Snakes are perceived as more threatening and disgusting in urban compared to natural environments

Abstract Wildlife in cities is often perceived as ‘out of place’ because urban environments are considered human territory. This can lead to stronger negative emotional responses than encounters in natural habitats. A representative sample of adults (n = 500) rated pictures of snakes in urban versus natural environments on five dimensions: positivity, negativity, disgust, threat and approach. We tested contextual differences and the moderating roles of nature-relatedness, disgust propensity/sensitivity and snake fear while controlling for anxiety and depressive symptoms. The emotional appraisal of snakes depicted in urban environments was found to be less positive and more negative, disgusting and threatening than when the same snakes were shown in natural environments. However, approach intentions remain unchanged, indicating that context strongly influences emotional responses. Evaluations were primarily influenced by personality-related factors in natural settings, with higher nature-relatedness predicting more favourable ratings, and greater disgust and snake fear predicting more negative ratings. These individual differences played a limited role in urban settings, suggesting that strong contextual cues can override dispositional variation. The findings demonstrate that perceived ecological congruence is a key driver of how humans perceive wildlife. Effective management and policy should therefore normalize the presence of wildlife in urban areas, provide clear information to distinguish between everyday encounters and genuine risk, and design urban environments that reduce perceived intrusion. This could support coexistence and conservation in increasingly urban landscapes.