Bioecological representations and social characteristics of students influence their attitudes toward wild vertebrates

Table 3 Effect of different socioeconomic representations on the attitude of empathy, antipathy, and extreme antipathy of students towards wild animals

Response variables	Predictor variables	Estimate	Std.Error	z value	Pr( >\|z\|)		AIC	AIC Null model	ΔAIC
Empathy attitudes							71,515	73,352	1837
	Urban: rural	0.169253	0.072158	2.346	0.018997	*
	Grade	− 0.04893	0.014144	− 3.459	0.000541	***
	Age	0.010985	0.008285	1.326	0.184833
	Male:Female	− 0.0068	0.023222	− 0.293	0.769584
	Family income	0.011157	0.011729	0.951	0.34148
Antipathy attitudes	Urban: rural	0.152115	0.076199	1.996	0.0459	*	67,891.4	9882.9	1991.5
	Grade	− 0.02099	0.014952	− 1.404	0.1604
	Age	− 0.00089	0.008744	− 0.102	0.9189
	Male:Female	− 0.25815	0.024605	− 10.492	< 2e16	***
	Family income	0.01432	0.012416	1.153	0.2488
Extreme antipathy attitudes							56,706.9	58,328.5	1621.6
	Urban: rural	0.106432	0.153852	0.692	0.4891
	Grade	− 0.07491	0.029836	− 2.511	0.0121	*
	Age	0.01222	0.017345	0.705	0.4811
	Male:Female	− 0.22569	0.04889	− 4.616	3.91E-06	***
	Family income	0.031917	0.024814	1.286	0.1983

Estimated values indicate the coefficient associated with the variable listed on the left. This represents the estimated amount by which the odds (log x) of each response variable would increase if each explanatory variable were one more unit. Standard errors are an average estimate of how much any response variable would fluctuate if the study were run again identically, but with new data. Z values indicate the degree to which the explanatory variables have a significant effect. Pr ( >|z|) are listed as two-tailed p-values that correspond to z-values following a standard normal distribution. Significance levels as follows: P > 0.05; *P ≤ 0.05; ***P ≤ 0.001

ISSN: 1746-4269