![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
Visual depictions of animals can alter human perceptions of, emotional responses to, and attitudes toward animals. Our study addressed the potential of a slideshow designed to activate emotional responses to animals to foster feelings of kinship with them. The personal meaning map measured changes in perceptions of animals. The participants were 51 students enrolled at a pre-university college in Montreal, Quebec. Major conceptual themes were developed based on students’ responses on the PMM both pre- and post-slideshow. Ninety-two percent changed their perceptions of ‘Animal’ after viewing the slideshow. Pre-slideshow perceptions of ‘Animal’ were described primarily as Pets/Symbols, Biological/Wild Nature, Commodity/Resource, and Dangerous. After the show, the perceptions shifted to Kinship and Sentience/Individuality, with substantial increases in the depth and emotion associated with responses. Thus, viewing animal portraiture improved feelings of kinship with animals and enhanced perceptions of animal individuality in a classroom setting.
Keywords:
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Seven Mattes for assistance in the independent coding of the data and Jennifer Rebecca Kelly for assistance in the initial stages of the project and preparing the data collection protocol at the Montreal site.
Notes
1. From a critical perspective, it is argued that mainstream image-based media ‘largely reproduces the neoliberal ideology informing much conservation practice and discourse’ (Blewitt Citation2011b, 719). In addition, in the Discussion we address the visual cultures of both animal rights and wildlife conservation movements in which the animal is portrayed as ‘separate and distant’ from humans.
2. There are substantial differences between personal meaning mapping and cognitive mapping. Susan Foutz (Citation2006, 7) explains that concept mapping reflects the cognitive structure of an individual’s knowledge of a specific concept or knowledge domain, whereas ‘personal meaning maps are less about the cognitive structure of an individual and more about top-of-mind concepts an individual draws upon in relation to a specific concept or knowledge domain … Further concept maps are highly structured, hierarchical, with the broad, foundational concept placed at the top of the map … From this concept, other, narrower (conceptually) concepts branch off, so that the most limited concepts are at the bottom of the map …. personal meaning maps are less structured … Concepts can be placed anywhere on the page, and there is no hierarchy implied by where the concepts are placed. Initially, there are no linkages between concepts; the connections between concepts are explored through the interview process … These connections are not added to the map through lines or arrows, instead the connections are explained verbally and recorded by the interviewer.’ In addition, Adams, Falk, and Dierking (Citation2003, 4–5) argue that cognitive mapping requires training to construct a concept map (impractical in many settings where there is no time to invest in training), and the scoring of the cognitive map is based on its match with the researcher’s cognitive reality (the single ‘right’ answer). The breakthrough was finding personal meaning mapping – a method that used the strengths of concept mapping (a focus on meaning and interpretation) but overcame its deficiencies with a less positivistic and more flexible scoring system (Adams, Falk, and Dierking Citation2003, 5).
3. It is possible that the short video explaining the photographic method influenced the respondents’ comments about photographic style. But since our intention was to examine perceptions of animals, we considered these comments extraneous to the goals of the paper.
4. 50 of 51 (98%) participants mentioned more than one primary theme in their pre-slideshow PMM; 45 of 51 (88%) participants mentioned more than one primary theme in their post-slideshow PMM. Further description of the multiple thematic categories (such as which themes were most often mentioned together) was not analyzed for this paper but the data are available from the authors.
5. E.g. in the pre-show PMMs, there were elaborate comments on pets such as ‘depending on what type of animal you have as a pet reflects on who you are and what your personality is like’ and ‘I have grown an emotional connection with my dog, he is part of my family’ (both comments received three points for depth and three points for emotion). Post-slideshow the comments on Pets/Symbols decreased in frequency and in intensity. For example, a two-point total intensity score was assigned for comments such as ‘dogs’ and ‘cats’ (one point for depth and one point for emotion).
6. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this important suggestion.