a traditional signal mirror and whistle. Visitors who preferred such technological emergency communication were more likely to believe that technology can successfully substitute for skills/ experience/knowledge (Mann-Whitney U test, p < .05), that technology reduces many of the dangers people associate with being in the wilderness (MannWhitney U test, p < .01), and reported being more likely to take chances that could increase risk if they had the technology with them (Mann-Whitney U test, p < .01) than visitors who preferred traditional methods of emergency communication. When asked, “Do you see yourself as a risk taker?” the mean response was “somewhat” (mean = 4.1) on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = a lot). Not surprisingly, the more likely someone was to self-identify as a risk taker, the more likely they were to report that they would take chances that could increase risk if they had technology with them in the wilderness (Spearman’s rho = .337, p < .01). A majority of visitors (63.1%) reported having done something in the wilderness that they felt at the time was unsafe; 68.2% reported having done something that in retrospect they felt was unsafe. People who have done something in the wilderness that they felt at the time was unsafe were more likely (than those who had not) to believe that technology creates a genuine increase in safety (Mann-Whitney U test, p < .05). People who have done something in the wilderness that they felt in retrospect was unsafe were more likely to believe that technology reduces many of the dangers people associate with being in the wilderness (MannWhitney U test, p < .01), but somewhat paradoxically were also more likely to believe that technology creates a false sense of safety for wilderness users (Mann-Whitney U test, p < .05). Gender was a significant factor in risk taking, with males more likely to see themselves as risk takers (MannWhitney U test, p < .01). Males were more likely to report having done something in the wilderness that they felt at the time was unsafe (Chi-Square, sig. < .05), and were more likely to report having done something in the wilderness that they felt in retrospect was unsafe (Chi-Square, sig. < .01). This is consistent with Slovic (2000), who reported dozens of studies documenting that men judge risks as smaller than do women. Age is negatively correlated with self-identifying as a risk taker (Spearman’s rho = -0.186, p < .01). About 11% of King Range Wilderness visitors reported having been personally involved in a serious Table 4—Contrasting perceptions of technology use in the King Range Wilderness, California, 2009. Mean scorea “pro-tech” cluster N = 118 Mean score “anti-tech” cluster N = 97 Do you think technology in the wilderness can successfully substitute for skill/experience / knowledge? 2.8 1.5 p< .01 Would you be more likely to take chances that could increase risk if you had technology with you in the wilderness? 3.4 1.9 p< .01 Do you feel technology reduces many of the dangers people associate with being in the wilderness? 3.7 2.6 p< .01 4.7 2.6 p< .01 Do you think technology in the wilderness makes people feel that their safety is not their personal responsibility? 3.9 3.8 p< .05 Do you/would you feel safer by having technology with you on a wilderness trip? 4.9 2.9 p< .01 Do you think technology creates a genuine increase in safety for wilderness users? 5.2 3.9 p< .01 Do you think technology creates a false sense of safety for wilderness users? 4.8 5.0 p< .05 To what extent... Would you be more likely to use technology to request rescue when you could make it out on your own but the process of self-rescue would be long and uncomfortable? aMeasured 24 on a 7-point scale, where 1 = “not at all” and 7 = “a lot.” International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2011 • VOLUME 17, NUMBER 2 Mann-Whitney test results