Coloring and size influence preferences for imaginary animals, and can predict actual donations to species‐specific conservation charities

Abstract

As conservation has limited funds, numerous studies have identified aesthetic characteristics of successful flagship species which generate donations and conservation. However, prior information about species can also impact human preferences, and may covary with animal appearance, leading to different conclusions about which species will be most effective. To separate these two factors, we use images of imaginary animals as a novel paradigm to investigate preferences for animal appearance in conservation donors. Using discrete choice experiments, we show that potential conservation donors prefer larger imaginary animals which are multicolored and cooler toned. We found no effect of eye position or fur, which we used as a proxy for mammalian species. Furthermore, we demonstrate that these preferences can predict the number of donations received by species‐specific conservation charities. These results suggest coloring, and particularly number of colors, is an overlooked aspect of animal appeal, and an important aesthetic characteristic for identifying future flagship species.

Reframing urban “wildlife” to promote inclusive conservation science and practice

“…Overlooking plants, invertebrates, amphibians, and lower trophic levels as urban wildlife can influence public perception and public willingness to contribute to the conservation of these taxa, with city dwellers more willing to protect charismatic megafauna flagship species above all (Mesquita et al 2014;Colléony et al 2017;Curtin and Papworth 2020). Although invertebrates are essential to urban ecosystem functioning (McIntyre 2000), arthropods are often dismissed as harmful pests or a nuisance in cities-associated with filth and sickness by residents-and not prioritized in urban wildlife conservation (Hunter and Hunter 2008).…”

“…A shift in perceptions, values, and norms around urban wildlife especially in publicity is critical for urban invertebrate conservation to ultimately influence habitat management and urban conservation financial support (Schultz and Kaiser 2012). For example, insects that are "buglike" and less "human-like" are often perceived as less attractive, less worthy of rescue than other animals among the general public (Cardoso et al 2011;Mesquita et al 2014), and thereby receive less conservation funding (Curtin and Papworth 2020). How can we shift negative perceptions of invertebrates among the general public to equally value such creatures as ecosystem service providers, as they may for larger mammals or birds?…”

What determines the success and failure of environmental crowdfunding?

“…In this context, the success or failure of a fundraising campaign can often determine whether conservation efforts go ahead. In response, various studies have explored what factors drive donations to conservation charities by using data from surveys (Veríssimo et al 2017 ), lab and online experiments (Thomas-Walters and Raihani 2017; Curtin and Papworth 2020 ), field experiments (Kubo et al 2018 ), and actual donation campaigns (Veríssimo et al 2018 ). However, little is known about online charitable donations for conservation, a recent but increasingly key part of charitable giving (Lundberg et al 2019 ).…”

The Effect of Animal Bipedal Posture on Perceived Cuteness, Fear, and Willingness to Protect Them

“…The willingness of people to protect animals is influenced by a complex interplay between emotions and attitudes toward them (Castillo-Huitrón et al, 2020), resulting in non-random preferences for certain species (Driscoll, 1995;Bjerke and Østdahl, 2004;Frynta et al, 2013;Borgi and Cirulli, 2015;Prokop and Randler, 2018). Humans prioritize esthetically appealing animals (Serpell, 2004) characterized by bright colors (Marešová et al, 2009;Barua et al, 2012;Prokop and Fančovičová, 2013;Curtin and Papworth, 2020), large body size (Frynta et al, 2010;Knegtering et al, 2010;Smith et al, 2012;Macdonald et al, 2015;Curtin and Papworth, 2020), and with a non-aggressive appearance (Prokop and Fančovičová, 2017). Furthermore, these preferences are similar across genders (Prokop and Fančovičová, 2013).…”

“…Preferences for some animals over others are noteworthy because the perceived attractiveness of an animal species can be an important determinant of conservation support (Gunnthorsdottir, 2001;Tisdell et al, 2006;Martín-López et al, 2007;Knight, 2008;Wang et al, 2018;Curtin and Papworth, 2020). For instance, more popular species at the Paris Zoological Park can receive 46 times the funds of less popular species (Colléony et al, 2017).…”