Ioc Final Summative Evaluation Report-B

Indianapolis Zoo 25!
Simon Skjodt International Orangutan Center at the Indianapolis Zoo
The Hutan Heroes label (Image 7) is another visual label. It is a collection of

smaller labels and images displayed together on wires around a circular base. Its unusual
three-dimensional format and location in the center of a walkway rather than on a wall
might be why it had more stops than some of the other inside labels. Also, the smaller
labels let visitors choose which individual stories they wanted to read instead of feeling
like they had to read a whole label. The average stop time at Hutan Heroes was 28.5
seconds, so visitors were being selective about which labels on the display they were
reading.
!
Image!7!5!"Hutan!Heroes"!Label
Most of the labels that were not visited by any groups were in the plaza. Of the 12
labels inside the plaza (which does not include the introductory sign since it is at the top
of the plaza rather than in it), only three were stopped at at least once. The two resident
profile labels were visited most, with 9 stops between them. Only one group stopped at
the Moving through the trees label. The location of these labels likely contributed to
their limited visitation rate. The resident profiles are right next to the window, and are
reference labels for the apes visitors are watching. As seen in Image 8, the rest of the
labels are mostly positioned along the sides of the stairs and ramps into the plaza. Due to
the size of the space, they are easy to pass or miss on a walk down to the window. Also,
since the signs are double sided, a visitor would have to make a special effort to walk
down the ramp and the stairs to read both sides. Interestingly, the Moving through the

trees label is on the sign with the female and baby orangutans sculpture, which is the
only label not right along a plaza ramp.
Image!8!5!Plaza!Labels
One of the two inside labels that had zero stops was a word cloud in the Learning
Studio. This is not surprising because the demo, ape viewing, and video in the Learning
Studio are the major elements in that part of the exhibit, drawing attention from the word
cloud (see Image 9). In addition, all three of those elements face away from the word
cloud. The other label that was not visited by any groups was Learning from Mom
(Image 10). This label is located on the right-hand wall after visitors enter the building.
However, to the left of the entrance is Inside Viewing Window 1, which was a bigger
draw for visitors. After they moved on from their viewing experience, they did not go
back to see the Learning from Mom label.

Image!9!5!Learning!Studio!and!Word!Cloud!Label
Image!10!5!"Learning!from!Mom"!Label

Demonstrations
There are two orangutan learning demonstrations that take place in the exhibit.
They depend on the availability of the researchers running them, so the demos are not
constant, nor do they happen on a set schedule. Because of this, our data for these groups
have small sample sizes.
The first demonstration has apes working with a computer program similar to a
classic table-tennis video game and is intended to explore orangutan cognition using
game theory. It takes place in the Cognitive Interaction Station, so it is being called the
Interaction Demo. There were 11 groups that had the opportunity to stop at the
Interaction Demo while they were touring the inside of the Center.2 Of the 11 groups, 6
groups watched this demo once, three watched it twice, and two groups skipped the
demo. This means that nine out of 11 groups, or 82%, watched the Interaction Demo
when it was available to them.
The average total stay time in the exhibit for the groups who watched the
Interaction Demo was longer than the average for the full sample of 96 groups (15.11
minutes compared to 12.31 minutes). The average individual stop time and total watch
time (multiple stop times added together) for the Interaction Demo were both under two
minutes.
Table!16!5!Interaction!Demonstration!Times
Avg Total Time Spent

in IOC (n=9)
15.11 minutes
Avg total watch time at

Interaction Demo (n=9)
1.82 minutes
During the other demonstration in the exhibit, orangutans are presented with
symbols on a touch screen computer program as a cognition/memory challenge while a
researcher interprets the orangutans behavior for guests. Visitors watch it from the
Learning Studio, so it is being called the Learning Studio Demo. There were six groups
observed in the space while a Learning Studio Demo was occurring. Of the six groups,
five stopped at this demo once, and one group stopped twice. No groups skipped the
Learning Studio Demo, which means that 100% of the groups who had the opportunity to
watch the Learning Studio Demo did.
The average total time spent in the exhibit by groups who watched the Learning
Studio Demo (14.33 minutes) was longer than the average for all groups, but less than the
average of groups who watched the Interaction Demo. However, the average individual
stop time and total watch time were higher for the Learning Studio Demo, with both
being over three minutes. Nevertheless, it was a very small sample size and the stop times
range from 10 seconds to 12.13 minutes, so no conclusions can be drawn from this
average. Further study is recommended.
Table!17!5!Learning!Studio!Demonstration!Times
Avg Total Time Spent in

IOC (n=6)
14.33 minutes
Stop times ranged from 10 seconds 12.13 minutes (i.e., a large range within a small sample)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
Avg total watch time at

Studio Demo (n=6)
3.75 minutes1
!There was one additional group that watched some of the set up, but did not wait for the Interaction Demo
to actually begin, so they are not included in this number. !

Content
There are five major themes the exhibit focuses on: 1) physical characteristics of
orangutans, 2) the relationship between orangutan moms and babies, 3) wild orangutan
habitat, 4) conservation, and 5) orangutan mental abilities. One other theme covered in
the exhibit is information related specifically to the Indianapolis Zoos orangutans and
their enclosures. A content audit of the exhibit was preformed prior to data collection to
see which elements covered which themes. Viewing opportunities and interpreter
interactions are not included in this audit because it is difficult to know exactly what
messages visitors are consistently taking away from these experiences.
Of these themes, elements related to wild orangutan habitat and orangutans
mental abilities were stopped at by the largest number of groups (n=30). That said,
visitors spent more time on average at mental ability elements (1.78 minutes) than at
habitat elements (1.09 minutes). The increased amount of time at mental ability elements
is likely due to long stops at the Learning Studio Demonstration. Groups also spent a
slightly longer amount of time at conservation elements (1.43 minutes) than at habitat
elements. The elements covering mother/baby relationships were visited by the fewest
number of groups, and were also stopped at for the least amount of time. The second least
visited theme was physical attributes. Most of this content is covered in the plaza labels
that were not visited by any groups.
Table!18!5!Exhibit!Content!Themes,!Visitation!and!Time
Content Theme
Mental Abilities
Conservation
Wild Habitat
Zoos Orangutans
Physical Characteristics
Moms & Babies
!
# of groups
with at least
one stop at
content
30
26
30
20
14
11
Avg time
spent at
content
elements
(min)
1.78
1.43
1.09
0.81
0.69
0.40
% of element
time spent
with content
theme
% of total
time spent
with content
theme
22%
14%
1%
9%
9%
8%
12%
8%
7%
5%
5%
4%
Behaviors!!
The two main behaviors tracked in the exhibit were interpreter interaction and
exhibit interaction. Interpreter interaction was only possible at stops where an interpreter
was present. Exhibit interaction was possible at any stop.
Interpreter Interaction
There were 29 groups that interacted with an interpreter during their visit.
Interaction was defined as talking with an interpreter or listening while making eye
contact with an interpreter. Of this subset of visitors, the average total time spent in the
exhibit was 16.17 minutes, almost four minutes more than the average stay time of all 96
groups (12.31 minutes). They spent an average of 10.41 minutes at exhibit elements,
almost 4 minutes more than the total average time spent at exhibit elements (6.91
minutes). This represents 64% of their total time spent in the exhibit, almost 12% more

than the average for all groups observed. This extended stay time by groups could be due
to the extra time spent talking with an interpreter. It could also be a possible indicator that
groups who interact with an interpreter have an increased interest in the exhibit, leading
them to spend more time throughout the space.
Of the total 88 opportunities where interpreters were present, there were 39 stops
with interpreter interaction, meaning that 44% of opportunities to interact with an
interpreter led to interpreter interaction. This means that the rest of the time visitors chose
not to interact with interpreters, interpreters were already interacting with another set of
visitors, or interpreters decided visitors were not receptive to interaction. Interpreters
were mainly stationed near viewing windows. The windows with the highest percentages
of stops with interpreter interactions were Inside Viewing Windows 1 and 3. As with the
increased stay time at these windows discussed earlier, the more intimate space might
have facilitated more interactions. Further research examining the effect of interpreter
interaction on guest experience could contribute useful data to the Zoos interpretive
program, a key part of mission fulfillment.
Table!19!5!Interpreter!Interaction!by!Element
Element
Inside Window 1
Inside Window 3
Inside Window 2
East Oasis
Plaza Window
Computer Window
Efroymson Family Sign
Hutan Trail Viewing A
Puzzle Master
Resident Profiles - Left
Overhead Viewing
Studio Window
West Oasis
View of Outside
TOTAL
Element
Type
Viewing
Viewing
Viewing
Viewing
Viewing
Viewing
Label
Viewing
Label
Label
Viewing
Viewing
Viewing
Stops with Interpreter

Interaction
10
10
7
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total Opportunities
39
88
22
15
31
2
8
2
1
1
1
1
1
2

Evaluators also were interested to see if groups that stopped at non-viewing

elements would also be more likely to have interpreter interaction. Of the 39 groups that
made non-viewing stops, 26 groups had at least one stop where an interpreter was
present. There were a total of 42 opportunities for these 26 groups, and 20 yielded an
interpreter interaction (48%). This is only slightly more than the average for all groups
(44%). However, groups that made one or more stops at non-viewing elements had a
higher percentage of interpreter interaction. Of the 57 groups that only stopped at viewing
elements, 32 stopped at elements with an interpreter present, and 41% (n=13) of them
interacted with that interpreter. Of the 39 groups with non-viewing stops, 26 stopped at
elements with an interpreter present, and 62% of them (n=16) interacted with an
interpreter. This means that visitors who make non-viewing stops might be more inclined
to interact with an interpreter than groups who only stop at viewing elements (see Chart
2).
Chart!2!5!Interpreter!Interaction!for!Groups!that!Stopped!at!an!Element!with!an!Interpreter!
Present
Exhibit Interaction
For the purposes of this study, behaviors considered exhibit interaction included:
conversations relevant to orangutans, reading a label aloud, pointing, taking a photo of or
with the orangutans, physical or vocal imitation of the orangutans, touching (but not
tapping) the glass, and physical relocation to follow an orangutan.
The goal of tracking exhibit interaction was to measure how engaging different
elements were, meaning how likely they were to prompt visitors to interact with the
exhibit beyond silent, stationary reading and viewing. What evaluators recorded in the
exhibit was whether a specific element elicited any exhibit interaction from a group
during at least one of their stops at the element. This measured the relative likelihood of
an element to create a social interaction during the course of a visit.
At the nine most visited elements, the percentage of groups that displayed signs of
exhibit interaction (or EI) ranged from 85% (Hutan Trail Viewing A) to 36% (Learning
Studio Window). Again, the number of groups that stopped at these nine elements varied
greatly. However, this grouping of elements is interesting in that all of the top nine most
popular stops were viewing elements.

!
Table!20!5!Exhibit!Interaction!at!Top!Nine!Most!Visited!Elements
Element
Hutan Trail Viewing A
West Oasis, Inside
Plaza Window
Inside Window 2
Inside Window 1
Inside Window 3
East Oasis
Interaction Computer Window
Learning Studio Window
# of groups that
demonstrated EI
at element
11
15
39
46
35
34
26
7
5
# of groups that
stopped at
element
13
19
37
71
55
54
59
17
14
% with EI
85%
79%
78%
65%
64%
63%
44%
41%
36%
There is also a vast range in the percentages of groups with exhibit interaction
when the exhibit elements are divided by type. The two element types that had the lowest
percentage of groups display exhibit interaction at them were audio-visual (26%) and
labels (36%). At all types of viewing windows and multi-media elements, groups were
approximately 60% likely to demonstrate exhibit interaction. The element type with the
highest percentage of exhibit interaction was the Hutan Trail, where groups that stopped
were 80% likely to interact with the exhibit.
Table!21!5!Exhibit!Interaction!by!Type!of!Element
Element
Viewing Windows
Outside Viewing Windows
Inside Viewing Windows
Hutan Trail
Labels
Audio-Visual
Multi-media
1
# of groups that
demonstrated EI
at a type of
element1
209
76
133
24
28
5
5
# of groups that
stopped at a type
of element1
342
123
219
30
77
19
8
% with EI
61%
62%
61%
80%
36%
26%
63%
Some of these add up to more than 96 because groups made stops at multiple viewing windows

Other!Variables!!
Ape Activity Levels
A four-level scale was developed to track ape activity levels in the exhibit. A high
ape activity level was any time the orangutans were mobile. A medium activity level was
when the orangutans were awake but not mobile. A low activity level was when the
orangutans were sleeping and a none activity level was when no orangutans were
visible from the viewing window. The activity level selected by the evaluator was based
on the most active of the orangutans observed.
Ape activity level was a variable hypothesized to affect visitors stop times at
viewing elements in the exhibit, and that turned out to be the case. The higher the level of
ape activity, the longer visitors spent watching the orangutans. This is especially evident
in the average time spent at inside viewing windows based on ape activity levels. The
average stop time increased as the ape activity level increased.
Table!22!5!Ape!Activity!Levels!and!Stop!Times!at!Inside!Windows
Ape activity level

High
Medium
Low
None
# of groups
81
1221
44
22
Avg Stop Time (min)

1.76
1.15
0.91
0.29
Adds up to more than 96 because groups made stops at multiple viewing windows
This sequence is not perfectly reflected by the stop times at outside viewing
windows. Average stop times during medium and low ape activity were almost identical.
However, the average stop time during high ape activity was almost a minute longer than
these, and the average stop time when there were no apes was about a minute shorter. As
seen at the inside windows, visitors are spending more time at these outside viewing
windows when the apes are active than when they are not. Guests may also perceive little
to no difference between medium and low activity levels, since both are immobile.
Table!23!5!Ape!Activity!Levels!and!Stop!Times!at!Outside!Windows
Ape activity level

High
Medium
Low
None
# of groups
39
51
12
35
Avg Stop Time (min)

2.50
1.2605
1.2606
0.25

Stops at the Hutan Trail also had the longest average time when there was a high
level of ape activity. Due to the nature of the Trail, there were few stops during medium
ape activity, and none during low activity levels. Once the orangutans are up on the cable
system, they tend to keep moving, resting on the platforms infrequently. Interestingly, the
average stop time for none ape activity level on the Hutan Trail is longer than during
medium activity. This is partially due to one group who interacted with an interpreter for
2.15 minutes at the Trail when there were no apes present. However, even without that
stop the average stop time for the none activity level is still 0.32 minutes. This is only
0.02 minutes away from the average time for medium activity level stops, which
comparatively is much closer than the difference between the medium and none
stops at the other windows.
Table!24!5!Ape!Activity!Levels!and!Stay!Times!at!the!Hutan!Trail
Ape activity level

High
Medium
Low
None
# of groups
21
3
0
11
Avg Stop Time (min)

1.21
0.34
N/A
0.491
One group spent 129 seconds with Interpreter Interaction
Visitors were drawn to the design of the Hutan Trail even without any apes
climbing on it. Of the 11 stops made at the Hutan Trail when there were no apes present,
9 groups (82%) displayed some form of exhibit interaction. This is a much higher
percentage of exhibit interaction than during none ape activity than at either the inside
windows (5/22, 23%) or the outside windows (11/35, 31%). The one outside window that
prompted exhibit interaction at every stop with no apes present (4/4) was the West Oasis
outside window. This is notable because it is also where visitors can see the end of the
Hutan Trail entering the West Oasis yard, which could be what elicited the exhibit
interaction in all 4 groups.

Crowd Levels
A three-level scale was designed to measure crowd level. A high crowd level was
when a guest had to wait to gain access to a viewing opportunity because of heavy
attendance. A medium crowd level was when a guest did not have to wait, but did have to
find a spot along the window for viewing access. A low crowd level was when a guest
did not have to wait and had clear access to the viewing window.
Analysis of stop times at viewing experiences based on both ape activity and
crowd levels suggest that ape activity drives stop times regardless of crowd level. As seen
in the chart below, the longest stay times are all during high ape activity, and the shortest
are all during none ape activity. It is important to note that due to the multiple variables
involved in this chart, there is a large range in the size of subgroups in each category.
This number of groups goes from two groups in low ape, high crowd which explains
why it is higher than the other low ape bars to 99 groups in medium apes, low crowd. It
is the beginning of an interesting pattern, but more data are needed to confirm it.
Chart!3!5!Effect!of!Ape!Activity!Level!and!Crowd!Level!on!Time!Spent!at!Viewing!Elements
!
!

INTERVIEWS!&!SURVEYS!
METHODOLOGY!
Evaluators conducted on-site exit interviews, off-site control interviews, and
online follow-up surveys to answer the final two research questions To what extent do
guests understand the main themes of the exhibit: orangutan wild habitat, moms and
babies, physical characteristics, and mental abilities? and To what extent is this exhibit
changing guests attitudes towards orangutans?
The exit interview (see Appendix B) started with a series of five conservation
attitudes and corresponding Likert scales for before and after their visit. A retrospective
pre/post design was chosen for this question because it allows participants to answer prequestions in the same frame of reference as the post-questions, so it is considered more
accurate than regular pre/post interviews (Rockwell & Kohn, 1989). Evaluators asked for
one adult volunteer in each group to rank the statements. The entire group was invited to
share answers for the rest of the interview questions. The second question had visitors
choose three words they most associated with orangutans. There were also four yes or no
questions about visitors exhibit experience, and five open-ended questions that asked
visitors what they remember finding out about the exhibit themes. Lastly, evaluators
collected demographics, including number of adults and children, ages of adults and
children, membership, and whether this was participants first visit to the Orangutan
Center.
The control interview (see Appendix C) was very similar to the exit interview,
with a few changes. First, participants were presented with images of an orangutan, a
chimpanzee, and a gorilla, and asked to identify the orangutan. This was done to ensure
that participants were actually thinking of orangutans when they were answering the
questions rather than a different animal. Out of the 60 groups interviewed, 58 were able
to correctly identify the orangutan. The two groups that were incorrect both chose the
gorilla. As per protocol, the rest of the interview was not conducted, and only
demographic data was collected from them. There was only one point-in-time used for
the scaled attitude questions, but the statements to be rated were the same. The exhibit
experience questions were not included since the participants had not visited the exhibit.
For the same reason, the beginning of the open-ended questions were worded slightly
differently, asking participants what can you tell me about the same topics as the exit
interview. For demographics, only the number of adults and children, and their ages were
collected.
The online follow-up survey (see Appendix D) closely mirrored the exit interview
but with a few minor changes. There was only one point-in-time used for the scaled
attitude question because participants pre- and post- rankings had already been collected
during the exit interview. The follow-up survey also did not ask about exhibit experience
or demographics for the same reason. There was one additional question on the survey
that was not on the exit interview. It asked visitors to select from a list of activities related
to orangutans to see what they had done since their original visit.

SAMPLE!
As with the timing and tracking study, the sample selected for the interviews was
visitors between the ages of 25 and 54 with children under the age of 16. For the exit
interview, evaluators were stationed near the exit of the indoor part of the exhibit. They
used a continuous random sampling method to select visitors to ask to participate. There
were no thank you gifts or incentives offered. A total of 89 groups were approached, with
68 agreeing to participate and 21 declining. This means that the exit interview had a 24%
refusal rate.
For the control interview, evaluators targeted the same sample demographic as the
onsite exit interview using continuous random sampling. These interviews were
conducted at the Indiana State Museum, outside of their special holiday exhibit, and the
Eiteljorg Museum, near the beginning of their R.B. Annis Western Family Experience
exhibit. A total of 60 interviews were collected, split evenly between the two museums.
Visitors were given an Indianapolis Prize reusable water bottle for participating in the
interview. Only museum visitors that had not been to the Simon Skjodt International
Orangutan Center were eligible to participate in the interview. Due to this requirement,
65 groups were ineligible to participate, which was 47% of the total 139 groups
approached. There were 14 groups that were eligible to participate, but declined. This
means that the control interview had a 10% refusal rate for total groups, and a 19%
refusal rate of eligible groups.
All follow-up survey respondents were visitors who had participated in the exit
interview. The surveys were sent out via SurveyMonkey six to eight weeks after the onsite interviews. As part of the exit interview, guests were asked to share their email and
participate in a later follow-up survey. Of the 68 groups, 91% (n=62) shared their emails.
Three addresses bounced when entered into SurveyMonkey. Out of the 59 groups who
received the survey email, 30 groups completed the survey. The survey was open for
three weeks, and there were three reminder emails sent out during that time. Respondents
were offered a five-dollar Amazon gift card for completing the survey.
Demographics!
Adults
A comparison of the adult visitors for each set of groups timing and tracking,
exit interview, control interview, and follow-up survey shows that there was a higher
percentage of females in each set. The biggest difference was in the follow-up survey,
where 70% of the respondents were female.
The spread of ages was also similar for all the groups. The highest percentage of
visitors in each set were in their thirties. One difference is that the control groups were
slightly older, with a low percentage of visitors in their twenties (8%).
It is important to note that the collection method for adult ages was different
between the observed and interviewed groups. During timing and tracking, the ages of all
adults in a group were observed and recorded. In the interview, only the adult being
interviewed was asked for their age. This also helps explain why there are some
differences in the range of ages.

Table!25!5!Sex!of!Adult!Visitors
% Male
47%
35%
45%
30%
T&T (n=96)
Exit (n= 68)
Control (n = 60)
Follow-up (n=30) 1
1
% Female
53%
65%
55%
70%
Male & Female percentages for follow-up calculated based on exit interview demographic data.
There is a small possibility that a different adult in the group took the online survey than the main
exit interviewee.
Table!26!5!Range!and!Comparison!of!Adults'!Ages
T&T (n=202)
Exit (n= 68)
Control (n=60)
Follow-up (n=30)
% 20s
17%
24%
8%
20%
% 30s
47%
47%
52%
50%
% 40s
19%
25%
33%
30%
% 50s
12%
4%
7%
0%
% 60s
5%
0%
0%
0%
Total #
202
105
139
41
Children
Childrens ages were also collected differently between the observed and
interviewed groups. Because evaluators did not talk to tracked groups, they instead
observed and recorded the developmental stages of each child in the group. During the
interviews, evaluators asked participants for their childrens exact ages. In order to
compare all sets of data, the exact ages from the interviews were converted into
developmental stages (See Table 27). Anyone aged 18 and older was considered an adult.
Table!27!5!Ages!to!Developmental!Stages!Conversion
Age Range
01
23
45
6 10
11 13
14 17
Developmental Stage
Infant
Toddler
Preschool
Elementary
Middle School
High School
The developmental stage with the most children in each group was elementary.
There were fewer middle and high school aged children than elementary aged children.
Overall, participants were visiting with relatively young children.
Table!28!5!Range!and!Comparison!of!Children's!Developmental!Stages
T&T
Exit
Control
Follow-up
%
Infant
8%
14%
10%
12%
%
Toddler
26%
24%
18%
34%
%
Preschool
19%
14%
16%
8%
%
Elementary
33%
29%
40%
34%
%
Middle
8%
13%
13%
12%
%
High
6%
5%
3%
0%
Total #
214
120
120
50

Exit Interviews & Follow-up Surveys

The majority of visitors who participated in the exit interview were members.
Forty-four groups were members (65%) and 24 were not (35%). The majority of groups
were also repeat visitors. Forty-one groups (60%) reported that they had visited the
Orangutan Center previously, and 27 groups (40%) said it was their first visit. The subset
of groups that completed the follow-up survey had a slightly higher percentage of
members (70%) and repeat visitors (67%) than total groups. Of the exit interview groups
that had prior visits, most had been to the Center six or fewer times. See Table 29 for the
full range of repeat visits.
Table!29!5!Repeat!Visits!to!Orangutan!Center!as!Reported!During!Exit!Interview
# of Prior Visits
1-3
4-6
7-9
10 - 12
13+
# of groups
15
16
2
6
2
Exhibit!Experience!! !
Exit Interview and Timing & Tracking Groups
As part of the exit interviews, visitors were asked if they had done any of the four
following activities: talk with a staff member or volunteer, watch an orangutan use a
computer, donate to plant a tree, or see an orangutan climbing outside. This was done to
compare the experiences of the exit interview groups with those of the timing and
tracking groups.
The percentage of groups from both the exit interviews and timing and tracking
observations that saw a demonstration were very similar. The exit interview groups had a
slightly higher percentage, but that is likely due to the fact that interviews take less time,
so more could be conducted while the demos were happening. Also close was the number
of groups that planted a tree. No groups observed during timing and tracking did so, and
only two exit interview groups donated (3%).
The biggest difference between the two groups was how many visitors talked to
interpreters in the exhibit. Thirty percent of the timing and tracking groups were observed
having interpreter interaction, whereas 56% of exit interview groups reported talking with
a staff member or volunteer. This could mean that people willing to take a survey are
more likely to be the sort of visitors that seek interaction with an interpreter. There was
also a difference between the two sets of groups regarding seeing orangutans using the
Hutan Trail outside. Almost a quarter of timing and tracking groups were observed
stopping at the Hutan Trail when there was an ape present and active, but only 7% of exit
interview groups reported seeing an orangutan climbing outside. This difference is due to
the later data collection dates for the interviews. Because the exit interviews were done
during November in Indiana, many of the collection days were too cold for the Hutan
Trail to be open for the orangutans to go outside.
Overall it appears that the two sets of groups had similar, but not identical,
experiences in the space.

Table!30!5!Comparison!of!Content!Experience!for!Exit!and!Timing!&!Tracking!Groups
Behavior
# of Exit
Interview
Groups
% of Exit
Interview
Groups
# of T&T
Groups
% of T&T
Groups
Talk with
38
56%
29
30%
staff/volunteer
Watch orangutan
15
22%
15
16%
use a computer
Watch orangutan
use computer when
15
94%
15
88%
demo happening1
Plant Tree/ Donate
2
3%
0
0%
See orangutan
5
7%
142
25%
climbing outside
1
Exit Interview (n = 16), T&T (n=17) - All other Exit percentages calculated out of 68. All other
T&T percentages calculated out of 96.
2
Number of groups that stopped at Hutan Trail when ape activity level was High or Medium
FINDINGS!
Attitude!Question!
All three sets of groups exit, control, and follow-up ranked their responses to
the same five attitude statements listed below. The terms in parentheses are what the
statements will be referred to henceforth.
I am motivated to do something to protect wild orangutans (motivation)
I feel a connection to orangutans (connection)
My actions can help save wild orangutans (actions)
I care about the future of wild orangutans (future)
I think orangutan conservation matters (conservation)
Participants were asked to rank the statements on a scale of one to six, with one
being strongly disagree, and six being strongly agree. Data were analyzed using
SPSS Statistics software. The probability value for tests was set at p<.05. All data were
first analyzed for reliability. The Chronbachs Alpha score for the data is .858, which
indicates a high level of internal consistency for the scale. This means that the five
statements and their corresponding scales were reliably measuring the same underlying
construct, which in this case was attitudes towards orangutans.
Retrospective Pre/Post
In the exit interview, groups (n = 68) were asked to rank each statement twice,
once for how much they would have agreed before their visit (pre-test) and then for how
much they agreed after (post-test). These rankings were analyzed in SPSS using a
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for related samples. The overall mean (averaged attitude
rankings for all five questions) for the post-test was significantly higher than the overall

mean for the pre-test (Sig = .000) (see Table 31). This shows that the exhibit is positively
affecting visitors short-term attitudes towards orangutans.
Table!31!5!Overall!Means!for!Retrospective!Pre/Post!(n!=!68)
Pre
Post
Mean Ranking
3.8
5.0
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests for related samples found that the post-test ranking
means for each of the five individual statements were all significantly higher than the
means for the corresponding retrospective pre-test statements (Sig = .000 for all five
statements). See Table 32 and Chart 4 below for each mean ranking. The increase was
largest for the connection means (3.0 to 4.7). Watching the orangutans seems to have
created some sense of connection to the apes that visitors did not feel prior to the
experience. The smallest increases were for future (4.7 to 5.5) and conservation (4.6 to
5.5). However, the mean pre-test rankings for both statements were higher to begin with
than any of the other three categories.
Table!325!Means!for!Retrospective!Pre/Post!Individual!Statements!(n!=!68)
Motivation Means
Connection Means
Action Means
Future Means
Conservation Means
Pre
3.6
3.0
3.3
4.7
4.6
Chart!4!5!Means!for!Retrospective!Pre/Post!Rankings
Post
4.7
4.7
4.5
5.5
5.5

Pre/Post/Follow-up
Of the 30 groups that participated in the follow-up survey, 29 completed the
attitude ranking question. Friedman tests were run in SPSS to compare the pre, post, and
follow-up rankings for the 29 groups. Statistically significant differences were found in
the overall means for the three sets of data (Sig = .000). A series of Wilcoxon Signed
Rank Tests for related samples were run as post-hoc follow-up tests to see where the
significant differences fell between the sets of data. Calculations for the Bonferroni
adjustment make p<0.17 the probability level for the post-hoc tests. The tests found that
the pre-test was significantly different from the post-test (Sig = .000), the post-test was
significantly different from the follow-up (Sig = .000), and that the follow-up was
significantly different from the pre-test (Sig = .000).
The overall mean for the post-test attitudes was higher than both the pre-test mean
and the follow-up mean (see Table 33). However, the follow-up mean is still significantly
higher than the pre-test mean. This means that even though overall attitude rankings
decreased in the six to eight weeks following the exhibit visit, they did not return to pretest levels. This indicates that the exhibit is having some long-term effect on visitor
attitudes towards orangutans.
Table!33!5!Overall!Means!for!Pre,!Post,!and!Follow5up!(n!=!29)
Pre
Post
Follow-up
Mean Ranking
3.8
4.9
4.5
Motivation
Statistically significant differences were found between the pre, post, and followup motivation means. Post-hoc tests (p<.017) show that the pre-test was significantly
different from the post-test (Sig = .000) and the post-test was significantly different from
the follow-up (Sig = .003), but that the follow-up was not significantly different from the
pre-test (Sig = .175). This indicates that motivations attitudes are highest immediately
after a visit to exhibit, but return to pre-test levels in the weeks following.
Table!34!5!Motivation!Means!for!Pre,!Post,!and!Follow5up!(n!=!29)
Pre
Post
Follow-up
Mean Ranking
3.4
4.6
3.8

Connection
Statistically significant differences were found between the pre, post, and followup connection means. The post-hoc tests (p<.017) show that the pre-test was significantly
different from the post-test (Sig = .000), the post-test was not significantly different from
the follow-up (Sig = .019), and that the follow-up was significantly different from the
pre-test (Sig = .000). This means that the increase in visitors attitudes is persisting in the
weeks following the visit. The sense of connection with orangutans that visitors feel in
the exhibit is remaining with them.
Table!35!5!Connection!Means!for!Pre,!Post,!and!Follow5up!(n!=!29)
Pre
Post
Follow-up
Mean Ranking
3.1
4.8
4.3
Actions
Statistically significant differences were found between the pre, post, and followup actions means. The post-hoc tests (p<.017) show that the pre-test was significantly
different from the post-test (Sig = .001), the post-test was not significantly different from
the follow-up (Sig = .436), and that the follow-up was significantly different from the
pre-test (Sig = .005). This means that the increase in visitors actions attitudes is
persisting in the weeks following their visit. Guests seeing the exhibit are leaving with,
and maintaining, a belief that their actions can help save orangutans.
Table!36!5!Actions!Means!for!Pre,!Post,!and!Follow5up!(n!=!29)
Pre
Post
Follow-up
Mean Ranking
3.4
4.4
4.3
Future
Statistically significant differences were found between the pre, post, and followup future means. The post-hoc tests (p<.017) show that the pre-test was significantly
different from the post-test (Sig = .001) and the post-test was significantly different from
the follow-up (Sig = .003), but that the follow-up was not significantly different from the
pre-test (Sig = .065). This indicates that future attitudes returned to pre-test levels in the
weeks following the visit. That said, the pre-test mean for future attitudes started high,
meaning that many guests entered the exhibit already agreeing with this statement.
Table!37!5!Future!Means!for!Pre,!Post,!and!Follow5up!(n!=!29)
Pre
Post
Follow-up
Mean Ranking
4.5
5.3
4.9

Conservation
Statistically significant differences were found in the between the pre, post, and
follow-up conservation means. The post-hoc tests (p<.017) show that the pre-test was
significantly different from the post-test (Sig = .002) and the post-test was significantly
different from the follow-up (Sig = .009), but that the follow-up was not significantly
different from the pre-test (Sig = .103). This indicates that conservation attitudes returned
to pre-test levels in the weeks following the visit. Again, the conservation rankings in the
pre-test started high.
Table!38!5!Conservation!Means!for!Pre,!Post,!and!Follow5up!(n!=!29)
Pre
Post
Follow-up
Mean Ranking
4.7
5.5
5.0
Chart 5 below illustrates the changes in means for the pre, post, and follow-up
tests overall and for each of the five individual statements.
Chart!5!5!Changes!in!Attitudes!for!Pre,!Post,!and!Follow5up!(n!=!29)

Control Groups
To test the accuracy of exit interview respondents retrospective pre-test rankings
(n = 68), they were compared to the attitude rankings provided by control groups (n =
58). A Mann-Whitney Test for independent samples was run using SPSS to test for
significant differences, or lack thereof, between the two groups rankings. The rankings
for four out of the five attitude statements were not significantly different between the
pre-test and control responses showing that, overall, both groups reported having similar
attitudes towards orangutans before experiencing the exhibit.
There were no statistically significant differences found between pre-test and
control rankings for the motivation (Sig = .235), connection (Sig = .920), future (Sig =
.821), and conservation (Sig = .690) statements. See Table 39 for a comparison of the
mean rankings for the retrospective pre-test and control responses.
Table!39!5!Individual!Attitude!Statement!Means!for!Pre!and!Control!Responses
Motivation Means
Connection Means
Future Means
Conservation Means
Pre
3.6
3.0
4.7
4.6
Control
3.9
3.0
4.7
4.9
The only statistically significant difference between the pre-test and control
responses was for the actions statement (Sig - .003). This means that the retrospective
actions attitudes reported by the exit groups did not line up with the attitudes shared by
the control groups. The control group had a significantly higher actions attitude mean
than the pre-test groups (see Table 40). This could be due in part to the retrospective
pre/post test method used in the exit interview. The point of this method is that
participants rank both scales in the same frame of reference. Potentially, visitors learned
something in the exhibit that altered their initial frame of reference and made them
choose a lower number on the pre-test scale. Essentially, they could have learned how
much they did not know before, causing them to rate their prior attitudes lower.
Table!40!5!Actions!Means!for!Pre!and!Control!Responses
PRE
CONTROL
Mean Ranking
3.3
4.1

Word!Association!
Exit & Control Word Choices
In the exit and control interviews, participants were presented with a table of 20
words and asked to choose the three they most associate with orangutans. Participants
also had the opportunity to provide their own words, but few did (see Table 42). During
the interviews, evaluators alternated between three different versions of the table to
prevent the order of words biasing responses. The words included were selected by
evaluators to represent a mix of positive, neutral, and negative words. They were also
categorized into physical, behavioral, and perception/attitude words. See Table 41 for a
full list of words.
Table!41!5!Word!Association!Matrix
Physical
Behavioral
Playful
Curious
Calm
Perception/Attitude
Intelligent
Human-like
Friendly
Fearless
Positive
Cute
Neutral
Big
Hairy
Orange
Strong
Endangered
Smelly
Sad
Boring
Scary
Gross
Negative
Table!42!5!"Other"!Words!Provided!Participants
Words
Exit
Interview
Funny
Powerful
Fun
Control
Interview
Weird
Funny
Follow-up
Survey
Observant
Troublemaker
Lazy

Most of the words chosen by the exit interview groups were positive (75%).
Control interview groups split their responses more evenly between positive word
choices (54%) and neutral word choices (42%). The control groups percentage of neutral
choices was much higher than the exit groups (15%). The exit groups did have a slightly
higher percentage of negative word choices than the control groups. This is due to the
selection of the word smelly, which 11 exit groups and zero control groups chose.
Because control groups were not in the actual exhibit, they did not experience the smell
of the Orangutan Center. That said, negative responses made up a small portion of the
overall choices for each group, both being less than ten percent. This shows that
participants in both groups did not have strong negative associations with orangutans.
Chart!6!5!Distribution!of!Exit/Control!Positive,!Neutral,!and!Negative!Word!Choices

About half of the word choices selected by the exit interview groups fell into the
perception/attitude category. These are words that express a value judgment or that are
not directly observable. The rest of the exit responses were split between physical (23%)
and behavioral (27%) words. Control groups evenly split the majority of their choices
between physical (40%) and perception/attitude (40%) words. The percentage of physical
word choices for control groups was much higher than for the exit interview groups. This
also explains the higher percentage of neutral word choices for control groups.
Chart!7!5!Distribution!of!Exit/Control!Physical,!Behavioral,!and!Perception/Attitude!Word!
Choices
The top five most selected words by the exit interview groups reflect the high
percentages of positive and perception/attitude selections. All five choices intelligent,
human-like, playful, friendly, and curious are positive, and four are perception/attitude
words. The control groups also had intelligent, human-like, and playful in their top 5
choices. This shows that these three words are commonly associated with orangutans for
Zoo and non-Zoo visitors alike. The control interview groups inclination to select neutral
physical words is also reflected in their top five choices. The second and fourth words on
their list were orange and hairy. There was a large difference in percentages between exit
and control groups for these words. While 38% of control groups chose orange, only 6%
of exit interview groups did. The biggest difference between the two groups in terms of
the exit groups top five list was the word friendly. While 28% of exit groups chose
friendly, only 14% of control interview groups did. This shows that a sense of friendship
or connection with the apes in being developed by some groups during their visit to the
exhibit.

Chart!8!5!Top!Five!Words!for!Exit!Interview!Groups
Chart!9!5!Top!Five!Words!for!Control!Interview!Groups

Exit & Follow-up Control Responses

The follow-up surveys also included the word association question. Four words
big, cute, troublemaker, and gross were inadvertently left off the response options on
SurveyMonkey.3 Only the 16 word choices that were on both surveys were compared.
Also, the responses to the follow-up survey were only compared to the exit interview
responses of the 30 groups that completed both. For this analysis, there were 81 responses
for the exit interview and 90 for the follow-up survey.
At both points in time, the majority of the responses were positive words. The
difference between the two groups in the percentages for each category was minimal. For
the follow-up surveys there was a slightly higher percentage of neutral choices. This was
due to the increase in the selection of the words endangered and strong. They also had a
slightly lower percentage of negative choices than during the exit interview. Only one
follow-up group selected the word smelly. Guests may be associating the smell of hay,
which is sometimes present in the exhibit, with the orangutans. However, they are not
reporting this same association in the weeks following their visit.
Chart!10!5!Distribution!of!Onsite/Online!Positive,!Neutral,!and!Negative!Word!Choices!for!
Follow5up!Survey!Participants
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3
Follow-up survey participants seldom selected these four words during their exit interviews (four groups
chose big, four groups chose cute, and no groups chose troublemaker or gross). The likelihood they would
have been selected during the online survey was small.

The differences were also minimal between exit and follow-up responses in terms
of the physical, behaviors, and perception/attitude categories. At both points in time,
perception/attitude words comprised over half of the total responses.
Chart!11!5!Distribution!of!Onsite/Online!Physical,!Behavioral,!Perception/Attitude!Word!
Choices!for!Follow5up!Survey!Participants
The onsite responses of the groups that participated in the follow-up survey
resembled the onsite responses of all those who participated in the exit interviews; the
same top five word choices and order intelligent, human-like, playful, friendly, and
curiouswas used, indicating that the follow-up group was representative of the overall
exit interview group in their responses to this question. Four of those words intelligent,
human-like, playful, and curious remained in the top five word choices when the
follow-up groups were surveyed online six to eight weeks after their visit. However, the
order was different from that seen in the exit interviews. Curious went from fifth to third
place, with the percentage doubling from 20 to 40% between the exit and follow-up
responses. The orangutans sense of curiosity clearly made an impression on the visitors.
The fifth most chosen word for the follow-up survey was strong. It is a neutral physical
word, neither category of which was represented in the top five exit words. The word
from the top five list of the exit interview that was not selected frequently in the followup was friendly. While a third of groups selected it during the exit interview, only about
7% of respondents did in the follow-up. This is a similar contrast as with the control
interview. So, whatever sense of friendship visitors are forming with orangutans does not
seem to exist as strongly outside of the Center, or this method was not well suited to
record and report any enduring sense of friendship.

Chart!12!5!Top!Five!Words!for!Follow5up!Participants!During!Their!Exit!Interviews
Chart!13!5!Top!Five!Words!for!Follow5up!Participants!During!Their!Online!Interviews!

Open5Ended!Questions!!
Participants in the exit interview, the control interview, and the follow-up survey
were all asked five open-ended questions about the exhibit themes: conservation, physical
characteristics, orangutan moms and babies, wild habitat, and mental abilities. While the
topics of the questions were the same across all three interviews/survey, the questions
were all worded slightly differently. Groups during the exit interview were asked, what
do you remember finding out about the topic. Because the control groups did not
experience the exhibit, they were asked, what can you tell me about the topic. The
follow-up survey questions were similar to the exit interview, but specifically asked what
respondents remember finding out about the topic from [their] visit to the Orangutan
Center.
Answers from the open-ended questions were coded into categories by response
theme/topic. Multi-part answers were coded into multiple categories as appropriate. If an
answer had multiple parts relevant to the same category, the responses were counted only
once in that category. Percentages were calculated on the number of groups, not total
responses (Exit n = 68; Control n=58; Follow-up n=30). This shows the likelihood of
groups to mention each topic or theme, rather than the frequency of each topic amongst
all answers. It does mean that the percentages add up to more than 100% in some
categories.

Conservation Action
The first open-ended question participants were asked was to List one specific
action you can take to help orangutans. This was the only open-ended question with the
same wording for all three interviews/survey. Responses were coded into eight
categories, definitions and examples of which are included in Appendix E.
The majority of groups in each interview were able to identify a conservation
action. For the purposes of an initial comparison, any of these given answers, regardless
of coded category, are being termed correct answers. The remaining answers were from
groups that were unable to share a conservation action, which are being called
nothing/incorrect answers. Chart 14 illustrates the split between the two sets of
answers.
Chart!14!5!"Correct"!and!"Nothing/Incorrect"!Conservation!Action!Responses
For the exit interview groups, the most common answer to the conservation action
question was No (37%), followed closely by donate (32%). These are also the top two
responses for the control and follow-up surveys, but donate was the number one answer
for each group (43% and 39% respectively). In the case of the follow-up group, the
subset of groups that completed it had donation as their top response during the exit
interview. Donating is the main conservation action covered by the exhibit, so it makes
sense that this was a popular response for groups that saw the exhibit. Donation is also a
major form of support for many causes, which is likely why many control groups chose it
as their response (even if they did not know exactly which group to donate to).
Control groups were the only groups to suggest visiting or supporting the
Indianapolis Zoo as a way to help wild orangutans. Participants that visited the exhibit
(exit and follow-up) were the only ones to mention palm oil, planting a tree, or stopping
deforestationmessages that are specific to the exhibit.

Chart!15!5!Conservation!Action!Responses!by!Code!for!Exit,!Control,!and!Follow5up
Conservation Attitudes and Actions

Evaluators were also interested to see if there was a possible relationship between
attitudes and actions. To measure this, participants rankings for the motivation and
action attitude statements were compared to their responses for the conservation action
open-ended question. Those two particular statements were chosen because they are most
directly related to conservation action. Visitors attitudes were split into two groups:
those who agreed with the statement (ranking of 4, 5, or 6) and those who disagreed with
the statement (ranking 1, 2, or 3). Responses to the open-ended question were also split
into whether or not they were able to list an action. The numbers of groups that agreed
and disagreed with the statement were compared with the number of groups that were
unable to list a conservation action (gave a no response).
There does not seem to be a strong relationship between motivation attitudes and
conservation action knowledge (see Table 43). The groups in the exit and follow-up
interviews that agreed with the statement did have a lower percentage of groups that were
unable to list a conservation than the disagree groups. However, the difference between
the percentages of the two sets of groups was not that large. In the control, the percentage
of agree and disagree groups that were unable to list a conservation action were almost
identical.

Table!43!5!Motivation!Attitude!Rankings!Compared!to!Conservation!Action!Answers
Exit
Interview
Control
Interview
Follow-up
Survey
# of
groups
that
agree
# of
agree
groups
that said
No
% of
agree
groups
that said
No
# of
groups
that
disagree
# of
disagree
groups
that said
No
% of
disagree
groups
that said
No
53
18
34%
15
47%
34
11
32%
24
33%
13
23%
16
31%
There seems to be a clearer relationship between action attitude rankings and

conservation action knowledge (see Table 44). In the exit interview, 28% of people that
agreed that their actions could help save wild orangutans were unable to list a
conservation action. In contrast, 61% of groups that disagreed with the statement were
unable to list an action. In the control group, 23% of agree groups and 53% of disagree
groups were unable to list a conservation action. The difference is not that large for the
follow-up survey groups. Overall, it appears that knowledge of conservation actions and
belief that ones actions can help wild orangutans are somehow linked. It could be that
knowing a concrete action one can take is related to feeling a sense of empowerment.
Table!44!5!Actions!Attitude!Rankings!Compared!to!Conservation!Action!Answers
Exit
Interview
Control
Interview
Follow-up
Survey
# of
groups
that
agree
# of
agree
groups
that said
No
% of
agree
groups
that said
No
# of
groups
that
disagree
# of
disagree
groups
that said
No
% of
disagree
groups
that said
No
50
14
28%
18
11
61%
39
23%
19
10
53%
20
25%
33%

Physical Characteristics
The second open-ended question asked participants about the physical
characteristics of orangutans, like their appearance and abilities. Responses were coded
into nine categories, definitions and examples of which are included in Appendix F.
Most groups in each interview/survey were able to share an answer that was
relevant to the topic of physical characteristics. For the purposes of Chart 16, below, such
responses have been categorized as correct, regardless of depth. They are being
compared to groups that were unable to share an answer or shared responses that were
incorrect, irrelevant, or unclear (nothing/incorrect).
Chart!16!5!"Correct"!and!"Nothing/Incorrect"!Physical!Characteristics!Responses
The answers about physical characteristics given by the exit interview groups
were spread out across the nine categories, with no clear majority response. The most
popular category was activity (24%), followed by basic observations (21%) and specific
observations (18%). This lines up with the timing and tracking data. Observed groups
spent the second lowest amount of time at non-viewing related elements related to
physical characteristics, but the most overall time at viewing elements. Despite the low
amount of time spent at the related non-viewing elements, physical characteristics had the
lowest percentage of nothing responses (6%) out of all the open-ended questions. The
groups popular responses show that they were taking something away from their time at
the viewing elements. Activities and both basic and specific observations are things
visitors can see and learn about from watching the apes.
Groups during the control interview had different responses. A majority of the
groups mentioned at least one basic observation in their answers (66%). The second
category with the highest percentage of answers was specific observations (29%),
followed by compare to humans/apes (28%). All of the top three response categories are
related to orangutans appearance. This could be because they had not seen the
orangutans in action at the Orangutan Center. It is important to note that participants were
shown a picture of an orangutan as part of the identification question at the start of the
interview. However this was a close-up image of a flanged males face. Only 7% of

control groups mentioned male characteristics, so it did not seem to have had much of an
effect their responses.
As in the exit interview, the responses to the follow-up survey were more spread
out, but the top categories were different. The most popular responses were specific
observations (30%) followed by compare to humans/apes (17%). The percentages in the
categories of abilities, activity, male characteristics, and nothing were all the same (13%).
It seems as though the physical appearance of the apes was more memorable for followup groups than their actions, unlike during the exit interview. There was one major
exception: basic observations, the second most popular response in the exit interview, had
zero responses in the follow-up survey. Visitors either remembered, or decided it was
more important to share, specific observations over general ones.
Chart!17!5!Physical!Characteristics!Responses!by!Code!for!Exit,!Control,!and!Follow5up

Orangutan Moms and Babies

The third open-ended question asked participants about orangutan moms and
babies. Responses were coded into eight categories, definitions and examples of which
are included in Appendix G.
The majority of groups during the exit interview shared a nothing/incorrect
answer when asked about moms and babies. In comparison, the majority of control
groups, and many follow-up groups, were able to share a correct response. See Chart
18.
Chart!18!5!"Correct"!and!"Nothing/Incorrect"!Moms!and!Babies!Responses
The exit interview responses for the moms and babies question also line up with
the timing and tracking data. The observed groups spent the least amount of time at the
mother/baby related non-viewing elements. In the exit interview, 62% of groups
responded nothing when asked what they remembered finding out about orangutan
moms and babies. The second most popular response category was about their attachment
period. In the timing and tracking data, the most stopped at interpretive label was the
Time Between Births infographic. If there is an orangutan baby in the exhibit, it will be
interesting to see whether the use of these interpretive pieces increases.
In the control interview, a much lower percentage of groups responded with
nothing (26%). This is likely related to the different way the question was worded for
the control group. It asked, what can you tell me about rather than what do you
remember finding out about about orangutan moms and babies. This means that
participants in the control group were able to draw on any source of knowledge instead of
just exhibit content. That being said, though there were fewer nothing answers, the
responses of the control group were less specific. The most popular response was general
caring sentiment (31%), followed by nothing (26%), compare to humans and physical
(both 19%). Many participants seemed to draw from their own experiences and apply
them to orangutan moms and babies either explicitly or through general sentiments like
caring or loving.

The follow-up surveys most popular responses were the same as the exit
interview with nothing (40%) and attachment period (20%). There was an increase in the
percentage of groups that compare the orangutans to humans (17%) or shared some sort
of general caring sentiment (13%). These were the same popular responses from the
control groups.
Chart!19!5!Moms!and!Babies!Responses!by!Code!for!Exit,!Control,!and!Follow5up

Wild Habitat
The fourth open-ended question asked participants about wild orangutan habitat.
Responses were coded into seven categories, definitions and examples of which are
included in Appendix H.
For the exit and follow-up groups, responses about wild habitat were split fairly
evenly between correct and nothing/incorrect answers. Control groups had a slightly
higher percentage of correct answers than nothing/incorrect answers. See Chart 20.
!
Chart!20!5!"Correct"!and!"Nothing/Incorrect"!Wild!Habitat!Responses
Nothing was also the most popular response for the exit interview groups when
asked about wild orangutan habitat. However, the percentage of nothings (47%) was
lower than for the moms and babies question. The second most common response
category was orangutan behaviors in habitat. These were often related to activities such
as swinging and climbing, which line up with the responses to the physical characteristics
question and the time spent at viewing windows discussed earlier. The third most popular
response category was threats to orangutan habitat (16%). Visitors in the timing and
tracking observations spent slightly more time at conservation elements than habitat
elements, which might help explain the percentage of groups that identified threats when
asked about habitat.
As in the exit interview, the top answer for the control groups was also nothing
(33%). The other top two responses were physical description of habitat (26%) and
identifiers of type of habitat (26%). In identifying the type of habitat, 12 control groups
called it a jungle, which zero groups did in the exit interview and only one group did in
the follow-up survey. While they were able to identify that orangutans live in areas with a
lot of trees, the difference in terminology between rainforests and jungle is interesting.
The follow-up survey also had nothing as the top response (40%). However, their
second most popular answer was different from the exit interview. Only 10% of the
subset of groups that took the follow-up survey identified threats to orangutans during

their exit interview. In the follow-up survey, 30% of groups identified threats. This seems
to indicate that visitors are continuing to learn about orangutans and conservation after
their initial visit to the Orangutan Center.
Chart!21!5!Wild!Habitat!Responses!by!Code!for!Exit,!Control,!and!Follow5up

Mental Abilities
The fifth open-ended question asked participants about orangutan mental abilities.
Responses were coded into nine categories, definitions and examples of which are
included in Appendix I.
The majority of both the exit and control interview groups, and most of follow-up
groups, shared a correct response about mental abilities. Follow-up groups had the
lowest percentage of nothing/incorrect responses of all three interviews/surveys. See
Chart 22.
Chart!22!5!"Correct"!and!"Nothing/Incorrect"!Mental!Abilities!Responses
When questioned about orangutans mental abilities, the most popular response
for exit interview groups was a general description of capacity (41%), followed by
nothing (39%) and related to demos (28%). Overall, visitors seemed to have come away
from the exhibit with the impression that orangutans are really smart. One interesting
thing to note is that out of the 39 groups that selected intelligent as one of their choices
for the word association question, nine said nothing in response to the mental abilities
question (23%). So, even when people could not say anything specific about orangutans
mental abilities, there seems to be some inherent association that they are intelligent.
This was also clear in the control groups responses. A little over two thirds of
groups (67%) responded with a general description of capacity. Only 10% of groups
responded with nothing. However, this lower percentage of nothing was accompanied by
more general responses, as in responses to the moms and babies question. The control
groups also had a higher percentage of incorrect/irrelevant/unclear responses (12%).
There seemed to be a misconception with a few of the groups that orangutans can learn
sign language.
For the follow-up survey groups, the category with the highest percentage of
responses was also general descriptions of capacity (63%). The percentage of nothing
responses for this subset of groups dropped from 33% in the exit interview to 13% in the
follow-up survey. They mainly seemed to switch their response to a general description
of capacity. The percentage of groups that mentioned a learning demo dropped just

slightly to 23%, which shows that the demonstrations are memorable experiences for
guests.
Chart!23!5!Mental!Abilities!Responses!by!Code!for!Exit,!Control,!and!Follow5up

After!the!Exhibit!
Follow-up Survey Post-Visit Activities
The final question of the follow-up survey asked participants to check any
orangutan related activities that they had done since their initial visit (the one where they
were interviewed). The most popular post-visit activities reported were having a
conversation with someone about orangutans (60%), visiting the Orangutan Center again
(43%), and looking up something about orangutans online (37%). It seems as though the
exhibit is prompting visitors to want to discuss or research orangutans further. One other
interesting result is that four groups reported reading product labels for palm oil, whereas
only one group mentioned palm oil in their exit interview. This shows that talking to
visitors about the impact of the exhibit is a complicated prospect, as is promoting
behavior change. What a group reports onsite does not always line up with their post-visit
activities. It is likely that other post-visit experiences, such as reading about orangutans
or watching media about them, reinforced the connection to palm oil.
!
Table!45!5!Post5Visit!Activities!Reported!in!Follow5up!Survey
Activity
Had a conversation with
someone about orangutans
Read a book about orangutans
Read an article about
orangutans
Read labels to look for palm oil
Watched a TV show or movie
about orangutans
Looked up something about
orangutans online
Made a donation towards
orangutan conservation
Saw orangutans at another zoo
Visited the Orangutan Center
at the Indianapolis Zoo again
# of groups who did the

activity
% of groups who did

the activity
18
60%
10%
23%
13%
10%
11
37%
7%
7%
13
43%

CONCLUSION!
The Simon Skjodt International Orangutan Center provides a combination of
intimate and panoramic viewing opportunities where guests see orangutans moving in
natural ways. The success of this exhibit depends on those viewing experiences. The
timing and tracking study showed that most of the total stops made in the exhibit were at
viewing elements (77%). This is where guests are connecting with orangutans and
shaping their attitudes towards orangutans and their conservation. From the retrospective
pre to post-test ranking, agreement with each attitude statement increased. Visitors during
the exit interview also selected a high percentage of positive and perception/attitude word
choices during the word association question. With visitors spending the majority of their
visit at viewing elements, it is clear that viewing opportunities contribute to visitors
positive attitudes towards orangutans. But viewing isnt just shaping attitudes: its also
where guests are collecting content knowledge. During timing and tracking, visitors spent
the second least amount of time at non-viewing elements related to physical
characteristics, but during the exit interview, 87% of groups were able to provide a
correct answer to the physical characteristics question. This demonstrates that time
spent at viewing elements also contributes to an increase in knowledge about orangutans.
Visitors who interacted with an interpreter, watched a learning demonstration, or
stopped at a non-viewing element spent more total time on average in the exhibit.
According to Beverly Serrell, spending more overall time in an exhibit, and talking about
an exhibit are two highly predictive behaviors of learning in exhibitions (Serrell, 2010).
So, the extra time spent by these groups, especially for those that talked with an
interpreter, increased the potential for learning during their visit to the Orangutan Center.
Viewing opportunities had the highest stay times of all exhibit elements and were the
most likely to attract guests to stopmeaning that viewing experiences are the best sites
for encouraging learning during a visit to this exhibit (and, arguably, to a zoo in general).
Attitudes towards orangutans increased significantly after experiencing the
exhibitbut the significance of this increase is probably more than just statistically
significant. The attitude statement that had the highest increase between the pre and posttests was I feel a connection to orangutans. A study done at Virginia Commonwealth
University found that the more connected a person feels towards nature, the more they
are willing to sacrifice for the environment (Davis, Le & Coy 2011). Another study done
in Germany found that affinity towards nature was a predictor of nature protective
behaviors (Kals, Schumacher & Montada 1999). These studies indicate that the increase
in positive attitudes towards orangutans have the potential to lead to behaviors that
support orangutan conservation.
Recommendations!!
Because visitor attitudes towards orangutans were highest at the end of their visit
to the Orangutan Center, evaluators recommend that more emphasis be placed on the
conservation kiosks. The Zoo gives visitors an outlet to donate to orangutan conservation
in the exhibit, so they should make sure visitors are aware of the opportunity to plant a
tree. The Zoo should increase their efforts to capture the interests and attitudes visitors
develop towards orangutans during their visit and turn it into concrete conservation action
before visitors even leave the Center.

Another suggestion for the space is to train interpreters to cover the content
themes visitors are not currently taking away from the exhibit. Orangutan moms and
babies and wild habitat were the two content themes that visitors spent less time with
during timing and tracking, and that exit interview groups had the least to say about.
Interpreters should use their interactions with visitors to fill in these knowledge gaps.
Findings from the timing and tracking study should also be used to inform the
development of future exhibits. Data showed that the labels visitors are most likely to
stop at are large and graphic. When appropriate, these types of labels should be used to
communicate important messaging to Zoo guests. Also, evaluators found that interpretive
labels placed before or away from viewing opportunities were skipped by most visitors.
For example, the signs around the plaza that were not placed right next to the viewing
window only had one stop total between the lot of them. This shows that labels cannot
compete with viewing opportunitiesand in fact, considering the findings about the
impact of viewing opportunities on guest attitudes, should be used to leverage these great
opportunities to shape conservation attitudes. Evaluators suggest that key messages and
concepts should be placed on labels located adjacent to viewing opportunities, or after the
first viewing opportunity in the space.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

References
Davis, J. L., Le, B., and Coy, A. E. 2011. Building a model of commitment to the
natural environment to predict ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice.
Journal of Environmental Psychology: Volume 31. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Elsevier.
Deuel, J. and Tomulonis, J. 2007. Wild About Otters Summative Evaluation. Technical
evaluation report. Monterey, CA: Monterey Bay Aquarium.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., Montada, L. 1999. Emotional Affinity toward Nature as a
Motivational Basis to Protect Nature. Environment and Behavior: Volume 31
Serrell, B. (2010). Paying More Attention To Paying Attention. Retrieved from
http://informalscience.org/perspectives/blog/paying-more-attention-to-payingattention.
See Appendix J for the full literature review conducted to inform this studys
methodology.

APPENDICES!
Appendix!A!!Timing!&!Tracking!Form!
!
Date:!______________!!!!!!!!Weather!__________________!!
!
Start!Time:!_________!!!!!!!!!!Stop!Time:!____________!!!!!!!Total!Time:!_____________!
!
Primary!Visitor:!!!Male%%%%%%%%Female!
!
Zone!A!5!Plaza!
Crowd!Level:!!!!!High!!!!!!!Medium!!!!!!Low!
Elements!
Introductory!Signs!
When!traveling!high!
above!
Moving!through!the!
trees!
Who!needs!a!hand!
Forest!Flexibility!
Upward!Mobility!
Creatures!of!Comfort!
Hanging!Out!
Chore!Free!Living!
At!Home!in!Treetops!
Natural!Redheads!
Resident!Profiles!I
Right!(Azy,!Katy,!Knobi)!
Resident!Profiles!I!Left!
(Rocky,!Lucy,!Charly,!Nicky)!
Plaza!Window!
!!Interpreter!Present!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
Hutan!Trail!Viewing!A!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
!
Zone!B!5!Entrance!Ramp!
Type!
L!
!!
Stop!#!
Duration!
Behaviors!
Exhibit!Int!
L!
Exhibit!Int!
L!
Exhibit!Int!
L!
L!
L!
L!
L!
L!
L!
L!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
L!
Exhibit!Int!
L!
Exhibit!Int!
V!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Interp!Int!
V!
Exhibit!Int!
Elements!
East!Oasis!!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
A!fully!developed!
male!
Type!
Stop!#!
Duration!
Behaviors!
V!
!!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Interp!Int!
L!
Exhibit!Int!

Hutan!Trail!Viewing!B!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
At!Home!in!Treetops!
Natural!Redheads!
!
!
Zone!C!5!Inside!1!
V!
Exhibit!Int!
L!
L!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Elements!
Type!
Stop!#!
Efroymson!Family!Sign!
Learning!From!Mom!
Taught!By!Mom!!
Entry!Video!
Time!Between!Births!
Big!Investment!in!Time!
Inside!Window!1!!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
Duration!
L!
L!
L!
AV!
L!
L!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Behaviors!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
V!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Interp!Int!
!
Zone!D!5!Inside!2!
Elements!
Type!
Stop!#!
L!
L!
!!
!
!
!
Behaviors!
! Exhibit!Int!
! Exhibit!Int!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
V!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Interp!Int!
Resident!profile!videos!
Skywalk!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
Computer!Window!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
AV!
Exhibit!Int!
V!
Exhibit!Int!
V!
Exhibit!Int!
Pong!Demo!!!!
D!
Rainforest!Residents!
Forest!Buffet!
Studio!Window!
L!
L!
!
!
!
!
!!Watch!!!!!Skip!!
! Exhibit!Int!
! Interp!Int!
! Exhibit!Int!
! Exhibit!Int!
V!
Studio!Demo!!
D!
Learning!Studio!Video!
Word!Cloud!
Landscape!Transform!
!
AV!
L!
L!
!
!
!
!
!
!
A!Week!In!the!Life!
Puzzle!Master!
Inside!Window!2!!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
Duration!
Exhibit!Int!
!!Watch!!!!!!Skip!!
! Asks!question
! Exhibit!Int!
! Exhibit!Int!
! Exhibit!Int!

Zone!E!5!Inside!3!
Elements!
Type!
Stop!#!
L!
!!
Behaviors!
! Exhibit!Int!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
V!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
!Interp!Int!
Planting!Trees!
L!
MM!
!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Swipes!Card!
Hutan!Heroes!
Inside!Window!3!
Conservation!Kiosks!
Duration!
Zone!F!5!Exit!Ramp!
Elements!
Hutan!Trail!Viewing!F!
Type!
V!
Exhibit!Int!
Creatures!of!Comfort!
!
!
Zone!G!5!Charly!
L!
Exhibit!Int!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
Stop!#!
Duration!
Behaviors!
Elements!
West!Oasis!I!Inside!
Type!
Stop!#!
Duration!
Behaviors!
V!
!!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Interp!Int!
V!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Interp!Int!
Dinner!for!One!
L!
Tall,!Dark,!Handsome!
L!
Hutan!Trail!Viewing!G!
V!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
!
Zone!H!5!Back!Viewing!Area!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
West!Oasis!I!Outside!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
Elements!
Back!Windows!
Type!
Stop!#!
Duration!
Behaviors!
V!
!!
Exhibit!Int!
Does!not!share!well!
L!
Hutan!Trail!Viewing!H!
V!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
!
Zone!I!5!Approach!to!Skyline!
!
!
!
!
Exhibit!Int!
Exhibit!Int!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
Elements!
Built!to!Climb!
Type!
L!
!
Stop!#!
Duration!
!
Behaviors!
!
Exhibit!Int!

Hutan!Trail!Viewing!I!
Apes!=!!!H!!!M!!!L!!!N!
V!
Exhibit!Int!
!
Demographics:!
Number!of!Kids:!_________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Developmental!Stages:!!!Infant________!!!!!Toddler!_________!!!!!Preschool_________!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!Elementary_________!!!High!School!_________!
Number!of!Adults!___________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ages!of!Adults:!!!!20s!_____!!!30s!_____!!!40s!_____!!!50s_____!!!60s!_____!!!70s!____!!!
80+!____!
!
!

Appendix!B!!Exit!Interview!
!
Exit%Interview%
For!each!statement,!please!indicate!your!level!of!agreement!now,!and!how!much!you!would!
have!agreed!with!it!before!your!visit!to!the!Orangutan!Center.!The!scale!is!from!1I6,!with!1!being!
Strongly!Disagree!and!6!being!Strongly!Agree.!!
!
Before!Visit!
!!
Now!
Strongly!
Strongly!!!!!!!!!
Strongly!
Strongly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disagree!
Agree! !
Disagree!
Agree!
!
!
!!
I!am!motivated!to!do!something!to!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
protect!wild!orangutans!
!!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
I!feel!a!connection!to!orangutans!
!!
My!actions!can!help!save!wild!
orangutans!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
!!
I!care!about!the!future!of!wild!
orangutans!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
I!think!orangutan!conservation!matters!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
1!!!!!2!!!!!!3!!!!!!4!!!!!!5!!!!!!6!
!!!
!!!!
1. Next,!Id!like!you!to!choose!three!words!you!most!associate!with!orangutans.!We!
have!a!list!you!can!select!from,!or!you!can!provide!your!own.!!
!
Order!#!___________!
Big!
Cute!
Gross!
Lazy!!
Scary!
Boring!
Endangered!
Hairy!
Orange!
Smelly!
Calm!
Fearless!
HumanIlike!
Playful!
Strong!
Curious!
Friendly!
Intelligent!!
Sad!
Troublemaker!
!
Other:!!_________________________________________________________________!
!
!

2. Next,!I!have!a!few!questions!for!you!about!your!exhibit!experience.!!Did!you:!
a. Talk!to!a!staff!member/volunteer?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Yes!!!!!!!!!!No!!
b. Watch!an!orangutan!use!a!computer?!!!!!!!!!!!Yes!!!!!!!!!!No!!!(Demo!Happening!!?)!
c. Plant!a!tree/Donate?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Yes!!!!!!!!!!No!
d. See!an!orangutan!climbing!outside?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Yes!!!!!!!!!!No!
!
Next!I!have!a!few!questions!about!some!of!the!topics!in!the!exhibit.!It!isnt!a!testthere!isnt!a!
right!or!wrong!answer.!We!just!want!to!find!out!what!parts!of!the!exhibit!people!are!seeing.!!
!
3. Can!you!tell!me!one!specific!action!you!can!take!to!help!wild!orangutans?!
!
!
!
4. What!do!you!remember!finding!out!about!the!physical!characteristics!of!orangutans!
[like!their!appearance!and!abilities]?!!!
!
!
!
!
5. What!do!you!remember!finding!out!about!orangutan!moms!and!babies?!
!
!
!
!
6. What!do!you!remember!finding!out!about!wild!orangutan!habitat?!
!
!
!
!
7. What!do!you!remember!finding!out!about!orangutans!mental!abilities?!
!
!
!
!
Demographics!
Zoo!Member!!!!!!!!!Yes!!!!!!!!!No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Gender!!!!!!!!!!!M!!!!!!!!!F!!
Have!you!visited!the!Orangutan!Center!before?!!!!!!Yes!!!!!!!!!No!!!!!!!!!!
If!yes,!how!many!times?!!!_________!!!!!!
Number!of!Children!_________!!!!!!Ages!of!Children!!!!________________________!
Number!of!Adults!___________!!!!!Ages!of!Adults!!!_________________!
We!plan!to!followIup!with!visitors!through!an!online!survey!in!about!6I8!weeks.!If!you!fill!out!the!
survey,!you!will!receive!an!Amazon!gift!card.!To!be!included,!please!give!your!email!address:!
!
Email:!_________________________________________________________________!

Appendix!C!!Control!Interview!
Control%Interview%
______________________________________________________________________________!
First,!I!have!some!pictures!Id!like!you!to!look!at.!Do!you!think!Image!A,!B,!or!C!is!the!
picture!of!an!orangutan?!
Order!#!_________!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Orangutan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Gorilla!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Chimpanzee!!
________________________________________________________________________!
!
Please!indicate!your!level!of!agreement!with!each!of!the!statements!below.!The!scale!is!
from!1I6,!with!1!being!Strongly!Disagree!and!6!being!Strongly!Agree.!!
!
Statement!!
Rating!
Strongly!
Strongly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
Disagree!
Agree!
I!am!motivated!to!do!something!to!protect!wild!
orangutans!
1!!!!!!!2!!!!!!!!3!!!!!!!!4!!!!!!!!5!!!!!!!!6!
I!feel!a!connection!to!orangutans!
1!!!!!!!2!!!!!!!!3!!!!!!!!4!!!!!!!!5!!!!!!!!6!
My!actions!can!help!save!wild!orangutans!
1!!!!!!!2!!!!!!!!3!!!!!!!!4!!!!!!!!5!!!!!!!!6!
I!care!about!the!future!of!wild!orangutans!
1!!!!!!!2!!!!!!!!3!!!!!!!!4!!!!!!!!5!!!!!!!!6!
I!think!orangutan!conservation!matters!
1!!!!!!!2!!!!!!!!3!!!!!!!!4!!!!!!!!5!!!!!!!!6!
!!!!
!!!
!
8. Next,!Id!like!you!to!choose!three!words!you!most!associate!with!orangutans.!We!
have!a!list!you!can!select!from,!or!you!can!provide!your!own.!Order!#___________!
Big!
Cute!
Gross!
Lazy!!
Scary!
Boring!
Endangered!
Hairy!
Orange!
Smelly!
Calm!
Fearless!
HumanIlike!
Playful!
Strong!
Curious!
Friendly!
Intelligent!!
Sad!
Troublemaker!
Other:!!_________________________________________________________________!
!

!
9. List!one!specific!action!you!can!take!to!help!orangutans.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
10. What!can!you!tell!me!out!about!the!physical!characteristics!of!orangutans![like!their!
appearance!and!abilities]?!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
11. What!can!you!tell!me!about!orangutan!moms!and!babies?!
!
!
!
!
!
!
12. What!can!you!tell!me!about!orangutan!habitat?!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
13. What!can!you!tell!me!about!orangutans!mental!abilities?!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Demographics!
!
Number!of!Children!_________!!!!!!!Ages!of!Children!!!!________________________!
!
!
Number!of!Adults!___________!!!!!!Ages!of!Adults!!!_____________________!
!

Appendix!D!!Follow5up!Survey!!
Orangutan Evaluation Follow-up Survey

1. Please indicate your current level of agreement with each statement below. The scale is
1-6, with 1 being "Strongly Disagree" and 6 being "Strongly Agree."
1 - Strongly
Disagree
6 - Strongly Agree
I am motivated to do
something to protect wild
orangutans
I feel a connection to
orangutans
My actions can help save
wild orangutans
I care about the future of
wild orangutans
I think orangutan
conservation matters
*2. Next, please choose three words you most associate with orangutans. You can select
from the list below, or add your own.
Hairy
Friendly
Human-like
Lazy
Smelly
Endangered
Calm
Boring
Scary
Sad
Orange
Curious
Playful

Strong

Fearless
Intelligent
Other
If Other, please specify:
3. Can you list one specific action you can take to help wild orangutans?
4. From your visit to the Orangutan Center, what do you remember finding out about the
physical attributes of orangutans?
5. What do you remember finding out about orangutan moms and babies?

Orangutan Evaluation Follow-up Survey

6. What do you remember finding out about wild orangutan habitat?
7. What do you remember finding out about orangutan mental abilities?
8. Since your visit to the Zoo, please check if you have done any of the following:
Had a conversation with someone about orangutans
Read a book about orangutans
Read an article about orangutans
Read product labels to look for palm oil
Watched a TV show or movie about orangutans

Looked up something about orangutans online
Made a donation towards orangutan conservation

Saw orangutans at another zoo
Visited the Orangutan Center at the Indianapolis Zoo again
Other orangutan realted activity (please specify)
9. Thank you for your feedback! Please enter the email address you wish to have your
Amazon gift card sent to. It may take up to one week for it to arrive.


Appendix!E!!Conservation!Action!Open5ended!Question!Codes!
!
Donate
Responses in this category ranged from general donation to donations for
specific groups or causes
o Donate money
o Donate to the World Wildlife Fund
o Donate money for land conservation
General Conservation
Responses in this category were related to conservation generally, but were not
specific to orangutans
o Not littering
o Reduction of carbon footprint
o Vote for politicians that are forward-thinking environmentally
Awareness/Education
Responses in this category discussed the idea of increasing awareness and
educating oneself or others about orangutan conservation
o Educating others
o Learn more about what I can do to help
o Discuss with people how they are endangered and whyraise awareness
Plant a Tree
There are interactive kiosks in the exhibit where visitors can donate to plant a tree
in Kutai National Park!in!Borneo. Responses in this category referenced that
specific action.
o Planting trees
o Donate to plant trees in Indonesia
Stop Deforestation
Responses in this category referenced actions to help stop deforestation in Borneo
and Sumatra
o Stop cutting down the forests
o Ask Indonesian government to make more laws to stop cutting down
[orangutans] trees/habitat
o Not supporting things that cause deforestation
Palm Oil
Responses in this category referenced products containing palm oil, ranging from
looking!for!the!presence!of!palm!oil!in!products!to stopping purchases of such
products
o Use beauty products that are palm oil free
o Check labels for palm oil
o Boycott items that contain palm oil

Support/Visit Zoo
Responses in this category suggested that visiting or supporting the Indianapolis
Zoo can help wild orangutans
o Go see the [orangutan] exhibit
o Visit the Zoo and give them money
o Go to the Zoo
Nothing
Responses included in this category are from when participants were unable to
name an action, or if follow-up survey respondents left the question blank
o No idea
o I dont know
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Appendix!F!!Physical!Characteristics!Open5ended!Question!Codes!
Activity
Responses in this category related to the physical activities of orangutans,
including how they move and their level of activity
o Very active 10 year old (Rocky), very agile
o Swing from tree to tree
o They are good climbers
!
Basic Observations
Responses in this category were basic descriptions of the physical appearance of
orangutans that are immediately evident referenced overall appearance
o Size, big
o Hairy, two arms and two legs, dark orange
o Large, orange, hairy
!
Specific Observations
Responses in this category moved past basic observations to more detailed and
less immediately evident attributes of orangutans referenced specific body parts
o Opposable thumbs to help climb
o Long arms, short legs
o Huge hands
Compare to Humans/Other Apes
Responses in this category compare the appearance of orangutans to that of
humans or other apes
o How human-like they are
o Not as big as gorillas
o Got our eyes
o They dont have as many facial expressions as humans
!
Abilities
Reponses in this category related to the physical abilities of orangutans like their
strength
o Grip strength
o Brawny
o Tremendous arm strength and ability to hang for long periods of time
without rest
Male Characteristics
Responses in this category referenced physical attributes specific to male
orangutans or difference between male and female orangutans
o Males have bigger cheeks than females, males have more hair too
o Males have flanges to attract females
o Weird thing around their face (control)

Zoo Orangutans
Responses in this category referenced physical characteristics specific to
orangutans at the Indianapolis Zoo
o Like having their teeth brushed
o Dont take baths, dont get hair brushed
o Their hair doesnt get cut except around their hands because of the
computer work they do
Incorrect/Irrelevant/Unclear
Responses in this category contained information that was either wrong, unrelated
to physical characteristics, or too vague
o Sight all around hear (incorrect)
o They are incredibly intelligent (irrelevant to question)
o Theyre different (unclear)
Nothing
Reponses in this category are from groups that reported not learning or knowing
anything about orangutans physical characteristics, or if follow-up survey
respondents left the question blank
o Some exit interview groups distinguished that they did not find out
anything about the topic on this particular visit
" Nothing new
" I already knew what they looked like
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Appendix!G!!Moms!&!Babies!Open5ended!Question!Codes!
Attachment Period
Responses in this category referred to the length of time babies spend with their
moms after they are born
o Only have kids every 108 months
o Nurture them for a long time, long development period
o They stay together longer than most other species, I think it was 6 years
Compare to Humans
Response in this category specifically compared the relationship between
orangutan moms and babies to that of humans
o Mothers are good with their babies, like human moms
o The mother and baby share a human-like bond
o Interact like human moms and babies
General Caring Sentiment
Reponses in this category were general descriptions of the caring relationship
between orangutan moms and babies
o Amazing bond
o Nurturing
o Loving
Zoo Orangutans
Responses in this category referenced orangutans moms and babies at the
Indianapolis Zoo
o No babies at the Zoo
o Rocky was adopted
o Menstrual cycles, birth control
Learn from/Rely on Mom
Responses in this category were about how orangutan mothers teach and take care
of their babies
o Babies learn from their moms
o Take care of each other, moms care about babies and protect them
o Mom teaches the baby lots of things like what to eat
to moms and babies, or too vague
o They will take care of each others babies (incorrect)
o Learned the girl is 35 (irrelevant)
o Gestation period (unclear)

Physical
Responses in this category reference physical attributes/abilities/actions of
orangutan moms and babies specifically
o Carry them, babies ride on moms back
o Nurse them
o Cute
o Give birth to one baby at a time
Nothing
anything about orangutan moms and babies, or if follow-up survey respondents
left the question blank
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Appendix!H!!Wild!Habitat!Open5ended!Question!Codes!
Orangutan Behaviors in Habitat
Responses in this category related to what orangutans do and how they live in
their wild habitats
o Males dominant, alone most of their lives
o Make beds with leaves and foliage
o Need lots of trees to wind and hang, sleep in trees
Threats to Habitat
Responses in this category identified threats that endanger orangutans and their
habitat
o Rainforest is being destroyed
o Ever shrinking
o It is diminishing due to encroachment and cutting down forests to farm for
palm oil
Physical Description of Habitat
Responses in this category describe what the wild habitat is like and what else is
in it besides orangutans
o Live in trees
o Wasps help the trees, birds, elephants, spotted leopards (other animals live
in the rainforest)
o Warm
to habitat, or too vague
o Migrate a lot (incorrect)
o The live in swampy waters (incorrect)
o Live in groups (incorrect)
o Geo location (unclear)
Identifiers of Type of Habitat
Responses in this category were the names of the type of habitat wild orangutans
live in
o Rainforest
o Jungle
Location
Responses in this category reference the specific geographic locations of
orangutan habitat in the wild
o Borneo, Indonesia
o Southeast Asia
o Live in forests in Borneo and Sumatra

Nothing
anything about wild habitat, or if follow-up survey respondents left the question
blank
!
!
!

Appendix!I!!Mental!Abilities!Open5ended!Question!Codes!
General Description of Capacity
Responses in this category were general indications of intelligence, with little
other substance
o Very intelligent
o Smart, high mental abilities
o Super smart!
Related to Demos
Responses in this category referenced the two learning demonstrations that
happen in the exhibit
o Can play on computers
o Watched the demo, awesome, learning routines and patterns
o Able to communicate through pictorial symbols
to mental abilities, or too vague
o Can learn sign language (incorrect)
o Share almost all the same genes as humans (irrelevant)
o On command they respond (unclear)
Compare to Humans
Responses in this category compare the mental abilities of orangutans to those of
humans
o Pretty smart, smarter than people really
o Can reason like humans
o Similar to many humans
Problem Solvers/Puzzles
Responses in the category relate to orangutans capacity to solve problems and
puzzles
o Very cunning, able to solve problems, can escape enclosures
o Great problem solvers
o I recall their ability to solve problems and interact through game play
Act/Use of Learning
Responses in this category relate to how orangutans learn and how they apply
their learning
o Very calm, slow and meticulous, patient problem solvers
o Train their young to survive
o Can be taught, curiosity to learn

Compare to Other Animals

Responses in this category compare the mental abilities of orangutans to those of
other animals
o More patient than other apes
o Superior to most mammals
o Almost as smart as chimps
Zoo Orangutans
Responses in this category referenced specific orangutans at the Indianapolis Zoo
by name
o Lucy can brush her teeth
o I watched a demonstration with Katy
Nothing
anything about mental abilities, or if follow-up survey respondents left the
question blank
o No Idea. NPR only talks about chimps and bonobos.

Appendix!J!!Literature!Review!
Literature!Review!!
Summative!Evaluation!!
Simon!Skjodt!International!Orangutan!Center!!!
!
The!goal!of!summative!evaluation!is!to!measure!the!impact!of!a!project,!exhibit,!
or!program!after!it!is!completed!and!presented!to!the!public!(Diamond,!Luke!&!Uttal!
2009).!Thorough!summative!evaluations!include!a!mixture!of!methods,!most!frequently!
a!combination!of!observation!and!interviews.!Observation!provides!the!opportunity!to!
quantitatively!measure!the!ways!in!which!guests!use!a!space,!but!it!only!provides!a!
picture!of!what!guests!are!doing,!not!what!they!are!thinking!(Diamond!et!al!2009).!
Interviews!give!us!the!chance!to!ask!the!guest!their!thoughts!directly.!Together,!these!
methods!provide!both!a!quantitative!and!qualitative!approach!to!understanding!guest!
behavior!in!and!attitudes!towards!an!exhibit!space,!creating!a!complete!picture!of!the!
success!of!an!exhibit!as!well!as!the!opportunity!to!plan!more!effective!exhibits!in!the!
future.!As!a!result,!they!have!been!repeatedly!used!in!multiple!zoos!and!cultural!
institutions!to!perform!summative!evaluation!of!exhibits.!
!
Observation,
!
The!systematic!observation!of!visitors!to!cultural!institutions!has!a!long!history!
and!can!be!as!simple!as!counting!heads!or!as!complex!as!creating!an!exhibitIspecific!
ethogram!and!conducting!detailed!observations!of!every!behavior!a!guest!displays!in!the!
space!(Diamond!et!al!2009).!Although!sometimes!employed!to!compare!exhibits!within!
the!same!institution!(Zwinkels,!Oudegeest!&!Laterveer!2009)!or!even!to!compare!an!
exhibit!with!itself!before!and!after!renovation!(Raphling!1997),!guest!observation!is!
most!frequently!applied!to!understand!visitor!behavior!within!a!single!exhibit!(Calvert!
1996,!Lockett!1991,!Mask!&!Burns!1993,!Meluch!2003,!Ross!&!Lukas!2005,!Saunders!&!
Perry!1997,!Yalowitz,!Figueiredo,!Kessler!&!Ong!2009).!There!are!two!general!
approaches:!timing!and!tracking!conducted!throughout!the!space!and!focused!study,!
which!looks!specifically!at!particular!exhibit!elements!and!may!include!an!interview!
component.!
!
Timing%and%Tracking%
!
The!formal!process!of!timing!and!tracking!(in!which!a!researcher!tracks!guest!
movement!through!the!exhibit!space!and!times!each!stop)!has!been!regularly!applied!as!
a!triedIandItrue!staple!of!visitor!studies!observations!since!the!1980s,!being!favored!
because!it!provides!quantitative!data!in!a!research!setting!laden!with!variables!and!
because!it!creates!a!clear!map!of!guest!emphasis!that!can!inform!further!questioning!
(Yalowitz!&!Bronnenkant!2009).!Beverly!Serrells!(1998)!Paying%Attention!compared!

tracking!and!timing!studies!across!110!exhibitions!at!a!variety!of!institutions,!including!
zoos!and!aquariums.!This!seminal!work!provided!visitor!studies!professionals!with!a!
toolkit!of!standardized!variables!that!could!be!considered!in!the!design!of!timing!and!
tracking!studies!(Yalowitz!&!Bronnenkant!2009).!The!data!collected!during!timing!and!
tracking!studies!focuses!on!observable%behaviors!of!guests:!the!length!of!a!stop,!pointing!
at!an!object!or!sign,!reading!aloud,!and!so!on!(Serrell!1998).!Generally,!timing!and!
tracking!is!intended!to!take!place!without!attracting!the!attention!of!the!guest!being!
tracked;!the!researcher!attempts!to!observe!without!influencing!the!guests!behavior!
(Serrell!1998).!
!
Obviously!the!most!basic!information!gained!from!these!studies!relates!to!stay!
time!and!travel!through!the!exhibit!space.!When!the!square!footage!of!an!exhibit!is!
divided!by!the!average!stay!time,!the!Sweep!Rate!Index!(SRI)!can!be!determined,!
allowing!exhibit!developers!to!understand!how!much!time!guests!are!spending!in!a!
particular!exhibit!compared!to!standard!stay!times!for!exhibits!generally!(Serrell!1998);!
for!example,!in!a!study!conducted!at!the!Ape!House!at!the!Lincoln!Park!Zoo,!researchers!
were!able!to!determine!that!the!SRI!for!the!space!was!very!high!compared!to!average,!
indicating!that!guests!were!rushing!through!the!space!(Ross!&!Lukas!2005).!The!data!
gathered!from!timing!and!tracking!studies!can!also!demonstrate!the!demographics!of!
visitors!to!a!particular!exhibit!(Zwinkels!et!al!2009)!and!the!effect!those!variables!have!
on!use!of!the!exhibit!(Calvert!1996,!Ross!&!Lukas!2005,!Yalowitz!et!al!2009).!They!clearly!
show!which!areas!and!elements!in!an!exhibit!receive!the!most!attention!and!use!
(Calvert!1996,!Mask!1993,!Meluch!2003,!Raphling!1997,!Saunders!&!Perry!1997,!
Yalowitz!et!al!2009),!opening!the!way!to!remediation!of!underutilized!or!malfunctioning!
spaces!(Lockett!1991)!or!the!opportunity!to!plan!more!effective!exhibits!in!the!future!
(Diamond!2009).!
!
In!zoos!and!aquariums,!the!activity!levels!of!animals!can!affect!results!of!timing!
and!tracking.!In!a!summative!evaluation!done!for!an!otter!exhibit!at!the!Monterey!Bay!
Aquarium,!researchers!found!that!stay!times!ranged!from!about!one!minute!when!the!
otters!were!sleeping!to!five!minutes!when!they!were!moving!around!(Deuel!&!
Tomulonis!2007).!In!addition!to!activity!levels,!other!factors!that!can!affect!visitors!
experiences!going!through!zoo!exhibits!include!weather!and!crowds.!A!summative!
evaluation!at!the!San!Francisco!Zoos!African!Savanna!had!evaluators!make!note!of!
these!factors!as!part!of!their!tracking!tool!(Visitor!Studies!Services!2006).!Another!
challenge!of!doing!tracking!and!timing!at!zoos!is!that!paths!through!exhibit!areas!are!
sometimes!less!defined!or!structured!than!in!the!average!museum!exhibit.!To!address!
this!issue,!the!evaluation!at!the!Savanna!exhibit!divided!the!exhibit!areas!into!different!
zones!(Visitor!Studies!Services!2006).!This!way,!during!data!analysis!researchers!were!
able!to!use!the!zones!to!figure!out!the!different!types!of!paths!people!take!through!the!
exhibit.!!
!
%
%

Focused%Studies%
%
!
Whereas!timing!and!tracking!researchers!intend!to!be!(and!to!remain)!a!fly!on!the!
gallery!wall,!there!are!times!where!asking!guests!about!the!behaviors!they!have!just!
exhibited!is!more!productive.!Focused!studies!allow!researchers!to!look!at!guest!use!of!a!
particular!exhibit!element!and!then!perform!a!brief!interview!about!the!interaction!
(Yalowitz!et!al!2009).!These!interviews!can!be!either!cued!(in!which!the!guest!is!
prompted!to!use!the!exhibit!element!in!order!to!conduct!the!interview)!or!uncued!(in!
which!the!guest!is!asked!for!the!interview!after!they!have!used!the!exhibit!element!
unprompted);!findings!generally!describe!the!length!of!time!spent!on!the!particular!
element,!the!demographic!make!up!of!groups!using!the!element,!and!guest!suggestions!
for!improving!the!experience!(Raphling!1997,!Yalowitz!et!al!2009).!Although!sometimes!
used!during!summative!evaluation,!the!motivation!for!this!type!of!study!is!more!
remedial!(Diamond!2009).!
!
!
Interviews!
!
Seeing!what!guests!are!doing!in!the!space!can!tell!us!a!lot,!but!asking!for!guest!
thoughts!directly!can!result!in!detailed!and!nuanced!data!(Diamond!2009).!The!way!
questions!are!asked!is!key,!as!wording!and!presentation!can!influence!answers!
substantially!and!result!in!skewed!data!(Diamond!2009).!Writing!a!good!question!is!an!
art;!evaluators!looking!to!craft!quality!questions!can!find!guidance!in!Sudman,!Braburn,!
and!Schwarz!(1996)!and!Tourangeau,!Rips,!and!Rasinski!(2000).!Once!the!questions!
exist,!methods!for!conducting!interviews!and!questionnaires!for!exhibit!evaluation!are!
as!diverse!as!the!potential!applications!for!the!data.!To!determine!the!general!
impressions!of!guests!after!experiencing!the!exhibit,!an!exit!interview!of!a!randomly!
selected!group!can!give!researchers!a!good!picture!of!guest!preferences!and!the!sticking!
power!of!the!exhibits!Big!Idea!(Serrell!1994).!For!showing!the!impact!of!an!exhibit!on!
guest!attitudes!or!attitudinal!change,!preI!and!postIinterviews!can!capture!the!thoughts!
of!a!group!of!guests!approaching!the!exhibit!and!a!group!as!they!leave!the!exhibit.!
!
Exit%Interviews!!
!
To!get!an!idea!of!what!impressions!a!guest!is!leaving!with,!the!best!time!to!ask!
them!is!as!they!leave.!Exit!interviews!can!be!informal!conversations!that!allow!the!
guests!ideas!and!feelings!to!guide!the!questioning!or!a!more!structured!interview!
where!the!questions!are!determined!beforehand!and!may!even!have!multiple!choice!
answers!that!the!guest!is!asked!to!choose!from!(Diamond!2009).!For!summative!
evaluations,!structured!interviews!are!more!commonly!chosen,!as!they!lend!themselves!
well!to!statistical!analysis!and!can!focus!on!the!specific!measures!of!success!that!
researchers!are!studying!(Diamond!2009).!!
!

The!information!these!studies!often!uncover!is!related!to!what!guests!learned!
from!the!exhibit,!what!guests!enjoyed,!frequent!questions,!and!suggestions!for!
improvement!(Calvert!1996,!Locket!1991,!Raphling!1997).!It!is!sometimes!used!in!
conjunction!with!timing!and!tracking!to!compare!guests!selfIreported!use!of!the!space!
and!which!messages!they!recall!to!the!observed!use!of!the!space;!this!can!identify!
interesting!differences!between!what!guests!remembered!most!versus!where!they!were!
observed!spending!the!most!time!(Mask!&!Burns!1993,!Yalowitz!et!al!2009).!Interviews!
like!these!can!also!help!identify!the!difference!in!content!recall!amongst!different!
demographic!groups!(Yalowitz!et!al!2009).!Exit!interviews!are!generally!uncued!in!order!
to!get!guests!raw!impressions!of!the!space!(Calvert!1996,!Locket!1991,!Mask!&!Burns!
1993,!Yalowitz!et!al!2009),!but!can!on!occasion!be!cued!if!the!researchers!want!to!
encourage!guests!to!attend!to!the!exhibit!more!carefully!than!they!might!normally!
(Koran!&!Ellis!1991,!Raphling!1997).!
!
Pre?%and%Post?Interviews%
!
Sometimes!researchers!are!looking!for!not!only!the!overall!impression!of!guests!
from!an!exhibit,!but!how!guest!attitudes!change!as!a!result!of!viewing!the!exhibit.!PreI!
and!postIinterviews!are!a!way!to!track!this!change.!One!sampling!technique!researchers!
use!is!to!select!a!different!group!for!each!interview,!preventing!any!skew!of!guest!
experience!through!hearing!the!preIinterview!questions.!One!of!the!challenges!of!this!
method!is!to!ensure!that!the!preIinterview!group!and!postIinterview!group!are!
demographically!similar!and!share!any!key!biases!(Diamond!et!al!2009).!Control!
questions!are!regularly!asked!to!make!sure!the!sample!is!as!consistent!as!possible;!for!
example,!it!might!be!desirable!to!determine!that!guests!are!not!regular!visitors!and!so!
dont!have!preIexisting!positive!biases!toward!the!exhibit!topic!(Meluch!2003)!or!to!
determine!whether!the!guest!intended!to!come!to!the!exhibit!or!just!happened!upon!it!
(Doering),!both!of!which!might!effect!guest!response!to!the!exhibit.!
!
Other!studies!employing!preI!and!postIinterviews!talk!to!the!same!visitors!for!
both!interviews.!One!study!that!did!this!was!a!large,!multiIsite!global!study!examining!
the!contribution!of!zoos!and!aquariums!to!Aichi!Biodiversity!Target!1.!The!authors!of!the!
study!acknowledge!that!this!might!make!visitors!more!attuned!to!this!topic,!but!
explain!that!a!repeatedImeasures!design!is!the!best!way!to!directly!measure!
impacts!(Moss,!Jensen!&!Gusset!2014).!To!make!sure!they!interviewed!the!same!
people!each!time,!they!gave!participants!stickers!or!wristbands!with!unique!visitor!
numbers!after!the!entrance!interview.!A!study!done!at!the!National!Aquarium!in!
Baltimore!cued!visitors!after!the!entrance!interview!to!come!back!for!another!interview!
at!the!end!of!their!visit!(Adelman,!Falk!&!James!2000).!They!also!completed!100!exitI
only!interviews!to!act!as!a!control!group.!After!analysis,!they!found!no!significant!
differences!between!the!answers!of!the!control!group!and!those!of!the!visitors!who!did!
both!interviews.!A!study!done!at!Disneys!Animal!Kingdom!randomly!selected!visitors!as!
they!entered!and!exited!the!Conservation!Station!area!of!the!park.!Through!this!

method,!about!one!seventh!of!the!visitors!(n=100)!took!both!the!preI!and!postI
interviews!(Dierking!et!al.!2004).!!
!
PreI!and!postIinterviews!generally!look!at!change!in!guest!response,!including!an!
increase!in!awareness!of!the!messages!(Randi!Korn!&!Associates,!Inc.!2009,!Lockett!
1991)!or!big!idea!of!the!exhibit!(Saunders!&!Perry!1997)!or!a!change!in!attitude!toward!
the!exhibit!subject!(Meluch!2003).!They!still!measure!the!kind!of!overall!satisfaction!and!
suggestions!for!improvement!that!exit!interviews!yield,!since!half!of!this!method!is!
essentially!a!cued!exit!interview!(Lockett!1991,!Saunders!&!Perry!1997,!Meluch!2003).!In!
some!cases,!these!interviews!in!combination!with!timing!and!tracking!can!even!help!
researchers!zero!in!on!the!specific!effects!of!particular!interpretive!pieces!on!stay!time,!
satisfaction,!and!comprehension!and!retention!of!messaging!(Meluch!2003).!In!the!
sample!of!studies!reviewed!for!this!project,!preI!and!postIinterview!methods!were!fairly!
consistent;!the!main!variations!were!sample!size,!whether!the!exit!questions!were!
delivered!as!an!interview!or!questionnaire,!and!whether!a!thank!you!gift!was!provided!
at!the!end.!!
!
Follow?up%Interviews%%
%
!
While!exit!interviews!help!researchers!understand!the!effects!of!an!exhibit!right!
after!a!visit,!followIup!telephone!interviews!help!researches!gain!a!better!sense!of!the!
longIterm!effects!of!an!exhibit!visit.!The!amount!of!time!between!the!exit!interviews!
and!telephone!interviews!varies!depending!on!the!study.!The!time!periods!can!range!
from!six!to!eight!weeks!(Adelman!et!al.!2000)!to!seven!to!eleven!months!(Falk!et!al.!
2007).!Others!are!somewhere!in!between,!waiting!about!two!to!three!months!before!
beginning!the!interviews!(Dierking!et!al.!2004,!Randi!Korn!&!Associates,!Inc.!2003).!The!
goal!of!doing!such!interviews!is!to!compare!them!to!responses!from!the!interviews!done!
onIsite.!Some!studies!collect!telephone!numbers!as!part!of!the!entry!or!exit!interviews!
so!they!can!followIup!with!the!same!people!(Dierking!et!al.!2004,!Smith,!Broad!&!Weiler!
2008).!This!is!not!always!the!case!though.!A!study!at!the!Monterey!Bay!Aquarium!had!
staff!and!volunteers!gather!telephone!numbers!from!300!visitors!to!the!exhibit!that!they!
could!call!at!a!later!date!(Randi!Korn!&!Associates,!Inc.!2003).!Even!if!the!people!are!not!
always!the!same,!the!questions!tend!to!be!similar!between!the!exit!and!followIup!
interviews.!Sometimes!it!is!exactly!the!same!set!of!questions!(Randi!Korn!&!Associates,!
Inc.!2003).!In!other!cases,!it!is!the!same!set!of!questions!with!additional!probing!about!
specific!responses!from!the!exit!interviews!(Dierking!et!al.!2004,!(Smith!et!al.!2008).!!
!
Affective,Change,!
!
!
For!the!purposes!of!this!literature!review,!we!are!defining!affective!change!as!a!
change!in!emotion!or!attitude!regarding!a!subject.!There!are!two!independent!
dimensions!of!the!affective!domain!(cited!in!Myers,!Saunders!&!Birjulin!2004).!They!are!
the!evaluative!dimension,!whether!an!emotion!is!positive!or!negative,!and!the!
arousal!dimension,!turning!emotion!into!action.!Myers,!Saunders,!and!Birjulin!suggest!

that!these!two!dimensions!need!to!be!evaluated!separately!because!people!can!feel!
strong!emotions!with!no!motivation!to!act!on!them!(2004).!!!
!
A!study!done!at!Brookfield!Zoo!looked!at!emotions!visitors!feel!while!watching!
zoo!animals.!To!measure!this,!they!gave!visitors!a!beeper!and!a!worksheet!with!different!
scales!relating!to!emotions!and!the!affective!domains.!They!set!off!the!beeper!when!
they!wanted!the!visitors!to!fill!out!the!worksheet.!Another!study!about!how!visitor!make!
meaning!at!zoos!listened!in!on!visitors!conversations!to!see!what!emotions!visitors!
talked!about!while!looking!at!animals!(Clayton,!Fraser!&!Saunders!2009).!Other!studies!
use!interviews!to!identify!visitors!emotions!regarding!an!exhibit.!!As!part!of!the!
summative!evaluation!of!an!otter!exhibit,!evaluators!asked!visitors!to!describe!a!special!
moment!they!had!in!the!exhibit!(Deuel!&!Tomulonis!2007).!They!then!looked!at!their!
responses!for!words!relating!to!emotions!such!as,!like,!fun,!love,!and!enjoy.!To!analyze!
responses!from!a!study!at!the!National!Aquarium!in!Baltimore,!researchers!developed!a!
4!point!emotional!scale,!the!levels!of!which!are:!little/no!emotion,!expected/normal!
emotion,!strong!caring/awareness,!and!deep!personal!caring!with!a!sense!of!urgency!
(Adelman!et!al.!2000).!!
!
!
Part!of!the!AZA!study,!Why%Zoos%and%Aquariums%Matter,!looked!at!visitor!
attitudes!at!zoos!(Falk!et!al.!2007).!They!asked!13!questions!on!a!7Ipoint!scale!about!
visitors!attitudes!in!regards!conservation,!their!ability!to!affect!change,!and!the!role!of!
zoos!in!conservation.!Evaluators!only!asked!visitors!attitudinal!questions!during!the!exit!
interview,!as!well!as!asking!them!to!report!what!they!would!have!responded!before!
their!visit.!According!to!the!study,!this!postIonly,!retrospectiveIpre!is!more!reliable!to!
measure!attitudes!than!traditional!pre/post!interviews.!Other!studies!in!zoos!have!
modified!previous!attitudinal!models!to!relate!to!their!animals.!At!the!Lincoln!Park!Zoo,!
evaluators!adapted!the!Kellerts!and!Dunlaps!1989!survey!of!zoo!visitor!knowledge!and!
attitudes!to!be!about!chimpanzees!and!gorillas!(Lukas!&!Ross!2005).!A!study!about!an!
orangutan!exhibit!at!Zoo!Victoria!adapted!Herzogs!1991!Animal!Attitude!Scale!(Pearson,!
Lowry,!Dorrian!&!Litchfield!2014).!An!interesting!finding!from!their!study!was!that!
higher!visitor!satisfaction!of!orangutan!activity!levels!was!related!to!more!positive!
attitudes!about!orangutans.!!
!
!
Some!of!these!studies!associated!their!findings!about!affective!change!with!
potential!change!in!behavior.!For!example,!researchers!from!the!Zoo!Victoria!study!
concluded!that!positive!attitudinal!change!was!important!because!it!demonstrated!
public!support!for!their!campaign!and!can!shape!intentions!for!related!actions!(Pearson!
et!al.!2014).!Another!study!done!at!Brookfield!Zoo,!The!Shedd!Aquarium,!and!Zoo!
Atlanta!looked!specifically!at!the!relationship!between!attitude!and!behavior.!!They!
developed!a!Conservation!Caring!scale!to!measure!peoples!connection!to!an!animal!
species!(Skibins!&!Powell!2013).!By!comparing!visitors!level!of!Conservation!Caring!to!
their!proIconservation!behavioral!intent,!researchers!found!that!this!perceived!
connection!to!animals!has!a!large!influence!on!Species!Oriented!Behaviors.!!!
,

Behavioral,Change!
!
!
Behavioral!change!can!be!difficult!to!track!because!it!often!happens!outside!of!
the!zoo.!However,!there!are!theories!and!studies!that!can!help!inform!how!we!think!
about!behaviors.!One!major!theory!is!Icek!Ajzens!Theory!of!Planned!Behavior!(1991).!
This!theory!states!that!the!stronger!the!intention!to!perform!a!particular!behavior!is,!the!
more!likely!someone!will!actually!be!to!perform!that!behavior.!Ajzen!proposes!three!
determinants!of!intention,!attitude!toward!the!behavior,!how!others!feel!about!the!
behavior,!and!perceived!behavioral!control.!It!is!not!necessary!to!have!all!three!in!all!
situations,!but!generally!more!favorable!attitudes!and!subjective!norms!and!more!
confidence!in!ones!ability!to!perform!the!action!leads!to!stronger!intentions!to!do!the!
behavior.!Other!studies!have!focused!on!behaviors!as!they!relate!to!nature.!!One!such!
study!done!at!the!Virginia!Commonwealth!University!found!that!the!more!connected!a!
person!feels!towards!nature,!the!more!they!are!willing!to!sacrifice!for!the!environment!
(Davis,!Le!&!Coy!2011).!!Another!study!done!in!Germany!found!that!affinity!towards!
nature!was!a!predictor!of!nature!protective!behaviors!(Kals,!Schumacher!&!Montada!
1999).!Other!predictors!they!found!were!an!interest!in!nature,!indignation!about!
insufficient!nature!protection,!and!past!and!present!experiences!in!nature.!In!an!article!
about!responding!to!climate!change,!Clayton,!Goldman,!and!Celio!explain!that!behavior!
is!driven!by!emotion!and!that!audiences!tend!to!react!most!strongly!to!immediate!
problems!that!are!current!and!close!to!home!(2012).!
!
!
!
Researchers!at!zoos!and!aquariums!have!used!different!methods!to!measure!
behaviors.!At!Disneys!Animal!Kingdom,!Lynn!Dierking!and!her!team!borrowed!the!
Prochaska!Stage!Model!of!Behavioral!Change!from!the!public!health!field!to!measure!
general!conservation!actions!(Dierking!et!al.!2004).!This!model!places!behaviors!on!a!
continuum!of!change,!the!five!levels!of!which!are:!precontemplation,!contemplation,!
preparation,!action,!and!maintenance.!Researchers!on!the!project!concluded!that!
further!refinement!of!the!scale!or!a!more!sensitive!model!would!have!been!better.!A!
study!at!the!National!Aquarium!in!Baltimore!(NAIB)!also!measured!more!general!
behaviors,!asking!visitors!to!report!their!level!of!activity!conservation!issues!and!any!
lifestyle!changes!they!made!to!help!the!environment!(Adelman!et!al.!2000).!!!
!
Other!studies!looked!at!more!specific!behaviors.!Some!looked!at!visitor!use!of!
specific!takeaways!from!the!exhibit,!such!as!a!Seafood%Watch!card!or!a!petition!postcard!
(Randi!Korn!&!Associates,!Inc.!2003,!Pearson!et!al.!2014).!A!study!done!at!Zoo!Victoria!
looked!at!the!effect!of!a!Birds!of!Prey!program!on!two!specific!visitor!behaviors,!
recycling!and!cleaning!up!road!kill!(Smith!et!al.!2008).!At!the!zoo,!they!measured!visitor!
intentions!to!either!start!or!increase!their!commitment!to!these!activities,!and!then!
followed!up!with!the!visitors!six!months!later!to!see!if!the!intentions!turned!into!action.!
Another!study!done!at!the!Melbourne!Zoo!looked!at!the!effects!of!!Dont!Palm!Us!Off!
!a!yearlong!onI!and!offIsite!palm!oil!awareness!campaign!!on!visitor!behavior!relating!
to!orangutan!conservation.!They!asked!zoo!visitors!questions!about!previous!behavior!
and!intended!behaviors,!before!the!study!started,!during!the!study,!and!after!the!study!

ended!(Pearson!et!al.!2014).!Researchers!from!a!multiIsite!study!that!measured!only!
intentions!rather!than!actual!behavior!performances!noted!that!it!was!a!limitation!to!
their!study!(Skibins!&!Powell!2013).!!
!
!
There!were!a!few!themes!that!emerged!from!these!studies!about!behavioral!
change.!For!some!of!the!studies,!short!term!increases!in!levels!of!intended!action!did!
not!remain!as!high!or!dropped!down!to!preIinterview!levels!during!the!followIup!
interview!(Dierking!et!al.!2004,!Adelman!et!al.!2000).!In!the!case!of!the!study!from!Zoo!
Victoria,!only!about!21%!of!visitors!even!recalled!intending!to!start!or!increase!a!
conservation!behavior!(Smith!et!al.!2008).!!Also,!once!visitors!were!prompted!with!their!
previous!response,!visitors!who!did!indicate!a!change!in!behavior!said!that!there!were!
factors!outside!of!their!zoo!visit!that!influenced!the!change.!The!researchers!working!on!
evaluating!the!Dont!Palm!Us!Off!campaign!had!a!similar!issue.!Even!though!they!
found!increases!in!conservation!behavior!(donating!and!avoiding!palm!oil),!because!the!
campaign!extended!beyond!the!zoo,!they!could!not!track!exactly!where!visitors!
information!and!influences!were!coming!from.!However,!the!authors!of!the!NAIB!and!
Animal!Kingdom!studies!suggest!that!to!make!people!more!likely!to!fulfill!their!intended!
behaviors,!zoos!need!to!provide!visitors!with!reinforcing!experiences!after!their!visit!and!
tangible!conservation!tools!and!ideas!for!them!to!use.!!
,
Conclusion!
!
!
Summative!evaluation!seeks!to!paint!a!picture!for!researchers!of!what!is!really!
happening!within!a!completed!exhibit!space;!it!tells!us!how!the!public!is!using!this!thing!
we!have!created!(Diamond!et!al!2009).!To!get!a!fullIcolor!picture,!we!need!to!employ!
multiple!methods!and!collect!a!variety!of!data.!In!many!summative!evaluations,!this!
combination!includes!of!some!form!of!observation,!which!provides!observable!evidence!
of!guest!behavior,!preferences!(as!demonstrated!by!stay!time!or!behavior),!and!
attention!span.!It!also!includes!some!form!of!interview,!which!gives!use!access!to!the!
unobservable!parts!of!a!guests!experience:!their!thoughts,!opinions,!impressions,!and!
questions.!Strong!summative!evaluations!are!made!up!of!a!similar!combination!of!
quantitative!and!qualitative!data;!anything!short!is!only!getting!half!the!story.!Based!on!
this!research,!for!our!study!we!think!timing!and!tracking!and!preI!and!postIinterviews!
will!be!most!useful.!We!believe!talking!to!the!same!visitors!for!both!interviews!using!a!
retrospective!pre/post!design!will!help!us!best!measure!the!change!we!are!looking!for.!
Decisions!still!need!to!be!made!about!how!we!will!define!change!for!the!purposes!of!our!
study!and!therefore!what!criteria!we!will!use!to!measure!it.!!
!
!

Resources!
!
Adelman,!L.,!Falk,!J.!H.,!and!James,!S.!2000.!Impact!of!National!Aquarium!on!Baltimore!
on!visitors!conservation!attitudes,!behavior,!and!knowledge.!Curator:!Volume!
43!Issue!1.!San!Francisco,!CA:!California!Academy!of!Sciences.!!
!
Azjen,!I.!1991.!The!Theory!of!Planned!Behavior.!Organizational%Behavior%and%Human%
Decisions%Processes:!Volume!50.!Waltham,!MA:!Academic!Press,!Inc.!!
!
Calvert,!W.!K.!1996.!Summative!Evaluation!of!The!Shark!Encounter!Exhibit,!Sea!World!
of!California.!Technical!evaluation!report.!Monterey,!CA:!Sea!World!of!
California.!
!
Clayton!S.,!Fraser,!J.,!and!Saunders,!C.!D.!2009.!Zoo!Experiences:!Conversations,!
Connections,!and!Concern!for!Animals.!Zoo%Biology:!Volume!28!Issue!5.!New!
York:!WileyILiss.!
!!
Clayton,!S.,!Goldman,!S.!R.,!Celio,!C.!2012!Understanding!and!Responding!to!Climate
!
Change:!Psychological!Barriers.!In!A.!Grajal,!S.!Goldman,!&!T.!Marks!(Eds.),
!
Climate%Change%Education:%A%Primer%for%Zoos%and%Aquariums!(pp.!47I60).
!
Brookfield,!IL:!Chicago!Zoological!Society.!!
!
Davis,!J.!L.,!Le,!B.,!and!Coy,!A.!E.!2011.!Building!a!model!of!commitment!to!the!natural!
environment!to!predict!ecological!behavior!and!willingness!to!sacrifice.!Journal%
of%Environmental%Psychology:!Volume!31.!Amsterdam,!Netherlands:!Elsevier.!!
!
Diamond,!J.,!J.!J.!Luke,!and!D.!H.!Uttal.!2009.!Practical%Evaluation%Guide:%Tools%for%
Museums%and%Other%Informal%Educational%Settings.!Lanham,!MA:!AltaMira!Press.!
!
Deuel,!J.!and!Tomulonis,!J.!2007.!Wild!About!Otters!Summative!Evaluation.!Technical!
evaluation!report.!Monterey,!CA:!Monterey!Bay!Aquarium.!!
!
Dierking,!L.!D.,!Adelman,!L.!M.,!Ogden,!J.,!Lehnhardt,!K.,!Miller,!L.,!and!Mellen,!J.!D.!
2004.!Using!a!Behavior!Change!Model!to!Document!the!Impact!of!Visits!to!
Disneys!Animal!Kingdom:!A!Study!Investigative!Intended!Conservation!Action.!
Curator:!Volume!47!Issue!3.!San!Francisco,!CA:!California!Academy!of!Sciences.!!
!
Doering,!Z.!D.!1995.!Who%Attends%Our%Cultural%Institutions?%A%Progress%Report%Based%on%
the%Smithsonian%Marketing%Study%(Research!Note!No.!95I!5).!Technical!report.!
Washington!D.C.:!Smithsonian!Institution.!
Falk,!J.!H.,!Reinhard,!E.!M.,!Vernon,!C.!L.,!Bronnenkant,!K.,!Heimlich,!J.!E.,!Deans,!N.!L.!
2007.!Why%Zoos%and%Aquariums%Matter:%Assessing%the%impact%of%a%visitor%to%a%zoo%
or%aquarium.!Silver!Spring,!MD:!Association!of!Zoos!and!Aquariums.!!

!
Kals,!E.,!Schumacher,!D.,!Montada,!L.!1999.!Emotional!Affinity!toward!Nature!as!a!
Motivational!Basis!to!Protect!Nature.!Environment%and%Behavior:!Volume!31!!
!
Koran,!J.!J.!and!J.!Ellis.!1991.!Research!In!Informal!Settings:!Some!Reflections!on!Designs!
and!Methodology.!ILVS%Review:!Spring!1991.!Grandville,!MI:!Visitor!Studies!
Association.!
Lockett,!C.!1991.!Ten!Years!of!Exhibit!Evaluation!at!the!Royal!Ontario!Museum!(1980I
1990).!ILVS%Review:!Spring!1991.!Grandville,!MI:!Visitor!Studies!Association.!
!
Lukas,!K.!E.!and!Ross,!R.!E.!2005.!Zoo!Visitor!Knowledge!and!Attitudes!Toward!Gorillas!
and!Chimpanzees.!The%Journal%of%Environmental%Education:!Volume!36!Issue!4.!
United!Kingdom:!Taylor!&!Francis!Group.!!
!
Mask,!D.!L.!and!A.!L.!Burns.!1993.!The!Formative!and!Preliminary!Summative!Evaluation!
of!the!Kongo%Ranger%Station.!Visitor%Studies:!Volume!5!Issue!1.!Grandville,!MI:!
Visitor!Studies!Association.!
!
Meluch,!W.!2003.!The!San!Francisco!Zoo!Lemur!Forest!Exhibit!Summative!Evaluation!
May!2003.!Technical!evaluation!report.!San!Francisco,!CA:!San!Francisco!Zoo.!
!
Moss,!A.,!Jensen,!E.,!and!Gusset,!M.!2014.!Evaluating!the!Contribution!of!Zoos!and!
Aquariums!to!Aichi!Biodiversity!Target!1.!Conservation%Biology:!Volume!00!Issue!
1I8.!!Washington!D.C.:!Society!for!Conservation!Biology.!!
!
Myers,!O.!E.,!Saunders,!C.!D.,!Birjulin,!A.!A.!2004.!Emotional!Dimensions!of!Watching!
Zoo!Animals:!An!Experience!Sampling!Study!Building!on!Insights!from!
Psychology.!Curator:!Volume!47!Issue!3.!San!Francisco,!CA:!California!Academy!
of!Sciences.!!
!
Pearson,!E.!L.,!Lowry,!R.,!Dorrian,!J.,!Litchfield,!C.!A.!2014.!Evaluating!the!Conservation!
Impact!of!an!Innovative!ZooIBased!Education!Campaign:!Dont!Palm!Is!Off!for!
OrangIutan!Conservation.!Zoo%Biology:!Volume!33!Issue!3.!New!York:!Wiley!
Periodicals.!!
!
Randi!Korn!&!Associates,!Inc.!2003.!Summative!Evaluation!of!Vanishing%Wildlife.!
Technical!evaluation!report.!Monterey,!CA:!Monterey!Bay!Aquarium.!!
!
Randi!Korn!&!Associates,!Inc.!2009.!Summative!Evaluation!of!the!Madagascar!%
Exhibition.!Technical!evaluation!report.!Bronx,!NY:!Wildlife!Conservation!
Society.!!
!

Raphling,!B.!1997.!Summative!Evaluation!of!The%Universe%in%Your%Hands.!Visitor%
Behavior:!Volume!12!Numbers!1!&!2.!Grandville,!MI:!Visitor!Studies!Association.!
!
Ross,!S.!R.!and!K.!E.!Lukas.!2005.!Zoo!Visitor!Behavior!at!an!African!Ape!Exhibit.!Visitor%
Studies%Today:!Volume!8!Issue!1.!Grandville,!MI:!Visitor!Studies!Association.!
!
Saunders,!C.!D.!and!H.!E.!S.!Perry.!1997.!Summative!Evaluation!of!The%Swamp:!A!
Conservation!Exhibit!with!a!Big!Idea.!Visitor%Behavior:!Volume!12!Numbers!1!&!
2.!Grandville,!MI:!Visitor!Studies!Association.!
!
Serrell,!B.!1994.!What's!the!Big!Idea?!NAME%Newsletter:!Volume!12!(Winter).!!National!
Association!for!Museum!Exhibition.!
Serrell,!B.!1998.!Paying%attention:%Visitors%and%museum%exhibits.!Washington,!DC:!
American!Association!of!Museums.!!
!
Skibins,!J.!C.!and!Powell,!R.!B.!2013.!Conservation!Caring:!Measuring!the!Influence!of!
Zoo!Visitors!Connection!to!Wildlife!on!ProIConservation!Behaviors.!Zoo%
Biology:!Volume!33!Issue!5.!New!York:!Wiley!Periodicals.!!
!
Smith,!L.,!Broad,!S.,!and!Weiler,!B.!2008.!A!Closer!Examination!of!the!Impact!of!Zoo!
Visits!on!Visitor!Behaviour.!Journal%of%Sustainable%Tourism:!Volume!16!Issue!5.!
United!Kingdom:!Taylor!&!Francis!Group.!!
!
Sudman,!S.,!N.!Bradburn,!and!N.!Schwarz.!1996.!Thinking%About%Answers:%The%
Application%of%Cognitive%Processes%to%Survey%Methodology.!San!Francisco:!JosseyI
Bass.!
!
Tourangeau,!R.,!L.!J.!Rips,!and!K.!Rasinski.!2000.!The%Psychology%of%Survey%Response.!New!
York:!Cambridge!University!Press.!
!
Visitor!Studies!Services.!2006.!San!Francisco!Zoo!African!Savanna!Exhibit!Summative!
Evaluation!Winter!2006.!Technical!evaluation!report.!San!Francisco,!CA:!San!
Francisco!Zoo.!!
!
Yalowitz,!S.,!C.!Figueiredo,!C.!Kessler!and!A.!Ong.!2009.!Smithsonian!Institution!
Museum!of!Natural!History!Sant!Ocean!Hall!Visitor!Study!Final!Report.!Technical!
evaluation!report.!Washington,!D.C.:!National!Museum!of!Natural!History.!
!
Yalowitz,!S.!and!K.!Bronnenkant.!2009.!Timing!and!Tracking:!Unlocking!Visitor!
Behavior.!Visitor%Studies:!Volume!12!Issue!1.!Grandville,!MI:!Visitor!Studies!
Association.!
!
Indianapolis Zoo100!
Zwinkels,!J.,!T.!Oudegeest!and!M.!Laterveer.!2009.!Using!Visitor!Observation!to!
Evaluate!Exhibits!at!the!Rotterdam!Zoo!Aquarium.!Visitor%Studies:!Volume!12,!
Issue!1.!Grandville,!MI:!Visitor!Studies!Association.!
!

Ioc Final Summative Evaluation Report-B

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ioc Final Summative Evaluation Report-B

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Indianapolis Zoo 25!

Simon Skjodt International Orangutan Center at the Indianapolis Zoo

The Hutan Heroes label (Image 7) is another visual label. It is a collection of

Indianapolis Zoo 26!

Indianapolis Zoo 27!

Indianapolis Zoo 28!

Avg Total Time Spent

Avg total watch time at

Avg Total Time Spent in

Avg total watch time at

Indianapolis Zoo 29!

Indianapolis Zoo 30!

Stops with Interpreter

Indianapolis Zoo 31!

Evaluators also were interested to see if groups that stopped at non-viewing

Indianapolis Zoo 32!

Indianapolis Zoo 33!

Ape activity level

Avg Stop Time (min)

Ape activity level

Avg Stop Time (min)

Indianapolis Zoo 34!

Ape activity level

Avg Stop Time (min)

One group spent 129 seconds with Interpreter Interaction

Indianapolis Zoo 35!

Indianapolis Zoo 36!

Indianapolis Zoo 37!

Indianapolis Zoo 38!

Indianapolis Zoo 39!

Exit Interviews & Follow-up Surveys

Indianapolis Zoo 40!

Indianapolis Zoo 41!

Indianapolis Zoo 42!

Indianapolis Zoo 43!

Indianapolis Zoo 44!

Indianapolis Zoo 45!

Indianapolis Zoo 46!

Indianapolis Zoo 47!

Indianapolis Zoo 48!

Indianapolis Zoo 49!

Indianapolis Zoo 50!

Exit & Follow-up Control Responses

Indianapolis Zoo 51!

Indianapolis Zoo 52!

Indianapolis Zoo 53!

Indianapolis Zoo 54!

Indianapolis Zoo 55!

Conservation Attitudes and Actions

Indianapolis Zoo 56!

There seems to be a clearer relationship between action attitude rankings and

Indianapolis Zoo 57!

Indianapolis Zoo 58!

Indianapolis Zoo 59!

Orangutan Moms and Babies

Indianapolis Zoo 60!

Indianapolis Zoo 61!

Indianapolis Zoo 62!

Indianapolis Zoo 63!

Indianapolis Zoo 64!

Indianapolis Zoo 65!

# of groups who did the