Download Persuasive communication aimed at achieving

Wildlife Society Bulletin; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.462
Original Article
Persuasive Communication Aimed
at Achieving Wildlife-Disease
Management Goals
HEATHER A. TRIEZENBERG,1,2 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
MEREDITH L. GORE, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI 48824, USA
SHAWN J. RILEY, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
MARIA K. LAPINSKI, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, AgBioResearch, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
ABSTRACT Achieving an adequate hunter harvest of game animals that meets wildlife-disease management
objectives is a challenge if hunters perceive too few animals relative to expectations. Persuasive
communication is a strategy commonly used to influence human perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors in
public health. Research on effectiveness of persuasive communication in the context of wildlife-disease
management is limited, however, which reduces the utility of communication as a management option. To
gain insight into the effectiveness of persuasion in wildlife management, we experimentally evaluated a
communication campaign aimed at influencing hunters’ perceptions and behavioral intentions to harvest
more antlerless white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Reduction of deer density is a prevailing
management technique where bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) exists in wild deer populations. In
2012, we conducted an experiment with pre- and post-exposure self-administered mail questionnaires to
survey deer hunters in Michigan, USA. Campaign materials were direct mailed with the post-exposure
survey. Paired change score analysis was used to evaluate effects of exposure to campaign materials for an
intervention relative to control group. Respondents exposed to persuasive communication materials
(n ¼ 480) reported changes in perceptions of what others are doing, perceptions of risks from bovine
tuberculosis, and behavioral intentions toward hunting and harvesting more antlerless deer. Changes in
perceptions of risks from disease management policies negatively affecting deer hunting also were reported in
the exposure group. Our results reveal communication can be most persuasive when it focuses on the activity
of interest (deer hunting), communicates goals of management (wildlife-disease management), and
communicates actions individuals (deer hunters) can take to reduce risks. Ó 2014 The Wildlife Society.
KEY WORDS bovine tuberculosis, evaluation, Michigan, Mycobacterium bovis, Odocoileus virginianus, persuasive
communication, risk communication, white-tailed deer, wildlife-disease.
A challenge in contemporary wildlife management is how to
achieve sufficient hunter harvests of white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) to meet management goals (Riley
et al. 2003). If hunting is to be an effective “tool” of game
management, hunters occasionally have to kill animals when
populations are lower than hunters desire. Such is often the
case with wildlife-disease management when populations of
animals may be viewed as “too few” from a hunter’s
perspective, but still are at levels that sustain prevalence of
disease (O’Brien et al. 2011a).
Communication campaigns are frequently used interventions to achieve management goals (Gore and Knuth 2009).
Received: 18 June 2013; Accepted: 26 February 2014
1
E-mail: [email protected]
Present address: Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, 13
Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
2
Triezenberg et al.
Persuasive Communication
In fields such as public health (Gallagher and Updegraff
2012) and emergency preparedness for natural disasters
(Wood et al. 2012), persuasion is an effective tool to promote
behavioral change of people (Dillard and Shen 2013).
The extent to which persuasive communication is an
effective means to inform and motivate hunters to harvest
more animals is an untested empirical question.
Our research experimentally evaluated efficacy of a
persuasive communication campaign in changing attitudes,
social normative perceptions, and behavioral intentions
related to deer harvests within the context of wildlife-disease
management. By evaluating such a communication campaign, we sought to improve insights into how wildlife
managers can improve their effectiveness in achieving harvest
management goals. Wildlife managers can increase agency
credibility, decrease public frustration, and improve stakeholder cooperation with effective long-term solutions to
managing disease (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2011).
1
Persuasive Communication and Wildlife-Disease
Management
Persuasive communication is an intentional effort on behalf
of a communicator to elicit a desired response (Bettinghaus
and Cody 1994). For example, a communication effort may
aim to change attitudes about hunting expressed by the
message receiver. Persuasion can be used to motivate specific
beliefs or behaviors to reduce risks or improve well-being
(Rossi and Yudell 2012). Persuasive communication
campaigns also commonly aim to motivate people to engage
in behaviors that have no direct benefits to themselves, such
as donating blood or registering as an organ donor
(Skumanich and Kintsfather 1996, da Cunha and Dias
2008). Concerns often arise, however, over whether and how
managers should be involved in overtly influencing human
behaviors (Bettinghaus and Cody 1994). This is especially
common in wildlife management, which in the United States
is carried out mainly by government agencies (Organ 2013).
A recent critique of persuasive communication examined
potential objections based upon 1) violations of individuals’
autonomy; 2) harm to an individual or their identity; and 3)
objectionable messages (Rossi and Yudell 2012). Those
researchers concluded that persuasive communication is not
ethically problematic in certain conditions, such as when
message recipients are able to make informed choices and all
efforts are taken to minimize the possibility that persuasion
leads to inadvertent harm. Practically, this indicates
conscientious communicators strive to create fair messages
that fully inform recipients and help them avoid harm (Rossi
and Yudell 2012). For example, persuasive communication
that specifically address perceived social norms may be used
to communicate the low rate of binge drinking on college
campuses, thus reframing students’ inaccurate perceptions of
high rates of binge drinking on campuses. In turn students
make informed choices about alcohol consumption and
reducing their likelihood of alcohol-related death
(Haines 1996). In our research, we articulated goals for a
persuasive communication campaign a priori, designed a
persuasive communication campaign according to best
practices, and evaluated the efficacy of such efforts.
Bovine Tuberculosis in Free-Ranging White-Tailed
Deer
Bovine tuberculosis (BTB; Mycobacterium bovis—principally
a cattle disease) was detected in 1994 and then became selfsustaining in free-ranging white-tailed deer within a 1,500km2 core area of Northeast Michigan, USA (Carstensen
et al. 2011, O’Brien et al. 2011a). A state-level committee of
BTB-stakeholders recommended in a 1997 report
(Peyton 1997, Carstensen et al. 2011) that BTB in Michigan
deer should be eradicated. Achievement of >60% reduction
in prevalence of BTB in free-ranging deer was subsequently
effected in a relatively short 15-year period due in part to
hunter harvests that reduced deer densities to 10–12 deer/
km2 (O’Brien et al. 2011a). At the time of our study,
prevalence of BTB in deer within the core area currently was
approximately 2% (Carstensen et al. 2011, O’Brien
et al. 2011a). Progress toward achieving BTB eradication
2
slowed and public resentment increased during the preceding
decade, resulting in fewer deer harvested. Deer densities
increased to approximately 30 deer/km2 (O’Brien et al.
2011a). Stakeholder cooperation, especially among deer
hunters, was identified as necessary to achieve BTB
eradication goals (Muter et al. 2013). Sufficient, sustained
harvests of antlerless deer are needed to achieve deer densities
that reduce the likelihood of disease transmission between
deer or between deer and livestock (Carstensen et al. 2011).
Stakeholder opposition to management policies has existed
since the beginning of Michigan’s BTB eradication program,
driven by perceptions of fairness and agency legitimacy
(Carstensen et al. 2011).
As with any management intervention, evaluation is
needed to assess the effects of communication and planning
for future activities. An experimental approach improves
reliability of these evaluations (Evans et al. 2009). Our
research objectives were to
1. Design and implement a persuasive risk communication
campaign aimed at motivating antlerless deer hunters to
hunt for and harvest more antlerless deer in the upcoming
hunting season than they did the previous season;
2. Experimentally evaluate the efficacy of exposure to the
persuasive communication campaign at achieving desired
wildlife-disease management goals; and
3. Identify the variables that predict change in behavioral
intentions for hunting and harvesting more antlerless deer
in the hunting season following the survey than in the
previous season.
METHODS
The sample-frame for this research was Michigan residents
who purchased antlerless deer licenses anytime during a 5year period (2007–2011) for Deer Management Unit 487
and who reported deer hunting in the Northeast Michigan
BTB area in recent hunting seasons (2007–2009) on annual
harvest surveys. The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) provided the name and mailing address
for individuals meeting sample-frame criteria. We stratified
the antlerless deer license buyers into those who frequently
purchased licenses (3-yr out of the 5-yr period) and
infrequently purchased licenses (2-yr out of the 5-yr
period), from which we randomly selected 1,500 each and
randomly selected 1,000 hunters who reported hunting in the
region, for an overall sample of n ¼ 4,000 aged 18 years
who received the pre-survey.
We conducted the pre-survey (n ¼ 4,000) in April–early
May 2012, while we conducted the post-survey (n ¼ 3,759)
in late May–July 2012 following a modified tailored designmethod (Dillman et al. 2009). Approximately half of the
sample (n ¼ 1,846) was randomly selected to receive the BTB
materials in the same envelope as their post-survey for this
quasi-experimental approach (Campbell and Stanley 1963);
we assumed post-exposure survey participants reviewed BTB
materials. We gave potential respondents the option of
completing the paper survey they received in the mail and
Wildlife Society Bulletin
9999
returning it in a postage-paid envelope or accessing an online
survey with their unique access code on a secure website. A
sample (n ¼ 20) of pre-exposure survey non-respondents
completed a brief telephone survey, consisting of a subset of
survey items, in an effort to detect non-response bias
(Dillman et al. 2009). The Michigan State University
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
reviewed and approved (x12-104e) the methods used in
this research on 8 March 2012.
Survey Development
Questions about perceived risks from BTB and its
management policies included items about threats to human
health, economic livelihood, hunting, and culture of deer
hunting (e.g., hunting and deer camp culture) in Northeast
Michigan (Riley et al. 2010, Triezenberg et al. 2014). We
developed subjective norm items that measured perceptions
about social groups (e.g., family members, hunt club
members) desiring the respondent to engage in the preferred
behaviors (e.g., harvest antlerless deer and reduce BTB)
based on work by Lapinski et al. (2007). We also developed
descriptive norm items that measured perceptions about
actions (e.g., harvest antlerless deer to manage BTB,
reducing BTB, and harvesting antlerless deer) that other
Northeast Michigan deer hunters are engaged in, also based
on Lapinski et al. (2007). Two questions measured
behavioral intentions for hunting and harvesting more
antlerless deer in Deer Management Unit 487 during the
upcoming hunting season (2012–2013). These questions
parallel the major concepts of attitudes, norms, and
behavioral intentions in the cognitive hierarchy framework
that is well-tested in wildlife management contexts (Fulton
et al. 1996). We also included general socio-demographic
questions (Dillman et al. 2009).
We pre-tested the survey with graduate students, faculty,
and staff from the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at
Michigan State University and professionals at the MDNR
Wildlife Disease Lab for face validity and relevance of
questions (Trochim 2000). We incorporated their feedback
into the final survey to improve clarity. The same survey was
used for both the pre-exposure survey and post-exposure
survey.
BTB Persuasive Communication Campaign
A solid foundation of BTB outreach information existed
prior to our research effort (Rudolph et al. 2006, O’Brien
et al. 2011b). We modified messages from existing BTB
outreach materials to incorporate best practices for persuasive
communication (Larson 2010). Our persuasive message
comprised 1) high threat and high efficacy, especially
conveying what hunters can do to be part of the wildlifedisease solution (Muter et al. 2013); 2) topics that hunters
cared about, such as risks of BTB and its management
policies to hunting and culture of hunting (Triezenberg
et al. 2014); and 3) reframed subjective and descriptive norms
of what other stakeholders (i.e., hunters) are doing to reduce
BTB and what other stakeholders want hunters to do to
reduce BTB (Lapinski and Rimal 2005). The 3 core
behavioral outcomes of the persuasive message, which were
Triezenberg et al.
Persuasive Communication
repeated in all materials multiple times, were to 1) follow
baiting regulations or choose not to bait; 2) harvest more
antlerless deer; and 3) have harvested deer heads checked at a
deer-check station. Research reported herein focused on
detecting changes in intentions to hunt and harvest more
antlerless deer because these are the most important behavioral
outcomes that directly relate to reducing BTB prevalence.
The goals of the campaign were to 1) increase perceptions
of others (e.g., family, friends, hunt camp members)
supporting and wanting one to support BTB management
goals (i.e., subjective norms); 2) increase risk perceptions that
BTB is a disease that can infect both deer and cattle; 3)
decrease perceptions of the risks from the BTB management
policies; and 4) increase behavioral intentions to hunt for
and harvest more antlerless deer in the region. We developed
campaign goals in response to stakeholder concerns
revealed by Riley et al. (2010) and Triezenberg et al.
(2014), and differentiated between concerns about a wildlifedisease and the collateral impacts from its management
policies (Decker et al. 2006). These goals reflect the major
concepts in the cognitive hierarchy framework, which links
attitudes, norms, and behavioral intentions (Fulton et al.
1996). We mailed the campaign (hereafter called “BTB
materials”) to randomly selected individuals from the sample
along with the post-exposure survey for this quasiexperimental design (Campbell and Stanley 1963). The
BTB materials were 1) an 8-page informational brochure
that summarized BTB in Michigan, its prevalence from 1995
to 2010, and the 3 core behavioral outcomes summarized
above; 2) a lens cloth that encouraged hunters to be part of
the solution to BTB in Michigan and included the 3 core
behavioral outcomes; 3) a series of 3 magnets where each
one articulated a core behavioral outcome; 4) a series of
3 wallet-sized “BTB tip cards” that included the reasons
why and how one could engage in each of the core
behavioral outcomes; and 5) an Internet address for an
online interactive informational graphic (i.e., “infographic”).
We implemented BTB materials through direct mail because
we believed hunters used information primarily from
MDNR printed publications for learning about and making
decisions about antlerless deer hunting in Michigan Bovine
tuberculosis materials can be viewed online at http://deer.fw.
msu.edu/outreachsummary.
Data Analysis
We used efficacy analysis to determine the effects of exposure
to persuasive communication because it allows for 1)
examination of causal effects of message exposure, and 2)
research to be structured for comparing randomized
experimental design (Evans et al. 2009). First, we created
factor means for each respondent as long as responses were
available for n 1 items (Vaske 2008). Computed factors
were as follows: harvest antlerless deer subjective norm,
reduce BTB subjective norm, others doing something
descriptive norm, disease risk perceptions, and management
of disease risk perceptions. Next, we identified respondents
who replied to both pre- and post-exposure surveys and
computed a change score by subtracting pre-responses from
3
post-responses for computed factors and behavioral intentions. The change scores were calculated for both independent and dependent variables used in regression analysis
(Allison 1990). Finally, we conducted regression analysis
using block modeling by including socio-demographic
variables (block 1), and then adding exposure to BTB
materials variable (e.g., dummy coded treatment variable;
block 2), and factor change scores (block 3) for predicting
change in behavioral intentions for hunting for more deer
(model 1) and harvesting more deer (model 2). We
conducted all data analysis using SPSS versions 18 and 19
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
RESULTS
We received 480 responses (13% response rate) from people
who responded to both pre-and post-exposure surveys. The
paired pre- and post-exposure response rates were 12%
response for the control group and 14% for the exposure
group. Data were not weighted in additional analyses because
non-respondents to the pre-exposure survey indicated lower
perceived risks of BTB management threatening the culture
of deer hunting than did pre-exposure survey respondents
(x21 ¼ 7.62, P 0.010). The average age of pre-exposure
survey respondents was 56.3 years (SD ¼ 13.5 yr), and 95%
of respondents were male. Seventy-two percent of respondents reported having at least some college or technical
school training or higher. Nearly half (50.7%) of respondents
reported earning an annual household income of <US
$60,000/year.
Comparison of pre- versus post-changes revealed modest
effects for the group exposed to the BTB materials as
compared with the control group that did not receive the
persuasive communication (Fig. 1). Exposure to the BTB
materials resulted in detectable changes: increased subjective
norm perceptions about others wanting respondent to reduce
BTB (DM ¼ 0.24, SD ¼ 0.84, t190 ¼ 3.87, P 0.001),
increased disease risk perceptions (DM ¼ 0.35, SD ¼ 0.85,
t232 ¼ 6.27, P 0.001), decreased management of disease
risk perceptions (DM ¼ 0.12, SD ¼ 0.91, t234 ¼ 2.00,
P 0.050), increased intentions to hunt more (DM ¼ 0.20,
SD ¼ 0.98, t234 ¼ 3.20, P 0.010), and intentions to
harvest more antlerless deer (DM ¼ 0.18, SD ¼ 0.96,
t233 ¼ 2.88, P 0.010) (Table 1). No changes were
detected for the control group for these same items.
Exposure to the BTB materials (unstandardized b coeff.
¼ 0.38) and change in perceptions about what others were
doing to reduce BTB (unstandardized b coeff. ¼ 0.18) were
statistically significant variables in the regression analysis
predicting change in behavioral intentions to hunt more
antlerless deer in the season following the survey (Table 2,
model 1, block 3). Exposure to the BTB materials
(unstandardized b coeff. ¼ 0.38) and change in perceptions
about others wanting the respective respondent to harvest
antlerless deer (unstandardized b coeff. ¼ 0.20) also were
predictors of change in intentions to harvest more antlerless
deer during the hunting season following the survey (Table 2,
model 2, block 3).
DISCUSSION
Changes we detected in respondent attitudes, norms, and
behavioral intentions as a result of being exposed to a
campaign suggest risk communication has a promising role
in wildlife-disease management. Antlerless deer hunters
expressed the desired directional increase in willingness to
hunt for and harvest more antlerless deer during the season
following our survey. Perceived social norms can be a
Mean level of agreement
1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree
5
4
Harvest antlerless deer norm
Reduce BTB norm
3
Others doing something
norm
Disease risk perceptions
2
Management of disease risk
perceptions
1
Pre-survey Post-survey
Control
Pre-survey Post-survey
Exposure
Figure 1. Comparison of pre- and post-survey effects, exposure versus control groups, from a bovine tuberculosis risk communication campaign (BTB
materials) on resident white-tailed deer hunter respondents’ (n ¼ 480) attitudes and norms toward BTB and BTB management in Deer Management Unit 487,
northeast Michigan, USA, 2012.
4
Wildlife Society Bulletin
9999
Table 1. Comparison of pre- and post-survey, exposure versus control groups, effects from a bovine tuberculosis risk communication campaign (BTB
materials) on resident deer hunter respondents’ (n ¼ 480) attitudes, norms, and intentions to harvest antlerless white-tailed deer in Deer Management Unit
487, northeast Michigan, USA, 2012.
Control group
Pre-survey
Questionnaire items
Norm: Harvest antlerless deer
Norm: Reduce BTB
Norm: Others doing something
Disease risk perceptions
Management of disease risk perceptions
Intention to hunt more antlerless deer
Intention to harvest more antlerless deer
Exposure to BTB materials group
Post-survey
Pre-survey
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
t
df
3.29
3.01
2.89
3.18
3.15
2.69
2.69
0.95
0.96
0.89
0.89
0.83
1.07
1.12
3.16
3.08
2.90
3.18
3.09
2.72
2.70
0.95
0.96
0.89
0.84
0.82
1.11
1.13
2.26
0.90
0.21
0.06
0.97
0.44
0.08
193
175
171
202
204
208
206
Post-survey
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
t
df
3.51
3.10
3.01
2.98
3.12
3.09
3.11
0.98
1.05
0.86
0.93
0.85
1.06
1.15
3.45
3.34
3.06
3.32
3.00
3.30
3.29
0.97
0.93
0.88
0.83
0.86
1.00
1.08
1.03
3.87
0.71
6.27
2.00
3.20
2.88
210
190
193
232 234 234 233
Equal variances assumed:
P 0.050;
P 0.010;
P 0.001.
motivator for behavior change among group members
(Lapinski and Rimal 2005, Manfredo 2008). In our case,
exposure to the BTB materials that described what other
hunters were doing may have influenced participants’
perceptions of other people taking action to reduce BTB.
Geographically dispersed hunters otherwise have limited
access to accurate information about what other hunters are
doing. Our results indicate that perceptions of whether
others are taking action to reduce BTB is an important
variable for explaining change in intentions to hunt for more
antlerless deer, particularly because deer hunters are not
likely to observe each other. People in situations other than
hunting are more likely to take action when they observe
other people taking action (Wood et al. 2012).
Given that cooperation by hunters in harvesting adequate
numbers of antlerless deer has been integral to achieving a
>60% reduction in BTB prevalence in the core endemic area,
continued cooperation and even greater harvests will be
Table 2. Efficacy of risk communication exposure (Bovine tuberculosis [BTB] materials) regression results (unstandardized coeff. with SE in parenthesis) for
change in behavioral intentions by resident deer hunter respondents (n ¼ 382) to hunt more antlerless deer (model 1) and harvest more antlerless deer (model
2) in Deer Management Unit 487, northeast Michigan, USA, 2012.
Model 1
Model 2
Change in intentions to
Block
1
2
3
Variable
…hunt more antlerless deer
…harvest more antlerless deer
Constant
Gender (female)
Age
Education
Income
Constant
Gender (female)
Age
Education
Income
Exposure to BTB materials
Constant
Gender (female)
Age
Education
Income
Exposure to BTB materials
Change in norm: Harvest antlerless deer
Change in norm: Reduce BTB
Change in norm: Others doing activities to reduce BTB
Change in disease risk perceptions
Change in management of disease risk perceptions
0.29 (0.54)
0.16 (0.28)
0.00 (0.01)
0.13 (0.07)
0.03 (0.04)
0.27 (0.56)
0.06 (0.28)
0.00 (0.01)
0.16 (0.07)
0.02 (0.04)
0.40 (0.13)
0.26 (0.55)
0.02 (0.28)
0.00 (0.01)
0.13 (0.07)
0.01 (0.04) 0.38 (0.13)
0.04 (0.08)
0.07 (0.07) 0.18 (0.07)
0.13 (0.08)
0.07 (0.08)
2
R ¼ 0.02; F ¼ 1.04; df ¼ 4
R2 ¼ 0.07; F ¼ 2.72 ; df ¼ 5
R2 ¼ 0.14; F ¼ 2.83 ; df ¼ 10
0.36(0.53)
0.23 (0.28)
0.00 (0.01)
0.01 (0.07)
0.03 (0.04)
0.20 (0.55)
0.13 (0.28)
0.00 (0.01)
0.03 (0.07)
0.04 (0.04)
0.40 (0.13)
0.24 (0.55)
0.07 (0.28)
0.00 (0.01)
0.00 (0.07)
0.06 (0.04) 0.38 (0.13) 0.20 (0.08)
0.01 (0.07)
0.03 (0.07)
0.06 (0.08)
0.02 (0.08)
R2 ¼ 0.01; F ¼ 0.45; df ¼ 4
R2 ¼ 0.06; F ¼ 2.28 ; df ¼ 5
R2 ¼ 0.10; F ¼ 1.94 ; df ¼ 10
1
2
3
P 0.05;
P 0.01.
Triezenberg et al.
Persuasive Communication
5
necessary for eradication of BTB (O’Brien et al. 2011a). In
our study, persuasive communication may have motivated
some hunters to harvest additional antlerless deer when the
benefits of such behavioral intentions are most likely to
accrue to livestock producers. Producers incur severe
economic risks if cattle become infected with BTB; in
contrast, the disease has little effect on deer populations or
hunters (Etter et al. 2006). Although our findings
demonstrate only a modest effect size and modest changes
in attitudes, managers have reason for tempered optimism
about being able to increase hunter cooperation with use of
persuasive communication. If non-respondents in our study
were representative of hunters statewide, we predict effect
sizes would be smaller than observed in our current results
when the goal of the campaign was to reduce the perceived
risks from BTB management. Respondents in our more
limited intervention expressed higher risk perceptions about
BTB management policies compared with survey nonrespondents. Tailoring communication efforts to the target
audiences where the largest impact is likely (e.g., those
hunters with either high or low risk perceptions), such as in
our study, may be necessary for efficient use of management
resources. Nonetheless, the degree of change is encouraging
given lower changes in perceptions detected in other
wildlife-related evaluation studies (Gore et al. 2008).
Emphasis on specific information intended to make it more
memorable and on framing (i.e., how information is
presented, what medium is used, and how it is interpreted)
are important aspects of effective persuasive communication
(Muter et al. 2009). Effective message frames in wildlifedisease management address 1) high threat and high efficacy,
especially what people can do to be part of the solution
(Muter et al. 2013); 2) topics that deer hunters care about,
such as risks of disease and management policies to hunting
and the culture of deer hunting (Heberlein 2004, Triezenberg et al. 2014); and 3) social normative reframing of what
other stakeholders are doing and want message recipients to
do to cooperate with wildlife-disease management activities
(Lapinski and Rimal 2005). Message frames that emphasize
susceptibility to the TB threat (e.g., human health risk if milk
from a TB-infected cow gets into food supply) or capability
to engage in recommended behaviors that reduce risk (Muter
et al. 2013) may improve the likelihood of motivating one to
act
Content that focuses on topics deer hunters care about,
such as opportunities to hunt with family and friends, harvest
deer, or keep their freezer full of venison may be appealing to
message recipients. Message content that addresses what
other people are doing to reduce BTB (e.g., approx. 50% of
Michigan deer hunters purchased at least one antlerless deer
license in 2010; >900 livestock producers have implemented
biosecurity practices to prevent BTB transmission between
deer and cattle by 2012) and what other people want hunters
to do (e.g., follow baiting regulations or choose not to bait;
harvest more antlerless deer; have your deer head checked)
likely motivates behavioral intentions for hunting and
harvesting more antlerless deer. Effective message framing
emphasizes themes around culture of deer hunting (Triezen6
berg et al. 2014), such as hunting heritage, and modes of
communication that the intended audience typically receives
or seeks information from, such as printed materials from the
MDNR (Rudolph et al. 2006).
The field of public health communication has used
persuasive communication for decades. Despite repeated
scrutiny of the ethical and moral dimensions of persuasion, it
continues to be an accepted method for achieving public
health goals (Gallagher and Updegraff 2012, Rossi and
Yudell 2012). Best practices discourage use of persuasive
communication, such as propaganda, to intentionally deceive
for political purposes (Larson 2010). Nonetheless, much of
wildlife management is aimed at changing human behaviors
(Gore and Knuth 2009), and when persuasive communication follows ethical standards (Rossi and Yudell 2012) it
becomes another tool available to wildlife managers. Wildlife
managers and human dimensions researchers can adapt
insights from persuasive risk and health communication
fields because of the similarity to wildlife health and public
health fields (Hanisch et al. 2012).
Hunter cooperation is necessary to achieve wildlife-disease
management goals in the case of BTB in the study area and
elsewhere (Heberlein 2004, O’Brien et al. 2011b). Increasing
the ability of wildlife managers to anticipate the extent to
which persuasive communication can be incorporated into
management activities has positive implications for management efficiency, such as elevated credibility of wildlife
agencies, reduced public frustration, and progress toward
longer term solutions (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2011), and also
for setting realistic expectations for its effects. Additional
research that quantifies how many hunters actually change
their behavior can provide a useful assessment of campaign
efficacy that managers could incorporate into their decisionmaking.
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Persuasive communication, when conducted according to
accepted ethical standards, can contribute to achievement of
wildlife management interventions such as affecting changes
in hunter harvests. In situations such as BTB management,
persuasive messages are most effective when they 1) focus on
hunters, deer, and deer hunting; 2) communicate susceptibility to disease threats and how to take actions that may
reduce those threats; and 3) communicate what other people
are doing and what other people want to achieve in wildlifedisease management.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank questionnaire respondents for sharing their
perspectives. This project was supported by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources through the Partnership for Ecosystem
Research and Management, and Michigan State University
AgBioResearch. We thank B. Muter, D. O’Brien, S.
Schmitt, M. Wyman, B. Richard, C. Hardman, and J.
Hardy for their contributions to our research.
Wildlife Society Bulletin
9999
LITERATURE CITED
Allison, P. D. 1990. Change scores as dependent variables in regression
analysis. Sociological Methodology 20:93–114.
Baruch-Mordo, S., S. W. Breck, K. R. Wilson, and J. Broderick. 2011. The
carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as
management tools for human–wildlife conflicts. PLoS ONE 6:e15681.
Bettinghaus, E. P., and M. J. Cody. 1994. Persuasive communication. Fifth
edition. Holt Rinehart, and Winston, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Campbell, D. T., and J. C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA.
Carstensen, M., D. J. O’Brien, and S. M. Schmitt. 2011. Public acceptance
as a determinant of wildlife management strategies for bovine tuberculosis
in free-ranging U.S. wildlife. Veterinary Microbiology 151:200–204.
da Cunha, B. G., and M. R. Dias. 2008. Persuasive communications and
regular blood donation: an experimental study. Cadernos de Saúde Pública
24:1407–1418.
Decker, D. J., M. A. Wild, S. J. Riley, W. F. Siemer, M. M. Miller, K. M.
Leong, J. G. Powers, and J. C. Rhyan. 2006. Wildlife disease management:
a manger’s model. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11:151–158.
Dillard, J. P., and L. Shen. 2013. The persuasion handbook: developments in
theory and practice. Second edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California,
USA.
Dillman, D. A., J. D. Smyth, and L. M. Christian. 2009. Internet, mail, and
mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Third edition. John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Etter, E., P. Donado, F. Jori, A. Caron, F. Goutard, and F. Roger. 2006.
Risk analysis and bovine tuberculosis, a re-emerging zoonosis. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences 1081:61–73.
Evans, W. D., J. Uhrig, K. Davis, and L. McCormack. 2009. Efficacy
methods to evaluate health communication and marketing campaigns.
Journal of Health Communication 14:315–330.
Fulton, D. C., M. J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb. 1996. Wildlife value
orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1:24–47.
Gallagher, K. M., and J. A. Updegraff. 2012. Health message framing effects
on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine 43:101–116.
Gore, M. L., and B. A. Knuth. 2009. Mass media effect on the operating
environment of a wildlife-related risk communication campaign. Journal
of Wildlife Management 73:1407–1413.
Gore, M. L., B. A. Knuth, C. W. Scherer, and P. D. Curtis. 2008.
Evaluating a conservation investment designed to reduce human–wildlife
conflict. Conservation Letters 1:136–145.
Haines, M. P. 1996. A social norms approach to preventing binge drinking
at colleges and universities. The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and
Other Drug Prevention, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Hanisch, S. L., S. J. Riley, and M. P. Nelson. 2012. Promoting wildlife
health or fighting wildlife disease: insights from history, philosophy, and
science. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36:477–482.
Heberlein, T. A. 2004. “Fire in the Sistine Chapel”: how Wisconsin
responded to chronic wasting disease. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
9:165–179.
Lapinski, M. K., and R. N. Rimal. 2005. An explication of social norms.
Communication Theory 15:127–147.
Lapinski, M. K., R. Rimal, R. DeVries, and E. L. Lee. 2007. The role of
group orientation and descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes
and behaviors. Health Communication 22:133–142.
Triezenberg et al.
Persuasive Communication
Larson, C. U. 2010. Persuasion: reception and responsibility. Twelfth
edition. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Manfredo, M. J. 2008. Who cares about wildlife?. Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, New York, New York, USA.
Muter, B. A., M. L. Gore, and S. J. Riley. 2009. From victim to perpetrator:
evolution of risk frames related to human–cormorant conflict in the Great
Lakes. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:366–379.
Muter, B. A., M. L. Gore, S. J. Riley, and M. K. Lapinski. 2013. Evaluating
bovine tuberculosis risk communication materials in Michigan and
Minnesota for severity, susceptibility and efficacy messages. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 37:115–121.
O’Brien, D. J., S. Schmitt, S. D. Fitzgerald, and D. E. Berry. 2011a.
Management of bovine tuberculosis in Michigan wildlife: current
status and near term prospects. Veterinary Microbiology 151:179–
187.
O’Brien, D. J., S. Schmitt, B. Rudolph, and G. Nugent. 2011b. Recent
advances in the management of bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging
wildlife. Veterinary Microbiology 151:23–33.
Organ, J. F. 2013. The wildlife professional. Pages 24–33 in P. R. Krausman,
and J. W. Cain III, editors. Wildlife management and conservation:
contemporary principles and practice. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Peyton, R. B. 1997. Recommendations for elimination of bovine
tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer in Michigan. Michigan
State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, East Lansing,
USA.
Riley, S. J., D. J. Decker, J. W. Enck, P. D. Curtis, T. B. Lauber, and T. L.
Brown. 2003. Deer populations up, hunter populations down: implications
of interdependence of deer and hunter population dynamics on
management. Ecoscience 10:455–461.
Riley, S. J., M. L. Gore, and B. A. Muter. 2010. Expert perspectives on
bovine tuberculosis management policies in Michigan and Minnesota.
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, USA.
Rossi, J., and M. Yudell. 2012. The use of persuasion in public
health communication: an ethical critique. Public Health Ethics 5:192–
205.
Rudolph, B. A., S. J. Riley, G. J. Hickling, B. J. Frawley, M. S. Garner, and
S. R. Winterstein. 2006. Regulating hunter baiting for white-tailed deer in
Michigan: biological and social considerations. Wildlife Society Bulletin
34:314–321.
Skumanich, S. A., and D. P. Kintsfather. 1996. Promoting the organ donor
card: a causal model of persuasion effects. Social Science & Medicine
43:401–408.
Triezenberg, H. A., M. L. Gore, S. J. Riley, and M. K. Lapinski. 2014.
Perceived risks from disease and management policies: an expansion and
testing of a zoonotic disease risk perception model. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 19:123–138.
Trochim, W. M. 2000. The research methods knowledge base. Second
edition. Atomic Dog, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Vaske, J. J. 2008. Survey research and analysis: applications in parks,
recreation, and human dimensions. Venture, State College, Pennsylvania,
USA.
Wood, M. M., D. S. Mileti, M. Kano, M. M. Kelley, R. Regan, and L. B.
Bourque. 2012. Communicating actionable risk for terrorism and other
hazards. Risk Analysis 32:601–615.
Associate Editor: M. Nils Peterson.
7