What Does The Science Say?
DO AMBASSADOR ANIMALS ACTUALLY IMPROVE CONSERVATION LEARNING?
A zoo experiment found that visitors learned from an exhibit—but adding a live ambassador animal did not clearly improve the outcome.
Ambassador animals are frequently presented as powerful educational tools. A snake held by an educator or a parrot appearing during a presentation can attract attention, create memorable experiences and potentially provide opportunities to talk about conservation.
ㅤ
But does the presence of the animal actually improve what visitors learn? And when the animal is a species sometimes kept as an exotic pet, could seeing one comfortably interacting with people unintentionally influence perceptions about whether that species makes a suitable pet?
ㅤ
Researchers put those questions to an experimental test at the Oakland Zoo. Their findings, published in Zoo Biology, offer an important reminder about the difference between assuming an educational benefit and actually measuring one.
Testing the Ambassador Effect
Researchers surveyed 312 visitors at a static zoo exhibit addressing the illegal wildlife trade. Visitors were surveyed either before or after experiencing the exhibit, and the experimental conditions varied according to whether an educator was presenting an ambassador animal—a ball python or yellow-naped Amazon parrot. The researchers analyzed 299 complete surveys.
ㅤ
They measured three broad outcomes: attitudes toward conservation, knowledge of conservation behaviors, and perceptions of whether various animals—including the ambassador species—were suitable pets.
ㅤ
This distinction matters. The researchers weren't simply asking visitors whether they enjoyed seeing an animal. They were testing whether the presence of that animal measurably changed specific educational outcomes.
Visitors Learned—But the Animal Wasn't Clearly Responsible
Visitors leaving the exhibit demonstrated greater knowledge of conservation behaviors than visitors surveyed beforehand. That sounds encouraging.
ㅤ
But the improvement occurred regardless of whether an ambassador animal was present. The researchers found no significant differences in conservation attitudes attributable to the experimental conditions, and the presence of an ambassador animal did not clearly enhance the measured learning outcome.
ㅤ
That does not mean ambassador animals have no educational value. This was one study involving one exhibit, two ambassador species and particular educational messages. It does mean something more specific: in this experiment, adding an ambassador animal did not produce a detectable improvement in the conservation-learning outcome the researchers measured.
ㅤ
That is an important distinction.
What About Exotic-Pet Ownership?
The study also examined a particularly interesting concern: could presenting exotic animals in close proximity to people inadvertently make them appear more appropriate as pets?
ㅤ
The results were nuanced. Visitors leaving the exhibit expressed less favorable attitudes toward parrots as pets, but the presence or absence of an ambassador animal did not significantly change that effect. Overall, the authors concluded that ambassador animals did not unintentionally promote exotic-pet ownership among the study population.
ㅤ
There was, however, a result worth noticing. Participants who viewed a python were more likely to indicate that they considered a python a good pet.
ㅤ
That finding should not be stretched beyond what the study demonstrates. It does not establish that seeing ambassador pythons causes people generally to acquire snakes or that ambassador programs promote the exotic-pet trade.
ㅤ
The authors also note an important limitation: the study population already expressed generally negative attitudes toward exotic-pet ownership. They concluded that further research is needed, particularly into the role of interpretive messaging when ambassador animals are used educationally.
The Message May Matter as Much as the Animal
That may be one of the study's most useful lessons. A live animal can capture attention. But attention and education are not necessarily the same thing.
ㅤ
If an institution says that an ambassador animal increases conservation knowledge, strengthens conservation attitudes or changes behavior, those are outcomes that can be studied. The presence of an animal alone does not demonstrate that those outcomes occurred.
ㅤ
In this experiment, visitors did learn more about conservation behaviors after experiencing the exhibit. What researchers could not demonstrate was that adding the ambassador animal was responsible for improving that learning.
What This Study Does—and Does Not—Tell Us
The research does not demonstrate that ambassador-animal programs are ineffective. It does not show that such programs harm conservation education, nor does it establish that they generally encourage exotic-pet ownership.
ㅤ
It provides something more useful than either sweeping conclusion: it shows that educational claims surrounding ambassador animals should be tested rather than assumed.
ㅤ
That principle becomes particularly important when live animals are incorporated into programs specifically because institutions believe their presence creates stronger educational or conservation outcomes.
ㅤ
If the animal is there to educate, we can ask whether visitors actually learn more. If the animal is intended to change attitudes, we can measure whether attitudes change. And if presenting wildlife close to people could potentially influence perceptions of those animals as pets, we can investigate that too.
From Assumption to Evidence
Ambassador animals may indeed provide meaningful educational experiences in some circumstances. Different species, messages, presenters, audiences and program designs could produce different outcomes.
ㅤ
That is precisely why research like this matters. Rather than asking whether ambassador animals are inherently good or bad, a more productive question is:
What measurable difference does the animal's presence actually make?
ㅤ
In this Oakland Zoo experiment, visitors learned from the exhibit. The science simply did not show that putting an ambassador animal beside it made them learn more.
ㅤ
For institutions committed to evidence-based conservation education, that isn't an argument against education. It is an argument for measuring whether the educational methods we believe work actually do.
ㅤ
Make the claim. Measure the outcome. Follow the evidence.
Scientific Source: Kirsch, D. G., MacPherson, A. C., Meyers, C. N., Bowser, S. L., & Kross, S. M. (2025). Ambassador Animals Do Not Have a Clear Effect on Visitor Conservation Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Exotic Pets at a Zoo Exhibit. Zoo Biology, 44(1), 36–48. DOI: 10.1002/zoo.21872. First published online October 28, 2024.
Read The Complete Research
Evidence • Education • Accountability
