Americans generally like wolves − except when we’re reminded of our politics

Management of gray wolves (Dog lupus) has a reputation as one of the most controversial conservation issues in the United States. The subject often conjures up vivid images of supporters versus opponents: celebratory wolf reintroductions in Yellowstone National Park and Colorado contrast with ranchers outraged over the loss of livestock; Pro-wolf protests juxtaposed with bounty hunters for wolves. These gripping scenes paint a picture of a seemingly irreconcilable division.

But contrary to these common caricatures, public opinion surveys consistently show that most people around the world have a positive opinion of wolves, often overwhelmingly. This trend is true even in politically conservative American states, often considered hostile to wolf conservation. For example, one of our recent studies in Montana found that a growing majority of residents, 74% in 2023, are tolerant or very tolerant of wolves.

Yet the perception of deep conflict persists and is often amplified by media coverage and politicians. But what if these exaggerated depictions, and the assumptions of division they reinforce, themselves contribute to the very conflict they depict? In a study published on January 6, 2026, we explored this question.

The human side of conservation

We are social scientists who study the human dimensions of environmental problems, from wildfires to wildlife. Using tools from psychology and other social sciences, we examine the relationships people have with nature and with each other when it comes to environmental issues. These human relationships often matter more to conservation outcomes than the biology of the species or ecosystems in question. Conservation challenges are usually human problems.

One of the most powerful, yet underappreciated, forces in this dynamic is social identity, the psychological force that compels people to sort themselves into groups and take seriously the boundaries of those groups. Social identity theory, a fundamental concept in psychology, shows that once people view themselves as members of a group, they are naturally inclined to favor “us” and distrust “them.”

But strong group loyalty also has a cost: It can distort the way people see and interpret the world and exacerbate conflicts between groups.

When identity distorts reality

Social identity can shape how people interpret even objectively true facts. This can lead people to misjudge physical distances and sizes and assume the worst about members of different groups. When this identification is deep, a phenomenon called identity fusion can occur, when a person’s personal identity becomes closely intertwined with their group identity.

This phenomenon can lead people to act in questionable ways, or even in ways they might otherwise find immoral, particularly when they believe their group is under threat. For example, it is possible that these forces help cover up bad behavior.

In our recent research, we tested how activating people’s political identity—by simply reminding them of their own political affiliations—affected their perceptions of wolves in the United States.

In two studies involving more than 2,200 participants from nine states with wolf populations, we discovered a striking trend. When we activated people’s political identities, their attitudes toward wolves became more polarized. Democrats’ affinity for wolves has grown, as has Republicans’ aversion.

On the other hand, when our participants’ political identities were not activated, they generally liked wolves regardless of their politics. In a follow-up experiment where we asked people to guess the attitudes of their comrades and rival party members toward Wolves, we found that this identity-based polarization was driven by people’s assumptions about their in-group but not their out-group. People mistakenly believed that others in their group had extreme opinions about wolves, and these assumptions in turn shaped their own attitudes toward the species.

In other words, it was the cartoons themselves that created the conflict.

This is an ironic and tragic result: a situation in which many people actually agree became polarized not because of deep differences, but because of how people imagined others felt.

Bridging the gap

Fortunately, the same psychological forces that divide people can also bring them together. When we showed our research participants the actual opinions of others, particularly that most of their fellow political party members had positive attitudes toward wolves, their own attitudes moderated.

Other strategies to unite people involve activating “transversal” identities, or shared identities that transcend traditional divisions. For example, someone may identify as both a rancher and conservationist, or as a hunter who also advocates for wildlife. More broadly, our respondents are all Americans and community members who share a common humanity. Highlighting these mixed, shared identities can reduce the feeling of “us versus them” and open the door to more productive conversations.

The debate over wolves can seem like an intractable conflict of values. But our research suggests it’s not required. When people move beyond the caricatures of conflict and recognize the common ground that already exists, we can begin to shift the narrative and perhaps even find ways to live not just with the wolves, but with each other.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent, nonprofit news organization that brings you trusted facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Alexander L. Metcalf, University of Montana and Justin Angle, University of Montana

Learn more:

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.