How people familiarize themselves with complex ecological concepts-anchoring of social representations of invasive non-native species

Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 297-311

  Selge, Sebastian ^a   Fischer, Anke ^a  

^a SCOTTISH CROP RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anchoring; Biological invasions; Invasive species; Non native species; Social representations

Indexed keywords

EID: 79959358011     PISSN: 10529284     EISSN: 10991298     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/casp.1075     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gateway. (2009). What is an alien species? Available at:
2. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). (2008). The invasive non-native species framework strategy for Great Britain. London, UK: DEFRA.
3. IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). (1999). IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss due to biological invasion. Species, 31-32, 28-42.
4. Allan, C. (2007). Exploring natural resource management with metaphor analysis. Society and Natural Resources, 20, 351-362.
5. Andriessen, D. (2005). On the metaphorical nature of intellectual capital: A textual analysis. Full paper for the 4th International Critical Management Studies Conference, Judge Institute of Management: University of Cambridge, July 4-6, 2005.
6. Breakwell, G. M. (1993). Social representations and social identity. Papers on Social Representations, 2, 1-20.
7. Buijs, A. E., Fischer, A., Rink, D., & Young, J. C. (2008). Looking beyond superficial knowledge gabs: Understanding public representations of biodiversity. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 4, 65-80.
8. Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3, 291-304.
9. Davis, M. (2009). Living with aliens. NewScientist, 2727, 26-27.
10. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
11. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
12. Fischer, A., & Van der Wal, R. (2007). Invasive plant suppresses charismatic seabird: The construction of attitudes towards biodiversity management options. Biological Conservation, 135, 256-267.
13. Jodelet, D. (2008). Social representations: The beautiful invention. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38, 411-430.
14. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239-260.
15. Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18. Medin, D. L. (2005). Concepts and conceptual structure. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Social cognition (pp. 115-129). New York: Psychology Press.
19. Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
20. Moscovici, S. (1973). Foreword. In C. Herzlich (Ed.), Health and illness: A social psychological analysis (pp. ix-xiv). New York: Academic Press.
21. Moscovici, S., & Duveen, G. (2000). Social representations. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
22. Mouro, C., & Castro, P. (2010). Local communities responding to ecological challenges: A psycho-social approach to the Natura 2000. Network. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 20, 139-155.
23. Nentwig, W. (Ed.) (2007). Biological invasions. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
24. Penman, R. (2001). Environmental matters and communication challenges. In A. Fill, & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment (pp. 143-153). London, UK: Continuum.
25. Rateau, P. (2004). Psychosociological anchoring and structural dynamics in social representations of the heterosexual/homosexual couple. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 63, 43-51.
26. Rejmánek, M., Richardson, D. M., Barbour, M. G., Crawley, M. J., Hrusa, G. F., Moyle, P. B., et al. (2002). Biological invasions: Politics and the discontinuity of ecological terminology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 83, 131-133.
27. Richardson, D. M., Pyšek, P., Rejmánek, M., Barbour, M. G., Panetta, F. D., & West, C. J. (2000). Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: Concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions, 6, 93-107.
28. Voelklein, C., & Howarth, C. (2005). A review of controversies about Social Representation Theory: A British debate. Culture & Psychology, 11, 431-454.
29. Wagner, W., Elejabarrieta, F., & Lahnsteiner, I. (1995). How the sperm dominates the ovum: Objectification by metaphor in the social representation of conception. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 671-688.
30. Warren, C. R. (2007). Perspectives on the 'alien' versus 'native' species debate: A critique of concepts, language and practice. Progress in Human Geography, 31, 427-446.
31. Williamson, M., & Fitter, A. (1996). The varying success of invaders. Ecology, 77, 1661-1666.
32. Yutyunyong, T., & Scott, N. R. (2009). The integration of social exchange theory and social representations theory: A new perspective on residents' perception research. In J. Carlsen, M. Hughes, K. Holmes, R. Jones (Eds.), See change: Tourism and hospitality in a dynamic world (pp. 1-20). Proceedings of the CAUTHE Conference, 10-13 February, Fremantle, Australia. Perth, Australia: Curtin University.