Content uploaded by Meredith L. Gore
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Meredith L. Gore on Nov 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contributed Paper
Australian and U.S. News Media Portrayal of Sharks
and Their Conservation
BRET A. MUTER,∗MEREDITH L. GORE,# KATIE S. GLEDHILL,† CHRISTOPHER LAMONT,‡
AND CHARLIE HUVENEERS‡§
∗Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI 48824, U.S.A.,
email muterbre@msu.edu
#Department of Fisheries and Wildlife & School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, East Lansing,
MI 48824, U.S.A.
†South African Shark Conservancy, Old Harbour Museum, Hermanus, Western Cape, 7200, South Africa
‡School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia
§Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species, SARDI – Aquatic Sciences, West Beach, Adelaide, SA 5024, Australia
Abstract: Investigation of the social framing of human–shark interactions may provide useful strategies for
integrating social, biological, and ecological knowledge into national and international policy discussions
about shark conservation. One way to investigate social opinion and forces related to sharks and their
conservation is through the media’s coverage of sharks. We conducted a content analysis of 300 shark-related
articles published in 20 major Australian and U.S. newspapers from 2000 to 2010. Shark attacks were the
emphasis of over half the articles analyzed, and shark conservation was the primary topic of 11% of articles.
Significantly more Australian articles than U.S. articles treated shark attacks (χ2=3.862; Australian 58% vs.
U.S. 47%) and shark conservation issues (χ2=6.856; Australian 15% vs. U.S. 11%) as the primary article topic
and used politicians as the primary risk messenger (i.e., primary person or authority sourced in the article)
(χ2=7.493; Australian 8% vs. U.S. 1%). However, significantly more U.S. articles than Australian articles
discussed sharks as entertainment (e.g., subjects in movies, books, and television; χ2=15.130; U.S. 6% vs.
Australian 1%) and used scientists as the primary risk messenger (χ2=5.333; U.S. 25% vs. Australian
15%). Despite evidence that many shark species are at risk of extinction, we found that most media coverage
emphasized the risks sharks pose to people. To the extent that media reflects social opinion, our results highlight
problems for shark conservation. We suggest that conservation professionals purposefully and frequently
engage with the media to highlight the rarity of shark attacks, discuss preventative measures water users can
take to reduce their vulnerability to shark encounters, and discuss conservation issues related to local and
threatened species of sharks. When integrated with biological and ecological data, social-science data may
help generate a more comprehensive perspective and inform conservation practice.
Keywords: content analysis, human dimensions, news media, risk messengers, risk perceptions
Descripci´
on de Tiburones y su Conservaci´
on por Medios Informativos Australianos y Norteamericanos
Resumen: La investigaci´
ondel marco social de las interacciones humanos–tiburones puede proporcionar
estrategias ´
utiles para la integraci´
on de conocimiento social, biol´
ogico y ecol´
ogico en las discusiones de
pol´
ıticas nacionales e internacionales para la conservaci´
on de tiburones. Una manera de investigar la opini´
on
y fuerzas sociales relacionadas con tiburones y su conservaci´
on es a trav´
es de la cobertura de los medios
sobre tiburones. Realizamos un an´
alisis de contenido de 300 art´
ıculos relacionados con tiburones publicados
de 2000 a 2010 en 20 peri´
odicos australianos y norteamericanos. Los ataques de tiburones fueron el enf´
asis
de m´
as de la mitad de los art´
ıculos analizados, y la conservaci´
on de tiburones fue el tema primario de 11%
de los art´
ıculos. Significativamente m´
as art´
ıculos australianos que norteamericanos trataron los ataques de
tibur´
on (χ2=3.862; australianos 58% vs. norteamericanos 47%) y temas de conservaci´
on de tibur´
on (χ2=
6.856; australianos 15% vs. norteamericanos 11%) como el tema principal del art´
ıculo y utilizaron a pol´
ıticos
como el principal mensajero de riesgo (i.e., persona o autoridad primaria fuente del art´
ıculo) (χ2=7.493;
norteamericanos 8% vs. australianos 1%). Sin embargo, significativamente m´
as art´
ıculos norteamericanos
que australianos discutieron a los tiburones como entretenimiento (e.g., sujetos en pel´
ıculas, libros y televisi´
on;
χ2=15.130; norteamericanos 6% vs. australianos 1%) y usaron a cient´
ıficos como el principal mensajero
de riesgo (χ2=5.333; norteamericanos 25% vs. asutralianos 15%). No obstante la evidencia de muchas
Paper submitted December 31, 2011; revised manuscript accepted June 15, 2012.
187
Conservation Biology, Volume 27, No. 1, 187–196
C
°2012 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01952.x
188 Media Portrayal of Sharks
especies de tibur´
on est´
an en riesgo de extinci´
on, encontramos que la mayor´
ıa de la cobertura de los medios
enfatiz´
o los riesgos que representan los tiburones para humanos. En el sentido en que los medios reflejan
la opini´
on social, nuestros resultados resaltan los problemas para la conservaci´
on de tiburones. Sugerimos
que profesionales de la conservaci´
on se comprometan con los medios, con determinaci´
on y frecuencia, para
resaltar la rareza de los ataques de tiburones, discutir medidas preventivas que los usuarios pueden tomar
para reducir su vulnerabilidad a encuentros con tiburones y discutir temas de conservaci´
on relacionados
con especies de tiburones locales y amenazadas. Datos de la ciencia social, incorporados a datos biol´
ogicos y
ecol´
ogicos, pueden ayudar a generar una perspectiva integral y proporcionar informaci´
on a la pr´
actica de la
conservaci´
on.
Palabras Clave: An´
alisis de contenido, dimensiones humanas, medios informativos, mensajeros de riesgo,
percepciones de riesgo
Introduction
Declines in the abundance of marine species are having
negative effects on marine systems and processes (e.g.,
trophic downgrading [Estes et al. 2011]) and are affect-
ing the ability of oceans to provide ecosystem services
(Worm et al. 2006). Many species of sharks are of par-
ticular conservation concern due to their role as apex
predators (Myers et al. 2007). Worldwide human pres-
sures on chondrichthians are associated with systematic
population declines and many likely collapses (Jacques
2010). Sharks are threatened by commercial fishing (Bon-
fil 1994), finning (i.e., harvesting of sharks for their fins)
(Clarke et al. 2006), pollution (Gelsleichter et al. 2005),
habitat loss and degradation (Jennings et al. 2008), and cli-
mate change (Chin et al. 2010). Sharks are especially vul-
nerable to these threats due to their life-history traits (i.e.,
slow growth rates, late age of maturity, long gestation
periods, and low reproductive output) (Musick 1999).
Like many apex predators, sharks suffer from a negative
public image (Driscoll 1995; Woods 2000; Thompson &
Mintzes 2002) in part because they can threaten human
safety (Philpott 2002). Negative perceptions about sharks
and shark-attack risks have been identified as one of the
greatest barriers to shark conservation efforts (Ferguson
2006).
Scientists, conservation organizations, politicians, and
even fishers have expressed concerns about threats to
global shark populations for years (Lynch et al. 2010).
Yet, shark conservation is just starting to become a global
policy priority and be attended to by social scientists
(Jacques 2010). For example, in November 2005 the Con-
vention for Migratory Species (CMS) Parties adopted a
recommendation on migratory sharks that urged range
states to strengthen protection for these species and
called for the development of a global conservation agree-
ment. The 2010 Conference of the Parties for the Con-
vention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) also featured substantial
dialogue about shark conservation.
Similarly, 2011 witnessed a significant global shift in
shark conservation actions as evidenced by bans on the
practice of shark finning (e.g., Taiwan),bans on the sale
of shark fins all together (e.g., in California [U.S.A.] and
Toronto [Canada]), and a boom in new shark sanctuar-
ies (e.g., in the Bahamas, Honduras, Chile, and the Mar-
shall Islands). These efforts are conservation milestones;
however, challenges remain in developing, implement-
ing, and enforcing policies that protect sharks (and other
migratory marine species) outside of demarcated political
boundaries (Nevins et al. 2009).
Enacting conservation policies that reduce risks to
sharks requires coordinated international cooperation
and collaboration among many countries and dedicated
attention by social scientists (Jacques 2010). In addition
to the need for countries to share, understand, and in-
tegrate biophysical knowledge about sharks (e.g., diet,
migration, population) into national and international
policy discussions, conservation professionals must also
seek cross-cultural insights on the many different people,
cultures, and histories that are affected by such policies.
Quantifying the social forces of and on marine systems
is essential for understanding and mitigating changes to
marine systems (Jacques 2010). Discovery about the so-
cial framing of shark conservation may provide important
answers and possibly new solutions. Mass-media studies
(i.e., the formal subdiscipline dedicated to quantifying
and qualifying media effects on society and vice versa)
offers one mechanism with which to investigate social
opinion and forces related to sharks and their conserva-
tion (Jacques 2010).
Media studies have long recognized the ability of mass
media to reflect popular views (Katz & Lazarsfeld 1955;
Jensen 2003; Gans 2004) and to influence social atti-
tudes about outcomes of wildlife and conservation pol-
icy (Wolch et al. 1997; Muter et al. 2009; Jacobson
et al. 2012). News and entertainment media are widely
credited for perpetuating negative portrayals of sharks
and for amplifying public fear through newspaper sto-
ries and documentaries with sensationalistic headlines
and imagery (Philpott 2002; Peschak 2006). However,
the content and context of news media coverage about
sharks, needed to empirically assess this claim, has been
neither adequately described nor quantified. Researchers
have investigated the portrayal of sharks in documen-
taries (Ferguson 2006), shark-diving websites (Gore et al.
Conservation Biology
Volume 27, No. 1, 2013
Muter et al. 189
2011), and diving magazines (Whatmough et al. 2011).
Boissonneault et al. (2005) assessed how the portrayal
of gray nurse sharks in Australian newspapers changed
from 1969 to 2003. Although results of these studies
provide useful insights into the portrayal of sharks in
various media outlets, their limitations (e.g., time frame of
articles assessed, species considered, media outlets and
reach) narrow the types of cross-cultural insights that
can be transferred to, but are needed for, global shark
conservation.
We sought to describe the content and context of
shark-related media coverage in high-profile news media
in Australia and the United States over the last decade
(2000–2010). Australia and the United States are 2 of the
most influential countries in global shark conservation
policy and were among the first countries to draft and
implement a National Plan of Action for Conservation
and Management of Sharks (NMFS 2001; DAFF 2004).
More documented human–shark interactions occur in
these countries than in any other (ISAF 2011), and to-
gether they comprise a disproportionately large segment
of the global media market for shark stories. Because
shark attacks are newsworthy (Peschak 2006), it makes
sense to study the media in the countries that have the
most documented shark attacks.
Specifically, we wanted to identify the primary topics,
frames (i.e., how information about sharks and their con-
servation is presented), and messengers of media cov-
erage of sharks in Australia and the United States. We
also wanted to identify trends in that coverage over the
last decade and to compare and contrast Australian and
U.S. coverage. Collectively, this information may assist
conservation biologists in understanding how the news
media has portrayed sharks and shark conservation is-
sues over the last decade. This knowledge may also help
them predict public perceptions of risk (Elliot 2003)
related to sharks and to identify opportunities for the
global conservation community to more effectively en-
gage with diverse stakeholders (Pelstring et al. 1997) and
the media (Gore et al. 2005) for the benefit of shark
conservation.
Methods
Content analysis is an objective and systematic method
(Kerlinger 2000; Wimmer & Dominick 2003) for exam-
ining the content of information in documents (e.g.,
newspapers, magazines, radio and television transcripts)
and is often used to better understand media and its
effects on the public. The method is commonly ap-
plied in the conservation arena due to its ability to pro-
vide historical insight on complex management issues
(Wolch et al. 1997; Muter et al. 2009; Houston et al.
2010).
Table 1. Shark-related articles published and assessed from Aus-
tralian and U.S. newspapers from 2000 to 2010.
No. No. assessed
Publication published (%)
Australian newspapers (totals) 2398 150
Advertiser (Sunday Mail) 613 36 (24)
The Age 95 6 (4)
The Australian 213 13 (9)
Canberra Times 55 3 (2)
Courier Mail (Sunday Mail) 449 27 (18)
Herald Sun 313 20 (13)
Mercury (Sunday Tasmanian) 190 12 (8)
Northern Territory News 162 10 (7)
Sydney Morning Herald 188 12 (8)
West Australian 175 11 (7)
U.S. newspapers 944 150
Daily News 71 11 (7)
Houston Chronicle 175 28 (19)
New York Times 103 16 (11)
Oregonian 27 4 (3)
Philadelphia Inquirer 44 7 (5)
San Diego Union Tribune 189 30 (20)
San Francisco Chronicle 81 13 (9)
St. Petersburg Times 130 21 (14)
USA Today 50 8 (5)
Washington Post 74 12 (8)
Total 3342 300
We used LexisNexis, an electronic search engine, in
April 2010 to identify shark-related articles published in
major newspapers in Australia and the United States (10
from each country) from 1 January 2000 through 31
December 2009 (Table 1). We defined major publica-
tions as those ranked by the Audit Bureau of Circulation
to be in the top 30 newspapers by daily circulation in
their country. We purposively selected publications to
ensure our sample was geographically distributed across
and representative of the 2 countries and to ensure the
publication was electronically available over the entire
sampling period. We limited our search to articles that
contained the keyword shark in both the title and body
of the article. This strategy helped identify articles that
were primarily about sharks (i.e., Chondrichthyes).
We reviewed all articles identified through the search
and excluded nonrelevant articles (e.g., articles referring
to, for example, sports teams). After sorting, 3342 articles
fit our search criteria (2398 from Australia and 944 from
the United States). We recorded the date and publication
of each article and randomly selected 150 articles from
each country (n=300) with a random-number genera-
tor in proportion to their distribution across publications
(e.g., 24% of the 2398 [n=613] Australian articles we
identified were published in the Advertiser, so 24% of the
150 [n=36] articles in our final Australian sample were
taken from the Advertiser [Table 1]) for further analyses
(Riffe et al. 2005).
On the basis of our research objectives, we developed
a codebook and protocol (Supporting Information). We
Conservation Biology
Volume 27, No. 1, 2013
190 Media Portrayal of Sharks
trained 2 teams of coders (2 people on each team)—
one in the United States and one in Australia. Teams
trained together on 2 sets of 10 dummy articles (i.e.,
relevant articles not included in the sample) until simple
percent agreement among coders was ≥90% for most
items (Muter et al. 2009). Each article was coded by both
team members; a third coder was used when needed
to settle discrepancies between team members and to
increase reliability (Wimmer & Dominick 2003).
Coders examined each article for 83 variables orga-
nized into 7 content categories: general article informa-
tion (e.g., date, publication, topic, shark species men-
tioned), natural-history information (e.g., physical traits,
physiology, behavior), risks from sharks (e.g., attacks on
humans, beach closures), risks to sharks (e.g., overex-
ploitation, illegal trade, negative public image), risk per-
ceptions and estimates, shark tourism, and news format
(i.e., episodic or thematic coverage).
We used Cohen’s kappa (Cohen 1960, 1968) to mea-
sure agreement between the 2 coders (Capozzoli et al.
1999). Kappa values >0.7 represent a strong level of
agreement above chance (Lombard et al. 2002). We re-
tained for analyses only variables with a kappa >0.7. We
computed kappa values with PASWStatistics 18 software
(SPSS 2010) for each variable across all 300 articles.
We obtained data on shark attacks in Australia and the
United States from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2009
from the International Shark Attack File (ISAF 2011) and
the Australian Shark Attack File (ASAF 2010; Table 2).
We used logistic regression to identify trends in cov-
erage over time. We used chi-square analyses to test for
differences between Australian and U.S. coverage. We
assessed correlations among variables (i.e., primary arti-
cle topic, frame, and messengers). Linear regression was
used to compare number of attacks with frequency of
shark-related coverage.
Results
Description of the Content
We analyzed 300 articles across 20 publications
(Table 1). News coverage about sharks was most fre-
quent from December through March in Australia and
from June through September in the United States (i.e.,
summer months when more people are in the water).
White sharks (Carcharodon carcharias,n=75), bull
sharks (Carcharhinus leucas,n=32), and tiger sharks
(Galeocerdo cuvier,n=31) were among the species
most frequently cited in the coverage (Table 2).
Shark attacks were the emphasis of more than half the
articles analyzed (n=157, 52%); conservation concerns
were the primary topic of 32 articles (11%). Other article
topics included sharks as attractions in zoos and aquar-
iums (n=27, 9%), shark biology or ecology (n=22,
7%), sharks as entertainment (n=18, 6%), recreational
shark fishing (n=12, 4%), shark-diving tourism (n=5,
2%), other recreational diving (n=4, 1%), nondiving-
related businesses (n=4, 1%), and shark conservation
professionals or biologists (n=3, 1%) (Table 3).
More than half the articles (n=176, 59%) empha-
sized negative effects of sharks (e.g., human injuries or
deaths, closed beaches). Fewer articles emphasized posi-
tive effects of sharks (e.g., human-health insights, sharks
as aquarium attractions; n=58, 19%), negative effects on
sharks (e.g., shark finning, pollution, ineffective policies
for shark conservation; n=50, 17%), and positive effects
on sharks (e.g., successful conservation interventions,
education campaigns; n=11, 4%). Five articles (2%),
all of which were in Australian newspapers, were classi-
fied as having multiple foci (i.e., more than one frame)
(Table 3).
Shark-Related Risks
We identified 4 types of risks from sharks and 14 types of
risks to sharks in the articles (Table 4). Forty-four percent
of the articles mentioned elevated public risk perceptions
or fear of sharks (n=133). Other risks from sharks iden-
tified were shark-related human injuries (n=98, 33%),
shark-related human fatalities (n=92, 31%), and changes
in recreation, such as beach closures, due to the presence
of sharks (n=50, 17%).
Of the 14 different risks to sharks mentioned in the
sample articles (Table 4), physical injury to sharks (e.g.,
from boats) was discussed most frequently (n=49, 16%).
Other risks to sharks discussed were overfishing (n=36,
12%), trophy fishing (n=25, 8%), negative public image
(n=21, 7%), shark finning (n=21, 7%), commercial
fisheries (n=16, 5%), sharks as bycatch (n=11, 4%),
illegal trade in shark parts (n=8, 3%), altered behavior
of sharks (n=7, 2%), beach meshing (i.e., nets designed
to reduce human–shark encounters near beaches) (n=
6, 2%), pollution (n=5, 2%), culling (n=4, 1%), shark
tourism (n=3, 1%), and coastal development (n=1,
<1%).
Comparison of Australian and U.S. Articles
Significantly more Australian articles than U.S. arti-
cles treated shark attacks (χ2=3.862; Australian 87
[58%] vs. U.S. 70, [47%]) and shark conservation issues
(χ2=6.856; Australian 23 [15%] vs. U.S. 9 [11%]) as
the primary article topic. However, significantly more
U.S. articles than Australian articles highlighted sharks
as entertainment (χ2=15.130; U.S. 17 [6%] vs. Aus-
tralian 1 [1%]) (Table 3). More U.S. articles than Aus-
tralian articles used a primary frame highlighting posi-
tive effects of sharks (χ2=12.311; U.S. 41 [27%] vs.
Australian 17 [11%] (Table 3). Articles published in the
United States discussed shark-related risk perceptions
Conservation Biology
Volume 27, No. 1, 2013
Muter et al. 191
Table 2. Shark species described in Australian and U.S. newspapers and frequency with which species were implicated in shark attacks on humans
from 2000 to 2010.
No. of articles No. of attacksa
Common name Scientific name total Australia U.S. total Australia U.S.
White shark Carcharodon carcharias 75 45 30 80 51 29
Unidentified 63 37 26 363 8 355
Bull shark Carcharhinus leucas 32 15 17 34 14 20
Tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier 31 17 14 26 6 20
Whaler spp. Carcharhinus spp. 18 18 0 35 35 0
Hammerhead spp. Sphyrna spp. 14 4 10 5 1 4
Blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus 13 0 13 15 0 15
Mako shark Isurus spp. 8 3 5 3 1 2
Blue shark Prionace glauca 8 3 5 0 0 0
Whale shark Rhincodon typus 6 2 4 0 0 0
Thresher spp. Alopias spp. 6 1 5 1 0 1
Lemon shark Negaprion spp. 5 1 4 4 0 4
Sandbar shark Carcarhinus plumbeus 5 1 4 3 0 3
Nurse shark Ginglymostomidae spp. 4 0 4 14 0 14
Wobbegong spp. Orectolobidae spp. 4 2 2 33 33 0
Sharpnose spp. Rhizoprionodon spp. 4 0 4 0 0 0
Gray nurse shark Carcharias Taurus 3 3 0 4 1 3
Leopard shark Triakis semifasciata 3 0 3 0 0 0
Reef shark Carcharhinus spp. 3 0 3 1 0 1
Sand shark Carcharias taurusb3 0 3 1 0 1
Whitetip shark Carcharhinus longimanus or
Triaenodon obsesus
2 0 2 1 0 1
Blacktip reef shark Carcharhinus melanopterus 2 1 1 1 1 0
Whitetip reef shark Triaenodon obesus 2 2 0 1 1 0
Zebra shark Stegostoma fasciatum 2 0 2 0 0 0
Basking shark Cetorhinus maximus 2 1 1 0 0 0
School shark Mustelus antarcticus 2 2 0 0 0 0
Gummy shark Galeorhinus galeus 2 2 0 0 0 0
Sevengill shark Hexanchidae spp. 2 1 1 0 0 0
Carribean reef shark Carcharhinus perezi 1 0 1 0 0 0
Finetooth shark Carcharhinus isodon 1 0 1 0 0 0
Deep sea shark Various 1 1 0 0 0 0
Brown shark Carcharhinus plumbeusb1 0 1 0 0 0
Goblin shark Mitsukurina owstoni 1 1 0 0 0 0
Galapagos shark Carcharhinus galapagensis 1 1 0 0 0 0
Glyphis shark Glyphis spp. 1 1 0 0 0 0
Lamnid shark Lamindae spp. 1 0 1 0 0 0
Angel shark Squatina spp. 0 0 0 1 0 1
Cookie cutter Isistius brasiliensis 1 0 1 1 0 1
Gray reef shark Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 0 0 0 2 1 1
Spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna 1 0 1 3 0 3
Blind shark Brachaelurus colcloughi 0 0 0 1 1 0
Silvertip shark Carcharhinus albimarginatus 0 0 0 1 1 0
aInternational Shark Attack File (ISAF 2011).
bMost likely scientific name but uncertain.
(χ2=12.135; U.S. 81 [54%] vs. Australian 52 [35%]) and
shark-related human injuries (χ2=3.880; U.S. 57 [38%]
vs. 41 [27%]) (Table 5) significantly more than Australian
articles.
As the total number of shark attacks (i.e., sum of fatal
and nonfatal attacks) increased per quarter (i.e., 3-month
period), the total number of articles increased in both
Australia (r=0.328, p<0.05) and the United States (r=
0.506, p<0.01). The total number of shark attacks per
quarter and the number of articles in which the primary
topic was a shark attack were positively correlated for
both Australia (r=0.553, p<0.001) and the U.S. articles
(r=0.435, p<0.01).
Trends
There was a significant decline over time in U.S. arti-
cles that mentioned shark attacks (odds ratio [OR] =
0.801, p<0.001) and an increase in U.S. articles dis-
cussing recreational shark fishing (OR =1.341, p<
0.05). Articles emphasizing positive effects of sharks
increased significantly over time in the United States
Conservation Biology
Volume 27, No. 1, 2013
192 Media Portrayal of Sharks
Table 3. Frequencies and results of chi-square analyses of primary article topic, frame (positive or negative focus), and messenger for Australian
and U.S. newspaper coverage of sharks from 2000 to 2010.
All U.S. Australia
Variable f % f % f % χ2p
Primary article topic
shark attacks on people 157 52.3 70 46.7 87 58.0 3.862 0.049
sharks as attractions in zoos 27 9.0 14 9.3 13 8.7 0.000 1.000
shark-diving tourism 5 1.7 4 2.7 1 0.7 1.831 0.176
shark biology or ecology 22 7.3 11 7.3 11 7.3 0.000 1.000
shark fishing (sport) 12 4.0 7 4.7 5 3.3 0.347 0.556
shark conservation issues 32 10.7 9 6.0 23 15.3 6.856 0.009
shark biologist, conservationist 3 1.0 2 1.3 1 0.7 0.337 0.562
sharks as entertainment 18 6.0 17 11.3 1 0.7 15.130 0.000
other diving and recreation 4 1.3 3 2.0 1 0.7 1.014 0.314
nondiving tourism 4 1.3 2 1.3 2 1.3 0.000 1.000
other 16 5.3 11 7.3 5 3.3 2.377 0.123
Primary article frame
negative effects of sharks 176 58.7 86 57.3 90 60.0 0.220 0.639
negative effect on sharks 50 16.7 19 12.7 31 20.7 3.456 0.063
positive effects of sharks 58 19.3 41 27.3 17 11.3 12.311 0.000
positive effects on sharks 11 3.7 4 2.7 7 4.7 0.849 0.357
multiple foci 5 1.7 0 0.0 5 3.3 5.085 0.024
Primary messenger
author of article 27 9.0 16 10.7 11 7.3 1.018 0.313
scientist 61 20.3 38 25.3 23 15.3 5.333 0.021
fishers 11 3.7 4 2.7 7 4.7 0.849 0.357
conservation organization 20 6.7 14 9.3 6 4.0 3.429 0.064
shark-attack victim or victim’s family 31 10.3 14 9.3 17 11.3 0.324 0.569
general public 19 6.3 7 4.7 12 8.0 1.405 0.236
tourism 15 5.0 8 5.3 7 4.7 0.000 1.000
politicians 14 4.7 2 1.3 12 8.0 7.493 0.006
nonscientist government officials 21 7.0 9 6.0 12 8.0 0.461 0.497
retailers 4 1.3 1 0.7 3 2.0 1.014 0.314
multiple messengers 32 10.7 12 8.0 20 13.3 2.239 0.135
other 9 3.0 6 4.0 3 2.0 0.146 0.702
(OR =1.216, p<0.01) and decreased significantly in
Australia (OR =0.819, p<0.05). There was a signifi-
cant decrease in U.S. articles with a primary frame em-
phasizing negative effects of sharks (OR =0.807, p<
0.001), whereas Australian coverage emphasizing posi-
tive effects of sharks increased over time (OR =1.623,
p<0.05).
There was a significant decrease over time in U.S. arti-
cles discussing shark-related effects on recreation (OR =
0.847, p<0.05). More U.S. articles than Australian arti-
cles discussed a negative public image (χ2=6.196; U.S.
16 [11%] vs. Australian 5 [3%]) and bycatch (χ2=4.624;
U.S 9 [2%] vs. Australian 2 [1%]) as threats to sharks,
whereas significantly more Australian articles than U.S.
articles discussed illegal trade in shark parts (χ2=4.623;
Australia 7 [5%] vs. U.S. 1 [1%]).
Messengers
Scientists served as the primary messengers in both Aus-
tralian and U.S. articles (n=61, 20%). Other primary
messengers included victims of shark attacks or their
families (n=31, 10%), the article author (n=27, 9%),
nonscientist government officials (n=21, 7%), con-
servation organizations (n=20, 7%), members of the
general public (n=19, 6%), tourism interests (n=15,
5%), politicians (n=14, 5%), and fishers (n=11, 4%)
(Table 3).
More U.S. articles used a scientist as the primary mes-
senger than Australian articles (χ2=5.333; U.S. 38 [25%]
vs. Australian 23 [15%]). Significantly more Australian ar-
ticles than U.S. articles had a politician as the primary
messenger (χ2=7.493; Australian 12 [8%] vs. U.S. 2
[1%]) (Table 3).
Articles with scientists and fishers as the primary mes-
sengers were positively correlated with stories on shark
biology (φ=0.307, p<0.001) and shark fishing (φ=
0.413, p<0.001), respectively. Articles with someone
from the tourism industry as the primary messenger were
positively correlated with the topic of shark diving (φ=
0.218, p<0.001), whereas retailers as messengers were
positively correlated with stories on shark diving-related
business (φ=0.747, p<0.001). Articles with politicians
as the primary messenger were positively correlated with
stories on shark conservation (φ=0.282, p<0.001)
(Table 5).
Conservation Biology
Volume 27, No. 1, 2013
Muter et al. 193
Table 4. Frequencies and chi-square analyses of risks to and from sharks discussed in Australian and U.S. newspaper coverage about sharks from
2000 to 2010.
All U.S. Australia
Variable f % f % f % χ2p
Risks from sharks
perception of risk 133 44.3 81 54.0 52 34.7 12.135 0.000
shark-related human injury 98 32.7 57 38.0 41 27.3 3.880 0.049
shark-related human fatality 92 30.7 43 28.7 49 32.7 0.564 0.453
change in recreation 50 16.7 28 18.7 22 14.7 0.864 0.353
Risks to sharks
physical injury to sharks 49 16.3 23 15.3 26 17.3 0.220 0.639
overfishing, overexploitation 36 12.0 22 14.7 14 9.3 2.020 0.155
trophy fishing 25 8.3 16 10.7 9 6.0 2.138 0.144
negative public image 21 7.0 16 10.7 5 3.3 6.196 0.013
finninga21 7.0 10 6.7 11 7.3 0.051 0.821
commercial fisheries 16 5.3 9 6.0 7 4.7 0.264 0.607
bycatch 11 3.7 9 6.0 2 1.3 4.624 0.032
illegal trade in shark parts 8 2.7 1 0.7 7 4.7 4.623 0.032
altered shark behavior 7 2.3 5 3.3 2 1.3 1.316 0.251
beach meshinga6 2.0 1 0.7 5 3.3 2.721 0.099
oceanic, coastal pollution 5 1.7 4 2.7 1 0.7 1.831 0.176
shark culling 4 1.3 1 0.7 3 2.0 1.014 0.314
shark tourism 3 1.0 3 2.0 0 0.0 3.030 0.082
coastal development 1 0.3 1 0.7 0 0.0 1.003 0.317
aShark finning is the harvesting of sharks for the primary purpose of obtaining their fins. Beach meshing is a net, or system of nets, designed to
reduce human–shark encounters near beaches.
Stories highlighting negative effects of sharks were neg-
atively correlated with scientists (φ= −0.173, p<0.01)
and conservation organizations (φ= −0.237, p<0.001)
as messengers, but positively correlated with shark-attack
victims (φ=0.285, p<0.001) and nonscientist gov-
ernment officials (φ=0.151, p<0.01) as messengers.
Conservation organizations (φ=0.167, p<0.01) and
attack victims (φ= −0.152, p<0.01) as messengers
were also correlated with stories emphasizing negative
effects on sharks. Nonscientist government officials (φ=
−0.134, p<0.05), shark-attack victim (φ= −0.166,
p<0.01), and scientist (φ=0.135, p<0.05) messengers
were correlated with stories with a frame that showed
positive effects of sharks. Only politician messengers
were correlated with stories highlighting positive effects
of sharks (φ=0.377, p<0.001). Fisher messengers were
correlated only with stories with multiple foci (φ=0.252,
p<0.001) (Table 5).
Discussion
Despite substantive evidence that many shark species
are at risk (Dulvy et al. 2008), our inquiry indicates that
Table 5. Correlations (ϕ) between primary article messenger and article frame in Australian and U.S. newspaper coverage about sharks from 2000
to 2010.
Negative effects Negative effects Positive effects Positive effects Multiple
Messenger of sharks on sharks of sharks on sharks foci
Unknown −0.117∗−0.051 0.216∗∗∗ −0.016 −0.047
Author 0.051 0.016 −0.036 −0.061 −0.041
Scientist −0.173∗∗ 0.089 0.135∗∗ −0.009 0.000
Fisher −0.052 0.056 −0.051 −0.038 0.252∗∗∗
Conservation organization −0.237∗∗∗ 0.167∗∗ 0.106 0.090 −0.035
Shark attack victim 0.285∗∗∗ −0.152∗∗ −0.166∗∗ −0.066 −0.044
General public 0.107 −0.043 −0.093 0.022 −0.034
Tourism 0.089 −0.057 −0.028 −0.043 −0.029
Politician −0.103 0.028 −0.068 0.377∗∗∗ −0.029
Nonscientist government official 0.151∗∗ −0.018 −0.134∗−0.054 −0.036
Retailer 0.039 −0.052 0.017 −0.023 −0.015
Multiple 0.071 −0.010 −0.032 −0.067 −0.045
Other −0.050 −0.010 −0.020 −0.030 0.325∗∗∗
Significance: ∗p<0.05, ∗∗p<0.01, ∗∗∗ p<0.001.
Conservation Biology
Volume 27, No. 1, 2013
194 Media Portrayal of Sharks
most news coverage in both Australia and the United
States continues to emphasize risks from sharks rather
than the reverse. Shark attacks were reported at least
5 times more than conservation concerns or any other
shark-related topic. We also noted a significant positive
correlation between the number of shark attacks and
the number of shark-related articles per quarter (i.e.,
3-month period). Wildlife-related media coverage often
highlights low-incidence, high-consequence events such
as human injuries and mortalities (Corbett 1995; Gore
et al. 2005). We also found that local shark events
received international coverage. We found several in-
stances in our sample of a shark attack occurring in one
location (e.g., South Africa) and making headlines in a
different part of the world (e.g., Australia, United States).
This means the world is watching how local people re-
spond to shark-related events. To the extent that media
affects people’s attitudes toward wildlife, conservation
professionals around the world can be aware of the effect
of international media coverage on local attitudes about
shark conservation.
White sharks, bull sharks, and tiger sharks—the
3 species most commonly implicated in attacks on
humans—were among the species most frequently cited
in both Australian and U.S. articles. However, species
of greater conservation concern (e.g., gray nurse sharks
[Carcharias taurus] listed as critically endangered in
New South Wales by the International Union for Conser-
vation of Nature [IUCN]) did not receive as much cover-
age. Out of the 68 species of elasmobranch (sharks, rays,
and skates) currently considered globally endangered or
critically endangered by the IUCN (2011), the speartooth
shark (Glyphis spp.) and hammerhead shark (Sphyrna
spp.) groups were the only elasmobranch mentioned in
the 300 articles we analyzed. These species of threatened
sharks were cited 19 times in the articles, whereas white
sharks, tiger sharks, and bull sharks were cited 171 times.
These numbers highlight the disproportion of framing
between species of conservation concern and species
potentially dangerous to humans (Table 2). Conserva-
tion professionals in other countries may recognize that
their local media engage in similar practices and respond
accordingly (e.g., changing media focus to species of
conservation need by purposefully engaging the media
in conservation stories related to local and threatened
species).
Our results provide insight into the current media en-
vironment and identify opportunities for the conserva-
tion community to more effectively engage the media
for the benefit of shark conservation. Given that most
news coverage tends to be episodic (i.e., case-study ori-
ented) rather than thematic (i.e., big-picture synthesis
of issues) (Iyengar 1991), perhaps shark attacks sim-
ply fit the episodic template better than conservation
issues that may require more in-depth background and
explanation.
Physical injury to sharks was the most frequently cited
risk to sharks in both countries—even though overfish-
ing, finning, and illegal trade are all statistically greater
threats to shark populations (Jacques 2010). Perhaps in-
stances of physical injury to individual sharks fits the
episodic template better than more substantial threats
that affect hundreds of thousands of sharks. This may indi-
cate that thematically framed stories are better at facilitat-
ing conservation action. Hart (2011), for example, found
that framing polar bears as victims of climate change was
more effective at motivating policy support than episodic
framing. On the other hand, conservation professionals
may also consider reframing the way they communicate
about shark conservation (i.e., risks to sharks) to the
media.
There is a large body of a research that discusses the
benefits of using identifiable victims in risk communica-
tion campaigns (e.g., Slovic 2007). Small and Loewenstein
(2003), for example, found that showcasing an individual
victim was more effective at generating donations for a
cause than using multiple victims or statistics. These ap-
proaches have yet to be tested or evaluated for motivating
conservation action for sharks and would need to be ex-
plored cross-culturally. Social framing of sharks as either
victims or perpetrators may lead to assumptions about
policy prescriptions (e.g., help the victim, persecute the
perpetrator) (Muter et al. 2009). If sharks continue to be
framed primarily as perpetrators of risk, policy responses
will likely remain unfavorable to shark conservation.
Despite finding that the majority of articles highlighted
risks from sharks, we identified some small changes in
shark-related coverage over time. We found a small, but
significant decrease in articles that discussed negative
effects of sharks and an increase in articles that discussed
positive effect of sharks. Portrayal of the shark tourism
industry seemed to become more positive as the num-
ber of articles discussing the negative effects to humans
and to sharks from tourism decreased. This positive por-
trayal could also have been due, in part, to the increas-
ing acceptance of wildlife tourism targeting sharks and
its beneficial role in shark conservation and awareness.
These results are consistent with those from other media
and attitudinal studies. For example, Boissonneault et al.
(2005) found that articles about gray nurse sharks have
increased since 2001. This finding implies an increas-
ing interest among the general public in learning about
the plight of the gray nurse sharks. On the basis of a
study of 53 years of SportDiving magazine, Whatmough
et al. (2011) suggest an increase in conservation aware-
ness as attitudes portrayed in the magazine shifted from
“adventure-seeking hunters” to “nature-appreciating ob-
servers.” Positive changes in attitudes toward sharks have
been documented recently among recreational fishers
(Lynch et al. 2010). Given these recent findings, one may
question whether newspaper articles accurately reflect
society’s values toward sharks and shark conservation.
Conservation Biology
Volume 27, No. 1, 2013
Muter et al. 195
Assessment of human attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
related to sharks would provide some much-needed in-
sight into media effects on public attitudes toward sharks
and their conservation (Gore et al. 2011; Simpfendorfer
et al. 2011). Furthermore, continued monitoring of shark-
related newspaper articles may signal changes in attitude
and belief patterns (Houston et al. 2010).
Although we could not determine whether messen-
gers in the articles examined sought out the media
to share their message or were sought by the media,
there were several noteworthy findings regarding mes-
sengers. First, politicians were used as primary messen-
gers in Australian significantly more than in the United
States. Politician messengers were also positively corre-
lated with stories discussing positive effects of sharks
(e.g., successful conservation efforts). In contrast, con-
servation groups were correlated with articles highlight-
ing negative effects on sharks (which is presumably
what they often are created for); however, they were
not correlated with stories about shark conservation.
This suggests conservation groups are either not be-
ing sought out by the media in regards to shark con-
servation issues or are not being as efficient as they
could be at communicating conservation concerns to the
media. Either way, this is an issue that could be investi-
gated empirically and addressed through conservation ac-
tion. Purposeful media training for conservationists (e.g.,
Jacobson 2009) would help them advance conservation
actions.
Finally, we found that shark attack victims are not only
being used as messengers about shark attacks (i.e., nega-
tive effects of sharks), but they are also being used as mes-
sengers for shark conservation. This suggests that victims
of shark attacks are not always resentful toward sharks
and understand the risks of being attacked while in the
water. This finding also demonstrates that shark-attack
stories, although often negatively framed toward sharks,
can be crafted to inform and educate readers about shark
conservation. From a communication perspective, news
stories on attacks can highlight the rarity of attacks, dis-
cuss preventative measures to take to reduce vulnerabil-
ity to attacks, and discuss conservation issues. Frequent
reminders about the rarity of shark attacks may reinforce,
rather than amplify, existing risk perceptions (Gore et al.
2005). Furthermore, proactive communication coupled
with messages on ways to reduce the risk of negative
encounters with sharks (e.g., identifying times of day or
year when shark activity is more prevalent) may help
curb negative attitudes toward sharks.
Human pressures on sharks have increased dramati-
cally over time. Ecological investigations into declines
in shark populations predate conservation efforts; sys-
tematic social scientific inquiry is only now beginning
to contribute to decision making in the regimes within
which such science makes a difference (Jacques 2010).
Through analysis of Australian and U.S. media, our find-
ings contribute to a growing knowledge base and offer
empirical evidence that risks from, rather than to, sharks
have and continue to dominate news coverage in large
media markets. To the extent that media reflects social
opinion (Houston et al. 2010), this is problematic for
successful shark conservation. Although we offer some
media-based solutions for working to overcome some
challenges to shark conservation, we agree with Jacques
(2010) that such insights alone will not save sharks. How-
ever, when integrated with biological and ecological re-
search, social science research may help generate a more
comprehensive perspective and effectively inform con-
servation practice.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially funded by Michigan State Uni-
versity’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, School
of Criminal Justice, and the College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources Undergraduate Research Program. We
also thank L. Fishbeck and A. Bouchard for their research
assistance and B. Bruce for constructive feedback during
the development of this project and coding protocol.
Supporting Information
The coding protocol for this study (Appendix S1) is
available online. The authors are solely responsible for
the content and functionality of these materials. Queries
(other than absence of the material) should be directed
to the corresponding author.
Literature Cited
Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry (DAFF). 2004. National plan of action for the conservation
and management of sharks. DAFF, Canberra.
Australian Shark Attack File (ASAF). 2010. John West, Taronga Zoo. Data
obtained December 13, 2010.
Boissonneault, M. F., W. Gladstone, P. Scott, and N. Cushing. 2005. Grey
nurse shark human interactions and portrayals: a study of newspaper
portrayals of the grey nurse shark from 1969–2003. Electronic Green
Journal 1:1–21.
Bonfil, R. 1994. Overview of world elasmobranch fisheries. Fisheries
technical paper 341. UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Capozzoli, M., L. McSweeney, and D. Sinha. 1999. Beyond kappa: a re-
view of interrater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics
27:3–23.
Chin, A., P. M. Kyne, T. I. Walker, and R. B. McAuley. 2010. An in-
tegrated risk assessment for climate change: analyzing the vulner-
ability of sharks and rays on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Global
Change Biology 16:1936–1953.
Clarke, S. C., M. K. Mcallister, E. J. Milner-Gulland, G. P. Kirkwood, C.
G. J. Michielsens, D. J. Agnew, E. K. Pikitch, H. Nakano, and M. S.
Shivji. 2006. Global estimates of shark catches using trade records
from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9:1115–1126.
Conservation Biology
Volume 27, No. 1, 2013
196 Media Portrayal of Sharks
Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement 20:37–46.
Cohen, J. 1968. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provi-
sion for scaled disagreement of partial credit. Psychological Bulletin
70:213–220.
Corbett, J. B. 1995. When wildlife makes the news: an analysis of rural
and urban north-central U.S. newspapers. Public Understanding of
Science 4:397–410.
Driscoll, J. W. 1995. Attitude toward animals: species ratings. Society
and Animals 3:139–150.
Dulvy, N. K., et al. 2008. You can swim but you can’t hide: the global
status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18:459–482.
Elliot, M. 2003. Risk perception frames in environmental decision-
making. Environmental Practice 5:214–222.
Estes, J. A., et al. 2011. Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science
333:301–306.
Ferguson, K. 2006. Submerged realities: shark documentaries at depth.
Atenea 26:115–129.
Gans, H. J. 2004. Deciding what’s news. Northwestern University Press,
Evanston, Illinois.
Gelsleichter, J., C. A. Manire, N. J. Szabo, E. Cortes, J. Carlson, and L.
Lombardi-Carlson. 2005. Organochlorine concentrations in bonnet-
head sharks (Sphyrna tiburo) from four Florida estuaries. Archives
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 48:474–483.
Gore, M. L., W. F. Siemer, J. E. Shanahan, D. Scheufele, and D. J. Decker.
2005. Effects on risk perception of media coverage of a black bear-
related human fatality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:507–516.
Gore, M. L., B. A. Muter, M. K. Lapinski, L. Neuberger, and B. Van
Der Heide. 2011. Risk frames on shark diving websites: implications
for global shark conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 21:165–172.
Hart, P. S. 2011. One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic
climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behav-
ior change. Science Communication 33:28–51.
Houston, M. J., J. T. Bruskotter, and D. Fan. 2010. Attitudes toward
wolves in the United States and Canada: a content analysis of
the print news media, 1999–2008. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
15:389–403.
International Shark Attack File (ISAF). 2011. George Burgess, Florida
Museum of Natural History, University of Florida. Data obtained July
5, 2011.
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2011. IUCN red
list of threatened species. Version 2011.2. IUCN, Gland, Switzer-
land. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed Decem-
ber 2011).
Iyengar, S. 1991. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political
issues. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Jacobson, S. K. 2009. Communication skills for conservation profes-
sionals. 2nd edition. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Jacobson, S. K., C. Langin, J. S. Carlton, and L. L. Kaid. 2012. Content
analysis of newspaper coverage of the Florida panther. Conservation
Biology 26:171–179.
Jacques, P. J. 2010. The social oceanography of top oceanic predators
and the decline of sharks: a call for a new field. Progress in Oceanog-
raphy 86:192–203.
Jennings, D. E., S. H. Gruber, B. R. Franks, S. T. Kessel, and A. L.
Robertson. 2008. Effects of large-scale anthropogenic development
on juvenile lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) populations of
Bimini, Bahamas. Environmental Biology of Fishes 83:369–377.
Jensen, H. R. 2003. Staging political consumption: a discourse analysis
of the Brent Spar conflict as recast by the Danish mass media. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services 10:71–80.
Katz, E., and P. Lazarsfeld. 1955. Personal influence. The Free Press,
New York.
Kerlinger, F. N. 2000. Foundations of behavioral research. 4th edition.
Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, New York.
Lombard, M., J. Snyder-Dutch, and C. C. Bracken. 2002. Content
analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of
intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research 28:587–
604.
Lynch, A. M. J., S. G. Sutton, and C. A. Simpfendorfer. 2010. Implica-
tions of recreational fishing for elasmobranch conservation in the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 20:312–318.
Musick, J. A. 1999. Life in the slow lane: ecology and conservation of
long-lived marine animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium
23:1–10.
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.
Myers, R. A., J. K. Baum, T. D. Shepherd, S. P. Powers, and C. H.
Peterson. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory
sharks from a coastal ocean. Science 315:1846–1850.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. United States national
plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks.
NMFS, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Nevins, H. M., J. Adams, H. Moller, J. Newman, M. Heseter, and K. D.
Hyrenbach. 2009. International and cross-cultural management in
conservation of migratory species. Journal of the Royal Society of
New Zealand 39:183–185.
Pelstring, L., J. Shanahan, and B. Perry. 1997. The press and citizen
participation: a content analysis. Pages 130–139 in Proceedings of
the Eighth Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference. East-
ern Wildlife Damage Control Conferences, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln.
Peschak, T. 2006. Sharks and shark bite in the media. Pages 159–163
in D. Nel and T. Peschak, editors. Finding a balance: white shark
conservation and recreational safety in the inshore waters of Cape
Town, South Africa. Proceedings of a specialist workshop, Cape
Town, South Africa. WWF (World Wildlife Fund) South Africa Re-
port Series – 2006/Marine/001 Annexure 1. WWF.
Philpott, R. 2002. Why sharks may have nothing to fear than fear itself:
an analysis of the effect of human attitudes on the conservation of
the white shark. Colorado Journal of International Environmental
Law and Policy 13:445–472.
Riffe, D., S. Lacy, and F. G. Fico. 2005. Analyzing media messages: using
quantitative content analysis in research. 2nd edition. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Simpfendorfer, C. A., M. R. Heupel, W. T. White, and N. K. Dulvy.
2011. The importance of research and public onion to conservation
management of sharks and rays: a synthesis. Marine and Freshwater
Research 62:518–527.
Slovic, P. 2007. If I look at the mass I will never act: psychic numbing
and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making 2:1–17.
Small, D. A., and G. Loewenstein. 2003. Helping a victim or helping the
victim: altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
26:5–16.
SPSS. 2010. PASWStatistics 18. SPSS, Chicago.
Thompson, T. L., and J. J. Mintzes. 2002. Cognitive structure and the
affective domain on knowing and feeling in biology. International
Journal of Science Education 24:645–660.
Whatmough, S., I. Van Putten, and A. Chin. 2011. From hunters to
nature observers: a record of 53 years of diver attitudes towards
sharks and rays and marine protected areas. Marine and Freshwater
Research 62:755–763.
Wimmer, R. D., and J. R. Dominick. 2003. Mass media research: an
introduction. 2nd edition. Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Wolch, J. R., A. Gullo, and U. Lassiter. 1997. Changing attitudes toward
California’s cougars. Society and Animals 5:95–116.
Woods, B. 2000. Beauty and the beast: preferences for animals in Aus-
tralia. Journal of Tourism Studies 11(2):25–35.
Worm, B, et al. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem
services. Science 314:787–790.
Conservation Biology
Volume 27, No. 1, 2013
