Content uploaded by Paul Wesley Schultz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Wesley Schultz on Jun 05, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Visitor Studies, 2008, 11(2), 139–150
Copyright
C
Visitor Studies Association
ISSN: 1064–5578 print / 1934-7715 online
DOI: 10.1080/10645570802355489
The Value of Zoo Experiences
for Connecting People with Nature
by Coral M. Bruni,
1
John Fraser
2
, and P. Wesley
Schultz
1
(1) California State University, San Marcos, California, USA
(2) Institute for Learning Innovation, Edgewater, Maryland, USA
ABSTRACT
Zoos aspire to bring people closer to nature through visitor education and by cre-
ating environments that immerse visitors into naturalistic surroundings. Yet to date,
the psychological and behavioral consequences of these attempts have not been well-
documented through empirical study. The present study was designed to determine if
visiting a zoo had a measurable impact on visitors’ relationships with nature and to test
whether this effect was moderated by the zoo setting and/or type of zoo experience.
Data were collected from three different types of zoos in New York City. A total of 242
zoo visitors participated in this study by completing a set of scales measuring explicit
and implicit self-nature associations. Findings suggest that zoo experiences do promote
an increased implicit connectedness with nature, but no changes were found for self-
reported explicit connectedness with nature. The authors found no evidence that this
effect was moderated by a specific design strategy or scale of institution.
Why are zoos so popular? Given the wide assortment of recreational and leisure activi-
ties afforded to people today, why do they continue to patronize zoos in record numbers?
This perplexing (albeit welcome) level of public support has been pondered by the zoo
community for nearly 200 years. As a result, many studies of zoo attendance tend to-
ward exploratory surveys of visitor motivations based on satisfaction (e.g., Morgan &
Hodgkinson, 1999; Tomas, Crompton, & Scott, 2003) or more recently, self-described
personal learning objectives (e.g., Falk, Heimlich, & Bronnenkant, 2008; Pekarik, 2004).
Unlike other museum types, zoos tend to garner substantially large audiences and atten-
dance profiles appear to demonstrate that these audiences are more demographically
diverse attendance than at other types of institutions. Yet surprisingly, there has been
little empirical research connecting zoo learning outcomes, the reported popularity of
zoos, and the motivations reported in marketing studies at zoos. As a result, it seems that
there should be concern among professionals about the lack of connection between the
perceived popularity of zoos revealed in marketing studies, actual zoo attendance, and
139
Coral M. Bruni, John Fraser, P. Wesley Schultz
the role of zoos as conservation education centers. Although zoos are substantially sup-
ported through public funding (Association of Zoos and Aquariums, 2007), there remains
little empirical data assembled to indicate where social desirability and the personal
value of visiting a zoo overlap in public perception. The present study sought to under-
stand how visitors report their perceived explicit connectedness to nature when visiting
zoos, whether these explicit reports change as a result of visiting a zoo, and whether the
zoo experience itself provides implicit connections to nature that may not be apparent to
the visitor.
The work reported in this article draws on the concept of connectedness with nature.
Connectedness with nature refers to an individual’s belief about the extent to which he
or she is part of the natural environment (Schultz, 2002). An individual who feels that
he or she is part of nature would have schemas of self and nature that highly overlap.
On the other hand, the schemas of an individual who feels that he or she is not part of
nature would have very few points of intersection. The concept of connectedness with na-
ture has garnered considerable attention by social and behavioral scientists and several
self-report measures have been developed to assess a person’s explicit connectedness
with nature (e.g., Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale, Schultz, 2002; Environmental Identity
Scale, Clayton, 2003; Connectedness with Nature, Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Connection to
Nature Scale, Pennisi, 2007). In addition to these traditional self-report measures, con-
nectedness with nature has also been measured implicitly using the Implicit Association
Test (IAT) (Bruni & Schultz, under review; Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico, & Khazian, 2004;
Schultz & Tabanico, 2007).
The traditional IAT, createdbyGreenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998), was designed
to measure unconscious cognitive associations (e.g., attitudes, self-esteem, self-concept)
by using reaction time data. In the IAT procedure, participants are presented with a series
of stimuli (words or pictures) and are asked to assign each to a particular category.
Reaction time data is collected to assess how quickly a person can correctly categorize
the stimulus. Schultz et al. (2004) examined the psychometric properties of the IAT
used to measure implicit connections with nature (IAT-Nature) and found good evidence
for the test-retest reliability of this measure. In addition, the IAT-Nature was found to
be significantly correlated with explicit measures of environmental concern (biospheric
concerns positively and egoistic concerns negatively) and connectedness with nature
(Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale).
For many people in urban settings, the local park, zoo, aquarium, or natural history
museum provides one of the only opportunities to encounter nature. This nature narrative
has accreted around zoos in part because, in the United States and many larger urban city-
centers worldwide, zoos have moved toward creating simulated naturalistic experiences
that immerse the visitor into the same landscapes that envelop the animals, on the
premise that these experiences build a close affiliation and appreciation of the animals
on display (e.g., Coe, 1984; Polakowski, 1987). However, over the past 30 years or so,
a protracted public critique has arisen around the concept of zoos as a form of nature
experience that is incompatible with building links to nature because it is, as Berger
(1980) first suggested, a constructed view of how humans wish nature to be. Although
Berger’s critique may hold true, the question of whether people perceive these exhibitions
as connecting them with the built world, or with the things they believe to be natural,
140 Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008
Zoo Experiences and Connections with Nature
remains at the heart of the whether zoos provide the affiliative services that can help to
promote concern and care for nature.
Zoo visits have also been described as restorative experiences (Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser,
& Fuhrer, 1996), but how they are restorative remains undemonstrated through empirical
study. Fraser, Condon, and Gruber (2008) demonstrated that visitors are attracted to
zoos for a kind of metaphoric tourism in nature, with the living animals offering visitors
an opportunity to passively speculate on their relationships with the natural world. Other
researchers have found that a passive recreational aspect is valued in zoos; however,
those studies did not operationalize that value in a manner that could identify if associ-
ation with the animals and nature content was the recreational aspect that aligned with
the mission of zoos (Caldwell, Andereck, & Debbage, 1991; Turley, 2001).
Zoos are more than recreational experiences. Past research has suggested that ani-
mals are known to elicit emotional responses in zoo visitors (Myers, Saunders, & Birjulin,
2004). Clayton, Fraser, and Saunders (in press) found that conversations of zoo visitors
provided evidence that visitors have a feeling of connection to the animals themselves.
However, these studies were unable to determine the consequences, degree of mag-
nitude, or whether this explicit expression of connection was a pre-existing value or
developed as part of a zoo experience. Although these studies suggest that the zoo ex-
perience itself would predispose visitors to have explicit and implicit connections with
nature, they do not provide evidence that zoo experiences have any direct consequential
impact on visitors’ association with nature or the environment beyond the increase in
knowledge of nature and conservation content that has been measured in innumerable
studies of exhibit learning.
Schultz and Tabanico (2007) used the IAT-Nature to explore how implicit connected-
ness with nature is affected by context. Findings suggest that spending time at a highly
naturalistic 640-acre zoo with rides into a simulated African veldt (San Diego Wild Ani-
mal Park) increased a person’s connectedness with nature. Zoo visitors exiting the park
showed significantly higher implicit connectedness with nature than those entering the
park (a finding not replicated in the explicit measures taken at the same time). In a sep-
arate study measuring visitors’ implicit connectedness with nature throughout the day,
implicit connectedness with nature increased with the duration of their stay. Although
the above reported results suggest that zoo experiences have a measurable impact on
a visitor’s connections with nature, their study was unable to determine whether this
connection was true of zoos in general or unique to conditions at the San Diego Wild
Animal Park. For example, it may only pertain to larger institutions with longer stay times
and more naturalistic immersive exhibit strategies.
The present study sought to further understand whether zoo experiences have a
measurable impact on a visitor’s connectedness with nature, both explicitly and implicitly,
and if such an impact is evident in either dimension, to understand whether that impact
is generalizable to a variety of zoo types. One possible outcome of the zoo experience is
an increase in implicit connectedness with nature, as suggested by Schultz and Tabanico
(2007). Thus, in the present study it was hypothesized that spending time in a zoo
setting would result in an increase in implicit connectedness with nature, such that
connectedness with nature at exit would be greater than connectedness with nature at
entry. In addition, taking into consideration prior findings that explicit connections with
Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008 141
Coral M. Bruni, John Fraser, P. Wesley Schultz
Table 1. Participant demographic information for all participants and by zoo location
Participants Total Bronx Central Park Prospect Park
N2421514942
Total Males 106 61 20 25
Total Females 136 90 29 17
Annual zoo members 23% 17% 27% 38%
Mean age 35 33 41 37
Visits to zoo per year
Total 1st visit 33% 29% 45% 38%
Total <1 time 15% 19% 10% 5%
Total 1 time 15% 15% 18% 12%
Total 2–4 times 24% 25% 12% 33%
Total 5–10 times 6% 6% 4% 7%
Total 11+ times 7% 6% 10% 5%
nature were unchanged from entry to exit in data collected at the San Diego Wild Animal
Park, it was hypothesized that the explicit connectedness with nature in this study would
also be largely unchanged, irrespective of the scale or type of display strategy. This
article presents results from one aspect of a larger study investigating the value of zoo
and aquarium visits to the community and the role these institutions serve in culture.
METHOD
Participants
Data were collected from three zoos operated by the Wildlife Conservation Society in
New York City (Bronx Zoo, Central Park Zoo, and Prospect Park Zoo) from April to July
2007. Participants were 242 zoo visitors; demographic data matched that of the typical
attendance profile of zoo visitors for these zoos (Table 1).
Materials
Random samples of entry and exit data were collected from the Bronx Zoo, and paired
entry/exit data were collected from the Central Park and Prospect Park zoos. In addi-
tion to the demographic data reported above, we measured both explicit and implicit
connectedness with nature. Explicit connectedness with nature was measured using the
“Please circle the picture below which best describes your relationship with the natural
environment. How interconnected are you with nature?”
Self Nature Self Nature Self Nature Self
Self
Nature
Self Nature Self Nature Nature
Figure 1. Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale.
142 Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008
Zoo Experiences and Connections with Nature
Inclusion of Nature in Self Scale (INS; Schultz, 2002). This single-item graphical scale
is used to measure the extent to which an individual includes nature within his or her
cognitive representation of self. The scale contains a series of seven overlapping circles
labeled self and nature (see Figure 1). Scores range from 1 to 7, with the least overlapping
circle receiving a score of 1 and the most overlapping circle receiving a score of 7. The
circle with the least overlap represents an individual who views him or herself as sepa-
rate from nature. The circle with complete overlap represents a person who views him or
herself as the same as nature.
Implicit connectedness with nature was measured using a game version of the Implicit
Association Test (IAT), known as FlexiTwins (Bruni & Schultz, under review). The game
activity asks the player to sort words as they appear on the screen into two categories
according to a predetermined set of criteria. If the word belongs to the category on the
right, the participant presses a button with their right index finger; if the word belongs
to the category on the left, the participant presses a different button with their left index
finger (e.g., see Figure 2, where the participant chooses to place the word “you will need
to ask the authors for the word from the Figure as I can’t read it” in the “Me” or “Other”
category). Reaction time data (in milliseconds) are collected to measure the amount of
time it takes a participant to correctly categorize a word. In FlexiTwins, block refers to the
different levels within FlexiTwins and each stimulus within each level is referred to as a
trial. The mean reaction time of a block is compared to the mean reaction time of other
blocks, allowing the researcher to establish which blocks of associations are preferred
(i.e., more strongly associated in a person’s semantic network). Of important note, using
reaction time data provides a measure of connectedness that eliminates self-report bias
(see Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003).
In our studies, FlexiTwins was used to examine self-concept (cf. Greenwald et al.,
2002), or more specifically, associations between self and the categories nature and
built (IAT-Nature). To measure these associations, the participant’s name was used as
the me category, and a random list of other names was used as the other category.
The stimuli for the built and nature categories were taken from previous work using the
IAT-Nature (Bruni & Schultz, under review). The following words were used as the stimuli
for the built category: car, chair, church, and truck. The following words were used
as the stimuli for the nature category: flower, mountain, tree, and waterfall. FlexiTwins
contains seven blocks. Table 2 shows information regarding blocks and trials used in this
study. Figure 2 highlights screen shots from FlexiTwins—FlexiTwins can also be viewed
by visiting www.conservationpsychology.org/game.
Table 2. Breakdown of FlexiTwins blocks and trials
Block Block type Category # of trials
1 Practice Me/ and Other 8
2 Practice Nature/Built’ 8
3 Compatible test Nature/Me Built/Other 16
4 Compatible test Nature/Me Built/Other 24
5 Practice Built Nature 8
6 Incompatible test Built/Me Nature/Other 16
7 Incompatible test Built/Me Nature/Other 24
Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008 143
Coral M. Bruni, John Fraser, P. Wesley Schultz
Figure 2. Screen shots from FlexiTwins.
FlexiTwins produces a standardized score for each participant (D-score). The D-score
is calculated by finding the difference in the average response time between different
blocks of trials, to indicate which types of associations are easier to make. In calculating
the D-score, two subscores are produced by the game (D1 and D2). Specifically, D1 is
calculated by subtracting the average reaction time on block 3 (compatible: me-nature,
not-me-built) from the average reaction time on block 6 (incompatible: me-built, not-
me-nature) and then this difference score is divided by the standard deviation of both
blocks. D2 is calculated in the same manner, using blocks 4 (compatible) and 7 (incom-
patible). The D-score is simply the average of D1 and D2 (cf. Brookfield Zoo, 2006). Using
this scoring algorithm, the scores are standardized such that a score of 0 indicates an
144 Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008
Zoo Experiences and Connections with Nature
equal strength of association between self and built as there is between self and nature.
Positive scores indicate stronger self-nature associations and negative scores indicate
stronger self-built associations. Like the Cohen’s d effect size on which the computa-
tions are based, effects of .2 (small), .5 (medium), and .8 (large) represent the typical
range.
In FlexiTwins, the D-score is used to measure implicit connections with nature and its
subscores (D1 and D2) are used to test the internal reliability of the measure. To assure
accurate and reliable data, D-scores are screened using the participants’ percent correct
as directed in the FlexiTwins manual (Brookfield Zoo, 2006). In our prior studies we have
counterbalanced the order of compatible and incompatible trials, and while the order of
administration does affect the magnitude of the D-score, it does not affect the relative
pattern of correlations with other measures. In addition, as suggested by past research
(Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2005), practice blocks (blocks 1 and 2) are included to
lessen internal order effects caused by the presentation order of categories (compatible
blocks first followed by incompatible blocks).
FlexiTwins was administered on an IPAQ h andheld device (PocketPC). Past research
using FlexiTwins was administered on desktop computers. Prior to running the current
study, 77 undergraduate students from California State University completed both the
desktop version and the PocketPC version of FlexiTwins in order to validate the PocketPC
version. In addition, participants were asked to play the PocketPC FlexiTwins twice.
Internal reliability was assessed by correlating two subscales produced by the game (D1
and D2). This data showed that the PocketPC FlexiTwins D1 score (M = .63, SD = .43) was
significantly correlated with the D2 score (M = .54, SD = .49) at Time 1, r = .25, p < .05.
This was also found at Time 2; FlexiTwins D1 score (M = .49, SD = .50) was significantly
correlated with the D2 score (M = .40, SD = .43), r = .52, p <.01. Test-retest reliability
was assessed by correlating the FlexiTwins PocketPC D-score at Time 1 and Time 2.
Results showed that the PocketPC FlexiTwins D-scores at Time 1 (M = .59, SD = .37) and
Time 2 (M = .45, SD = .40) were significantly correlated, r = .43, p < .01. In addition,
the PocketPC FlexiTwins D-scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were found to be significantly
correlated with the desktop version of FlexiTwins (M = .48, SD = .42), Time 1: r = .50,
p < .01; Time 2: r = .42, p < .01; r =
.49 in the aggregated dataset). Finally, the D-scores
of the PocketPC FlexiTwins at Time 1 was found to be significantly correlated with the INS
(M = 3.68, SD = 1.31), r = .27, p < .05. Taken together, these results suggest that the
PocketPC FlexiTwins provides a usable platform for administering FlexiTwins in that it is
both reliable and valid.
In the present study, reliability analyses of the implicit measure revealed good ev-
idence for internal consistency. In the current zoo sample, FlexiTwins reliability was
evident in that D1 scores (M = .58, SD = 1.02) were significantly correlated with D2
scores (M = .58, SD = .75), r = .48, p < .01.
Procedure
Two separate procedures were used in this study due to the logistics of data collection
at the individual zoos. As participants from Prospect Park Zoo and Central Park Zoo
entered the zoo, they were asked if they would like to participate in the study. Once the
participant agreed, they completed a short survey and played FlexiTwins on the PocketPC
Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008 145
Coral M. Bruni, John Fraser, P. Wesley Schultz
at the beginning of their visit; they then returned to complete the measures a second
time just before exiting the park at the end of their visit to the zoo. As compensation for
participation in this study, participants received a keychain.
At the Bronx Zoo, independent random samples of guests were sampled entering and
exiting the park. This change in procedure was required because of staffing limitations
(e.g., multiple entrances/exits and extended visits). After agreeing to participate, visitors
were asked to complete the survey and play FlexiTwins on the PocketPC. Upon completion
of the study, these participants also received a keychain.
RESULTS
Upon entry to the zoos, participants showed moderate connectedness with nature
both explicitly (INS: M = 4.06 out of 7, SD = 1.45; N = 242) and implicitly (FlexiTwins:
M = .51, SD = .91; N = 242). When leaving the zoos, explicit connectedness with nature
was largely unchanged (M = 4.10, SD = 1.73), t(239) = .16, p = .88. However, at the
implicit level, FlexiTwins scores were higher at exit (M = .67, SD = .49) when compared
to results of the entry test (M = .51, SD = .91). To test the statistical significance of this
effect, we focused on the more powerful paired samples t test with participants from
Prospect Park Zoo and Central Park Zoo. After removing 22 participants from the analysis
due to incomplete test-retest data, the results showed that implicit connectedness was
significantly higher at exit (M = .72, SD = .39) when compared with results of the entry
test (M = .48, SD = .89), t(68) = 2.11, p < .05; d = .51.
Following the combined analyses, the data were examined separately by location. The
differences between institutions were not statistically significant. At all three locations
the size and direction of the effect were nearly identical to the findings from the combined
analysis (Figure 3).
Bronx Zoo
Upon entry to the Bronx Zoo, participants showed moderate connectedness with nature
(INS: M = 4.07, SD = 1.66; FlexiTwins: M =
.53, SD = .95). However, when leaving the
Bronx Zoo, participants showed higher implicit connectedness with nature (FlexiTwins:
M = .67, SD = .59). Although the means were in the expected direction, this difference
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Implicit Connectedness
with Nature
Bronx Zoo Central Park
Location
Prospect Park
Entry
Exit
Figure 3. Comparison of implicit connections with nature (D-scores) by Park.
146 Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008
Zoo Experiences and Connections with Nature
was not statistically significant, t(140) = .99, p = .33. No significant change was seen at
the explicit level; INS at exit, M = 4.11, SD = 1.70, t(140) = .12, p = .90.
Central Park Zoo
Upon entry to the Central Park Zoo, participants showed moderate connectedness with
nature both explicitly (INS: M = 4.29, SD = 1.29) and implicitly (FlexiTwins: M = .43,
SD = .65). The connectedness scores at exit were higher for the implicit measure (Flex-
iTwins: M = .70, SD = .38), (t(35) =−2.15, p < .05). Scores on the INS scale were largely
unchanged.
Prospect Park Zoo
Upon entry to the Prospect Park Zoo, participants showed moderate connectedness
with nature (INS: M = 4.29, SD = 1.29; FlexiTwins: M =.53, SD = 1.11). At exit, Prospect
Park Zoo visitors had higher implicit connectedness with nature scores (FlexiTwins:
M = .73, SD = .41), but the effect was not significant, t(32) =−1.05, p = .30.
Finally, the associations between demographic variables and explicit and implicit
connectedness with n ature were examined. No significant differences were found in
FlexiTwins D-score by gender (males: M = .51, SD = .75; females: M = .56, SD = .90),
t(236) =−.41, p =
.68, or based on membership status (yes: M = .69, SD = .76; no:
M = .49, SD = .86), t(236) = 1.52, p = .13. In addition, no correlations were found
between age (M = 35, SD = 11.99) and FlexiTwins D-score, r = .06, p = .37, or how often
participants visited the zoo (M = 2.73, SD = 1.59) and FlexiTwins D-score, r =−.04,
p = .52.
DISCUSSION
This study examined how the zoo experience affects a visitor’s connectedness with
nature. The results suggest that spending time in a zoo setting leads to an increase in
implicit connectedness with nature. Interestingly, this effect was found for an implicit
measure based on reaction time, but no effects were observed for self-ratings of explicit
connectedness with nature.
These results suggest that zoo experiences can promote an increase in connectedness
with nature, but that the effect occurs primarily at the implicit level and may not be
apparent to visitors at the time. This study replicates the findings presented by Schultz
and Tabanico (2007) regarding zoo visitors’ connections with nature at the San Diego
Wild Animal Park and confirms that spending time in a zoo setting increases a visitor’s
implicit connectedness with nature, irrespective of the scale of zoo or display concept.
As zoos have changed over the years to target explicit learning outcomes using in-
novative interpretive strategies, visitors continue to report that their primary purpose
for visiting zoos is to be with animals rather than any explicit desire to engage in learn-
ing (Wildlife Conservation Society, unpublished internal report). Environmental immer-
sion concepts, which have become increasingly popular in zoo settings, were intended
to create a more engaged sense of being with animals (e.g., Coe, 1984; Polakowski,
1987). Our results suggest that such an approach is indeed warranted as it promotes
a connection between individuals, animals, and the environment. However, our results
also suggest that non-immersion but naturalistic exhibits at the Prospect Park Zoo and
Central Park Zoo achieved the same degree of implicit association with nature as the
Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008 147
Coral M. Bruni, John Fraser, P. Wesley Schultz
more immersive exhibits at the Bronx Zoo and San Diego Wild Animal Park. These
results suggest that while the explicit connection may be of interest to visitors, the
greater implicit connection measured in this study may account for some of the desir-
ability or pleasure associated with visiting zoos and their overall popularity with the
public.
While we are sympathetic toward the explanation that spending time in a zoo setting
increases a visitor’s implicit connectedness with nature, the lack of a control group
limits our ability to draw causal conclusions. As a result, there are a series of alternative
explanations for our findings associated with physical or psychological states evoked by
the zoo experience that have nothing to do with connectedness with nature. For example,
participants in this study may have been experiencing some level of mental or physical
fatigue at the end of their zoo visit, and this fatigue is the source of the difference in
our IAT scores. While this explanation is plausible, findings presented in prior work by
Schultz and Tabanico (2007) suggest otherwise. Using a methodology identical to that
reported in this article, they showed no change in IAT scores pre- and post-visit from
six locations (beach, golf course, gym, indoor rock climbing facility, library, hiking).
However, in two studies at the San Diego Wild Animal Park, there was evidence of change
among zoo visitors from entry to exit, with an increase in connectedness with nature
over time. These findings, coupled with those reported in the present article, support
the conclusion that there is something unique about a zoo setting that promotes an
individual’s connectedness with nature.
Interestingly no gender differences in connectedness with nature were found in this
sample. Past research has found that females tend to have higher connectedness with
nature than males (Schultz et al., 2004; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007). The means of the
present sample were in the expected direction, although no statistically significant dif-
ferences were found. This study did not investigate gender identity, which may be a
more accurate way of understanding how sexuality relates to museum experiences like
implicit connectedness to nature measured here (Mertens, Fraser, & Heimlich, 2008).
This difference may be worthy of future research where gender identity is incorporated
as part of a more comprehensive study of implicit and explicit associations with nature
or perceptions of nature affiliation.
Overall, participants in our sample of zoo visitors showed a moderate level of both
implicit and explicit connectedness with nature. However, the mean scores at entry to
the zoos were not substantially different from those found in prior samples of university
students or in samples of the general public (Bruni & Schultz, under review). This suggests
several important aspects of the z oo experience. First, there is a basic overall tendency to
associate more strongly with natural than with built environments—even among a sample
of urban residents in New York City. Second, zoos are appealing to a broad audience,
and not just people who already have a strong sense of natural connection. Relatedly,
the effect of the zoo experience on implicit connections with nature is broad-based and
does not require an initial “green” mentality. Indeed, more than 1/3 of our samples were
first-time visitors to the zoo.
In conclusion, these results suggest that zoo experiences do promote an increase in
connectedness with nature, but the connection occurs at an implicit level and may not
be readily apparent to the visitor. Although this may account for some of the reported
148 Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008
Zoo Experiences and Connections with Nature
popularity for visiting zoos, it may also reveal why it is difficult for visitors to describe
explicitly what they find desirable about being with living animals. Further research could
help advance this new knowledge by investigating whether these implicit affiliations have
residual value or are sustained after the visit.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported in part through funding from the Institute for Museum and
Library Services grant # LG-25-05-0102-0. Our appreciation goes to Erin Johnson, Alexander
J. Wolf, Karelle A. Jones, Randie C. Chance, and Maria A. Aguilar for their help with the
reported studies. Portions of this article were presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the
International Association for People-Environment Studies, in Rome, Italy, 2008.
REFERENCES
Association of Zoos and Aquariums. (2007). AZA annual survey of members 2007. Washington DC:
Author.
Berger, J. (1980). Why look at animals? In About looking (pp. 3–30). New York: Pantheon.
Brookfield Zoo. (2006). FlexiFrog and FlexiTwins: Measures of implicit social cognition. User’s guide.
Available for download at www.csusm.edu/schultz.
Bruni, C. M., & Schultz, P. W. (under review). Implicit beliefs about self and nature: Evidence from
an IAT game. Unpublished manuscript, California State University, San Marcos.
Caldwell, L. L., Andereck, K. L., & Debbage, K. (1991). Predicting zoo visitor satisfaction. Proceedings
of the Southeastern Recreation Research Conference, 13, 22–29.
Clayton, S. (2003). Environmental identity: A conceptual and an operational definition. In S. Clayton
&S.Opotow(Eds.),Identity and the natural environment: The psychological significance of nature
(pp. 343). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clayton, S., Fraser, J., & Saunders, C. (in press). Zoo experiences: Conversations, connections, and
concern for animals. Zoo Biology.
Coe, J. (1984). Design and perception: Making the zoo experience real. Zoo Biology, 4, 197–208.
Falk, J. H., Heimlich, J. E., & Bronnenkant, K. (2008). Using identity-related visit motivations as a
tool for understanding adult zoo and aquarium visitors meaning making. Curator: The Museum
Journal, 51(1), 55–80.
Fraser, J., Condon, K., & Gruber, S. (2007). Exposing the tourist value proposition of zoos and
aquaria. Tourism Review International, 11, 279–293.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences
in implicit social cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit
Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 197–216.
Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellot, D. S. (2002).
A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological
Review, 109, 3–25.
Korpela, K., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (1996). Restorative experience and self-regulation
in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572–589.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness with nature scale: A measure of individuals’
feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
Mertens, D., Fraser, J., & Heimlich, J. E. (2008). Gender, identity, and the transformative research
paradigm. Museums and Social Issues, 3(1), 81–92.
Morgan, J. M., & Hodgkinson, M. (1999). The motivation and social orientation of visitors attending
a contemporary zoological park. Environment and Behavior, 31, 227–239.
Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008 149
Coral M. Bruni, John Fraser, P. Wesley Schultz
Myers, O. E., Saunders, C. D., & Birjulin, A. A. (2004). Emotional dimensions of watching zoo ani-
mals: An experience sampling study building on insights from psychology. Curator, the Museum
Journal, 47, 299–321.
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the implicit
association test: II. Method variable and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 166–180.
Pekarik, A. (2004). Eye-to-eye with animals and ourselves. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47, 257–
260.
Pennisi, L. (2007). Connection to nature: Development of a measurement scale. Unpublished dis-
sertation, University of Florida.
Polakowski, K. J. (1987). Zoo design: The reality of wild illusions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
School of Natural Resources.
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: Understanding the psychology of human-nature in-
teractions. In P. Schmuck & P. W. Schultz (Eds.), The psychology of sustainable development.
Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42.
Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, J. J. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment: Exploring implicit
connections with nature. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1219–1247.
Turley, S. K. (2001). Children and the demand for recreational experiences: The case of zoos. Leisure
Studies, 20,1–18.
Tomas, S. R., Crompton, J. L., & Scott, D. (2003). Assessing service quality and benefits sought
among zoological park visitors. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(52), 105–124.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Coral M. Bruni is a researcher in the Applied Social Psychology lab at California State
University, San Marcos. Her research interests are in conservation psychology and implicit
social cognition. She is currently working on a number of studies investigating environ-
mental attitudes and environmental education programs. E-mail: cbruni@csusm.edu.
John Fraser is an architect and conservation psychologist currently serving as Director,
ILI-NY for the Institute for Learning Innovation, an adjunct lecturer at Hunter College of
CUNY, and a CERC Scientist at Columbia University. He was Director of Public Research and
Evaluation at the Wildlife Conservation Society when this study was conducted.
Wesley Schultz is Professor of Psychology at California State University, San Marcos.
His research interests are in applied social psychology, social influence, and conservation
psychology. He has published extensively in these areas, with recent books on the Psy-
chology of Sustainable Development (Kluwer, 2002) and Attitudes and Opinions (Erlbaum,
2005).
150 Visitor Studies, 11(2), 2008
