation Letters, 4(4), 313-323.

Van Vugt, M. (2017). Evolutionary psychology: theoretical foundations for the study of organizations. Journal of Organization Design, 6(1), 9.

Venkataraman, V. V., Kraft, T. S., Dominy, N. J., & Endicott, K. M. (2017). Hunter-gatherer residential mobility and the marginal value of rainforest patches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(12), 3097-3102.

Veríssimo, D., Fraser, I., Girão, W., Campos, A. A., Smith, R. J., & MacMillan, D. C. (2014). Evaluating conservation flagships and flagship fleets. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 263-270.

Veríssimo, D., Pongiluppi, T., Santos, M. C. M., Develey, P. F., Fraser, I., Smith, R. J., & Macmilan, D. C. (2014). Using a systematic approach to select flagship species for bird conservation. Conservation biology, 28(1), 269-277.

Webb, G. J. (2013). Are all species equal? A comparative assessment. In Endangered Species Threatened Convention: The Past, Present and Future of CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (p. 98). Routledge.

Williams, K. J. (2014). The effect of positive verbal information on reducing fears about bats in school-aged children (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).

Wilson, Don E., D. M. Reeder, and NB SIMMONS. "Order chiroptera." A guide to the mammals of China (AT SMITH and Y. XIE, eds.). The Princeton University Press, Princeton (2008): 327-387.

Wright, A. J., Veríssimo, D., Pilfold, K., Parsons, E. C. M., Ventre, K., Cousins, J., ... & McKinley, E. (2015). Competitive outreach in the 21st century: why we need conservation marketing. Ocean & Coastal Management, 115, 41-48.

Wright, R. (2010). The moral animal: Why we are, the way we are: The new science of evolutionary psychology. Vintage.

Xiang, Z., Yu, Y., Yang, M., Yang, J., Niao, M., & Li, M. (2011). Does flagship species tourism benefit conservation? A case study of the golden snub-nosed monkey in Shennongjia National Nature Reserve. Chinese Science Bulletin, 56(24), 2553-2558.

24 CHAPTER SIX - APPENDIX Appendix A – Participant information Sheet

25 26

Appendix B – Consent Form

9636

27

Appendix C – The questionnaire format for the dietary condition

28

29

30

Appendix D – The questionnaire format for the image condition.

31

32

33

34

35

36

Word Count

Abstract 295

Introduction 3115 Methodology 1617 Results 1719 Discussion 1813

Total 8264

Signed ______Date ______18/04/2018______

37