Cited by 158Animal and Plant Science EducationConservation, Ecology, Wildlife EducationPrimate Behavior and Ecology

Specific Image Characteristics Influence Attitudes about Chimpanzee Conservation and Use as Pets

Open access
Ross, Stephen R., Vreeman, Vivian M., Lonsdorf, Elizabeth V.·2011·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Chimpanzees are endangered in their native Africa but in the United States, they are housed not only in zoos and research centers but owned privately as pets and performers. In 2008, survey data revealed that the public is less likely to think that chimpanzees are endangered compared to other great apes, and that this is likely the result of media misportrayals in movies, television and advertisements. Here, we use an experimental survey paradigm with composite images of chimpanzees to determine the effects of specific image characteristics. We found that those viewing a photograph of a chimpanzee with a human standing nearby were 35.5% more likely to consider wild populations to be stable/healthy compared to those seeing the exact same picture without a human. Likewise, the presence of a human in the photograph increases the likelihood that they consider chimpanzees as appealing as a pet. We also found that respondents seeing images in which chimpanzees are shown in typically human settings (such as an office space) were more likely to perceive wild populations as being stable and healthy compared to those seeing chimpanzees in other contexts. These findings shed light on the way that media portrayals of chimpanzees influence public attitudes about this important and endangered species.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0022050

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ross and colleagues found that people who were shown images of chimpanzees in the presence of humans were more likely to believe that wild populations of chimps are stable and would consider owning one as a pet, compared to people who were shown images of chimps without a human present.

    “Ross and colleagues [152] found that people who were shown images of chimpanzees in the presence of humans were more likely to believe that wild populations of chimps are stable and would consider owning one as a pet, compared to people who were shown images of chimps without a human present.”

    From The visitor effect on zoo animals: implications and opportunities for zoo animal welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [152]

    The Results report that respondents shown a chimpanzee beside a human were less likely to classify wild populations as endangered or declining and more likely to find a chimpanzee appealing as a pet than respondents shown one alone. The pet question measured appeal, not whether respondents would consider owning a chimpanzee, so that part of the claim overstates the finding. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2]Ross SR Lukas KE Lonsdorf EV Stoinski TS Hare B 2008 Inappropriate use and portrayal of chimpanzees. Science 319 1487 18339923
  2. [5]Sanchez-Fernandez R Iniesta-Bonillo MA 2007 The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory 7 427 451
  3. [6]Rodrigues ASL Pilgrim JD Lamoreux JF Hoffmann M Brooks TM 2006 The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21 71 76 16701477

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ross, S. R., Vreeman, V. M., & Lonsdorf, E. V.
Affiliations
Lincoln Park Zoo (US)
Corresponding author
Ross, Stephen R.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-07-13
Volume
6
Issue
7
Pages
e22050
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066370313
Cited by
158
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Knowledge@UChicago (University of Chicago) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Chicago (cc-by)
Funders
Arcus Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Animal and Plant Science Education
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
chimpanzees, public attitudes, conservation attitudes, pet ownership, media representation, image characteristics, great apes
MeSH terms
Animals, Attitude, Pan troglodytes, Conservation of Natural Resources, Humans, Endangered Species, Pets

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review