Sarah Webber
Frank Vetere
ABSTRACT
Watching animals use digital technology is known to affect our attitudes towards them, but there has been little empirical study of this topic. There is a need for greater understanding of how technology can shape people's perceptions of other species, since human attitudes are a significant factor in animal welfare. We studied the effects of a digital installation, created as enrichment for zoo-housed orangutans. It was hypothesised that seeing the installation in use would strengthen zoo visitors’ perceptions of orangutans’ intellect and strengthen support for their conservation. Effects were investigated through visitor interviews (n=39) and surveys (n=101), comparing responses of people who saw the installation with those who did not. Seeing primates use the digital installation was found to be associated with stronger attribution of cognitive abilities. Watching animals comprehend game rules, and seeing their human-like patterns of interaction seemed to contribute to this effect. However, no overall impact was found on attitudes to orangutan conservation. This research provides insights into the potential effects of animal-computer interaction on the attitudes of human observers, and suggests avenues for technology design to strengthen people's understanding of animal minds.
- Marianna Adams, John H. Falk, and Lynn D. Dierking. 2003. Things Change. In Researching Visual Arts Education in Museums and Galleries. Springer, Dordrecht, 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0043-7_2Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Leslie M. Adelman, John H. Falk, and Sylvia James. 2000. Impact of National Aquarium in Baltimore on Visitors’ Conservation Attitudes, Behavior, and Knowledge. Curator: The Museum Journal 43, 1: 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2000.tb01158.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Brock Bastian, Steve Loughnan, Nick Haslam, and Helena R. M. Radke. 2012. Don't Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38, 2: 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291Google ScholarCross Ref
- Linda M. Blud. 1990. Social interaction and learning among family groups visiting a museum. Museum Management and Curatorship 9, 1: 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647779009515193Google ScholarCross Ref
- Juliane Bräuer, Daniel Hanus, Simone Pika, Russell Gray, and Natalie Uomini. 2020. Old and New Approaches to Animal Cognition: There Is Not “One Cognition.” Journal of Intelligence 8, 3: 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8030028Google ScholarCross Ref
- Max E. Butterfield, Sarah E. Hill, and Charles G. Lord. 2012. Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48, 4: 957–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.010Google ScholarCross Ref
- Simon Coghlan, Sarah Webber, and Marcus Carter. 2021. Improving ethical attitudes to animals with digital technologies: the case of apes and zoos. Ethics and Information Technology 23, 4: 825–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09618-7Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cécile Cornou. 2009. Automation Systems for Farm Animals: Potential Impacts on the Human-Animal Relationship and on Animal Welfare. Anthrozoös 22, 3: 213–220. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303709X457568Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gareth Davey. 2006. An hourly variation in zoo visitor interest: Measurement and significance for animal welfare research. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 9, 3: 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0903_7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Amber J. de Vere, Stan A. Kuczaj. 2016. Where are we in the study of animal emotions?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 7, 5:364-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1399Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frans De Waal. 2016. Are We Smart Enough to Know how Smart Animals Are? WW Norton & Company, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Margo DeMello. 2012. Animals and Society. Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- Timothy J. Eddy, Gordon G. Gallup, and Daniel J. Povinelli. 1993. Attribution of Cognitive States to Animals: Anthropomorphism in Comparative Perspective. Journal of Social Issues 49, 1: 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb00910.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Crystal L. Egelkamp and Stephen R. Ross. 2019. A review of zoo-based cognitive research using touchscreen interfaces. Zoo Biology 38, 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21458Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and John T. Cacioppo. 2007. On seeing human: a three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological review 114, 4: 864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864Google ScholarCross Ref
- John H. Falk, Joseph Heimlich, and Kerry Bronnenkant. 2008. Using Identity-Related Visit Motivations as a Tool for Understanding Adult Zoo and Aquarium Visitors’ Meaning-Making. Curator: The Museum Journal 51, 1: 55–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2008.tb00294.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- John H. Falk, Theano Moussouri, and Douglas Coulson. 1998. The Effect of Visitors’ Agendas on Museum Learning. Curator: The Museum Journal 41, 2: 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.1998.tb00822.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- John H Falk, Eric M Reinhard, Cynthia L Vernon, Kerry Bronnenkant, and Nora L Deans. 2007. Why Zoos & Aquariums Matter: Assessing the Impact of a Visit to a Zoo or Aquarium. Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Retrieved from https://www.aza.org/uploadedFiles/Education/why_zoos_matter.pdfGoogle Scholar
- David Fraser. 2008. Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
- John Fraser, Maria Maust-Mohl, Rachel Morrison, Diana Reiss, Sarah Knight, Nezam Ardalan, and Martin Weiss. 2013. A Proposed Transdisciplinary Framework to Align Research on Animal Minds. New Knowledge Organisation Ltd, New York.Google Scholar
- Fiona French, Clara Mancini and Helen Sharp. 2017. High tech cognitive and acoustic enrichment for captive elephants. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 300, 2018:173–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2017.09.009Google ScholarCross Ref
- Megan S. Geerdts, Gretchen A. Van de Walle, and Vanessa LoBue. 2015. Parent–Child Conversations About Animals in Informal Learning Environments. Visitor Studies 18, 1: 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2015.1016366Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heather M. Gray, Kurt Gray, and Daniel M. Wegner. 2007. Dimensions of Mind Perception. Science 315, 5812: 619–619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475Google ScholarCross Ref
- Greg Guest, Kathleen M. MacQueen, and Emily E. Namey. 2011. Applied thematic analysis. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.Google Scholar
- Susan J. Hazel, Lisel O'Dwyer, and Terry Ryan. 2015. “Chickens Are a Lot Smarter than I Originally Thought”: Changes in Student Attitudes to Chickens Following a Chicken Training Class. Animals 5, 3: 821–837. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5030386Google ScholarCross Ref
- William S. Helton and Nicole D. Helton. 2005. Changing Animal and Environmental Attitudes with Evidence of Animal Minds. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 4, 4: 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150500302114Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harold A. Herzog Jr., Nancy S. Betchart, and Robert B. Pittman. 1991. Gender, Sex Role Orientation, and Attitudes toward Animals. Anthrozoös 4, 3: 184–191. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279391787057170Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew J. Higgs, Sasha Bipin, and Helen J. Cassaday. 2020. Man's best friends: attitudes towards the use of different kinds of animal depend on belief in different species’ mental capacities and purpose of use. Royal Society Open Science 7, 2: 191162. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191162Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adelma M. Hills. 1995. Empathy and Belief in the Mental Experience of Animals. Anthrozoös 8, 3: 132–142. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279395787156347Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nathalie Hostiou, Jocelyn Fagon, Sophie Chauvat, Amélie Turlot, Florence Kling, Xavier Boivin, and Clément Allain. 2017. Impact of precision livestock farming on work and human- animal interactions on dairy farms. A review. Bioscience, Biotechnology and Biochemistry 21: 1–8.Google Scholar
- Linda Kalof, Joe Zammit-Lucia, Jessica Bell, and Gina Granter. 2016. Fostering kinship with animals: animal portraiture in humane education. Environmental Education Research 22, 2: 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.999226Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sarah Knight, Aldert Vrij, Julie Cherryman, and Karl Nunkoosing. 2004. Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös 17, 1: 43–62. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279304786991945Google ScholarCross Ref
- Saara Kupsala, Markus Vinnari, Pekka Jokinen, and Pekka Räsänen. 2016. Public Perceptions of Mental Capacities of Nonhuman Animals. Society & Animals 24, 5: 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341423Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shaun Lawson, Ben Kirman, Conor Linehan, Tom Feltwell, and Lisa Hopkins. 2015. Problematising Upstream Technology Through Speculative Design: The Case of Quantified Cats and Dogs. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15), 2663–2672. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702260Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jerry F. Luebke and Jennifer Matiasek. 2013. An exploratory study of zoo visitors’ exhibit experiences and reactions. Zoo Biology 32, 4: 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21071Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susan W. Margulis, Catalina Hoyos, and Meegan Anderson. 2003. Effect of felid activity on zoo visitor interest. Zoo Biology 22, 6: 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.10115Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maria Maust-Mohl, John Fraser, and Rachel Morrison. 2012. Wild Minds: What People Think about Animal Thinking. Anthrozoös 25, 2: 133–147. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303712X13316289505224Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul Morris, Sarah Knight, and Sarah Lesley. 2012. Belief in Animal Mind: Does Familiarity with Animals Influence Beliefs About Animal Emotions? Society and Animals 20, 3: 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341234Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jaak Panksepp. 2011. Toward a cross-species neuroscientific understanding of the affective mind: do animals have emotional feelings? American Journal of Primatology 73, 6: 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20929Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stephanie D. Preston and Frans B. M. de Waal. 2002. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25, 1: 1-20; https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X02000018Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeffrey L. Rasmussen, D. W. Rajecki, and Heather D. Craft. 1993. Humans’ perceptions of animal mentality: Ascriptions of thinking. Journal of Comparative Psychology 107, 3: 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.107.3.283Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Root-Bernstein, L. Douglas, A. Smith, and D. Veríssimo. 2013. Anthropomorphized species as tools for conservation: utility beyond prosocial, intelligent and suffering species. Biodiversity and Conservation 22, 8: 1577–1589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0494-4Google ScholarCross Ref
- James G. W. Schultz and Steve Joordens. 2014. The effect of visitor motivation on the success of environmental education at the Toronto Zoo. Environmental Education Research 20, 6: 753–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.843646Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert W. Shumaker. 2018. The history and status of cognitive research with great apes in the United States. Japanese Journal of Animal Psychology 68, 2: 105–119.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jessica Sickler, John Fraser, Thomas Webler, Diana Reiss, Paul Boyle, Heidi Lyn, Katherine Lemcke, and Sarah Gruber. 2006. Social narratives surrounding dolphins: Q method study. Society & Animals 14, 4: 351–382. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853006778882457Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeffrey C. Skibins, Emily Dunstan, and Katie Pahlow. 2017. Exploring the Influence of Charismatic Characteristics on Flagship Outcomes in Zoo Visitors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22, 2: 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2016.1276233Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jeffrey C. Skibins and Robert B. Powell. 2013. Conservation caring: Measuring the influence of zoo visitors’ connection to wildlife on pro-conservation behaviors. Zoo Biology 32, 5: 528–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21086Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julian Smith. 2011. Apps for apes: Orang-utans want iPads for Christmas. New Scientist 212: 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(11)63173-4Google ScholarCross Ref
- Caroline E. Spence, Magda Osman, and Alan G. McElligott. 2017. Theory of Animal Mind: Human Nature or Experimental Artefact? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21, 5: 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.02.003Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kim-Pong Tam. 2015. Are anthropomorphic persuasive appeals effective? The role of the recipient's motivations. British Journal of Social Psychology 54, 1: 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12076Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kim-Pong Tam, Sau-Lai Lee, and Melody Manchi Chao. 2013. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, 3: 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anette Therkelsen and Maria Lottrup. 2015. Being together at the zoo: zoo experiences among families with children. Leisure Studies 34, 3: 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2014.923493Google ScholarCross Ref
- Esmeralda G. Urquiza-Haas and Kurt Kotrschal. 2015. The mind behind anthropomorphic thinking: attribution of mental states to other species. Animal Behaviour 109: 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.08.011Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adam Waytz, Nadav Klein, and Nicholas Epley. 2013. Imagining Other Minds: Anthropomorphism Is Hair-Triggered but Not Hare-Brained. The Oxford Handbook of the Development of Imagination. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195395761.013.0018Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sarah Webber, Marcus Carter, Sally Sherwen, Wally Smith, Zaher Joukhader, and Frank Vetere. 2017. Kinecting with Orangutans: Zoo Visitors’ Empathetic Responses to Animals’ Use of Interactive Technology. 6075–6088. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025729Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrew D. Wilson. 2010. Using a Depth Camera As a Touch Sensor. In ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS ’10), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/1936652.1936665Google ScholarDigital Library
- Barbara Woods. 2002. Good zoo/bad zoo: Visitor experiences in captive settings. Anthrozoös 15, 4: 343–360. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279302786992478Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
-
Watching Animal-Computer Interaction: Effects on Perceptions of Animal Intellect
-
Recommendations
-
Animal-computer interaction SIG
CHI EA '12: CHI '12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsUser-computer interaction research is demonstrating growing interest in the relation between animals and technology (e.g., computer-mediated interspecies interactions and animal-computer interfaces). However, as a research area, this topic is still ...
-
Cross-disciplinary perspectives on animal welfare science and animal-computer interaction
ACE '15: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment TechnologyAn ongoing aim of human-computer interaction (HCI) is to understand what is meant by user experience, and how to measure it. This is more complex in the case of animal-computer interaction (ACI), in which the user is a non-human. In this paper we ...
-
Interactive technology and human-animal encounters at the zoo
In this paper we investigate social dimensions of technology use in human-animal interactions, through a study of interactive systems at the zoo.Zoos are a familiar place for encounters between humans and non-domesticated animals. Accordingly, we ...
Comments