Perceptions_of_Animals_Close_Encounter_Images.csv

This study measured the effects that viewing such encounter images had on public perceptions of both the zoo and the animal they saw. Via online survey, one of sixteen images was randomly presented to two samples: one consisting of social media users and followers of zoos, and a representative sample of the Australian public. Each image featured one of four animals (Eclectus parrot, Kangaroo Island kangaroo, Monteith’s leaf insect, Centralian carpet python) and one of four Human Positions (human and animal touching, human and animal ~30cm apart, human and animal ~1m apart, animal alone). The survey then asked for respondents' to rate their agreement level to four different statements: 1) The animal is cared for by the zoo2) The animal is displaying a natural behaviour3) The animal would make a good pet4) The animal is endangered in the wildLevel of agreement to these statements was measured through a 7 point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree, with the midpoint of 4= Neither agree nor disagree. Respondents also provided demographic data (gender, age, level of education, residential location, zoo membership status, zoo visitation regularity and conservation organisation membership status). All data is non-identifiable, and participants provided consent for their responses to be used for research and publication. Human ethics approval was provided by the University ethics team. Additionally, animal welfare was ensured throughout the photography process by zoo staff and following zoo protocol. Key: Sample Source: 1- Social Media Users, 2- General Australian PopulationImage: 1- Parrot and Touch position, 2- Parrot and Human Close, 3- Parrot and Human Far, 4- Parrot Alone, 5- Kangaroo and Touch Position, 6- Kangaroo and Human Close, 7- Kangaroo and Human Far, 8- Kangaroo Alone, 9- Leaf Insect and Touch Position, 10- Leaf Insect and Human Close, 11- Leaf Insect and Human Far, 12- Leaf Insect Alone, 13- Snake and Touch Position, 14- Snake and Human Close, 15- Snake and Human Far, 16- Snake AloneTreatment: 1- Human Touching Animal, 2- Human and Animal ~30cm apart (Close), 3- Human and Animal ~1m apart (Far), 4- Animal Alone Animal: 1-Parrot, 2- Kangaroo, 3- Leaf Insect, 4- Snake

本研究旨在评估观看此类人与动物互动影像对公众关于动物园及所展示动物的认知所产生的影响。本研究通过线上调研，向两组样本——分别为社交媒体用户及动物园粉丝、澳大利亚普通大众代表性样本——随机呈现16张影像中的任意一张。每张影像均包含四类展示动物之一（折衷鹦鹉、袋鼠岛袋鼠、蒙蒂思叶䗛、中部地毯蟒），以及四种人与动物互动场景之一（人与动物肢体接触、人与动物相距约30厘米、人与动物相距约1米、仅有动物单独出镜）。

调研环节中，受访者需对四项陈述的认同程度进行评分，具体如下：
1）该动物由动物园妥善照料；
2）该动物展现出自然行为；
3）该动物适合作为宠物饲养；
4）该动物在野外种群处于濒危状态。

针对上述陈述的认同程度，采用7级李克特（Likert）量表进行测量，评分区间为1=非常不认同至7=非常认同，其中中间值4=既不认同也不反对。受访者还需提供人口统计学特征信息，包括性别、年龄、受教育程度、居住地区、动物园会员身份、参观动物园频率以及环保组织会员身份。

所有数据均已做匿名化处理，无法识别受访者个人身份，参与者已签署知情同意书，同意其回复内容可用于本研究及学术发表。本研究已获得大学伦理委员会的人类受试者伦理审批。此外，拍摄过程严格遵循动物园操作规程，由动物园工作人员全程保障动物福利。

【关键说明】
样本来源：1-社交媒体用户，2-澳大利亚普通大众
影像分类：1-鹦鹉与接触场景，2-鹦鹉与人类近距离互动，3-鹦鹉与人类远距离互动，4-仅有鹦鹉出镜，5-袋鼠与接触场景，6-袋鼠与人类近距离互动，7-袋鼠与人类远距离互动，8-仅有袋鼠出镜，9-叶䗛与接触场景，10-叶䗛与人类近距离互动，11-叶䗛与人类远距离互动，12-仅有叶䗛出镜，13-蟒蛇与接触场景，14-蟒蛇与人类近距离互动，15-蟒蛇与人类远距离互动，16-仅有蟒蛇出镜
实验处理分组：1-人类与动物肢体接触，2-人与动物相距约30厘米（近距离），3-人与动物相距约1米（远距离），4-仅有动物单独出镜
动物类别：1-鹦鹉，2-袋鼠，3-叶䗛，4-蟒蛇