DESIGN AFFECTS SHORT-TERM KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE OUTCOMES IN SEA LION SHOW AUDIENCES By Emmeline R. Miller A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Zoo and Aquarium Management 2011 ABSTRACT DESIGN AFFECTS SHORT-TERM KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDE OUTCOMES IN SEA LION SHOW AUDIENCES By Emmeline R. Miller This study compared and contrasted knowledge and attitude effects from a theme and zoological park sea lion show with shared educational objectives. Both programs aspired to foster curiosity and appreciation for species conservation. During summer 2010, 580 retrospective pretest-posttest surveys were distributed to visitors. Respondents agreed (n=532, 92%) sea lion shows were positive learning experiences, however, species conservation knowledge and attitude impacts differed between show types. Data showed a possible link between presenting species conservation information and increased positive environmental attitudes. Other factors such as visitors’ preconceived expectations and attendance motivations may have affected facility success in achieving show conservation objectives. Results highlight the importance of evaluating animal shows to ensure visitors receive conservation messages. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank my parents. They knew I’d make it here before I could even walk and their continued love and support is valued more than words can express. Next, I would like to thank my zoo and aquarium management colleagues. I couldn’t possibly have made it through the past two years without their support. They were there to remind me that I wasn’t the only one without a clue and for all of our crazy nights out that kept me sane. I will walk away from this experience with several new best friends. I need to thank Sumit Sinha who somehow made statistics make sense and whose remarkable patience will not be forgotten. I would also like to thank my committee members for guiding me through this process with their honesty and encouragement. They saw potential in this project that I would have never dreamed of. I owe so much to Oceans of Fun and cannot possibly thank them enough for all they have done for me. I obviously could not have successfully completed this research without them, but their contributions go far beyond just that. The Oceans of Fun staff has been like a second family to me, and it has been a privilege to work alongside them. Finally, I need to thank Richard “Doc” Snider, my advisor for the past five years, my mentor for life. Through the battles he and I fought and the successes he and I shared, I made it. I made it because he stood beside me, challenging me to think and live up to the potential he saw in me. It is clear that Doc is and will remain one of the most influential people in my life. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 2: METHODS ...............................................................................................................9 2.1 Study Sites .....................................................................................................................9 2.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................................11 2.3 Variables ......................................................................................................................13 2.4 Educational and Entertainment Value .........................................................................13 2.5 Motivation ....................................................................................................................14 2.6 Knowledge ...................................................................................................................14 2.7 Attitude ........................................................................................................................15 2.8 Demographics ..............................................................................................................15 2.9 Statistical Analyses ......................................................................................................16 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ...............................................................................................................17 3.1 Survey Collection.........................................................................................................17 3.2 Objective 1 - Educational/Entertainment Value ..........................................................17 3.3 Objective 2 – Motivation .............................................................................................18 3.4 Objective 3 – Knowledge.............................................................................................18 3.5 Objective 4 – Attitude ..................................................................................................18 3.6 Demographics ..............................................................................................................24 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................25 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................30 APPENDIX B1 ..............................................................................................................................31 APPENDIX B2 ..............................................................................................................................32 APPENDIX B3 ..............................................................................................................................33 APPENDIX B4 ..............................................................................................................................37 APPENDIX C1 ..............................................................................................................................41 APPENDIX C2 ..............................................................................................................................43 APPENDIX D1 ..............................................................................................................................45 iv APPENDIX D2 ..............................................................................................................................50 APPENDIX D3 ..............................................................................................................................55 APPENDIX D4 ..............................................................................................................................60 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................66 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Outline of study sites’ sea lion shows ....................................................................10 Table 2. Mean differences between survey before and after show responses .....................20 Table 3. Primary attendance motivation distribution ...........................................................21 Table 4. Oceans of Fun Milwaukee Individual Knowledge Survey Responses ..................46 Table 5. Oceans of Fun Milwaukee Individual Attitude Survey Responses .......................51 Table 6. Oceans of Fun Hersheypark Individual Knowledge Survey Responses .............. 56 Table 7. Oceans of Fun Hersheypark Individual Attitude Survey Responses .....................61 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Graphic representation of KAB Model. Zoological park animal shows tend to focus on targeting knowledge and attitude to ultimately increase environmentally responsible behavior; theme parks tend to focus on attitude, appealing more to show visitor emotions ................................................................6 Figure 2. Mean knowledge change significantly more positive in zoological park (1.62) versus theme park (0.34) research subjects (p<0.001). Total scores based upon correct answers given (Correct=1, Incorrect=0) ....................................................22 Figure 3. Mean attitude change significantly more positive in zoological park (2.40) versus theme park (1.43) research subjects (p=0.0484). Total scores based upon fivepoint Likert-type scale (Least Positive=1 to Most Positive=5) .............................23 vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Zoological parks traditionally have had one or more primary missions: conservation, education, science, and/or recreation (Association of Zoos and Aquariums [AZA], 2009b). Effective education in zoos is perhaps the most high-priority mission (Clayton, 2009; European Association of Zoos and Aquaria [EAZA], 2008) and is based on the notion that environmental knowledge increases awareness and encourages more responsible, positive environmental actions (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). While it has been shown that achieving a conservation objective depends upon effectively inspiring people to care about animals, zoos have increasingly linked conservation success with effective education (Clayton, 2009). Thus, education is the key focus of this thesis. Broad and Smith (2004) identified four key zoo education objectives: • provide an experience that is recreational, enjoyable, and satisfying; • encourage cognitive learning of facts regarding animals and the function and management of the zoo or exhibit; • develop positive attitudes including a concern for, and commitment to, wildlife; • foster behavioral outcomes including appropriate on-site behavior, and long-term environmentally responsible behavior. (p.16) Zoo visitor studies are invaluable for evaluating success in achieving education objectives and influencing zoological institution planning (e.g., what messages are being transmitted, how messages are being delivered), yet such studies were not common until the 1970s when recording daily visitor numbers began. Today it is estimated that 143 million people visit zoos annually in the United States; however, few studies have addressed zoos’ impacts on visitor 1 knowledge, attitude, and behavior (Davy, 2006; Falk et al., 2007). Many zoos proclaim that they motivate individuals to take active conservation roles and teach positive visitor attitudes toward st the natural world (Falk et al., 2007). Rabb (2004) stated zoos in the 21 century have been accepted as conservation centers through inspiring people to “celebrate and conserve nature” (p.237). However, the zoo’s educational role has been continually questioned (Broad and Smith, 2004). Falk et al. (2007) found zoos frequently succeeded in achieving some conservation education objectives, i.e., influenced visitors to think of themselves as solutions to environmental problems and encouraged stronger people/nature connections. Some organizations contended public education programs helping conserve wild species were ineffective (Broad & Smith, 2004). Jiang et al. (2008) found that visitors, while aware of the zoo’s educational role, were not very cognizant of any conservation messages presented. Keeping animals in captive environments has remained a complex issue. Zoos continuously adapt to public demands, increasing visitor-animal interaction and emphasizing entertainment value, while education has remained a priority (Fernandez et al., 2009; Hyson, 2004). Special attractions, such as animal shows, are becoming more common as means to satisfy these demands and deliver educational messages. Some animal rights activists have voiced opposition to captive animal shows in particular, expounding they exploit animals for monetary gain (Yerke & Burns, 1991). By definition, a show is “an event… involving the public display or exhibition of animals” (Show, 2010). Facilities that promote animal shows justify their programs by claiming educational benefits. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) believes captive animal use in shows has value because they “enhance the delivery of cognitive and empathetic messages and increase affective learning and attitudinal change” (AZA, 2009a). The AZA has established 2 accreditation standards, policies, and recommendations to ensure animal welfare and handler health and safety, while protecting the public. Furthermore, these standards were developed to maximize successful educational message transmission (AZA, 2009a). In their education standards, the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) recommended that animal displays demonstrate valuable natural abilities and behaviors and avoid humanizing animals including performance of unnatural acts (EAZA, 2008). Even with standards and assurances in place, there was little empirical evidence evaluating the extent to which zoos’ shows provided educational benefits. Early evaluations primarily focused on the extent to which visitors retained contextspecific information. For example, Yerke and Burns (1991) used pre-show and post-show questionnaires addressing viewer reactions (favorable, unfavorable) to an individual bird of prey show as well as how well information was recalled following the show’s immediate conclusion. Heinrich and Birney (1992) conducted interviews exploring visitor reactions to a children’s zoo animal show to determine which messages were being received. Both of these studies disclosed increased factual knowledge and heightened environmental awareness immediately after the show. Both studies also emphasized that show entertainment value influenced educational message transmission (cognitive and affective components) (Heinrich & Birney, 1992; Yerke & Burns, 1991). Falk et al. (2007) went beyond assessing understanding, perception, and emotional connection fostered by zoos and asked how zoos and aquariums impacted peoples’ attitudes and behaviors toward animals and the environment. The goal of Falk et al. (2007) was to develop assessment methods for educational effectiveness for use by various institutions relying on captive animals for conservation messages transmission. A survey designed to measure attitudes, 3 motivation to participate in conservation related activities, and perceived conservation role of zoos and aquariums was more accurate for assessing cognitive changes. More so in some contexts than traditional pre/post show survey approaches, Falk et al. (2007) found visitors came with specific motivations that strongly impacted their visit. Furthermore, results showed zoo/aquarium visits reinforced visitors’ connections to nature and emphasized the individual’s integral role in solving environmental problems. This innovative study set the foundation for more specific research on zoological park visitor impacts. Jiang et al. (2008) specifically studied marine park impacts with a survey distributed to visitors designed to assess how they felt about their visit in terms of importance, performance of services provided, and overall feelings after the visit. The survey additionally assessed visitors’ environmental values and beliefs as well as opinions on how conservation issues related to their daily lives. Results showed that individuals were well aware of zoos’ educational value, but that conservation messages were not being effectively communicated. In contrast, Povey and Spaulding (2005) designed a survey that distinguished between animal show content and public attitude impacts. A distinction was made between a more traditional animal show approach, presenting animals and delivering animal facts with “conservation sidelines” (Povey & Spaulding, 2005, p.2), and a new concept introduced at Point Defiance Zoo, Washington. The new design was developed to motivate visitor outdoor activity participation (e.g., mountain biking, kayaking, bird watching) the premise being that developing a relationship with nature encouraged more environmentally responsible behavior. Results indicated that after viewing the show, people felt very motivated to participate in outdoor activities. Follow up studies conducted a year later found that many people did indeed participate in an outdoor activity and/or made “tangible” (Povey & Spaulding, 2005, p.3) conservation 4 contributions (e.g., birdhouse building, Center for Ecosystem Survival’s Adopt an Acre program participation, wetland visitation) as a result of the show. While this particular show approach proved effective in achieving conservation objectives, comparisons with alternative approaches were not included. Other animal exhibition attractions (e.g., theme parks) that shared zoos’ educational objectives had received little attention, although, these facilities also relied more on animal shows for species conservation message transmission (Broad & Weiler, 1998; Formica & Olsen, 1998). Different types of animal shows do share similar educational and conservation objectives as those outlined by AZA and EAZA. However, implementation of their objectives varies considerably between different facility types. Zoological facilities have designed shows based on the belief that impacting visitors’ conservation knowledge and attitudes was necessary to evoke environmentally responsible behavior (Penn, 2009), reflecting what is known as the KnowledgeAttitude-Behavior (KAB) model concept. This model describes a linear relationship between knowledge, attitude, and behavior (Figure 1). It asserts that increased knowledge leads to more positive attitudes, in turn leading to increased responsible environmental behavior (Hungerford & Volk, 1990). Like zoological park animal shows, theme park shows were designed to change visitors’ conservation attitudes and behavior, though show content was not commonly designed around the KAB model. Often, emphasis was not placed on species biology and natural history information, but on stimulating emotion and providing an entertaining experience (Beardsworth & Bryman, 2001). 5 Theme Park Gain of KNOWLEDGE Results in Positive ATTITUDE Results in Responsible BEHAVIOR Zoological Park FIGURE 1. Graphic representation of KAB Model. Zoological park animal shows tend to focus on targeting knowledge and attitude to ultimately increase environmentally responsible behavior; theme parks tend to focus on attitude, appealing more to show visitor emotions. 6 Hungerford and Volk (1990) criticized the KAB model and stated that environmental behavior research had not extensively supported linear models for changing behavior. In contrast, Hyson (2004) later criticized any institution that strayed from the basic KAB model premise, and stated that zoos, “consistently undermined their educationalconservationist image with attractions and amenities more suited to theme parks” (p.249). Limited research has addressed potential educational effectiveness differences between varying captive animal environments. Broad and Weiler (1998) conducted observations and interviews to compare visitor learning experiences at a zoo and theme park tiger exhibit. Despite learning opportunity variation between the two exhibits, visitors’ learning perceptions were nearly identical. Although, further investigation suggested theme park visitors consistently provided more detail, depth, and breadth to their answers than zoo visitors; visitor impact varied between animal exhibit approaches (Broad & Weiler, 1998). The zoological community has identified a link between conservation success and effective education, though evaluation of zoos’ conservation impacts on visitors is limited (Clayton, 2009). Zoos have continued to redesign themselves to satisfy public demands, while opposition towards zoos’ existence has increased with these changes. Animal shows and various show approaches have emerged in captive animal facilities as educational tools. Examination of these shows’ impacts on visitor knowledge, attitude, and behavior has been minimal (Yerke & Burns, 1991). More specifically, a comparison has not yet been made between the conservation education achievements of KAB model inspired shows versus non-KAB model show designs. 7 This study attempted to answer the basic question, “do species conservation impacts differ between animal shows of varying designs?” The goal was to evaluate show effectiveness through inspiring audience animal conservation curiosity and appreciation, and compare and contrast effectiveness between two different show designs. A research plan was developed using one zoological park (KAB model inspired design) and one theme park (non-KAB model design), both of which used the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus, Lesson) in their shows. Specific research objectives were to compare and contrast the following outcomes between zoological and theme park sea lion show audiences: (1) level of change between show educational/entertainment value expectations and observations, (2) sea lion show attendance motivation, (3) level of species understanding and conservation knowledge change, and (4) level of attitude change toward sea lions, trainer-sea lion relationships/interactions, and the human individual’s role in sea lion conservation. The hypothesis was that species conservation impacts differ between animal shows with varying designs. 8 CHAPTER 2: METHODS 2.1 Study Sites This research was conducted in two case study sites: a) Oceans of Fun Milwaukee and b) Oceans of Fun Hersheypark. Oceans of Fun Milwaukee is located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It has housed harbor seals (Phoca vitulina, Linnaeus) and California sea lions since its inception in 1991 and is owned and operated by Oceans of Fun, Inc. The facility is accredited by the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums (AMMPA) and located within the 200 acre, AZA accredited Milwaukee County Zoological Park. By definition, a zoo is “an establishment that contains a collection of wild animals… for study, conservation, or display to the public” (Zoo, 2010). Therefore, in this study, Oceans of Fun Milwaukee represented the zoological park facility (Table 1). Oceans of Fun Hersheypark is located in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Milton S. Hershey, Hershey’s chocolate company founder, opened the park in 1907. Today the park’s themed areas cover 110 acres. A themed area open since 1990, Minetown, includes roller coasters, restaurants, and an outdoor aquatic arena, the Aquatheater. The Aquatheater has historically been the Hersheypark venue for marine mammal shows. For the 2009 and 2010 show seasons, Oceans of Fun, Inc. provided the marine mammal (sea lion) show for the Aquatheater. A theme park is defined as “an amusement park with a unifying setting or idea” (Theme park, 2010). Therefore, in this study, Oceans of Fun Hersheypark represented the theme park facility (Table 1). 9 TABLE 1. Outline of study sites’ sea lion shows Zoological Park (KAB) Show Design Theme Park (non-KAB) Facility Show Admission • Trainers demonstrated medical, natural, and entertaining behaviors of seals and sea lions Oceans of Fun Hersheypark Showdown at Cocoa Canyon Free w/ park admission 12:00, 2:30, 3:45 (Sat./Sun.), 5:00 40 to 1000 • 1 Trainer • 1 Star Animal • 3 Performers • Recorded Narrator • Slap-stick comedy demonstrating entertaining behaviors of sea lions • Hosts followed a script created by Oceans of Fun, Inc. that highlighted natural behaviors and adaptations of California sea lions • Featured the “Sticky Fingers Gang,” three men trying to steal a secret beans recipe from a famous chef (the sea lion) in an attempt to get rich Oceans of Fun Milwaukee Seal and Sea Lion Show $2.00/Person 10:30, 12:00, 1:30, 3:00 10 to 1000 • 1 Host • 1 to 3 Trainers • 1 to 4 Animals Show Times Audience Size Show Participants Show Synopsis • Hosts and trainers chose approximately six script pieces to be presented during each individual show • Highlighted the acrobatic abilities of the performers as well as the beauty and grace of the California sea lion (1) Inspire curiosity and appreciation of the animals as well as the earth (1) Inspire curiosity and appreciation of the animals as well as the earth (2) Have audiences learn: a.) Importance and role of zoos and aquariums b.) Basic sea lion natural history and adaptations for survival c.) Importance of training and medical care d.) How to help conserve the environment and protect the animals (2) Entertain audiences with the amazement of the animals Show Objectives 10 (3) Connect audiences with the animals through anthropomorphic relating Study sites were selected based on the investigators’ available time and resources, the facilities’ willingness to participate, and the facilities’ accurate representations of specific show designs (i.e., KAB model vs. non-KAB model). In addition, both facilities shared Oceans of Fun Inc.’s overall mission: Oceans of Fun is a professional organization committed to the advancement of marine mammal husbandry, training, and conservation. Dedicated to the field of marine mammal science and education, it is our goal to provide the best possible environment, training and care for our marine animals with the focus of educating the public about marine life, environmental protection and conservation. 2.2 Data Collection For this study, data were obtained using retrospective pretest-posttest surveys (Falk et al., 2007). The retrospective pretest-posttest design was utilized to reduce response shift bias. Participants gain understanding as they experience an event, resulting in a discrepancy between pre/post event responses, threatening a study’s internal validity. Therefore, response shift bias often can occur when traditional pretest-posttest survey designs are utilized, because survey participants answer questions both before and after a particular event under investigation. Retrospective pretest-posttest surveys are completed immediately after the event. Participants simultaneously indicate their current responses and what they perceived would have been their responses prior to the event. Response shift bias is reduced and a more accurate estimate of the treatment effect is made because participants respond to each question within the same reference frame (Drennan & Hyde, 2008; Howard et al., 1979). For the study presented here, two different surveys were constructed; one instrument was used to measure knowledge and the other, attitude. In addition to knowledge and attitude 11 assessment statements, both surveys included questions addressing show educational and entertainment value and attendance motivation. Location-specific demographic questions concluded each survey. Each survey consisted of 21 total questions. Pilot testing occurred May 2010 with a small group of adults aged 20-58 with varying educational backgrounds, to ensure content clarity and appropriate survey length. The final products were refined instruments that could reliably assess sea lion show survey participant knowledge and attitude change towards species conservation. Surveys were distributed to Oceans of Fun Milwaukee and Oceans of Fun Hersheypark sea lion show audiences during June-August 2010. Restricted by time, travel, and resource restraints, surveys were distributed and collected on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. A microphone announcement to show audiences five minutes prior to each show’s commencement explained the study’s purpose and procedure; all audience members 18 years and older were invited to complete surveys at the show’s conclusion (See Appendix A). Adults were the chosen demographic because they comprise 55-70% of zoo visiting populations and are considered society’s decision makers whose actions have the most direct institutional effects (e.g., monetary, political) (Conway, 1982; Heimlich, 1996). At each show’s conclusion, surveys were handed out on a voluntary basis, distributed only to those that expressed interest in completing a questionnaire. The surveys were handed out in an alternating fashion so that each consecutive participant received a different assessment (knowledge or attitude). Completed surveys were returned to a labeled box or directly back to the investigator. The investigator was always present to ensure each participant only completed one survey. Convenience sampling was used to increase response rate. There were some limitations to this method, including data collected were only representative of the 12 sample population. The established methodology was designed for individual facility modification and utilization. Therefore, to more accurately determine the causality between show observation and knowledge/attitude change, a high priority was given to increasing internal validity. In addition, convenience sampling may be a more cost effective option for future primary survey investigators. The Michigan State University Institutional Review Board approved all methods (IRB Approval #: i035770). 2.3 Variables In this study, the manipulated variable was the show design approach (KAB vs. non-KAB). Response variables included observed and expected show educational/entertainment values, show attendance motivations, and species conservation knowledge and attitude changes. Control variables included the survey instruments, survey distributor, and survey distribution method, location, and times. Other variables including show host, specific show animals, and daily temperatures were recorded but are not used in analysis because they were determined to be beyond this study’s scope. 2.4 Educational and Entertainment Value Participants were asked to indicate their opinions of overall show purpose (education and/or entertainment) based on their pre-show expectations and post-show observations. A single question provided a numeric scale for each participant to circle the integer that best represented his or her perspective of the viewed show’s educational/entertainment value (See Appendix B1). The scale began at one (purely educational) and included all integers up to ten (purely for entertainment). The difference between expected and observed values was 13 calculated by subtracting each subject’s total before-show value score from his/her total aftershow value score. 2.5 Motivation Surveys included one question addressing visitor motivation to attend animal shows, because of its influence on experiential message reception (Falk et al., 2007). Motivation statements were adapted from Falk et al. (2007). Given four different motivations: (1) complete facility experience, (2) watch animals perform tricks, (3) learn about species, and (4) learn about species conservation), participants were asked to identify and rank their top three reasons for sea lion show attendance, with 1 indicating the primary reason for attendance followed by 2 and 3. In addition, participants were provided with an “other” option to report attendance motivations outside those specified (See Appendix B2). 2.6 Knowledge To assess knowledge, nine different statements were derived from show script material addressing basic California sea lion biology and natural history, training, and conservation. Participants were asked to indicate if each statement was true or false based upon their knowledge before and after the show. A “don’t know” option was also provided to prevent forced true/false guesses from skewing results (Weisberg, 2005) (See Appendix B3). Scoring was based upon right or wrong responses, 1 indicating a correct response and 0 indicating an incorrect or “don’t know” response. Change in knowledge was calculated by subtracting each subject’s total before-show knowledge score from his/her total after-show knowledge score. Scores were calculated for subjects that responded to all knowledge statement questions. 14 2.7 Attitude Nine different statements were generated to reflect subjects’ overall appreciation of California sea lions and sea lion conservation. “Appreciation” was defined by attitude measurements in three major categories: (1) sea lions, (2) trainer-sea lion relationships/interactions, and (3) the individual human’s role in sea lion conservation. Based upon their opinions before and after the show, participants were asked to indicate their agreement level with each statement using the following five-point Likert-type scale: 1 – strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 – neither agree or disagree, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree (See Appendix B4). This attitude measuring system was used because scales containing five to seven points are the most reliable and valid (Krosnick & Fabrigar, 1997). A five-point scale was used to score how positive (in relation to each measured attitude category) each response was, 5, the most positive answer, down to 1, the least positive. Change in attitude was calculated by subtracting each subject’s total before-show attitude score from his/her total after-show attitude score. Attitude change was also calculated for each individual attitude statement. Scores were calculated for subjects that responded to all attitude statement questions. 2.8 Demographics Nine demographic questions concluded all surveys. Question topics included subject gender, age, location of residence, education level, show attendance frequency, varying show attendance, park and zoo membership statuses, as well as show cost (See Appendices C1 & C2). These questions were included to account for possible demographic factors influencing survey participants’ calculated species conservation knowledge and attitude change. 15 2.9 Statistical Analyses Non-parametric tests were used for analysis because samples were non-random and normality tests confirmed data were not normally distributed (Vaske, 2008). Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed to compare and contrast education/entertainment value, knowledge, and attitude change levels between theme and zoological park sea lion show research subjects (Conover, 1980). Chi square tests for independence explored specific demographic variable effects on knowledge and attitude change. Fisher’s exact tests were utilized for all demographic variable analyses that resulted in a two by two contingency table and/or a sample size that was not large enough for valid chi square test results (Conover, 1980; Daniel, 1990) (See Appendices D1, D2, D3, & D4 for individual survey response data). An alpha level of 0.05 was used in all statistical analyses (Conover, 1980). All statistical analyses were performed in Windows SAS 9.2. 16 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS 3.1 Survey Collection At Oceans of Fun Milwaukee, research was conducted on four June days and four July days for 28 total shows. Research days were selected based on investigator time (availability outside of work and internship) and resource (i.e., budget) availability. One hundred fifty three knowledge surveys were distributed of which 131 were completed and collected (response rate = 86%) and 148 attitude surveys were distributed of which 138 were completed and collected (response rate = 93%). At Oceans of Fun Hersheypark, research was conducted on three June days, five July days, and two August days for 26 total shows. Research days were selected based on investigator time (availability outside of work and internship) and resource (i.e., travel budget) availability. One hundred forty knowledge surveys were distributed of which 132 were completed and collected (response rate = 94%) and 141 attitude surveys were distributed of which 131 were completed and collected (response rate = 93%). 3.2 Objective 1: Assess the level of change between show educational/entertainment value expectations and observations Oceans of Fun Milwaukee research subjects expected a higher show entertainment value than observed. Oceans of Fun Hersheypark subjects expected more show educational content (Table 2). 17 3.3 Objective 2: Assess sea lion show attendance motivation Show attendance motivation was analyzed using response percentages. The highest percentage of both Oceans of Fun Milwaukee and Hersheypark subjects reported their primary show attendance motivations as “to complete their facility experience” (27.2%; 27.7%) or “to watch sea lions perform tricks” (48.7%; 51.8%). The lowest percentage of subjects reported, “to learn how their actions can help save wild sea lions and their habitats” (4.8%; 1.8%), “to learn more about California sea lions” (6.6%; 6.2%), or “other” (12.7%; 12.5%) to be their primary show attendance motivations (Table 3). Primary attendance motivation was determined most important for analysis because previous findings showed that approximately half of visitors arrive at a zoo with a single dominant attendance motivation, and that these dominant motivations are most important in understanding visitor experience responses (Falk et al., 2007); therefore, secondary and tertiary attendance motivations were not included in the current study’s analysis. 3.4 Objective 3: Assess level of species understanding and conservation knowledge change Species conservation knowledge change was significantly higher in Oceans of Fun Milwaukee versus Oceans of Fun Hersheypark survey participants (Table 2, Figure 2). 3.5 Objective 4: Assess level of attitude change toward sea lions, trainer-sea lion relationships/interactions, and individual human’s role in sea lion conservation. Overall, species conservation attitude change was significantly higher in Oceans of Fun Milwaukee versus Oceans of Fun Hersheypark survey participants (Table 2, Figure 3). 18 More specifically, subjects’ attitude changes towards sea lions significantly differed between the two study sites (p = .0086). Individual Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed for each attitude statement. Attitude change for three specific statements was significantly higher in Oceans of Fun Milwaukee versus Hersheypark subjects: (1) “Every sea lion has a unique personality” (p = .0065), (2) “I am amazed at the number of behaviors a sea lion can learn” (p = .0051), and (3) “Sea lion shows inspire show audiences to contribute to efforts to save sea lions in the wild” (p = .0086). 19 TABLE 2. Mean differences between survey before and after show responses a n Variable Mean Difference Z T b b Test Statistic (Z) p-value Z T Educational/ Entertainment Value 268 261 -2.22 0.57 11.08 < .0001 Knowledge 125 127 1.62 0.34 6.29 < .0001 Attitude 129 125 2.40 1.43 -1.97 .0484 Z = Zoological Park; T = Theme Park a Average differences between participants’ total after and before show scores b Wilcoxon rank sum test 20 TABLE 3. Primary attendance motivation distribution Facility Oceans of Fun Milwaukee Oceans of Fun Hersheypark n C Primary Attendance Motivation (%) LA W LC O 228 27.2 4.8 48.7 6.6 12.7 224 27.7 1.8 51.8 6.2 12.5 C = Complete your facility experience LA = Learn how your actions can help save wild sea lions and their habitats W = Watch sea lions perform tricks LC = Learn more about California sea lions O = Other 21 Knowledge Score Knowledge Change BEFORE SHOW Zoological Park AFTER SHOW Theme Park FIGURE 2. Mean knowledge change significantly more positive in zoological park (1.62) versus theme park (0.34) research subjects (p<0.001). Total scores based upon correct answers given (Correct=1, Incorrect=0) 22 Attitude Score Attitude Change BEFORE SHOW AFTER SHOW Zoological Park Theme Park FIGURE 3. Mean attitude change significantly more positive in zoological park (2.40) versus theme park (1.43) research subjects (p=0.0484). Total scores based upon fivepoint Likert –type scale (Least Positive=1 to Most Positive=5) 23 3.6 Demographics For all demographic variable analyses, calculated knowledge and attitude differences were treated as categorical variables: category ‘0’ included all difference values less than or equal to zero; category ‘1’ included all difference values greater than zero. These categories were created to determine if any demographic variables had possibly affected whether subjects’ knowledge or attitude changes were positive or nonexistent/negative. Oceans of Fun Milwaukee results showed independence between knowledge and attitude change and all measured demographic variables including subject gender, age, location of residence, education level, show attendance frequency, varying show attendance, park and zoo membership statuses, as well as show cost. Oceans of Fun Hersheypark results showed a relationship between subject knowledge/attitude change and whether or not subjects had ever viewed a sea lion show at a different institution (p = 0.0013, Fisher’s exact test). Approximately 86% of subjects with nonexistent/negative knowledge change reported that they had previously seen a sea lion show at a different institution, while only 24% reported that they hadn’t. Approximately 80% of those with nonexistent/negative attitude change reported that they had previously seen a sea lion show at a different institution, while only 20% reported that they hadn’t. Responses for this demographic variable were much more evenly distributed among subjects with positive knowledge (yes- 57% versus no- 43%) or attitude (yes-58% versus no-42%) change. Results showed independence between knowledge and attitude change and all other measured demographic variables including subject gender, age, location of residence, education level, show attendance frequency, park and zoo membership statuses, as well as show cost. 24 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION Anderson et al. (2003) found that public animal training with interpretation provided visitors with a more positive zoo experience. The study presented here attempted to more clearly define “positive” by specifically measuring knowledge and attitude impacts. Falk et al. (2007) was criticized for not accounting for individual zoo visit components (e.g., specific exhibits, shows, etc.) and consequently, those components’ specific effects on visit outcomes (Marino et al., 2010). The study presented here focused on a single captive animal facility component (animal shows), more reliably showing causality between an experience and its outcomes. This study’s results show that audiences’ preconceived educational/entertainment value expectations and attendance motivations may affect overall show conservation impacts. Zoological park research subjects were pleasantly surprised by the extent of show information, while theme park subjects expressed a desire for more educational content. Measured knowledge change levels corresponded with subject perceptions of the extent of show information presented (Table 2). In addition, theme park visitors that had seen a sea lion show at a different institution were more likely to have nonexistent or negative species conservation knowledge or attitude change after show observation (p = 0.0013). These results provide evidence of expectation effects (e.g., disappointment, elements of surprise, number of novel experiences) on animal show impacts. Positive knowledge and attitude change occurred despite “learning” not being identified as a primary show attendance motivation; though, changes in both variables (knowledge and attitude) were significantly less when show educational value expectations were not met, as shown in Table 2. Heimlich (1996) said that knowledge gained by adults after a zoo visit did not depend on whether they came to learn or to socialize. However, Falk et al. (2007) found that attendance motivations impacted visitor outcomes directly. 25 Attendance motivations’ influences on show conservation impacts remain unclear; additional research is needed. It is evident that facilities should consider visitor expectations and motivations when designing animal shows, and if desired outcomes are not being achieved, look to audience expectations and motivations as possible show impact barriers. It is evident that both study sites achieved their shared objective of inspiring curiosity and appreciation for sea lion conservation; after a sea lion show experience, zoological and theme park research subjects reported increased species understanding and conservation knowledge and positive attitudes. However, results support the hypothesis that species conservation impacts differ between animal shows of varying designs. Presenting species conservation information may be linked to an increase in positive environmental attitudes. Both species conservation knowledge and attitude change was significantly higher in zoological versus theme park research subjects (Figures 2 & 3). The zoological park sea lion show had a greater effect on subject perceptions of sea lions as unique individuals with large behavioral repertoires. Even more importantly, the zoological park sea lion show convinced a greater number of subjects that sea lion shows do in fact inspire conservation action (p = .0086). Behavior change was not measured directly, though KAB model principles predict positive behavioral outcomes in research subjects as both knowledge and positive attitudes increased (Figure 1). In the future, behavioral outcomes could be specifically measured, though this study identifies knowledge and attitude as practical show success evaluation criteria. Indicators of success should measure progress and provide needed information, but should also account for available skills and resources (Flora et al., 1998). Measuring knowledge and attitude may be more feasible and cost effective than directly measuring behavior. 26 Overall, this study provides support for KAB model application in animal show design and highlights a desire for increased information presentation in theme park shows, supporting the integration of educational elements into non-KAB model show designs. Milman (1991) even reported elevated adult interest in visiting local theme parks if a learning experience was involved. However, it is important to note that educationally based zoological park shows may appeal more to adults, whereas theme park shows may appeal more to children. Future studies researching show impact on children are necessary, though the importance of reaching adults should not be underestimated. Adults have the capacity to be proactive and opportunity to reinforce conservation messages to their children (Heinrich & Birney, 1992). In addition, other show designs, e.g., zoo theater, that attempt to achieve greater balance between show educational and entertainment content and reach a more diverse audience should be further explored (Penn, 2009). Captive animal facilities continually work hard to better convey conservation messages to their visitors. Although constructing future conservation education objectives is important, initial evaluation of facilities’ current conservation impacts is invaluable; these assessments provide the information necessary to maximize future conservation education success and support captive animal facilities as sustainable tourism industry members (Smith et al., 2008). This study evaluated show effectiveness through inspiring audience animal conservation curiosity and appreciation and compared and contrasted effectiveness between two different show designs. Based upon the results, it is apparent that show design affects overall audience impact – not all animal shows are created equal. This finding emphasizes importance of evaluation. Continually increasing controversy has made it a necessity for captive animal facilities to defend their existence with supportive evidence. This study’s established 27 methodology can be used to evaluate various animal shows’ effectiveness in a broad range of facilities. Critics’ claims of animal exploitation with minimal gain (Yerke & Burns, 1991) stress change from output to outcome-based evaluation. Evidence of educational effectiveness now needs to be quantitative. 28 APPENDICES 29 APPENDIX A (Microphone Announcement) Hello! I know all of you are waiting for the seal and sea lion show to begin, and I promise that it will begin shortly, but I was hoping that you could give me a moment of your time. My name is Emme and I am a graduate student at Michigan State University. I am here because I’m trying to gather data for my Master’s thesis research. I am trying to determine how shows - just like the one you’re about to see - affect you, the audience. After the show, I ask that anyone 18 years of age and older pick up and fill out a survey that will ask you to share you thoughts and opinions based upon the show you just watched. This is not a test and all surveys are completely anonymous so if you could take 5 to 10 minutes after the show to fill out a survey I would greatly appreciate it. Your participation in this study will not only help me earn my degree, but will also contribute to the quality of these types of experiences in the future. I will be outside the exit gates handing out the surveys as you leave the show. There will be a box at the Sea Lion Shoppe located right outside the stadium where you can return the surveys and pens when you are finished. I can answer any questions that you may have after the show so please don’t hesitate to ask! Thank you so much for your time and I hope that all of you decide to participate! Enjoy the show! 30 APPENDIX B1 (Show Educational/Entertainment Value Survey Question) The following statements address the sea lion show you just saw. Your honest opinions will be used to improve this experience for you and other visitors in the future. 1.) On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 - purely to educate to 10 - purely to entertain), please indicate your thoughts on the purpose of this sea lion show. 1a.) Currently, what do you think the purpose of this sea lion show is? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Purely to Educate 10 Purely to Entertain 1b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what did you think its purpose was? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Purely to Educate 7 8 9 10 Purely to Entertain 1c.) Please explain why your responses to 1a and 1b are different or why they are the same: 31 APPENDIX B2 (Show Attendance Motivation Survey Question) The following statements address your interest in attending today’s sea lion show. 12.) From the list below, please identify the top three reasons why you attended today’s sea lion show: **Place a ‘1’ next to your primary reason for attending followed by ‘2’ (second) and then ‘3’ (third) ___ To complete your Milwaukee County Zoo experience ___ To learn how your actions can help save wild sea lions and their habitats ___ To watch sea lions perform tricks ___ To learn more about California sea lions ___ Other (Please Specify) ____________________ 32 APPENDIX B3 (Knowledge Survey Statements) 33 Please consider the following statements: 2.) Sea lions have external ear flaps on the sides of their heads. 2a.) Based upon your current knowledge, is Statement #2 true or false? 2b.) Based upon your knowledge prior to viewing this sea lion show, did you believe Statement #2 to be true or false? 3.) Sea lions do not rely heavily upon their sense of sight to survive 3a.) Based upon your current knowledge, is Statement #3 true or false? 3b.) Based upon your knowledge prior to viewing this sea lion show, did you believe Statement #3 to be true or false? 4.) Specialized whiskers help sea lions locate fish 4a.) Based upon your current knowledge, is Statement #4 true or false? 4b.) Based upon your knowledge prior to viewing this sea lion show, did you believe Statement #4 to be true or false? 34 Please consider the following statements: 5.) The sea lions in the show are trained to voluntarily participate in medical procedures 5a.) Based upon your current knowledge, is Statement #5 true or false? 5b.) Based upon your knowledge prior to viewing this sea lion show, did you believe Statement #5 to be true or false? 6.) Training is mentally and physically stimulating for the sea lions in the show 6a.) Based upon your current knowledge, is Statement #6 true or false? 6b.) Based upon your knowledge prior to viewing this sea lion show, did you believe Statement #6 to be true or false? 7.) The sea lions in the show are trained using negative reinforcement 7a.) Based upon your current knowledge, is Statement #7 true or false? 7b.) Based upon your knowledge prior to viewing this sea lion show, did you believe Statement #7 to be true or false? 35 Please consider the following statements: 8.) Our seafood choices have no impact on the survival of wild sea lions 8a.) Based upon your current knowledge, is Statement #8 true or false? 8b.) Based upon your knowledge prior to viewing this sea lion show, did you believe Statement #8 to be true or false? 9.) In the United States, it is illegal to feed a wild sea lion 9a.) Based upon your current knowledge, is Statement #9 true or false? 9b.) Based upon your knowledge prior to viewing this sea lion show, did you believe Statement #9 to be true or false? 10.) Because the sea lions in the show are trained, they are no longer considered wild animals 10a.) Based upon your current knowledge, is Statement #10 true or false? 10b.) Based upon your knowledge prior to viewing this sea lion show, did you believe Statement #10 to be true or false? 36 APPENDIX B4 (Attitude Survey Statements) 37 Please consider the following statements: 2.) I am interested in learning more about sea lions 2a.) What is your current level of agreement with Statement #2? 2b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what was your level of agreement with Statement #2? 3.) Every sea lion has a unique personality 3a.) What is your current level of agreement with Statement #3? 3b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what was your level of agreement with Statement #3? 4.) I am amazed at the number of behaviors a sea lion can learn 4a.) What is your current level of agreement with Statement #4? 4b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what was your level of agreement with Statement #4? 38 Please consider the following statements: 5.) The sea lions do not have a choice whether or not they participate in a show 5a.) What is your current level of agreement with Statement #5? 5b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what was your level of agreement with Statement #5? 6.) Humans assert dominance over sea lions by training them 6a.) What is your current level of agreement with Statement #6? 6b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what was your level of agreement with Statement #6? 7.) Sea lions are highly aggressive towards humans 7a.) What is your current level of agreement with Statement #7? 7b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what was your level of agreement with Statement #7? 39 Please consider the following statements: 8.) As an individual, I feel like there is nothing I can do to help save sea lions in the wild 8a.) What is your current level of agreement with Statement #8? 8b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what was your level of agreement with Statement #8? 9.) It is not my responsibility to help save the wild sea lion population 9a.) What is your current level of agreement with Statement #9? 9b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what was your level of agreement with Statement #9? 10.) Sea lion shows inspire audiences to contribute to efforts to save sea lions in the wild 10a.) What is your current level of agreement with Statement #10? 10b.) Before viewing the sea lion show, what was your level of agreement with Statement #10? 40 APPENDIX C1 (Oceans of Fun Milwaukee Demographic Survey Questions) 41 13.) Gender: ___ M ___ F 18.) How many times have you ever seen this sea lion show? 14.) Age: ___ 18-29 ___ 30-39 ___ 40-49 ___ 50-59 ___ 60 and Older ___ This is my first time ___ 1-3 times ___ 4-6 times ___ 6 or more times 15.) Where do you currently live? 19.) Have you ever seen a sea lion show at another institution? ___ The City of Milwaukee ___ The Greater Milwaukee Area ___ The State of Wisconsin ___ Outside Wisconsin but in the Midwest (MN, IA, IL, OH, MI) ___ Regions of the United States Outside the Midwest 16.) What is your highest level of education completed? ___ Yes ___ No 20.) Are you a Milwaukee County Zoo member? ___ Yes ___ No ___ Some High School ___ High School Graduate ___ Some College ___ Technical/Vocational/Associates ___ Undergraduate Degree ___ Graduate Degree 21.) Are you a member of another zoo (If yes, please specify)? ___ Yes ___ No Please Specify __________ 17.) After viewing the show, I feel the following about the show ticket price: ___ Tickets were overpriced ___ Tickets were priced appropriately ___ I would have been willing to pay more for a ticket 42 APPENDIX C2 (Oceans of Fun Hersheypark Demographic Survey Questions) 43 13.) Gender: ___ M ___ F 18.) How many times have you ever seen this sea lion show? 14.) Age: ___ This is my first time ___ 1-3 times ___ 4-6 times ___ 6 or more times ___ 18-29 ___ 30-39 ___ 40-49 ___ 50-59 ___ 60 and Older 19.) Have you ever seen a sea lion show at another institution? 15.) Where do you currently live? ___ The City of Hershey ___ The State of Pennsylvania ___ Outside Pennsylvania but in the Northeast (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ) ___ Regions of the United States Outside the Northeast ___ Yes ___ No 20.) Do you have a Hershey Park Season Pass? 16.) What is your highest level of education completed? ___ Yes ___ No ___ Some High School ___ High School Graduate ___ Some College ___ Technical/Vocational/Associates ___ Undergraduate Degree ___ Graduate Degree 21.) Are you a member of zoo (If yes, please specify)? 17.) Would this show have been worth a ticket entrance fee? ___ Yes ___ No If yes, please Indicate amount you would be willing to pay ________ 44 ___ Yes ___ No Please Specify __________ APPENDIX D1 (Table 4. Oceans of Fun Milwaukee Individual Knowledge Survey Responses) 45 Table 4. Oceans of Fun Milwaukee Individual Knowledge Survey Responses Survey # Edu./Ent. Value Knowledge Motivation Change Change 1001 -9 -2 1002 0 0 1003 3 6 W 1004 -2 -1 LA 1005 0 3 C 1006 -3 3 C 1007 0 0 LC 1008 -3 4 W 1009 -3 3 C 1010 -2 4 W 1011 -1 0 W 1012 -2 4 C 1013 -4 0 C 1014 -3 2 W 1015 0 0 W 1016 -2 4 1017 1 2 1018 0 2 LC 1019 -1 4 W 1020 -3 1 W 1021 -2 7 W 1022 -5 3 W 1023 -3 3 W 1024 -1 6 O 1025 -3 2 W 1026 0 2 1027 0 1 C 1028 -2 3 W 1029 0 -1 C 1030 -2 -2 O 1031 -1 3 C 1032 0 1 W 1033 -6 2 W 1034 -3 2 W 1035 -2 2 46 Table 4. (cont’d) Survey # 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 Edu./Ent. Value Change 0 -3 -7 1 -2 -3 -3 0 -4 -2 -4 -5 -2 -3 -6 -5 -3 -5 -5 0 -3 -2 0 1 -3 -6 0 -4 -1 -3 -6 -4 -4 -3 -4 Knowledge Change Motivation C 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 4 3 2 0 1 -1 3 6 1 0 4 3 3 0 2 3 1 2 -1 1 -2 2 0 4 1 47 W O W C C W W O W C W W C C W W W W LA W W W C O Table 4. (cont’d) Survey # 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 Edu./Ent. Value Change -3 -1 0 -3 -2 -3 -2 -4 0 0 0 -4 -4 -2 0 -3 -3 -3 -5 -1 -1 -3 -3 0 0 1 -3 -5 0 5 1 -2 Knowledge Change 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 3 3 2 0 3 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 -1 4 -3 0 0 0 4 2 1 3 2 -3 -4 3 3 48 Motivation W W O W C O W C C LC LA C W W C W LA W W W W W C C W O W W W W Table 4. (cont’d) Survey # 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 Edu./Ent. Value Change 0 -3 0 -3 -5 -1 -3 -4 0 -5 -3 -4 -5 -1 -5 -2 -5 -3 -2 -2 -2 -5 2 -5 0 0 Knowledge Change 0 2 1 1 3 5 3 0 1 -1 0 3 2 3 1 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 0 1 49 Motivation C W C O W O W W W O W O C LA O C C C C W C W O O APPENDIX D2 (Table 5. Oceans of Fun Milwaukee Individual Attitude Survey Responses) 50 Table 5. Oceans of Fun Milwaukee Individual Attitude Survey Responses Survey # Edu./Ent. Value Attitude Motivation Change Change 2001 -5 4 2002 0 10 W 2003 0 9 C 2004 1 0 C 2005 -5 3 2006 0 0 W 2007 0 -1 C 2008 -1 O 2009 -2 -1 C 2010 -4 3 W 2011 -4 0 W 2012 -3 4 C 2013 -2 0 O 2014 -2 -4 LC 2015 -3 8 LA 2016 -3 4 O 2017 -1 C 2018 -2 11 C 2019 -2 2 O 2020 -1 4 W 2021 -5 -3 W 2022 -3 4 W 2023 -2 4 C 2024 -3 2 W 2025 -2 0 W 2026 -3 2 C 2027 -6 1 W 2028 -1 1 LC 2029 -3 10 W 2030 0 0 2031 -2 0 LC 2032 1 0 W 2033 0 1 W 2034 -4 2 W 51 Table 5. (cont’d) Survey # 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 Edu./Ent. Value Change -3 0 -5 -1 -3 -2 0 -4.5 0 -4 -4 -2 -5 0 -5 -3 0 -3 -3 0 -9 -5 -2 -2 0 -3 -4 -3 -5 0 0 -2 -4 0 0 0 Attitude Change 3 1 1 1 0 4 0 0 1 9 3 3 -3 0 2 0 2 -1 0 2 4 7 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -2 2 2 0 0 52 Motivation W LA C O W LC W W C LC LC W C W W W C W C C LC C LA W O W C W C C O O LC Table 5. (cont’d) Survey # 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 Edu./Ent. Value Change -3 -4 -5 2 0 -2.5 -2 0 0 0 -3 -4 -2 -1 -3 -1 -1 -3 -3 -3 -3 4 -3 -3 -6 -4 0 -5 -4 -3 -3 0 -1 -5 0 Attitude Change 1 4 5 1 0 0 6 7 3 -1 3 5 3 0 0 3 1 12 8 5 1 7 5 2 6 0 -1 0 6 6 3 8 2 -2 53 Motivation W W W W W C W LC W C W O C LA C W W O W LA W W W W C C W LC W W Table 5. (cont’d) Survey # 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 Edu./Ent. Value Change 0 0 -2 -9 1 0 -5 -1 -6 -3 -3 -3 -2 2 -5 -3 2 -5 -2 0 -2 0 0 -5 0 0 -3 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 Attitude Change 0 Motivation W 0 0 -2 0 2 -2 19 0 6 0 1 -2 7 12 2 3 2 0 11 4 2 0 0 1 -1 7 -2 54 W W W C C W LC W C W C C W O W LA LC C W O O O W C W APPENDIX D3 (Table 6. Oceans of Fun Hersheypark Individual Knowledge Survey Responses) 55 Table 6. Oceans of Fun Hersheypark Individual Knowledge Survey Responses Survey # Edu./Ent. Value Knowledge Motivation Change Change 3001 2 5 O 3002 0 1 W 3003 3 -1 W 3004 -3 0 W 3005 0 1 LC 3006 3 2 3007 -2 -1 W 3008 0 0 LC 3009 3 0 O 3010 2 0 LC 3011 0 0 W 3012 -2 0 W 3013 0 0 C 3014 3 0 W 3015 3 0 W 3016 -3 4 3017 -5 W 3018 0 7 W 3019 4 0 W 3020 5 1 O 3021 4 0 C 3022 0 0 W 3023 0 0 3024 1 -3 W 3025 -1 1 C 3026 0 2 W 3027 0 1 3028 0 -1 W 3029 0 0 LA 3030 0 0 C 3031 -3 C 3032 -3 1 W 3033 -3 0 W 3034 -4 1 W 3035 3 -1 W 56 Table 6. (cont’d) Survey # 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 Edu./Ent. Value Change 3 0 -1 0 3 0 0 5 -1 0 -4 5 4 -3 3 0 5 5 0 -2 3 0 -3 -3 0 0 -5 0 -2 5 0 0 0 7 4 Knowledge Change -1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 -5 0 0 -2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 57 Motivation W W C W C C C C W W W C W W W W W W W O C O C W C W W Table 6. (cont’d) Survey # 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3090 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3105 Edu./Ent. Value Change 0 0 -2 0 5 -5 -3 0 3 -2 -2 0 5 7 5 -2 1 -3 3 6 0 -4 3 0 1 0 -1 -3 5 -3 0 0 -2 0 5 Knowledge Change 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 7 0 0 -4 0 0 -3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 -5 0 5 1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 58 Motivation C O LC W W W W C LC C C W W C C W W C W W W C C LC W W W W W W W O Table 6. (cont’d) Survey # 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130 3131 3132 Edu./Ent. Value Change 0 0 -1 -1 -1 6 3 0 -3 -4 0 5 0 -2 -1 2 0 0 3 0 4 0 5 -2 1 6 4 Knowledge Change 0 0 0 Motivation W C W 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 59 C W C C LA W C C W W W W C W W O W W APPENDIX D4 (Table 7. Oceans of Fun Hersheypark Individual Attitude Survey Responses) 60 Table 7. Oceans of Fun Hersheypark Individual Attitude Survey Responses Survey # Edu./Ent. Value Attitude Motivation Change Change 4001 -4 7 C 4002 0 -1 O 4003 0 2 W 4004 0 1 C 4005 -6 3 LC 4006 0 1 W 4007 -4 3 C 4008 0 0 O 4009 0 1 O 4010 4 2 C 4011 4 1 C 4012 -1 0 W 4013 3 0 O 4014 3 1 W 4015 -2 0 W 4016 0 2 C 4017 2 4 4018 0 8 O 4019 0 1 C 4020 0 0 W 4021 -2 5 C 4022 0 5 LC 4023 0 0 O 4024 -3 4 4025 0 11 C 4026 -3 3 4027 1 2 C 4028 -4 1 W 4029 -2 0 4030 2 5 4031 8 0 O 4032 4 0 C 4033 0 0 C 4034 -1 2 C 4035 -4 2 W 61 Table 7. (cont’d) Survey # 4036 4037 4038 4039 4040 4041 4042 4043 4044 4045 4046 4047 4048 4049 4050 4051 4052 4053 4054 4055 4056 4057 4058 4059 4060 4061 4062 4063 4064 4065 4066 4067 4068 4069 4070 Edu./Ent. Value Change 4 0 0 0 5 4 5 0 6 0 -1 0 -5 0 3 5 0 5 5 9 2 1 -2 7 0 2 -2 -1 0 -2 0 0 -5 -5 -3 Attitude Change 0 1 0 2 -1 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 2 4 0 0 -4 2 -6 0 0 0 2 0 0 -1 2 -1 1 -2 0 0 2 11 62 Motivation C W W LC W W O W W W LC W O C LC LC W C W C C W C W C O O W O W Table 7. (cont’d) Survey # 4071 4072 4073 4074 4075 4076 4077 4078 4079 4080 4081 4082 4083 4084 4085 4086 4087 4088 4089 4090 4091 4092 4093 4094 4095 4096 4097 4098 4099 4100 4101 4102 4103 4104 4105 Edu./Ent. Value Change 0 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 2 -1 0 4 0 -1 0 0 0 5 0 -2 2 -1 4 0 -9 -1 -2 7 0 2 5 7 5 0 Attitude Change 1 1 3 2 0 0 2 6 6 0 0 -2 0 0 0 2 3 0 3 2 0 1 Motivation W W W O C O O W C C W W 3 6 0 2 0 7 0 0 63 W W C W O W W O C W C LC LC O W W W W Table 7. (cont’d) Survey # 4106 4107 4108 4109 4110 4111 4112 4113 4114 4115 4116 4117 4118 4119 4120 4121 4122 4123 4124 4125 4126 4127 4128 4129 4130 4131 Edu./Ent. Value Change 5 0 -1 0 5 -4 0 0 0 -3 5 0 5 0 3 1 5 0 0 0 -5 -2 -1 6 1 -1 Attitude Change -1 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 1 -1 0 -2 0 2 1 3 1 10 7 2 2 7 0 0 64 Motivation O W LA W C W C C O C C W W W W C W W W W W W LA LITERATURE CITED 65 LITERATURE CITED Anderson, U.S., Kelling A.S., Pressley-Keough, R., Bloomsmith, M.A. & Maple T.A. (2003). Enhancing the zoo visitor’s experience by public animal training and oral interpretation at an otter exhibit. Environment and Behavior, 35, 826-841. Association of Zoos and Aquariums. (2009a). Program Animal Presentations. Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/program-animal-presentations/ Association of Zoos and Aquariums. (2009b). What is Accreditation?. Retrieved from http://www.aza.org/what-is-accreditation/ Beardsworth, A. & Bryman, A. (2001). The wild animal in late modernity: the case of the Disneyization of zoos. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 83-104. Broad, S. & Smith, L. (2004). Who educates the public about conservation issues? Examining the role of zoos and the media. International Tourism and Media Conference Proceedings. 24-26 November 2004. Melbourne: Tourism Research Unit, Monash University. 15-23. Broad, S. & Weiler, B. (1998). Captive animals and interpretation – A tale of two tiger exhibits. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 9(1), 14-27. Clayton, S., Fraser J. & Saunders, C.D. (2009). Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology, 28, 377-397. Conover, W.J. (1980). Practical nonparametric statistics 2 & Sons. nd edition. New York: John Wiley Conway, W. G. (1982). Zoo and Aquarium Philosophy. In K. Sausman (ed.), Zoological Park and Aquarium Fundamentals. Wheeling, WV: American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. nd Daniel, W.W. (1990). Applied nonparametric statistics 2 Publishing Company. Edition. Boston: PWS-KENT Davy, G. (2006). Visitor behavior in zoos: a review. Anthrozoös, 19(2), 143-157. Drennan, J. & Hyde, A. (2008). Controlling response shift bias: the use of the retrospective pretest design in the evaluation of a master’s programme. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(6), 699-709. European Association of Zoos and Aquaria. (2008). Education Standards. 66 Falk, J.H., Reinhard, E.M., Vernon, C.L., Bronnenkant, K., Deans, N.L. & Heimlich, J.E. (2007). Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit. Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Silver Spring, MD. Fernandez, E.J., Tamborski, M.A., Pickens, S.R., & Timberlake, W. (2009). Animal-visitor interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions. Applied Animal Behavior Science, 120, 1-8. Flora, C.B., Kinsley, M., Luther, V., Wall, M., Odell, S., Ratner, S. & Topolsky, J. (1998). Measuring community success and sustainability: An interactive workbook. North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Formica, S. & Olsen, M.D. (1998). Trends in the amusement park industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(7), 297-308. Heimlich, J.E. (1996). Adult learning in nonformal institutions. Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) Digest, 173. Heinrich, C.J. & Birney, B.A. (1992). Effects of live animal demonstrations on zoo visitors’ retention of information. Anthrozoös: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals, 5(2), 113-121. Howard, G.S., Ralph, K.M., Gulanick, N.A., Maxwell, S.E., Nance, D.W., & Gerber, S.K. (1979). Internal invalidity in pretest-posttest self-report evaluations and a re-evaluation retrospective pretests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3(1), 1-23. Hungerford, H.R., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing learning behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21. Hyson, J. (2004). Education, entertainment, and institutional identity at the zoo. Curator, 47(3), 247-251. Jiang, Y., Lück, M., & Parsons, E.C.M. (2008). Public awareness, education, and marine mammals in captivity. Tourism Review International, 11, 237-249. Krosnick, J.A., & Fabrigar, LR. (1997). Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In L. Lyberg (Ed.), Survey measurement and process quality (141-). New York: Wiley. Marino, L., Lilienfeld, S.O., Malamud, R., Nobis, N. & Broglio. R. (2010). Do zoos and aquariums promote attitude change in visitors? A critical evaluation of the American Zoo and Aquarium study. Society and Animals, 18, 126-138. Milman, A. (1991). The role of theme parks as a leisure activity for local communities. Journal of Travel Research, 29(3), 11-16. 67 Oceans of Fun. (2009). Our Mission. Retrieved from http://www.oceansoffun.org Penn, L. (2009). Zoo theater’s influence on affect and cognition: A case study from the Central Park Zoo in New York. Zoo Biology, 28, 412-428. Povey, K., & Spaulding, W. (2005). Message design for animal presentations: a new approach. Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium. Rabb, G. (2004). The evolution of zoos from menageries to centers of conservation and caring. Curator, 47(3), 237-246. Show. In Oxford Dictionaries Online. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1290298#m_en_us1290298 Smith, L., Broad, S. & Weiler, B. (2008). A closer examination of the impact of zoo visits on visitor behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(5), 544-562. Theme park. In Oxford Dictionaries Online. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1298161#m_en_us1298161 Vaske, J.J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Weisberg, H.F. (2005). The total survey error approach: A guide to the new science of survey research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Yerke R. & Burns, A. (1991). Measuring the impact of animal shows on visitor attitudes. Annual Proceedings of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 532-537. Zoo. In Oxford Dictionaries Online. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1308103#m_en_us1308103 68