Semi-structured Survey Interviews

This section details the methods used to collect qualitative data from research participants. The semi-structured interviews consisted of a series of Likert- scales, with follow-up open-ended questions developed into an interview guide designed to elicit each participant's individual attitudes and experiences of human- animal interactions. This process was repeated following the Penguin Encounter. Each interview was taped and then transcribed following the interview. Prior to the interview, each participant was asked to sign and date a consent form and to complete a researcher-developed demographic profile.

2.5.3.1. Survey Interview Methodology

One of the fundamental data collection tools for this study was to be self- administered questionnaires designed to collect participant’s attitudes and thoughts on a number of aspects regarding human-animal interactions. The questionnaires were derived from previous studies in human-animal relationships and visitor studies (Jensen, 2012; Kidd & Kidd, 1996; Reade & Waran, 1996). However, following the exploratory study (2.4.2) it was apparent self-administered questionnaires were not an appropriate method for gathering the qualitative

participant attitudes needed to construct this study. Questionnaires do serve as a tool to provide evidence of patterns amongst populations, the and have been used to positively demonstrate the attitudes of vistors towards animals and the impacts of educational programmes (Jensen, 2011), they fail in their ability to capture the thorough details of the individuals’ attitudes and experiences needed for this study.

During the exploratory phase (2.4.2), the shortcomings in the questionnaire became apparent. Responses to the Likert Scales, intended to measure in-depth participant attitudes and reasoning, were superficial. Given the methodological necessities of TEM, more in-depth answers were required. The questionnaires were transformed into semi-structured survey interviews, as this form interview gathers in-depth information on participant attitudes, thoughts and experiences (Kendall, 2008). Indeed, interviews have an advantage over self-administered questionnaires to monitor participant’s involvement with the survey questions, as well the interviewer has the ability to clarify concepts and engage deeper with the participant’s responses (Dijkstra and Van der Zouwen, 1982). This approach is unique to studies of human-animal interactions, as it offers both quantifiable attitude data and in-depth rational of such responses.

The measures used in this study were derived from Mueller’s study on the types of human-animal interactions (2014). Mueller measured children’s emotion and cognition regarding animals (namely pets) on three domains: emotional attachment to an animal, cognitive representations and feelings regarding commitment to animals and moral orientation towards animals. These three

domains were used as the foundation on which questions for this study were derived. The unique property of this study is that it used these measures to not only compare to previous studies in HAI, but also that measures were collected prior to the encounter and after, enabling comparison of the individual’s measures over time.

Participants were first asked if they could explain the relationship between themselves and the person with whom they were attending the encounter. This question was asked to establish the social relationship between the participants. Next, participants were asked several open-ended, descriptive questions regarding the nature and type of their animal-related experiences. Participants were asked if they currently had any pets or if they had daily interactions with animals and, if so, with what species of animals they interacted. Participants were then asked if they had ever interacted with animals in a zoo or captive environment and, if so, with what species of animals they had interacted. To take into account how participants envision penguins, they were asked to describe what came to mind when they thought of penguins. Finally, a set of demographic questions where asked, which included education level, gender, age and postcode.

The second set of questions probed participants’ expectations of the Penguin Encounter. Understanding how participants’ personal orientation towards their visit provided a starting point by which to understand participants overall experience. These questions included asking participants what they thought they would be doing the day of the encounter.

To measure the participants’ emotional attachment, commitment to, moral orientation towards and anthropomorphic view of penguins, participants were presented with a physical questionnaire on which to rate their agreement with twelve statements. Participants were asked to rate their agreement on a 9-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (with an “unsure” response option for those who either preferred to give an opinion or did not hold an opinion).

Emotional attachment to was assessed using three items adapted from the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (Johnson et al., 1992; Also in Mueller, 2014). The three items were adapted to relate to the potential attachment and/or ownership of a penguin. One of these questions asked participants if they believed ‘a penguin could make a good companion’.

Commitment: Commitment to the penguins was assessed using four items. These items were adapted to relate to the commitments of individuals to penguins in a captive and/or domestic environment. An example for these lines of questions included asking participants if penguins needed to be cared for by people.

Moral Orientation: Moral orientation toward animals was assessed using three questions adapted from the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (Johnson et al., 1992; Also in Mueller, 2014). These questions indexed participants’ attitudes in relation to animal welfare concerns, including the treatment and captivity of

penguins in zoos. Participants rated statements such as, “If I were hungry, it would be okay to eat a penguin” and “Penguins deserve as much respect as people.”

Anthropomorphic Disposition: Participants’ anthropomorphic dispositions were assessed using 3 questions, which capture participants’ application of anthropomorphic emotions and thoughts on penguins’ ability to hold such emotions. Participants rated their agreement with the statements, “It is not possible to tell if a penguin is angry”, “Penguins have unique personalities” and “The penguins at the zoo are happy”.

In the follow-up to the Penguin Encounter, four, open-ended questions were asked of participants, reflecting on their self-perceived change interest and perception of penguins from each of the four standpoints. These questions included asking participants if they felt they had changed their thinking regarding penguins (potential) feelings.

2.5.3.2. Analysis

Interviews and audio from video footage (outlined below, 2.5.5) were transcribed and coded using an open-coding, grounded discourse theory approach. Each video/audio recording was transcribed in its entirety. Non-verbal gestures were described in the transcripts when relevant to the context of this research. Open coding is the first method is creating categories for understanding and deciphering qualitative data. In open coding, the transcripts are first examined to identify points and patterns, which are significant to describing the research

question (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). These points and patterns are categorised then clustered into related groups to determine the central phenomenon, the key pattern assists in explaining all other patterns (Creswell, 2007; Goulding, 2002; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The categories that were previously identified and coded are then reorganised around the central phenomenon and recoded. This process is described as axial coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

The identified coded categories were then synthesized as a theory developed, producing the axial coding model. An axial coding model describes how categories relate to and surround the central phenomenon. The final step was in the analysis was then to develop the selective coding, which describes the potential interrelationship between the categories, and apply these findings to the individual’s trajectories.