Animal‐human two‐shot images: Their out‐of‐context interpretation and the implications for zoo and conservation settings

Abstract

Images containing both animals and humans (two-shot images) are popular across social media and zoo advertising. However, these images, even when taken in ethical and conservation settings, have the potential for misinterpretation and may inadvertently promote the illegal wildlife trade, exotic pet trade or photo-prop industries. We examined whether zoo visitors' (n = 531) attitudes and stated Willingness to Donate (WTD) altered depending on whether they viewed a two-shot image set in a photo-prop setting (typically associated with negative welfare) or in a zoo or wild setting. All images, including photo-prop, were generally viewed positively regardless of context. Zoo-based images received a greater number of comments relating to concern for the animal's environment or welfare compared to other images, although numbers were still relatively low. This indicates a lack of awareness about the photo-prop industry and misconceptions about modern welfare practices in zoos, thus reflecting a need for improved education in these areas. Two-shot images in zoo settings elicited significantly higher stated WTD than images in wild or photo-prop settings or when an animal was pictured alone.Suggesting zoo-based images may be more effective for conservation campaigns than traditional images of an animal in its environment. Furthermore, images featuring a uniformed keeper plus an animal do not appear to increasing desire for pet ownership, indicating that they can be used in zoo advertising with minimal negative consequences.

Human Positioning in Close-Encounter Photographs and the Effect on Public Perceptions of Zoo Animals

“…We hypothesised that respondents would be less likely to agree that the animal they saw was cared for by the zoo or displayed a natural behaviour when it was shown close to a human. This reflects the results of Spooner and Stride [39], where animal welfare was seen as a concern by viewers of animal-human imagery within a zoo context, as well as other studies of zoo animals that show that species do alter their behaviour in the presence of humans [42]. We also hypothesised that respondents would be more likely to agree that the animal they saw was not endangered in the wild and would make a good pet when shown close to a human, reflecting the results of Ross, Vreeman, and Lonsdorf [36] and Leighty et al [37].…”

“…The Kangaroo did not receive significantly different levels of agreement compared to the snake, which could suggest that charismatic megafauna (large mammals with high public popularity) are simply less likely to be considered good pets. This theory is further supported by Van der Meer, Eckman, and Bockhart [38], who saw similar trends when showing images of humans and big cats, and Spooner and Stride [39], who suggest similar findings with images of large mammals. Again, this may be due to the increased emotional connection that humans seem to have with large mammals, which may foster the belief that such animals belong in their natural habitat to increase their welfare and happiness, and thus should not be owned [63,74].…”

“…Although this group may not be first to engage with zoo social media content, social media allows people to post or share any content, and, thus, it is likely that both close-encounter images posted by visitors and content posted by a zoo or aquarium and shared by their followers will reach a more general audience than merely those who follow zoo or aquariums’ social media. Indeed, even a study involving zoo visitors found that animal welfare was considered more of a concern when viewing zoo imagery than wild imagery [ 39 ], and these concerns are likely further exacerbated in non-zoo audiences. Without direct knowledge of zoos and animals, the messages that the general public may receive about zoo practices may differ from what was originally intended by the post and negatively impact a zoo’s social licence.…”

“…We suggest that the presence and distance of a human from an animal in such images may play a strong role in perceptions of ownership or companionship with the Featured Animal, either by highlighting the dominance of humans over wildlife or by increasing perceptions that such behaviour is appropriate. Both suggestions are supported by Siriwat and Nijman [71], Otsuka and Yamakoshi [29], Van der Meer, Bockhart, and Eckman [38], and Stride [39], who have all found that imagery of humans and animals together on social media increases expectations that viewers can approach, touch, and own animals that are not considered domestic. As such images increase in popularity and number, the theories of social norms [42] and repeat messaging [72] suggest that these behaviours may increase in number and severity, as seen by Otsuka and Yamakoshi [29].…”

“…Additionally, viewers of images of wild cats being petted by humans were more likely to express a desire to pet or take a photograph at a wildlife tourism attraction than those who viewed images of wild cats in the wild or against a blank background [38]. These findings are countered by Spooner and Stride [39], who found that zoo visitors who saw images of humans with animals in a zoo context were not likely to desire the animal as a pet, and were more willing to donate to the featured animal's conservation. However, the mentioned study did find that respondents had more concerns around the featured animal's welfare when the animal was shown with a keeper or with a member of the public in a zoo setting compared to wildlife tourism and wild settings.…”