香京julia种子在线播放

Cecil the lion's death in 2015 at the hands of a trophy hunter prompted one of the largest reactions in wildlife conservation history (Macdonald et al., 2016a). Global attention to Cecil's story quickly generated over $1 million in donations, from thousands of individual donors, to the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), the Oxford University group studying Cecil at the time. Past analyses of the Cecil case and others like it have focused on the factors that trigger a viral media response (Berger and Milkman, 2012; Macdonald et al., 2016a). Considering the dire state of lion conservation (Bauer et al., 2015), Macdonald and colleagues asked whether the “Cecil Moment” presaged a significant shift in commitment to lion conservation: a “Cecil Movement”—a metaphor for a world view in which humanity places a higher value on, and therefore conserves better, not just lions, but wildlife, nature and the wider environment (Macdonald et al., 2016a). Here, we examine this shift empirically.

Our examination is guided by recent work on the social psychology of pro-group commitment. Accumulating studies show that numerous forms of prosociality, including sacrificing one's life for others, are motivated by a particularly lasting form of social cohesion termed “identity fusion” (Swann et al., 2009; Buhrmester and Swann, 2015). People who are strongly fused to a group (e.g., a nation or religion) subjectively experience a visceral sense of oneness with that group, and view fellow members as kin (Buhrmester et al., 2015). For fused persons, personally costly acts that benefit the group can be seen as a moral duty (Swann et al., 2014), compelling them, for instance, to defend their brother-in-arms on the battlefield (Whitehouse et al., 2014) or to donate to victims of terrorist attacks (Buhrmester et al., 2015). Identity fusion thus connotes an unusually affective and personal form of cohesion that is distinct from more cognitive forms of cohesion based on self and group categorization processes (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Building on these studies, we sought to examine levels of identity fusion in relation to Cecil as well as WildCRU, as well as relationships to pro-social outcomes related to wildlife conservation.

Given that strong fusion promotes such a range of pro-social outcomes in various contexts, we also sought to ask what fosters fusion in the first place? Emerging evidence from anthropological and psychological studies suggests that particular kinds of shared group experiences are especially likely to cultivate identity fusion (see Buhrmester and Swann, 2015 for a review). Specifically, shared experiences that are infrequent and intensely dysphoric, such as painful or shocking group initiation rituals, tend to produce tight social bonds in many contexts and cultures (Whitehouse and Lanman, 2014). Such bonds may arise because these experiences trigger a process of personal reflection and meaning-making that enjoins one's personal identity to that of the group (Swann et al., 2012; Jong et al., 2015). Did these mechanisms of change in fusion occur for those following Cecil's story?

Cecil's story was both ordinary and extraordinary. As another instance of trophy hunting of a large predator, Cecil's story was not especially out of the ordinary (Macdonald et al., 2016a; and for further discussion of perspectives on trophy hunting relating to Cecil, see Di Minin et al., 2016; Macdonald et al., 2016b). Numbers of many large predators, including lions, are declining globally, in part due to trophy hunting (Loveridge et al., 2016). However, the viral spread of Cecil's story through the media as a singular, shocking moment shared by millions globally was extraordinary for at least a moment—relatively few stories of trophy hunting become global media headlines (Macdonald et al., 2016a). But could Cecil's story—a story that had no measurable material impact on the personal lives of donors, most of whom live half a world away in the U.S.—have had lasting changes in identity and motivation to champion conservationist causes? To examine these issues, we sought to test the following hypotheses.

We followed the steps of statistical mediation (Hayes, 2013) to test Hypothesis 1 (i.e., that dysphoric reactions to Cecil's death generated fusion to Cecil, and in turn, fusion to fellow WildCRU supporters). In a first regression, represented by the “a path” in Figure 1, dysphoric intensity predicted fusion to Cecil, standardized regression coefficient, β = 0.27, t₍₁₅₇₎ = 3.45, p < 0.01. In a second regression, represented by the “c path” in Figure 1, dysphoric intensity predicted fusion to WildCRU, β = 0.23, t₍₁₅₄₎ = 2.90, p < 0.01. Then, in a third regression with dysphoric intensity and fusion to Cecil entered as simultaneous predictors of fusion to WildCRU, the effect of intensity on fusion to WildCRU, the c' path, was no longer statistically significant, β = 0.05, t₍₁₅₃₎ = 0.78, p = 0.45, while the effect of fusion to Cecil on fusion to WildCRU remained significant, β = 0.62, t₍₁₅₃₎ = 9.41, p < 0.01, with Sobel z = 3.46, p < 0.01, indicating the presence of statistical mediation. These results supported Hypothesis 1.

We turned next to assessing Hypothesis 2 (i.e., that fusion to WildCRU would increase from Time 1 to Time 2). In line with our hypothesis, a paired t-test revealed that fusion to WildCRU increased overall (Time 1 M = 3.05, SD = 1.03 vs. Time 2 M = 3.26, SD = 1.03), t₍₁₅₃₎ = 2.41, p < 0.02. To our knowledge, this finding represents the first empirical demonstration of a longitudinal overall increase in fusion with a group resulting from a single precipitating event (in this case, the death of Cecil). This finding is unique given the remarkable stability of fusion that has been reported in response to other types of significant group events (Vázquez et al., 2017). We also examined via a paired t-test whether fusion to Cecil changed over time and found no change (M = 3.59, SD = 1.23) to Time 2 (M = 3.64, SD = 1.12), t₍₁₅₃₎ = −0.54, p = 0.59).

To examine Hypothesis 3, we first examined whether levels of dysphoric intensity reported at Time 1 predicted reported levels of reflection and self/group centrality measured at Time 2. We conducted two linear regressions, and found that Time 1 dysphoric intensity predicted both depth of reflection, β = 0.24, t₍₁₅₈₎ = 3.05, p < 0.01, and self/group centrality β = 0.25, t₍₁₅₈₎ = 3.24, p < 0.01 at Time 2. In line with Hypothesis 3, these results suggest that high levels of shock following Cecil's death tended to promote deep reflection and a sense that the event was central to the identities of oneself and other WildCRU members.

We next examined whether fusion increased most for participants who both (1) reported especially high amounts of reflection after Cecil's death, and (2) reported especially strong perceptions that Cecil's death has been a central experience for understanding one's personal identity and the identities of others who also experienced Cecil's death. To test this, we conducted a multiple regression with reflection, centrality, and their interaction as predictors of donors' change in fusion to WildCRU from Time 1 to 2. The analysis revealed a significant interactive effect of reflection and centrality on fusion change, β = 0.21, t₍₁₅₀₎ = 2.78, p < 0.01 (see Figure 2). The conditional effect of reflection on fusion change was significant only when centrality was high [i.e., +1 SD), β = 0.35, t₍₁₅₀₎ = 3.14, p < 0.01, but not low (i.e., –1 SD), β = –0.08, t₍₁₅₀₎ = −0.67, n.s., indicating that increases in fusion to WildCRU occurred for participants who engaged in high levels of reflection and also felt that Cecil's death was a central self and group experience, whereas participants who did not score highly on both the reflection and centrality measures reported little to no change or a decrease in fusion.

Finally, we examined Hypothesis 4 via a series of regressions (see Table 1 summary). In a logistic regression, mean fusion to WildCRU combined across both times predicted whether participants had made another donation to WildCRU beyond their initial donation [β = 0.41, SE = 0.17, Wald X²₍₁₎ = 5.84, p < 0.02, Odds Ratio = 1.50]. In two linear regressions, fusion to WildCRU also predicted perceptions of wildlife value [β = 0.24, t₍₁₅₈₎ = 3.16, p < 0.01], and conservation engagement [β = 0.31, t₍₁₅₈₎ = 4.06, p < 0.01]. Consistent with Hypothesis 4, these results demonstrate that strongly fused WildCRU supporters were especially engaged, continuing conservation efforts in ways that constitute a sustainable movement.

Given that of those who completed Wave 1 (N = 992), N = 160 completed Wave 2 (16.1% of the Wave 1 total), we also examined whether attrition was random or systematic. First, we examined whether Wave 1 participants who did not complete Wave 2 differed from those who completed both waves on demographic and key study variables. The two samples did not differ in terms of gender, Chi-square (1) = 0.11, p = 0.74; education, t₍₉₇₅₎ = 1.05, p = 0.30; occupation status, Chi-square (1) = 0.27, p = 0.60; age, t₍₉₅₆₎ = −1.74, p = 0.08; nor how they learned of Cecil's death, Chi-square (3) = 0.99, p = 0.80. Slightly more participants who completed both waves reported residing in a country other than the U.S. (11.3%) than participants who only completed Wave 1 (6.3%), Chi-square (1) = 5.01, p = 0.03. For the dysphoric reactions scale, participants who completed both waves reported no more dysphoria (M = 4.12, SD = 1.76) than those who did not participate at Time 2 (M = 3.97, SD = 1.84), t₍₉₉₀₎ = −0.97, p = 0.33. For the fusion scales, participants who completed both waves reported being slightly more fused to WildCRU (M = 3.05, SD = 1.03) and Cecil (M = 3.59, SD = 1.23) than those who only completed Wave 1 (WildCRU: M = 2.83, SD = 1.07; Cecil: M = 3.28, SD = 1.33), t₍₉₇₁₎ = −2.22, p = 0.03, and t₍₉₈₁₎ = −2.73, p = 0.006, respectively. It is plausible that those who initially felt a deeper connection with Cecil and WildCRU would be more likely to read the emailed update from WildCRU and notice the survey link at Time 2. Also note that there are small differences in N's and corresponding df 's for analyses because we did not eliminate participants' data if there were missing cells.

We also examined the full Time 1 dataset (N = 992) to see whether the results reported with the N = 160 subset were consistent with each other. We tested the mediation result from Time 1 data involving the dysphoric intensity, fusion to Cecil, and fusion to WildCRU variables. The results were very similar. First, dysphoric intensity predicted fusion to Cecil, standardized regression coefficient, β = 0.27, p < 0.01, and fusion to WildCRU, β = 0.21, p < 0.01. Fusion to Cecil also predicted fusion to WildCRU, β = 0.67, p < 0.01. Then, in a regression with dysphoric intensity and fusion to Cecil entered as simultaneous predictors, the effect of intensity on fusion to WildCRU was in a positive direction but no longer statistically significant, β = 0.03, p = 0.25, while fusion to Cecil remained significant, β = 0.66, p < 0.01, with Sobel z = 8.04, p < 0.01.

In addition, one likely cause of attrition was that, unlike most studies with longitudinal designs, we offered no material incentive to complete the survey. Another likely cause was that the survey was advertised toward the end of a long e-mail primarily focusing on updates regarding Cecil's story and WildCRU conservation efforts, thus many readers may have simply not noticed the survey link. Also, given that the total N for those who completed both waves was 160, well exceeding the required sample size to detect a medium effect size in a multiple regression with up to 10 predictors (at power = 0.8 and p < 0.05), and that there were only minor differences between those who completed only wave 1 and those who completed both waves, we believe that attrition was non-systematic.

Overall, our results reveal one possible psychological pathway by which a viral moment can have long-term effects on supporters' identities and behavior. The case of Cecil may seem remarkable in that none of those donating to lion conservation as a consequence were affected personally in any practical or material way by Cecil's death. But this may be true of social movements in human history in general. For instance, many supporters of the civil rights movement in the U.S. or hunger strikes in Northern Ireland or, more recently, efforts to bring about regime change during the Arab Spring, have been motivated to get involved despite being far removed from their seminal events, perhaps even on the other side of the world. Indeed, the Arab Spring and other revolutionary movements have benefitted from diaspora communities in other parts of the world providing crucial diplomatic and financial support (Moss, 2016). If we better understand the psychology involved in generating identity fusion to groups involved in social movements, and in particular the role of unique, dysphoric, transformative experiences in augmenting group cohesion, we can begin to explain the failures and successes of specific moments in history to generate enduring movements, even from a great distance. We can also harness these processes to help solve collective action problems of other kinds, not only in domains like conservation but also closely related global problems such as climate change or antibiotic resistance (Whitehouse, 2014). Conversely, more destructive expressions of the same psychological processes (e.g., foreign fighters who have joined ISIS) may be responded to more effectively if we understand the role of shared dysphoria in motivating extreme pro-group action of all kinds (Whitehouse et al., 2017).

Our investigation of WildCRU donors has been guided by a larger collaboration that aims to leverage behavioral insights from multiple disciplines in order to create and sustain high levels of human cooperation in contexts where it is desperately needed (e.g., wildlife conservation, social and economic conflicts, etc.). Here, we are building on efforts to synthesize two bodies of work, one based on Whitehouse's anthropological studies of the experiential causes of social bonding (Whitehouse, 1996; Whitehouse and Lanman, 2014), and the other based on Swann's social psychological studies of the nature and consequences of identity fusion (Swann et al., 2009; Buhrmester and Swann, 2015). This synthesis is highly interdisciplinary, involving collaborations with mathematical modelers (e.g., Salali et al., 2015; Whitehouse et al., 2017), historians (e.g., Whitehouse et al., 2015), archaeologists (e.g., Gantley et al., 2018), cultural evolution theorists (e.g., Atkinson and Whitehouse, 2011), and developmental psychologists (Watson-Jones et al., 2014; Rybanska et al., 2017)—to name only a few of the disciplines contributing to theory building on this topic. Our present study is the first to apply this emerging theoretical synthesis to work in the domain of human dimensions of wildlife conservation. In doing so, we adapted study measures from instruments that have been previously validated as part of the above synthesis (Swann et al., 2009; Jong et al., 2015). Furthermore, our examination extends the synthesis by focusing on a precipitating event (i.e., Cecil's death) that was centered largely on a wild animal. Past studies have focused on events involving only humans (e.g., the Boston Marathon Bombings, Buhrmester et al., 2015), thus our study's findings add to the generalizability of the psychological processes that we have examined.

Our findings point to the need for continued future research along several avenues. More empirical work is needed to examine the extent to which continued reflection after a precipitating event is caused by aspects of the event itself (i.e., its affective intensity, uniqueness, etc.) vs. communication between group members in the wake of the event. Understanding the impact of continued communication, as well as identifying the key components of fusion-augmenting communication after a precipitating event, could lead to positive practical applications. In addition, future work should examine how perceptions of donation usage may impact both continued giving as well as group bonding. In our case, donors learned from WildCRU's newsletter and website that all donations would be used to achieve the organization's strategic plan, a plan that includes the study of the ecology and conservation of lions such as Cecil but is much broader in scope (see https://www.wildcru.org/about-wildcru/2020-vision). The Cecil case thus shows that many individuals are willing to give (sometimes rather large sums) to broad wildlife conservation efforts based on a single, compelling narrative.

Lastly, can our results facilitate Macdonald et al.'s (2016a) vision of “Cecil Moment” blossoming into a “Cecil Movement”? At the very least, our evidence—that depth of reflection and perception of event centrality underlie increases in fusion over time—should cause conservation advocates to ask how these processes can be amplified to increase fusion amongst supporters (and indeed, to create some level of fusion among initial non-supporters). In addition, advocates and researchers alike should seek out ways to reach the millions who for reasons unknown have not felt swayed by viral moments like Cecil's. Is there a hard cap on the number of conservationist hearts to be won, or could all of humanity rally as one?

Our findings, especially those suggesting that Cecil's story sparked sustained support for WildCRU, give us at least some measure of hope that broad swaths of humanity can and do wish to support not just specific animal rights or wildlife causes, but also broader organizations involved in an array of research and conservation activities with a global focus. And in the case of lions, whose numbers have declined, on average, by 43% over the last three leonine generations (Bauer et al., 2016), greater sustained commitment to their conservation by citizens of the range states and of the wider world, cannot come soon enough.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the corresponding author, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

This study was conducted in accordance with and approved by the School of Anthropology and Museum of Ethnography Research Ethics Committee at the University of Oxford. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

DM and HW contributed equally as joint senior authors. All authors designed the measures. MB collected and analyzed the data. All authors contributed to and approved the manuscript.