Psychological distance and ethical dilemmas in wolf management in pasture settings in Germany

The return of wolves to regions where they had been extirpated has given rise to conflicts among stakeholder groups demonstrating tensions in ecological, economic, and ethical dimensions. This study aims to investigate how psychological distance of stakeholder groups shape ethical attitudes towards wolf management in Germany. Specifically, it addresses the research question how human stakeholder groups with varying psychological distances differ in their ethical attitudes and perspectives on wolves and wolf management, and how Construal Level Theory (CLT) potentially helps to explain these differences. CLT posits that individuals perceive issues at varying levels of psychological distance—spatial, social, temporal, or hypothetical—with greater distance leading to more abstract, generalized evaluations, while closer proximity results in concrete, detailed assessments. A quantitative open-recruited, snowball-sampling online survey was conducted in March 2023, yielding data from 2,896 participants. These participants represent a diverse range of psychological distance, including deeply involved pastoralists, hunters, individuals engaged in both activities, and those uninvolved in either. Descriptive and regression analyses reveal that psychological distance exerts influence on ethically relevant attitudes. Stakeholders with direct wolf exposure perceive wolves as threats and favor restrictive management, whereas uninvolved individuals adopt more abstract, favorable views and rather oppose interventionist strategies. The distinction between these groups becomes more nuanced when differentiated CLT-conceptualized psychological proximity variables are taken into consideration in the regression analyzes. Hypothetical distance variables like a history of attacks by wolves on livestock, social factors such as lower levels of formal education, temporal aspects such as the early stages of wolf re-settlement, and spatial influences such as specific rural settings each contribute to more critical and restrictive ethical perspectives on wolves and wolf management. The findings support CLT’s premise and underscores the potential for science-based, sensitive and empathetic participatory decision-making possibly within a review processes by an ethical committee. This holds the potential to acknowledge the psycho-emotional stress of deeply involved human stakeholders and the intrinsic values of non-human animals fostering more inclusive and culturally acceptable management strategies.