To kill or not to kill? Exploring normative beliefs and attitudes toward snakes

Whether or not people believe killing snakes is morally acceptable affects the likelihood of harming them. An alternative is translocation, wherein snakes are relocated to nearby habitat. In our study based in semi-arid Phoenix, Arizona (USA), we examine residents' normative beliefs about killing snakes across different situations. Analyzing data from two survey samples—one of clients who paid for translocation and another of residents broadly, we assess if clients exhibit greater opposition to killing snakes and more positive attitudes toward them compared to the sample of residents, potentially indicating that translocation decisions might be intended as acts of conservation. Lastly, we address: to what extent do varied attitudes toward snakes, experiences with snakes, and socio-demographics influence people's beliefs about killing snakes overall and across distinct contexts: on private property and in residential homes or yards, as well as anytime, in desert habitat, and if someone is bitten? Our analyses demonstrate that residents substantially oppose killing snakes, although normative beliefs vary by context. Additionally, the client sample was more opposed to killing snakes and expressed more positive attitudes than residents broadly. Although disgust and other attitudes explain norms generally, different attitudes and socio-demographics affect norms depending on the context. Finally, although more frequent experiences with snakes did not impact norms in our analyses, experiences with snakes did increase positive attitudes toward them. Based on our findings, we recommend experiential learning to enhance appreciation of snakes and call for more research on the outcomes of translocations to ensure these decisions aid snake conservation.