Be(e)wildering Misconceptions; Examining Erroneous Thinking About Pollinators

Audrey Harrod Author

07/28/2021 Added

10 Plays

Description

The significance between cognitive construal and pollinator conservation action has not yet been investigated, so we utilized the relationship between construals, conservation attitude, and action to determine the impact of pollinator knowledge on conservation action.

Searchable Transcript

Search:

[00:00:00.750]Hi, my name is Audrey Harrod,
[00:00:02.340]and I have done my research on bewildering misconceptions; examining erroneous
[00:00:07.080]thinking about pollination.
[00:00:09.810]Everyone is familiar with the importance of pollinators to many food crops,
[00:00:13.200]but the details of what's actually doing the pollinating and how that's
[00:00:16.260]occurring tends to be less widely known and has resulted in a wide variety of
[00:00:20.010]misconceptions. These misconceptions stem from cognitive construals,
[00:00:23.820]which are informal ways of perceiving and reasoning about the world and can be
[00:00:27.480]found anywhere between general misunderstandings
[00:00:29.550]about nature to biology courses.
[00:00:31.710]Some of those common forms within biology include teleological and essentialist
[00:00:35.130]thinking; teleological
[00:00:36.730]being the use of function or purpose to explain events, and essentialism being
[00:00:40.770]the application of the properties of one category member to others within the
[00:00:44.820]same category. Links between these construals-born misconceptions and conservation
[00:00:49.050]attitudes towards animals like reptiles have been established, as well as links
[00:00:53.100]between conservation attitudes and environmental behavior.
[00:00:56.190]The significance between cognitive construal and pollinator action has not yet
[00:00:59.700]been investigated. So in this study,
[00:01:01.620]we exploited the relationship between construals, attitude,
[00:01:04.680]and action to determine the impact of pollinator knowledge on conservation
[00:01:08.250]action. The objectives were to determine the presence of an association between
[00:01:13.080]pollinator knowledge and conservation attitudes,
[00:01:15.510]while also examining the link between cognitive construals and conservation
[00:01:18.960]attitudes. To do so,
[00:01:22.620]We used a 17 question
[00:01:24.000]true false pollinator knowledge test that in previous use had respondents make
[00:01:27.780]written justifications for their answers.
[00:01:29.940]Answers from the previous data were grouped into misconception theme and
[00:01:33.150]categorized by cognitive construal.
[00:01:35.160]In addition to a series of pollinator conservation attitude
[00:01:38.970]questions,
[00:01:39.780]we added the construal-coded justifications into the knowledge test for
[00:01:43.170]respondents to select from when they answered a question incorrectly.
[00:01:46.500]The test was then published on Amazon's Mechanical Turk,
[00:01:49.140]which is a crowdsourced marketplace where people work and are paid to complete
[00:01:52.560]tasks for companies, such as surveys. 207 responses were pulled for
[00:01:57.090]analysis and the data from these responses were analyzed
[00:02:00.300]using correlation statistics in SPSS.
[00:02:05.220]Depicted are examples of the construal coding process.
[00:02:08.370]One of the questions was whether dogs can function as pollinators, with a
[00:02:11.700]popular incorrect response being that yes, dogs can be trained to pollinate.
[00:02:16.500]This response serves as an example of teleological thinking because of the idea
[00:02:20.340]that dogs can be trained for the purpose, or goal, of pollinating.
[00:02:24.030]Another question asked was whether pollen is regularly transferred by fur on
[00:02:27.360]a bat's face.
[00:02:28.500]People's answer, that bats couldn't pollinate because they live in caves, is an
[00:02:32.310]example of essential is thinking because the notion that some bats live in caves
[00:02:36.390]was extended to all species of bats, negating other possibilities.
[00:02:41.880]The analysis we conducted was between the number of correct true false questions
[00:02:45.960]and conservation attitude, where we found a significant positive correlation.
[00:02:50.730]We then took this one step further,
[00:02:52.500]running a factor analysis for the 17 questions
[00:02:55.200]and saw a grouping of 11 questions.
[00:02:57.570]We ran correlation analysis with these 11 questions and conservation attitudes
[00:03:02.080]and found a nearly identical Pearson correlation r value with the 11 as with
[00:03:06.370]the 17.
[00:03:08.860]We ran correlation statistics for teleological thinking by conservation
[00:03:12.400]attitude, and essentialist thinking by conservation attitude.
[00:03:15.640]Teleological thinking was, as you can see here,
[00:03:18.340]not significant. Essentialism, on the other hand,
[00:03:21.070]had a significant negative correlation -
[00:03:23.680]this translates to a mild relationship between the two.
[00:03:30.140]The 11 question
[00:03:31.160]subset explains all the variance within conservation attitude. Of these 11,
[00:03:35.960]9 were suggesting that any animal can pollinate,
[00:03:38.300]which is classified as an essentialist construal.
[00:03:40.970]The negative correlation between essentialist misconceptions and conservation
[00:03:44.720]attitude further supports that believing any animal can pollinate creates a mental
[00:03:48.980]barrier against understanding plant pollinator relationships and their
[00:03:52.550]importance.
[00:03:54.620]The association of pollinator knowledge score with pollinator conservation
[00:03:58.160]attitudes can be used to further methodology for predicting pollinator
[00:04:01.730]engagement like in the survey,
[00:04:03.350]which can be revised down to less burdensome 11 questions. Most importantly,
[00:04:08.090]however,
[00:04:08.600]the study indicates a need for education to focus on the uniqueness of plant
[00:04:12.500]and pollinator communities and how irreplaceable
[00:04:15.020]they are. The misconception that any animal can pollinate reduces the perceived
[00:04:19.520]need for pollinator conservation.
[00:04:21.860]If people are going to make a difference in conserving endangered
[00:04:25.430]pollinators, such as this rusty patched bumblebee,
[00:04:28.160]then this is a misconception we cannot afford to keep.
[00:04:31.070]If pollination has profound, detrimental misconceptions,
[00:04:34.100]what other fields are plagued by similar erroneous thinking?
[00:04:38.840]Thank you all for listening to my presentation! Special thanks to my mentors,
[00:04:42.410]Doug Golick and Jenny Dauer, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
[00:04:45.920]Beneficial Insects Research Experience and Extension for Undergrads program, and
[00:04:50.480]the U.S. Department of Agriculture for making this project possible.

The screen size you are trying to search captions on is too small!

You can always jump over to MediaHub and check it out there.

Comments

0 Comments

Be(e)wildering Misconceptions; Examining Erroneous Thinking About Pollinators

Description

Searchable Transcript

Comments icon comment

Related Channels

Comments