Do Zoos And Aquariums Promote Attitude Change In Visitors?
This analysis of a 2007 study by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (Falk, et al.) finds at least six major threats to the study’s methodological validity, leaving no compelling evidence for the AZA’s conclusion that visits to zoos and aquariums produce long-term positive effects on people’s attitudes toward other animals.
The conclusion of Falk, et al. is that visiting zoos and aquariums has a measurable impact on visitor knowledge and attitudes. However, to fully support this, Falk, et al. would have needed to conduct a study that would provide evidence that “disconfirms” the hypothesis if it is false. Consequently, this analysis seeks to assess the validity of the study according to standard methodological criteria from four sources, Cook and Campbell (1979), Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002), Kenall and Norton-Ford (1982), and Shaughnessy and Zechmeister (1994).
The main methodological threats to the validity of Falk, et al. include seven independent threats:
- Nonrandom sample. The study relied on a nonrandom sampling of participants by asking the first available visitor group, then the next, and not tracking those who declined to participate.
- Nonspecific effects. Improvements arising from generic influences not specific to the intended condition or primary variable that can be caused by other experiences. The study did not assess novelty affects, which are the general uplifting effects of a new experience.
- Construct confounding. This occurs where there is a failure to take into account that the experience under study includes more than one factor that affects outcome. This study did not incorporate any dismantling procedures to compensate for the various components of the experience which might have contributed to this experience.
- Demand characteristics. The tendency of participants to alter their responses according to what they believe the researcher is hypothesizing. Respondents were fully informed as to the purpose of the study.
- Experimenter expectancy effects. The tendency of researchers to unintentionally bias the results in accordance with their hypothesis. No efforts were made to mitigate potential issues and surveyors were directly observing respondents as they answered questions.
- Response bias. Respondents may answer questions in the way that they think the questioner wants them to answer. Most items were keyed in the same direction on the Likert scale.
- Weaknesses of the post-only, retrospective pre design. Instead of an actual pre-post survey, Falk, et al. conducted surveys on exit only, asking visitors to reflect on how they “would have” answered at the entrance.