{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015246636771300448, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.642857142857143, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Role of Affect in Public Support and Opposition to Wolf Management

Individuals process information through two systems: the experiential system, containing affect and emotion, and the analytic system, containing logic and normative rules. Both are involved in decision making, and expected to help explain choices to support or oppose wildlife-related policies. In the present study, an Internet survey of motivated, informed individuals is used to investigate the role of both systems in wolf recovery policy choices. Integral affect measures serve as the experiential component in our model, while objective knowledge and beliefs about outcomes of wolf recovery serve as the analytic component. Results indicate that affect has a greater effect than knowledge on beliefs, and is more important for explaining intentions to oppose than to support wolf recovery. Knowledge of differences in information processing between those that support versus oppose wolf recovery allows managers to design outreach that motivates greater analytic processing, potentially mitigating the effects of experiential processing.