Zoos are increasingly turning to ambassador animal programs to address animal welfare issues and visitors’ empathic responses. However, little is known, if or how, animal handling practices and interpretation impact attendees’ perceptions of animal welfare and/or empathy. To evaluate these effects, eight ambassador animal program videos were created employing varying combinations of animal handling (traditional/free choice), interpretive messaging (traditional/empathy-based), and choice and control language (present/absent). Online questionnaires (N = 1,185) were used to assess participants’ environmental and empathic predispositions before viewing and perceptions of animal welfare and empathic reactions immediately after viewing a video. Results revealed that empathic reactions were moderately correlated with perceptions of animal welfare (r = .53, p < .001) and mean empathic responses were higher for free choice handling and empathic messaging videos versus traditional handling and messaging. Programming recommendations are discussed that can improve visitors’ perceptions of animal care and elicit strong empathic reactions.
AkermanS. (2019). Best practices for building empathy through live animal encounters. Journal of Museum Education, 44(1), 89–95.
2.
AndersonU. S.KellingA. S.Pressley-KeoughR.BloomsmithM. A.MapleT. L. (2003). Enhancing the zoo visitor’s experience by public animal training and oral interpretation at an otter exhibit. Environment and Behavior, 35(6), 826–841.
3.
BallantyneR.HughesK.LeeJ.PackerJ.SneddonJ. (2018). Visitors’ values and environmental learning outcomes at wildlife attractions: Implications for interpretive practice. Tourism Management, 64, 190–201.
4.
BallantyneR.PackerJ. (2016). Visitors’ perceptions of the conservation education role of zoos and aquariums: Implications for the provision of learning experiences. Visitor Studies, 19(2), 193–210.
5.
BeckL.CableT. T. (2011). The gifts of interpretation. Sagamore publishing.
6.
BeckL.CableT. T.KnudsonD. M. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage for a better world. Sagamore publishing.
7.
BlaneyE.WellsD. (2004). The influence of a camouflage net barrier on the behavior, welfare, and public perceptions of zoo-housed gorillas. Animal Welfare, 13, 111–118.
8.
BoogaardB. K.OostingS. J.BockB. B. (2008). Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 117, 24–33.
9.
BroomD. M. (2017). Animal welfare in the European Union (p. 75). European Parliament Policy Department, Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Study for the PETI Committee.
10.
CarrN. (2016). Ideal animals and animal traits for zoos: General public perspectives. Tourism Management, 57, 37–44.
11.
ClaytonS.LuebkeJ.SaundersC.MatiasekJ.GrajalA. (2014). Connecting to nature at the zoo: Implications for responding to climate change. Environmental Education Research, 20(4), 460–475.
12.
DavisM. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.
13.
De la FuenteM. F.SoutoA.CaselliC.SchielN. (2017). People’s perception on animal welfare: Why does it matter?Ethnobiology and Conservation, 6, 1–7.
14.
DeVellisR. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). SAGE.
15.
DietzT.AllenS.McCrightA. M. (2017). Integrating concern for animals into personal values. Anthrozoös, 30, 109–122.
16.
Di FabioA.KennyM. E. (2021). Connectedness to nature, personality traits and empathy from a sustainability perspective. Current Psychology, 40, 1095–1106.
17.
DunstanE.FairbrotherB.Van SluysM. (2016). Empowering citizens to effect change – A case study of zoo-based community conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology, 22, 90–97.
18.
FernandezE. J.TamborskiM. A.PickensS. R.TimberlakeW. (2009). Animal–visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 120, 1–8.
19.
FraserD. (2009). Assessing animal welfare: Different philosophies, different scientific approaches. Zoo Biology, 28(6), 507–518.
20.
GodinezA. M.FernandezE. J.MorrisseyK. (2013). Visitor behaviors and perceptions of jaguar activities. Anthrozoös, 26(4), 613–619.
21.
HackerC. E.MillerL. J. (2016). Zoo visitor perceptions, attitudes, and conservation intent after viewing African elephants at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park: Guest response to viewing elephants. Zoo Biology, 35(4), 355–361.
22.
HamS. (2013). Interpretation: Making a difference on purpose. Fulcrum Publishing.
23.
HoG. W. K. (2017). Examining perceptions and attitudes: A review of likert-type scales versus Q-methodology. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(5), 674–689.
24.
HowellT. J.McLeodE. M.ColemanG. J. (2019). When zoo visitors “connect” with a zoo animal, what does that mean?Zoo Biology, 38(6), 461–470.
25.
JacobsonS. L.HopperL. M.ShenderM. A.RossS. R.LeahyM.McNernieJ. (2017). Zoo visitors’ perceptions of chimpanzee welfare are not affected by the provision of artificial environmental enrichment devices in a naturalistic exhibit. Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research, 5(1), 56–61.
26.
KellyA.SkibinsJ. C. (2021). Inspiring wildlife conservation behaviors through innovations in zoo exhibit design. Visitor Studies, 24(1), 79–99.
27.
LuebkeJ. F. (2018). Zoo exhibit experiences and visitors’ affective reactions: A preliminary study. Curator The Museum Journal, 61(2), 345–352.
28.
LuebkeJ. F.GrajalA. (2011). Assessing mission-related learning outcomes at zoos and aquaria: Prevalence, barriers and needs. Visitor Studies, 14(2), 195–208.
29.
LuebkeJ. F.WattersJ. V.PackerJ.MillerL. J.PowellD. M. (2016). Zoo visitors’ affective responses to observing animal behaviors. Visitor Studies, 19, 60–76.
30.
MacDonaldE. (2015). Quantifying the impact of Wellington zoo’s persuasive communication campaign on post-visit behavior. Zoo Biology, 34(2), 163–169.
31.
MannJ. B.BallantyneR.PackerJ. (2018). Penguin promises: Encouraging aquarium visitors to take conservation action. Environmental Education Research, 24(6), 859–874.
32.
MastF.ZhaoL.MaldonadoL. (2018). Instrument development and validation for conservation learning: A tool for more rigorous research and evaluation. Curator The Museum Journal, 61(2), 367–383.
33.
McDonaldS. M. (2012). Perception: A concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge, 23(1), 2–9.
34.
MelfiV. A.McCormickW.GibbsA. (2004). A preliminary assessment of how zoo visitors evaluate animal welfare according to enclosure style and the expression of behavior. Anthrozoös, 17, 98–108.
35.
MellishS.PearsonE. L.SandersB.LitchfieldC. A. (2016). Marine wildlife entanglement and the Seal the Loop initiative: A comparison of two free-choice learning approaches on visitor knowledge, attitudes and conservation behaviour. International Zoo Yearbook, 50(1), 129–154.
36.
MillerL. J. (2012). Visitor reaction to pacing behavior: Influence on the perception of animal care and interest in supporting zoological institutions. Zoo Biology, 31, 242–248.
37.
MillerL. J.LuebkeJ. F.MatiasekJ. (2018). Viewing African and Asian elephants at accredited zoological institutions: Conservation intent and perceptions of animal welfare. Zoo Biology, 37(6), 466–477.
38.
MillerL. J.LuebkeJ. F.MatiasekJ.GrangerD. A.RazalC.BrooksH. J. B.MaasK. (2020). The impact of in-person and video-recorded animal experiences on zoo visitors’ cognition, affect, empathic concern, and conservation intent. Zoo Biology, 39, 367–373.
39.
MorelliS. A.LiebermanM. D.ZakiJ. (2015). The emerging study of positive empathy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(2), 57–68.
40.
MorganJ. M.GramannJ. H. (1989). Predicting effectiveness of wildlife education programs: A study of students’ attitudes and knowledge toward snakes. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17(4), 501–509.
41.
MyersO. E.SaundersC. D.BirjulinA. A. (2004). Emotional dimensions of watching zoo animals: An experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator The Museum Journal, 47, 299–321.
42.
NakamichiM. (2007). Assessing the effects of new primate exhibits on zoo visitors’ attitudes and perceptions by using three different assessment methods. Anthrozoös, 20(2), 155–165.
43.
PackerJ.BallantyneR.LuebkeJ. F. (2018). Exploring the factors that influence zoo visitors’ perceptions of the well-being of gorillas: Implications for zoo exhibit interpretation. Visitor Studies, 21(1), 57–78.
44.
PatrickP. G.MatthewsC. E.AyersD. F.TunnicliffeS. D. (2007). Conservation and education: Prominent themes in zoo mission statements. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38, 53–60.
45.
PoveyK. (2002). Close encounters: The benefits of using education program animals. In Annual proceedings of the association of zoos and aquariums (pp. 117–121).
46.
PoveyK. D.RiosJ. (2002). Using interpretive animals to deliver affective messages in zoos. Journal of Interpretation Research, 7(2), 19–28.
47.
RazalC. B.MillerL. J. (2019). Examining the impact of naturalistic and unnaturalistic environmental enrichment on visitor perception of naturalness, animal welfare, and conservation. Anthrozoös, 32(1), 141–153.
48.
ReadeL. S.WaranN. K. (1996). The modern zoo: How do people perceive zoo animals?Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47, 109–118.
49.
RoeK.McConneyA.MansfieldC. F. (2014). The role of zoos in modern society—A comparison of zoos’ reported priorities and what visitors believe they should be. Anthrozoös, 27(4), 529–541.
50.
SchacterD. L.GilbertD. T.WegnerD. M. (2011). Introducing psychology (2nd ed.). Worth.
51.
SherwoodK. P.RallisS. F.StoneJ. (1989). Effects of live animals vs. Preserved specimens on student learning. Zoo Biology, 8(1), 99–104.
52.
SkibinsJ. C.DunstanE.PahlowK. (2017). Exploring the influence of charismatic characteristics on flagship outcomes in zoo visitors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22(2), 157–171.
53.
SkibinsJ. C.PowellR. B. (2013). Conservation caring: Measuring the influence of zoo visitors’ connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviors. Zoo Biology, 32(5), 528–540.
54.
TamK. P. (2013). Dispositional empathy with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 92–104.
55.
VanhonackerF.VerbekeW.Van PouckeE.TuyttensF. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?Livestock Science, 116, 126–136.
56.
VaskeJ. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. Venture Publishing, Inc.
57.
WallachA. D.BekoffM.BataviaC.NelsonM. P.RampD. (2018). Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation. Conservation Biology, 32(6), 1255–1265.
58.
WhithamJ. C.WielebnowskiN. (2013). New directions for zoo animal welfare science. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 147(3–4), 247–260.
59.
Woodland Park Zoo. (n.d). Advancing conservation through empathy (ACE) for wildlife network. Retrieved August 9, 2020. https://www.zoo.org/empathy
YoungA.KhalilK. A.WhartonJ. (2018). Empathy for animals: A review of the existing literature. Curator The Museum Journal, 61(2), 327–343.
62.
ZadraJ. R.CloreG. L. (2011). Emotion and perception: The role of affective information. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science, 2(6), 676–685.
63.
ZylstraM. J.KnightA. T.EslerK. J.Le GrangeL. L. L. (2014). Connectedness as a core conservation concern: An interdisciplinary review of theory and a call for practice. Springer Science Reviews, 2, 119–143.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
