Photo Portraiture Enhances Empathy for Birds with Potential Benefits for Conservation and Sustainability

Abstract

Since the 1970s, avian populations have decreased by about 29% in North America, sparking concerns about their continued survival. Birds are essential to ecosystems for seed dispersal and fertilization, insect and rodent control, and as a food source, yet people often under-value them. Research increasingly shows that human empathy is essential to the sustainability of species. Past work indicates that animal photo portraiture can activate empathy, but researchers have primarily focused on charismatic mammals and have poorly measured empathy for others, especially birds. We extend this research by creating the Empathy for Animals Scale (EAS) and conducting an online survey experiment with 793 people from the United States to examine whether bird photo portraiture activates empathy for birds in the same way it does for mammals. We find that bird photo portraiture, compared to traditional wildlife images, more effectively activates empathy for birds and enhances people’s perception of animals in general. Our findings have important implications for avian conservation and sustainability, potentially helping photographers, organizations, and scholars address public perceptions in promoting the sustainability of birds.

1. Introduction

Activating empathy for a particular animal to influence public sentiment is often necessary when undertaking behavior change campaigns. For instance, in 1967, the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) became the first species to be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The condor teetered on the edge of extinction. To encourage the public’s participation in sustainability efforts, the US Fish and Wildlife Service used strategic campaigns featuring photographs and stories of condors to educate the public about their importance. Thanks to those efforts and a captive breeding for release program, the California condor was saved with reintroduction programs starting in the mid-1990s [1]. Prior to the ESA, other birds, such as the passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), did not fare as well. In the late 1800s, as the passenger pigeon population rapidly declined a law was passed to stop the pigeons from being caught and killed. Wildlife conservation and sustainability efforts in their infancy coupled with a lack of enforcement of the bill, led to a lag in public awareness and concern about the species. Public awareness is directly related to how conservation and sustainability is engaged. The last passenger pigeon Martha, died in 1914 at the Cincinnati Zoo [2,3]. In this case, the absence of public awareness and engagement in efforts to save the passenger pigeon allowed its mass killing to outpace emerging conservation values and legislative attempts at sustainability.

These examples showcase how public perceptions can have an important role in the decline of species and their ultimate rebound or extinction. While natural science can tell us what needs to be done to save and sustain birds both immediately and holistically, social science is needed to assess public perception and any associated behaviors that impact the protection of different species. In cases where perceptions are negatively impacting the species, strategies for bird survival begin with connecting people to individual animals, because promoting empathy for animals is a long-term sustainability strategy. Studies show that empathy for a particular animal and/or species is a key factor in driving conservation efforts [4,5]. Building empathy for animals, however, can be challenging, as many people do not encounter endangered species on a regular basis. Habitat loss and other factors mean most of our engagement with wildlife is through mediated sources like photography, videography, social media, and gaming [6,7]. As Whitley and colleagues [8] demonstrated, animal imagery is a particularly useful tool in connecting people to animals, evoking emotions and enhancing empathy that contributes to behavior changes. However, their study focused exclusively on charismatic mammals. As a first step, we seek to build on this research by centering our study on the depiction of birds and by developing a new survey tool, Empathy for Animals Scale (EAS) to assess empathy activation. While we are aware that public perception of native and non-native species varies, it is beyond the scope of this project to address this issue. Instead, we draw on the historical perceptions of aesthetics and value in selecting our bird comparisons.

2. Background and Theory

2.1. Bird Population Importance for Ecosystem Sustainability

Since the 1970s, avian populations have decreased by about 29% in North America, which equates to the loss of over three billion birds [9]. Globally, total bird populations have decreased by about 40% [10]. This is a concerning trend, because birds are essential to the wellbeing of both the environment and humans. For example, all forest systems regenerate through the dispersal of seeds spread by bird droppings [11,12], and birds and humans rely on forests for shelter, resources, and clean air and water. The loss of avian populations will only compound the loss of forest systems as they continue to be threatened by climate change and deforestation [11]. As such, sustaining and increasing the number of birds both locally and globally, provides people with real benefits.

2.2. Empathy Drives Conservation and Sustainability Behaviors

Despite their importance in sustaining the ecosystem, public perception of birds is mixed, with avian species like hummingbirds (Family Trochilidae) considered charismatic and others like Canadian geese (Branta canadensis) considered pests or problems. One tool conservation can use to change perceptions is empathy. First coined in the 1900s [13], empathy is an “emotional bridge” that connects individual people and/or animals [14]. Much of the research on empathy has addressed empathy between humans [15,16,17]. However, a growing body of literature examines empathy for animals [18,19,20,21,22] and the impact it has on personal attitudes and behaviors towards conservation [23,24]. While empathy for humans and animals may seem different, research shows that it develops through the same social processes [25,26] and that seeing empathy modeled can enhance empathy for others (human and nonhuman) [27,28]. Most definitions of empathy include common themes such as understanding, feeling, and the sharing of emotions [15,16,17]. However, few of these definitions explicitly mention nonhuman animals. For the purpose of this paper, we use the definition by Whitley and colleagues, which was expanded from previous work [29] and is inclusive of animals:

Empathy is an emotional state that relies on the ability to engage in one or more of the following: perception, understanding, feeling, and/or action in response to the experiences or perspectives of another human or nonhuman animal.

Within the concept of empathy there are two core components: affective and cognitive [30]. Affective empathy is the ability to physically experience the feelings or emotions of another [31], while cognitive empathy is the ability to recognize the experience of others through perspective taking or imagination [32]. Both cognitive and affective empathy play important but different roles in eliciting pro-environmental behavior change [33]. Affective empathy is an initial reaction, while cognitive empathy requires more development or understanding. Knowledge also plays a key role, as the level of knowledge an individual has about a particular sustainability issue can influence their development of empathy [4].

2.3. Public Perception and Empathy for Birds

Although there is a wealth of literature exploring perceptions and empathy for animals broadly, and mammals specifically, further research exploring perceptions and empathy for birds is needed [34]. Research shows that social constructions of birds as good, bad, beautiful and ugly, as well as our interactions with them [35,36] are leading factors influencing perceptions [37]. For example, in the US some birds, such as the Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), are considered aesthetically pleasing and ecologically important, while others, like pigeons (Columba livia), are considered pests and even labeled as “flying rats” [38,39,40]. In this study, we selected parallel images across avian species designed to have a similar impact on activating empathy. However, due to social and cultural constructions of different birds, we expected that some birds would still garner greater empathy compared to others. If we found no difference this would indicate that our approach to overcoming bias in photo selection was promising. While this study does not investigate the specific social and cultural factors shaping perceptions of individual bird species, we do recognize that such perceptions are informed by broader social contexts. This anticipation leads to our first hypothesis.

H1. 

The activation of empathy through viewing bird photographs, regardless of photograph style (portrait or wildlife) will vary depending on the species of bird that is viewed.

Studies on empathy for birds are scant, with most empathy-bird work seeking to (1) assess whether birds are empathetic [41,42], which is interesting, but not applicable to this study, or (2) assess empathy for animals in general [43,44]. An exception to this is Burmeister and colleagues [45] who used multiple questions in survey to measure various dimensions of the human-bird relationship, however only one question assesses empathy for birds. Broadly, they conclude that only a quarter of bird owners described having a personal relationship with their bird which included the recognition of their bird as an individual, having regular interaction, and being interdependent. Similarly, Abel [46] found that among pet owners birds were not named as often as dogs. While neither of these studies directly assess empathy for birds, collectively they show that people are less emotionally engaged with birds, even when they are considered pets.

Language is another contributing factor in perceptions and empathy towards birds. The term “animal” remains conceptually loaded in public discourse. When individuals encounter the word, they are likely to first envision charismatic megafauna rather than birds, reptiles, invertebrates, amphibians, or fish. This tendency is supported by research indicating that humans are more likely to express affinity, concern, and moral regard for mammals because they are species humans perceive as biologically or behaviorally similar to themselves [43,47]. This means that most often when people hear the term “animal” they think mammal and not bird. This assertion leads us to our second hypothesis.

H2. 

Even when participants are primed with a bird photograph, they will report lower levels of empathy toward birds than when asked about animals in general.

2.4. Critical and Strategic Anthropomorphism to Promote Sustainability

Anthropomorphism, the attribution of human characteristics, behaviors, emotions, and physical qualities to nonhuman animals, is a widespread strategic tool used to engage people in sustainability initiatives [48]. Research suggests that people who consume anthropomorphic conservation content report feeling more connected to nature and more concerned about the environment [21]. In assessing survey responses of nearly 45,000 people, Manfredo and colleagues [49] assert that anthropomorphic content can be used to counter values of nature domination, while also being critical of traditional and/or historic wildlife management and sustainability practices. Increased anthropomorphism is associated with greater support for conservation and sustainability efforts [50]. And, animals who resemble humans in behavior and/or appearance tend to attract more donations and support [51,52]. Some research has been critical of anthropomorphizing animals as this process can fail to consider animal otherness [53] and exclude animals that “are not like humans in the ‘right’ ways” [43,44], including marine life, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and birds. In addition, anthropomorphism can lead to depictions of characteristics that are not natural or normal for particular species, and these misrepresentations can contribute to misunderstandings that could lead to negative human–animal interactions [54], which could endanger humans and animals [55].

Critical anthropomorphism argues that how we perceive animals is filtered through human experience, with our history and experiences impacting our current interactions with animals [8]. Critical anthropomorphism uses science to better understand actual animal experiences to make more appropriate comparisons. There are several concepts that fall within the critical anthropomorphism, and Taylor [56] calls on anthro-interpretivism as one of these. The concept of anthro-interpretivism extends Clifford Geertz’s work in interpretive-anthropology, to be inclusive of nonhuman animals [57]. Drawing on this term, Taylor [56] calls humans to see animals as individuals in a collective, not just for the wellbeing of the animal individual, but the wellbeing of all. This is a human-centered approach, but it engages the viewer in thinking about how the animal might feel or what is often termed perspective taking.

Whitley and colleagues argue for a strategic anthropomorphic approach, in which professionals attempt to activate empathy for an animal using human-centered tools known to promote empathy-building while remaining faithful to promoting natural and scientifically sound characteristics. Strategic anthropomorphism encourages creators and educators to capitalize on what works. Animal photo portraiture can be used as a strategic “hook” to grab attention and then further educate viewers about the conservation and behavior changes needed to save or sustain populations. Following Whitley and colleagues [8], we focus our attention on the utilization of animal photo portraiture as a critical or strategic anthropomorphic tool to enhance empathy for birds.

2.5. Comparing Animal Photo Portraiture to Traditional Wildife Photography

Animal photo portraiture is distinct from traditional wildlife photography in that it captures the subject in the way one would take a portrait of a human: focused exclusively on the animal, out of their natural habitat and often face on and showing only the upper body [8]. Although anthropomorphizing animals in photography is increasingly popular because of the work of photographic artists such as Tim Flach and Joel Sartore [58,59], animal photo portraiture remains relatively rare. Historically, animal portraiture was used in conservation was controversial because it presented animals in human-like frames, focusing on the head, with eyes square to the camera, often with blurred backgrounds. These poses are not necessarily natural for nonhuman animals. Such imagery was often considered as unnecessarily anthropomorphizing wildlife. In fact, less than a decade ago some of the largest international photography organizations, including The Photographic Society of America (PSA), the Fédération Internationale de l’Art Photographique (FIAP), and The Royal Photographic Society (RPS), banned or heavily criticized this type of photography. Collectively, they created a definition of wildlife photography that restricted this type of anthropomorphic technique [60]. With fewer opportunities to capture images of animals in the wild, the ethics of captive animal photography and the promotion of animal portraiture as conservation techniques are changing. The International League of Conservation Photographers now has ethical guidelines that encourage photographers to research the organization housing the animal to be photographed and to make sure this organization has the animal’s best interests and welfare in mind [60].

While both traditional wildlife and anthropomorphized animal images have been used for over a century to highlight conservation and sustainability needs, Thomas-Walters and colleagues [61] argue that we know very little about when and how animal images work at activating a human connection. Current research suggests that people who view animal photo portraits show enhanced solidarity and kinship with animals [62,63,64] and enhanced discomfort and empathy [8]. The efficacy of animal photo portraits can be reduced if poor or distressing information follows the image [65]. In addition, empathy activation and feelings of kinship may be enhanced when viewing baby animals [66]. However, the majority of prior work focuses on charismatic mammals and does not specifically measure empathy for birds. The authors are not aware of any studies that specifically focus on assessing the impacts of bird photo portraits compared to traditional wildlife bird images on empathy for birds or animals broadly. This paucity in prior research leads to our third and final hypothesis.

H3. 

Viewing a bird portrait will elicit a stronger empathetic response compared to viewing a traditional wildlife bird image.

3. Materials and Methods

We used an experimental survey fielded from 13–15 May 2024, to assess how bird photo portraiture, compared to traditional wildlife bird photography influences empathy for avian species. The survey was hosted on the Qualtrics platform, and Prolific was used to solicit participants. Conducting an experimental survey online allows for the capture of a greater diversity of people than convenience samples and, in many cases, if protocols are followed, can provide good quality data as Prolific is the leader in data quality [67,68]. The survey was listed as “A Study about Perception of Nature.” Participation was limited to those residing in the US who were 18 years of age or older. Participants were paid $1.00 to participate in the 5 min survey, which equates to $12 an hour. A total of 800 people completed the survey. Seven responses (0.875%) were excluded from the analysis as they were identified as bot-generated, leaving the sample size at 793. The sample was designed to approximate US Census data on gender, age and education to create a sample that would be considered more generalizable. The study was approved by the lead author’s institutional review board (IRB).

3.1. Survey Experiment

Survey respondents were randomly assigned into one of eight photo conditions, where they saw one image of a bird (photo portrait or traditional wildlife photo). Viewing of the image was limited to 30 s to control for time variations. Our selection of 30 s was based on that fact that most people spend under a minute viewing art and signage [69]. We selected images of four species of birds from the portfolio of a professional conservation photographer known for producing animal photo portraits [58,70]. Of the photo portraits available, we identified images to represent different sizes, conservation statuses, and cuteness factors: the Philippine eagle (Pithecophaga jefferyi), Inca tern (Larosterna inca), Gouldian finch (Chloebia gouldiae), and shoebill stork (Balaenicepts rex). We recognize that other criteria and bird images could have been used and should be used in the future. Given that our survey participants were from the US, we did not select birds native to the US to minimize symbolic or cultural biases associated with US native birds like the Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), or Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Our selection was constrained by the limited availability of high-quality photo portraits of bird species not native to the US within our partner photographer’s portfolio.

Next, we employed a team of professional photographers to select images of the same four species in outdoor environments (termed traditional wildlife bird photography). All selected wildlife bird photos were by professional photographers and previously published. Selection of the images followed the procedures outlined in the previous literature [8] and involved having a team of professional photographers select, analyze, and weigh-in on the images to be included. When comparing the quality of photographs of the same species factors such as composition, lighting, focus, emotional tone, color balance, and how effectively the image situated the individual were assessed. All images selected had a resolution of 300 DPI and people received the same size image regardless of image type. This was done to limit the possibility of any image being unique in influence because of style, size, or resolution quality. None of the photographs selected were AI generated or modified. The images available in the Supplementary Materials are much smaller than the images that survey participants received.

Upon consenting to participate in the survey, respondents were randomly assigned to view one of eight possible bird photographs (one of four species in either portrait or wildlife style). Following exposure to photographs, participants answered 10 questions measuring empathy for birds and 10 questions measuring empathy toward animals more broadly. These items were combined into four scales (affective empathy for birds, cognitive empathy for birds, affective empathy for animals, cognitive empathy for animals) representing the newly created Empathy for Animals Scale (EAS).

3.2. Creating the Empathy for Animals Scale (EAS)

There are numerous scales that have been used to assess empathy for animals, however only a few include questions about birds, none focus on birds, and most scales are lengthy, limiting their practical application. Therefore, we build upon existing scales to create the Empathy for Animals Scale (EAS), which is a tool consisting of four separate concepts that can be used together or independently. The tool includes affective and cognitive empathy scales measuring empathy for animals broadly (using the term “animal”) and affective and cognitive empathy scales measuring empathy for birds. The bird specific scales parallel the general animal scales replacing “animals” with the name of the specific bird viewed in the photograph. Each of the four scales consists of five questions. The tool is designed so that the researcher can simply switch out the animal or species’ name and use one (5 questions) or all scales (20 questions). Two items in the affective empathy scales were reverse coded and three items in the cognitive empathy scales were reverse coded. Some items had to be adjusted to make sense in targeting empathy for birds. All four scales have good internal reliability with Cronbach’s alphas above 0.70 [71], indicating that the each group of items measures a single concept. See

Table 1. Items Used in the Empathy for Animals Scale (EAS).

Survey Item	Cronbach’s Alpha
Affective Empathy for Animals in General	0.896
I feel happy when I see happy animals.
Seeing a sad animal does NOT make me feel upset. (R)
I can feel the emotions of animals.
I am NOT really affected by the emotions of animals. (R)
Seeing an animal in pain affects me.
Cognitive Empathy for Animals in General	0.849
I am NOT usually aware of the feelings of animals. (R)
I can usually understand when animals feel sad.
I DON’T often wonder what animals are thinking. (R)
I often think about what animals are feeling.
I CAN’T really understand how animals are feeling. (R)
Affective Empathy for Birds	0.770
Seeing the bird happy would make me feel happy.
I would NOT feel upset if I knew the bird was sad. (R)
I could feel the emotions of the bird.
I was NOT really affected by the emotions of the bird. (R)
Seeing the bird in pain would affect me.
Cognitive Empathy for Birds	0.890
I was NOT aware of the feelings of the bird. (R)
I could understand if the bird was sad.
I DIDN’T wonder what the bird was thinking. (R)
I thought about what the bird was feeling.
I could NOT really understand what the bird was feeling. (R)

(R) indicates reverse coding.

for the questions and Cronbach’s alphas. Questions that were reverse coded are noted (R).

3.3. Descriptive Statistics

Compared with the US population, our survey sample is similar in terms of gender, age, and education. Specifically, our sample was 51% women, compared with 51% in the population [72]. The median age of the population is 38.7 years [72], which is nearly identical to our sample at 38 years. According to the US Census Bureau, 35% of the adult population has at least a bachelor’s degree. Our sample revealed 35.69% having at least a Bachelor’s degree [72]. In terms of race, our sample is slightly whiter (difference of 8.52 points) and slightly lower in income. We use the term white instead of Caucasian as this is the term used by the US Census. According to the US Census, 58.40% of the population identifies as exclusively white; our sample revealed 66.92% identified as exclusively white [72]. The median income for the US was $78,538 [72]. In our sample the median income was between $60,000 and $69,000.

4. Results

4.1. Assessing Between Photo Impacts

Our first hypothesis (H1) states that the activation of empathy through viewing bird photographs will vary depending on the species of bird that is viewed. Specifically, we wanted to see if any one image performed better than another within the two designated groups (bird photo portraits vs. traditional wildlife bird images). To do this, we used one-way ANOVAs to analyze the mean empathy scores based on which photograph people received within either the portrait or traditional wildlife bird group. For instance, we compared means on the four empathy scales (i.e., affective empathy for birds, cognitive empathy for birds, affective empathy for animals in general, and cognitive empathy for animals in general) among those who received one of the four bird photo portraits. We found no statistical difference among the four different bird photo portraits on the four empathy scales. Next, we tested the traditional wildlife bird images, and again, we found no statistical difference between wildlife bird images on empathy scores.

This finding indicates that no specific bird photo portrait performed better than any other photo portrait and that no specific wildlife bird image performed better than any other wildlife bird image. This is important because we assumed even with best intentions that there might be variation in how well the different images activated empathy within the bird photo portrait and wildlife groups. We found no difference in empathetic response to the various bird images we provided for viewing within each of the two groups. Accordingly, hypothesis one was not supported, but we deem this a success because this means that within the two groups (photo portraiture and wildlife images) no one image performed better than any other.

4.2. Comparison of Empathy for Birds and Empathy for Animals Broadly

In our second hypothesis (H2), we proposed that participants would report lower levels of empathy toward birds, even when primed with a bird photograph, compared to their reported empathy toward animals more broadly. We used paired t-tests to compare mean empathy scores for birds and animals in general within the photo portrait and wildlife photo viewing groups. Among those who received a traditional wildlife bird image, we found that affective empathy for birds (M = 3.808, SD = 1.270) was significantly lower than affective empathy for animals in general (M = 5.181, SD = 1.361) t(394) = −23.561, p < 0.001. Measures of cognitive empathy among those who received a wildlife bird image performed similarly, with cognitive empathy for birds (M = 2.826, SD = 1.431) being significantly lower compared to cognitive empathy for animals in general (M = 3.998, SD = 1.383). t(394) = −21.015, p < 0.001. We found a similar pattern among those who viewed bird photo portraits with empathy for birds being significantly lower than empathy for animals. The 398 participants who received a bird photo portrait demonstrated significantly less affective empathy for birds (M = 4.112, SD = 1.230) compared to affective empathy for animals in general (M = 5.401, SD = 1.186) t(396) = −22.910, p < 0.001. The same was true for cognitive empathy where cognitive empathy for birds (M = 3.303, SD = 1.514) was significantly lower than cognitive empathy for animals broadly (M = 4.77, SD = 1.1264) t(397) = −18.148, p < 0.001 among those who received a bird photo portrait. These findings are presented in Figure 1. This finding is consistent with literature suggesting that people do not often consider birds in broad animal categories and that when asked about birds specifically, they show less connection and emotional engagement with birds compared to other animals.

4.3. Empathy for Birds: Comparing Bird Photo Portraiture and Wildlife Birds

Finally, for our third hypothesis (H3), we assessed if bird portraits performed better at activating empathy for birds and animals in general compared to traditional wildlife bird images. We started by conducting an F-test to assess if we could assume equal variance across the two groups of image viewers (photo portrait and traditional bird wildlife). The F-test was insignificant, indicating that the standard deviations of the two groups being compared were not significantly different across all four dependent variables. We then used independent t-tests to compare the mean empathy scores across the two separate and unrelated groups. People who received a bird photo portrait compared to those who received a traditional wildlife bird image showed a significant increase in affective and cognitive empathy for birds. Specifically, the 398 participants who received an avian portrait (M = 4.113, SD = 1.231) compared to the 395 participants who received a wildlife bird image (M = 3.808, SD = 1.270) demonstrated significantly higher affective empathy scores for birds t(791) = 3.429, p < 0.001. Similarly, people who received a bird photo portrait (M = 3.303, SD = 1.515) compared to people who received a wildlife bird image (M = 2.836, SD = 1.431) reported significantly higher cognitive empathy for birds t(791) = 4.555, p < 0.001. This suggests that viewing photo portraits of birds, as opposed to traditional wildlife bird images, is more effective in eliciting empathetic response toward birds.

4.4. Empathy for Birds: Comparing Bird Photo Portraiture and Wildlife Animals Broadly

Beyond demonstrating increased empathy for birds, those who received a bird portrait compared to those who received an image of a bird in a traditional wildlife setting reported significantly higher levels of empathy for animals in general. As noted in the results for hypothesis two, empathy for animals is subjective in that this measure really assesses empathy for what people first think of when hearing or reading the term “animals”. Specifically, the 398 participants who received an avian portrait (M = 5.401, SD = 1.186) compared to the 395 participants who received a wildlife bird image (M = 5.184, SD = 1.361) demonstrated significantly higher affective empathy for animals broadly t(791) = 2.397, p = 0.0168. Similarly, people who received a bird portrait (M = 4.377, SD = 1.264) compared to people who received a wildlife image (M = 3.998, SD = 1.383) reported significantly higher cognitive empathy scores for animals in general t(791) = 4.029, p < 0.001. This finding further supports hypothesis three.

5. Discussion

Empathy is an essential tool to engage the public in conservation and sustainability behaviors. A growing body of literature examines ways to increase empathy for wildlife to promote behavior change. Previous research indicates that visual imagery is often more effective than textual information in conveying conservation messages about wildlife within conservation organizations [73] and that anthropomorphic images may be important in activating empathy and promoting sustainability efforts [65]. However, much prior work focuses on charismatic mammals and excludes animals who are considered biologically or behaviorally different from humans (birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and fish) [43,47]. In addition, this work does not extend beyond conservation environments, or for images without a conservation context.

In this study, we extend the work of Whitley and colleagues [8] to include birds. We also developed the Empathy for Animals Scale (EAS) to measure empathy for birds and animals broadly as many of the previous animal empathy scales were inadequate for empathy for non-mammals. We expected that even with our best intentions to ensure the images appeared neutral, we would see some variation in emotional response activation between the species viewed. However, we did not find any difference in empathetic reaction to the different images within the two groups: portraits and wildlife images. Although we did not include any images of disliked or contentious birds (e.g., vultures, crows, or pigeons), this finding demonstrates the importance of vetting photographs with professionals and social science researchers to assess impacts before running widespread conservation and sustainability campaigns. Future studies need to better assess when and how bias against certain species manifests and how this bias can be minimized.

For our second hypothesis, we asserted that, based on past research, empathy for birds compared to animals in general would be lower regardless of the bird photograph that people received. We found support for this assertion. Regardless of type of bird photograph received, people reported less empathy for birds compared to empathy for animals broadly. There are two important points to this finding. First, it provides support for the idea that people have less concern and connection to animals they view as phylogenetically different [43,47,74]. Second, this finding demonstrates a central validity problem with past studies reporting perceptions and attitudes about animals and assuming this included non-mammals. Instead of measuring empathy for animals broadly, these studies measure empathy for what people think of when they hear or read the term “animal”, which is likely to be mammals and not phylogenetically different animals likes birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. Given that people feel less attachment and concern for animals they deem substantially different from themselves, and that culture and socialization dictate much of our understanding of different animals, measuring empathy for animals broadly may only serve to hide or erase differing perceptions of non-mammals. Neglecting this nuance may lead to problems in developing outreach programs for the public that target conservation and sustainability for non-mammals. Kalof and colleagues [63,64] have done some work to assess how people perceive the term “animal” before being exposed to images within museum environments and among college students. They find that prior to being exposure to animal photographs people report associating the term “animal” with things like nature, wild/free, but that exposure to animal photo portraiture can change this association to include terms like “kinship” and personality. Future studies need to build on this work to better understand the nuances of perception among different populations and environments.

Finally, we hypothesized that photo portraits would be better at activating empathy for birds in comparison to traditional wildlife bird images. We found support for this hypothesis from our limited sample of four images in each category. Our findings demonstrate that absent of any text, bird photo portraits, compared to traditional wildlife bird images, are better at activating affective and cognitive empathy for birds and for animals in general. This finding is important because it demonstrates that even with limited exposure, animal photo portraiture can have an impact on viewer empathy, not just for mammals as documented in prior work, but for birds as well. This finding may be particularly important for zoos and aquariums in their attempt to enhance viewer engagement and promote conservation and behavior change.

Although it is hard to pinpoint exactly how zoo and aquarium visitors engage with animal images on signage, some work suggests that only a small portion, about 27%, of visitors read signage and that most visitors at zoos and aquariums are there to be entertained [18,75,76]. Roe and colleagues [77] argue that although 95% look at some signage, most people read only a tiny fraction of the signage and focus on signage that is captivating or entertaining with enticing images. Since animal photo portraiture is captivating, zoos, aquariums and other conservation entities can carefully select images of avian species that could have an immediate impact on visitors’ perceptions. In fact, images may be the most important part of an exhibit outside of the presentation of the live animal. More work is needed to better understand whether such an impact can be sustained or enhanced.

6. Conclusions and Limitations

Thomas-Walters et al. [61] assert that we know very little about how animal images work to activate an emotional response and that activating an emotional response is essential to generating support for conservation and sustainability efforts. In past work, Whitley and colleagues [8] show that animal photo portraiture elicits an emotional response for charismatic mammals. They suggest that more research needs to be done to assess if the same types of images can elicit empathy for non-mammals like birds, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and fish. Our study begins to address this gap by extending and enhancing the research protocol developed by Whitley and colleagues [8] to include birds. We also develop a new scale, the Empathy for Animals Scale (EAS), to assess affective and cognitive empathy for animals. Our findings confirm that animal photo portraiture is a unique and important tool for generating an emotional response and that this tool can be effectively used to activate empathy for birds.

As with all studies, there are some limitations and opportunities for future research. The small sample of images used in our study (four from each category) limits our ability to make broad generalizations. To reduce familiarity bias, we focused on the presentation of birds not native to the US, the presentation of local more familiar birds might elicit a different response and should be studied in future work. Additionally, our assessment was limited to responses to four bird species. We did not find significant differences in participants’ perceptions across the species we included, offering preliminary support for the notion that photo portraits of different bird species may elicit similar responses; however, this hypothesis has yet to be formally tested.

We used animal photo portraiture from the portfolio of one photographer, which limited which species we could showcase. Future work should incorporate depictions of charismatic and valuable birds compared to those that are disliked, considered pests or problems, or feared. Similarly, we used only one image of each bird species for our traditional wildlife images. Three of our traditional wildlife images were taken in the bird’s natural habitat, while our Inca Tern wildlife photo was taken at the Exmoor Zoological and Conservation Centre (EZCC), located in Barnstaple in the United Kingdom. This image shows an Inca Tern by a lake with foliage. In most cases, Inca Terns spend their time at sea or perched on rocks or harbors along the Pacific Coasts of South America. This image was selected because Inca terns are often difficult to discern against cliffside environments in wildlife landscape photographs. In addition, all other wildlife images selected contained background foliage. We selected the image with foliage and background diversity to minimize confounding variables and provide greater consistency in the study. Future research should incorporate a much broader variety of wildlife depictions and habitats in assess viewer response. Future research should also include disliked species in different settings ranging from photo portraits to natural settings, and perhaps birds engaging in activities that could be considered disconcerting such as preying on other species and scavenging.

This study starts a conversation about the use of animal photo portraiture in promoting empathy for birds. We begin this discussion by using four animal species and two photo types (photo portraiture and wildlife bird imagery). We do not claim that images of bird species beyond the ones we tested will elicit the same response, although it does seem promising. We would encourage others to build on this work by assessing how viewers respond to photo portraiture for other bird species. Additionally, our study assesses empathy activation at one point in time. It was beyond our scope to assess whether certain images, and perhaps text, have long-term impacts on perception. Similarly to Whitley and colleagues [8], our study only assesses emotional response. We did not assess whether viewing bird photo portraits contribute to a willingness to engage in sustainable behaviors, such as donating to organizations, assisting with habitat restoration, minimizing the use of pesticides, or turning out lights for migration season, all potential avenues for research. What our work demonstrates is that targeted bird photo portraits can have an immediate impact on empathy for a particular animal and broader species without accompanying text. The next step is to assess how text may enhance or hinder this impact and if empathy activation leads to short-term and long-term behavior changes. In addition, we know little about the demographic drivers of these trends. In general, gender seems to play a role in women show greater interest, empathy and concern for nature compared to men [78] and for birds specifically [34], but we do not know how demographics interact with the viewing and perception of images. This is another avenue for future research.

This study is important for conservation and sustainability photographers, multimedia artists, researchers and organizations, such as zoos and aquariums, in their attempt to enhance empathy for avian species. As people have fewer interactions with wildlife due to biodiversity loss, climate change and urbanization, mediated connections through photography, video, and gaming are becoming more important. A growing body of literature suggests that animal photo portraits provide one avenue for people to make connections with specific animals and species that they would not otherwise form a connection with [8,63,64]. Avian sustainability depends on public engagement, interest, and compassion, and utilizing bird photo portraiture as a strategic anthropomorphic tool may foster those essential connections.