Perception of snakes effectively measured through attitude and behavior survey

Wildlife programs provide an arena for interacting with and viewing wild animals, which may help participants develop informed, positive, and respectful perceptions of wildlife. However, not all wildlife programs promote positive views of wildlife, and some do not address fears toward certain species, such as snakes. Previous research suggests that many people have negative perceptions of snakes due to misinformation, learned attitudes, and negative portrayals of snakes in pop culture. Wildlife programs may be one way to improve perceptions of wildlife, particularly for those species that are frequently feared. For this study, the authors developed a survey instrument to measure wildlife program participants' attitudes and behaviors toward snakes.

Using questions adapted from multiple existing surveys, the authors created the Perceptions of Snakes Survey (PSS) to measure attitudes and behaviors related to snakes. The survey included 42 statements, which were grouped into six categories. Four of these categories measured different dimensions of attitude: (1) Moralistic-Ecologistic, or ethics and protection concern toward wildlife; (2) Negativistic, or fear, uneasiness, trepidation toward wildlife; (3) Utilitarian-Ecologistic, or wildlife as useful parts of ecosystems; and (4) Scientistic, or physiological and biological characteristics of wildlife. The remaining two categories measured dimensions of behavior: (5) Protection Advocacy, or willingness to advocate for the protection of wildlife; and (6) Contact Willingness, or willingness to become in contact with wildlife. The survey asked that respondents rate their level of agreement (from “strongly disagree”/“very unlikely” to “strongly agree”/“very likely”) with each of the 42 statements.

This research took place in the summer of 2014 at the Sandy Creek Nature Center (SCNC) in Athens, Georgia. The researchers distributed the Perceptions of Snakes Survey to three groups. The first group was 56 adult visitors during “Snake Day,” a one-day interactive event held at SCNC each year; participants were surveyed at the beginning and end of their visit. A total of 48 adult visitors completed the survey before and after their visit to the self-guided, viewing-based permanent snake exhibit at SCNC. The researchers observed those who had received surveys to ensure that they read interpretive signs throughout the center. The survey was also distributed online to reptile-based citizen science programs, and the researchers collected 77 responses. Online participants were identified through colleagues of the researchers, through referrals, and through word-of-mouth. Lastly, researchers recruited a control group of 39 participants who visited the nature center on days when the permanent snake exhibit was closed. This group was presumed to hold similar interests and environmental engagement to those who visited the center during open hours. In total, 220 people completed both the pre- and post-surveys. The researchers used statistics to analyze the data and to determine reliability and validity of the tool. Reliability and validity are important to establish in order to ensure that the tool will consistently measure what it is proposed to measure.

The study concluded that the survey accurately measured attitudes and behaviors toward snakes. Further, the researchers found that participants tended to display similar positive attitudes toward snakes as with other wildlife. This suggests that nature center visitors do not fear snakes but rather view them as they do other animals. This finding points to the need for further studies on snakes and attitudes and behaviors people hold and display toward them. This study also found that people respond differently to snakes when reporting about them in the abstract than they do when they have been present with a snake, pointing to a difference between behavior in-person and behavior in the abstract.

This study was limited in that the researchers referred to snakes in general terms rather than differentiating between venomous and non-venomous snakes on the survey, which could have elicited different responses. Further, participants in Snake Day and attendees of the snake exhibits chose to attend such events, which may indicate that they were already interested in and/or informed about snakes. This self-selection bias may have skewed the results. Lastly, the researchers noted that they were unable to fully and completely gather information on the degree to which the citizen science online survey participants had been exposed to snakes. This could have led to responses from people who had not experienced the level of snake exposure as the in-person participants had, potentially skewing the results.

The researchers recommend that educational efforts should emphasize the positive attributes of typically feared animals rather than focusing on the fears they inspire. They also stress the importance of evaluating program impacts. With the PSS, the authors created a standard survey that can help other wildlife programs better understand participants' perceptions while simultaneously meeting programmatic goals. They indicate that the language and structure of the PSS are such that the survey could easily be adapted to other animals. They recommend that nature centers use an adapted version of the survey to measure the impacts of programs featuring other feared animals. The authors emphasize that any adapted survey should be tested for validity and reliability to ensure that it measures what it is supposed to measure and that it generates useful information about program impacts.