People have known about mass biodiversity loss and the human actions that drive it for decades now, and yet we have largely failed levels to change our behavior to protect the environment. What’s failing to motivate people to change? Some conservation psychologists have partially blamed the negative way we communicate about environmental issues for paralyzing audiences into doing nothing because they feel helpless to change such a big problem. Instead, many psychologists have called for using positive emotions in communication to motivate an audience, but there’s still little research showing whether that’s a more effective approach or not. To study whether positive or negative emotions are really more motivational for inspiring change, I looked at how different emotions were used in the discourse about an emerging conservation technology called de-extinction as a case study. De-extinction claims to be both a tool for fighting biodiversity loss and for inspiring more positive and inspiring narratives in conservation. In this thesis, I examine those claims by exploring five emotions that the discourse around de-extinction elicits: fear, guilt, grief, awe and hope. I examined the motivating power of those emotions and what kind of actions de-extinction discourse motivates or fails to motivate through the way it uses those emotions. I found that de-extinction discourse erases negative emotions and boosts positive ones as many conservation psychologists recommend. However, de-extinction discourse accomplishes this in misleading ways: it minimizes the sense of importance of ongoing extinctions by framing extinction as a reversible phenomenon, and it overstates the ability of technology alone to combat the extinction crisis without requiring societal change. As a result, de-extinction discourse could risk making the public less motivated to take personal action to forward conservation goals. I conclude that positivity or negativity should not be the central concerns for motivating action, but rather efficacy and honesty.
Much like neighboring nations, living in close proximity can often lead to conflict over limited resources for social insect colonies. As with warring nations, conflicts among insect societies can also result in one colony attempting to invade the other. Though emigrations are common and well understood in social insects, the process of emigration in the context of conflict is not known. During emigrations of the ant Temnothorax rugatulus, colonies first employ the use of scouts, who search for new nest locations. These scouts then recruit naïve workers to these nests resulting in a ‘voting’ process through which colonies can collectively choose the best nest site. Once the decision is made, the selected nest is rapidly populated by workers who physically carry the queen(s), brood, and remaining naïve ants to the new nest. Invasions occurring during inter-colony conflicts bear a striking resemblance to this process. The state of the final nest suggested merged colonies, and statistical models were used to test for the likelihood of this. Here we test whether colonies of T. rugatulus use the same mechanisms during invasions as those used in emigrations by observing conflicts between colonies of T. rugatulus ants and tracking instances of scouting and recruitment, transport and changes in populations in each nest. Our results support the predicted order of behaviors starting with scouting, followed by recruitment and transport last. In addition, presence of the quorum rule, which determines the switch from recruitment to transport, is confirmed. Furthermore, evidence showed that the colonies were merged at the time of transport. While ant emigration patterns are well understood, there is a gap in understanding conflict driven emigrations/invasions. Our results serve to better understand conflict in social insects by further understanding the mechanisms used during conflicts.