Replication Data for: Conservation for Nature and Wildlife’s Sake

Replication data for "Conservation for Nature and Wildlife’s Sake" (2024). This is the same data available on OSF. https://osf.io/739pg/?view_only= Abstract: A large body of research has attempted to understand policy acceptance through individual and contextual factors but cannot explain all attitudinal differences, especially for conservation policies. We examine if provision of different ethical justifications affects people’s propensity to accept two different policies: conservation expansion and wildlife infrastructure. We test two ethical justifications for conservation policies — (1) anthropocentric justification (nature is valuable to the extent it helps humans), and (2) a non-anthropocentric justification (nature is intrinsically valuable). Based on a 2×3 online survey experiment with American participants (n=1604), our results indicate non-anthropocentric justification increases policy acceptability compared to anthropocentric justification and compared to no justification. The effect of nonanthropocentric justification held regardless of political orientation and environmental concern. Additionally, the policy justification had spillover effects on perceived ethical justification of conservation policies generally, and how people think these policies should be ethically motivated. Participants given non-anthropocentric justification perceive that conservation and wildlife infrastructure policies generally are, and should be, passed to benefit wildlife and ecosystems compared to participants without a justification given. Likewise, participants given the anthropocentric justification report that similar policies are and should be passed for humans and society compared to the empty control group.