Sociologists weigh in on Bigfooters...
Apparently the cornerstone of their analysis is the Baylor Religion Survey, which may be found at the Baylor Institute for the Study of Religion.
Sorry I cannot post links until I have 15 total posts here.
There are only two questions of 77 pertaining to bigfoot (#74 and #76), which are joined to the Loch Ness Monster.
The vast majority of the questions are on religious beliefs of course. There are a few on demographics like education, marital status, employment status, age and income.
The questions pertaining to bigfoot have multiple-answer choices for items such as belief in Atlantis, Alternative Medicine, Mind Reading, Astrology, Ghosts, and UFO's (Plus Bigfoot/Loch Ness Monster).
The only other question was whether they read a book or went to the internet to read about the subject.
I think the passage you quoted indicated the authors believed in a stereotype that Bigfoot/Nessie believers also believed in all these other things.
I don't know if there is such a stereotype. I'm not a stereotype scientist.
It seems to me that the most significant items pertaining to belief in bigfoot are missing from the survey altogether, and I am very interested to know them.
It does not surprise me that people who live in urban areas or don't otherwise have backgrounds in the forests of the Pacific Northwest could fall for bigfoot propaganda.
In view of the fact new species are constantly being discovered, it is rational to believe that more will be discovered. Of course, they won't be a hundred feet tall and weigh a thousand tons.
If you arranged a simple study based on an X-axis of size and a Y-axis of "proportion of people believing an animal of size X being discovered in the future" - it will begin near 100% and steadily fall off to zero. A huge number of those people are going to be correct.
So I would not put this in the same basket as Astrology or mind reading or ghosts. These are all-or-nothing qualitative beliefs.
So I think there is a bit of a strawman there - that belief in bigfoot would be strongly associated with these other things. Bigfoot is not an issue of whether there are undiscovered species, but whether it is too big to have evaded detection.
As I look at the people behind these films, sensing devices, "researchers" and all - what really impresses me is how little time they spend in the woods.
A few trips a year to a park?
You have countless thousands of people living on the edges of these wilderness areas. They accumulate more time glancing out their windows, walking around outside, etc. in one year by far than these people gain in these "expeditions".
I have not seen one bigfoot expert yet who impressed me as someone that spends much time in places where they would be seen.
It does not follow that if someone is a "bigfoot hunter" they are going to have much of any real experience.
A farmer will see hundreds of deer, pheasant, etc. incidentally to his livelihood. A bona-fide hunter is lucky to see a handful by comparison - and these are people that are stalking animals known with certainty to exist and who actually know how to find them.
A bigfoot believer... what do they even have to go on if they were to try "hunting" for one?
If you are a bona-fide hunter then you know what the animal eats and where that food is found. You know where he gets his water. Where his minerals are if applicable. Where the bedding areas are. You know what times of day he is moving around and what paths he tends to take. You can find tracks within minutes of arriving at your location.
There isn't anyone in all of bigfootery that can do this.