<%BANNER%>

Predicting Commitment to Engage in Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Using Injured and Non-Injured Animals as Teachi...

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021289/00001

Material Information

Title: Predicting Commitment to Engage in Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Using Injured and Non-Injured Animals as Teaching Tools
Physical Description: 1 online resource (182 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Fuhrman, Nicholas E
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: altruism, behavior, change, conservation, education, empathy, zoo
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of my study was to determine if and how different types of birds of prey presentations influence the empathy, altruism, and behavioral intentions of adults living in retirement communities. My study examined the applicability of the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) in explaining participant commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors following exposure to one of three presentations: (a) an educational presentation involving injured birds of prey, (b) a presentation with non-injured birds of prey, and (c) a slideshow presentation involving pictures of the same birds of prey. The same educator presented each of the scripted presentations. This quasi-experimental study involving 213 participants was the first of its kind to test the relevance of the empathy-altruism hypothesis with live injured and non-injured animals. Regression analysis revealed that regardless of the type of presentation used, individuals who discussed wildlife habitat conservation issues with others, experienced feelings of compassion (empathy) from a wildlife presentation, and believed the behaviors advocated during the presentation were acceptable to others were more likely to be committed to engaging in the behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. When live birds of prey (injured or non-injured) were used, compassion and disturbed empathic emotions were common. When pictures only were used, compassion feelings were common. Based on this study, it takes a live animal to generate disturbed feelings in elder citizens. However, only specific feelings of being empathically compassionate toward the birds of prey presented contributed to commitment to engage in helping behaviors. While the type of presentation to which participants were exposed did not significantly influence their likelihood to commit to performing the behaviors advocated by the educator, perhaps the type of behaviors being advocated must be considered. Schultz (2002) advocates that generic information about conservation is not as effective at motivating behaviors as targeted, specific information is. Some of the behaviors being advocated during the presentations and being measured in this study were non-specific conservation-related practices. For example, telling a friend about conservation, something the educator advocated during each presentation, could be improved by discussing specific conservation topics related to each species of raptor.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nicholas E Fuhrman.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Ladewig, Howard W.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021289:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021289/00001

Material Information

Title: Predicting Commitment to Engage in Environmentally Responsible Behaviors Using Injured and Non-Injured Animals as Teaching Tools
Physical Description: 1 online resource (182 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Fuhrman, Nicholas E
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: altruism, behavior, change, conservation, education, empathy, zoo
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of my study was to determine if and how different types of birds of prey presentations influence the empathy, altruism, and behavioral intentions of adults living in retirement communities. My study examined the applicability of the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) in explaining participant commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors following exposure to one of three presentations: (a) an educational presentation involving injured birds of prey, (b) a presentation with non-injured birds of prey, and (c) a slideshow presentation involving pictures of the same birds of prey. The same educator presented each of the scripted presentations. This quasi-experimental study involving 213 participants was the first of its kind to test the relevance of the empathy-altruism hypothesis with live injured and non-injured animals. Regression analysis revealed that regardless of the type of presentation used, individuals who discussed wildlife habitat conservation issues with others, experienced feelings of compassion (empathy) from a wildlife presentation, and believed the behaviors advocated during the presentation were acceptable to others were more likely to be committed to engaging in the behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. When live birds of prey (injured or non-injured) were used, compassion and disturbed empathic emotions were common. When pictures only were used, compassion feelings were common. Based on this study, it takes a live animal to generate disturbed feelings in elder citizens. However, only specific feelings of being empathically compassionate toward the birds of prey presented contributed to commitment to engage in helping behaviors. While the type of presentation to which participants were exposed did not significantly influence their likelihood to commit to performing the behaviors advocated by the educator, perhaps the type of behaviors being advocated must be considered. Schultz (2002) advocates that generic information about conservation is not as effective at motivating behaviors as targeted, specific information is. Some of the behaviors being advocated during the presentations and being measured in this study were non-specific conservation-related practices. For example, telling a friend about conservation, something the educator advocated during each presentation, could be improved by discussing specific conservation topics related to each species of raptor.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Nicholas E Fuhrman.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Ladewig, Howard W.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021289:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101114_AAAAFK INGEST_TIME 2010-11-14T16:17:55Z PACKAGE UFE0021289_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 7276 DFID F20101114_AABZOA ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH fuhrman_n_Page_172thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
38fb7a5f12926e0ff9d520efb9b31d7b
SHA-1
9b6b7428f7f35529bf6c491116d07687580ee775
4329 F20101114_AABZNM fuhrman_n_Page_003.QC.jpg
0b4e5d38476422579f77c90eb17f3493
6e8544e78349a82b7a439bfdb224acc83abcb75b
19094 F20101114_AABZMY fuhrman_n_Page_146.QC.jpg
b4cdc74b4a5f31a6c82d4fdacbcddcff
6564616461dcf84479d7096f1da4cef27cb5fb33
4516 F20101114_AABYKK fuhrman_n_Page_144thm.jpg
e5b005668400c53378a3b2a963ca5d7d
9f82fc04eb6ae0753e9704645875dfe256003f14
6695 F20101114_AABYJW fuhrman_n_Page_110.QC.jpg
cf2f728dbee547c221feac11da2de2c4
6b86be960de2986b95d6356673dca38e2f3e16f4
24752 F20101114_AABZOB fuhrman_n_Page_131.QC.jpg
553ce77d4d916cacce52667e6413946f
de2f1e47c1ccb16b194cb3d49e0cdd3374afc7c5
6544 F20101114_AABZNN fuhrman_n_Page_089thm.jpg
243670990462d51f3d095b4328e4ac9b
5b5ee3d752134a03918e292e41adacabebfbeddb
4723 F20101114_AABZMZ fuhrman_n_Page_150thm.jpg
426f80e9d4a2880c77cb7e8eda4bf2d2
710f50ab72c1a09b040d0326a29f23b402da66d1
6848 F20101114_AABYKL fuhrman_n_Page_019thm.jpg
386f8fa74c61980a221e6cf76c8c5c62
c13f46e7469f6d4987ded4f2624fcb1f68ba66eb
86371 F20101114_AABYJX fuhrman_n_Page_077.jp2
356a24d10a54aa729bf5fbc262270a5e
ade77438fefbc190ad42277d354bc34aacd0f5a7
23708 F20101114_AABZOC fuhrman_n_Page_118.QC.jpg
eeea470e0d2b5024ecc74080c3f039cd
7fceae3f7a64039be4b40c0c33f550ed473c21a3
18713 F20101114_AABZNO fuhrman_n_Page_096.QC.jpg
f765f74a62eab920629e022f66251405
eb958efacf25de50f5e9b1b9584006fde7c8fc24
52966 F20101114_AABYKM fuhrman_n_Page_104.pro
58c3d3ce07af42b8396d1fe832476082
d9d5137571fda4ca58de52b6144a53ce452eed21
91706 F20101114_AABYJY fuhrman_n_Page_006.pro
8f0d06fc5ff9259c7daf9c4a5f1e8832
baa4d23f8c77e663e587c9c7de07978ad3fa5537
56993 F20101114_AABYLA fuhrman_n_Page_084.pro
557bedc1fac93a3b61552438111835d3
8ad464920157e4539e677a546d3780f37f19195a
18836 F20101114_AABZOD fuhrman_n_Page_101.QC.jpg
90fe0dd759236307e46536b85c789044
1c3431a62911896f3f92128ebc8aa8402b37d1a4
24871 F20101114_AABZNP fuhrman_n_Page_092.QC.jpg
eec6f92787f8c9f9ff68501ebde18e17
a457328f6d8c321c51e690ccad45646e8a73adcb
70929 F20101114_AABYLB fuhrman_n_Page_016.jpg
e2bb9bbd8d5d09449edd4071fceac590
476d9e18d069b23d52f7a8d99cbcb61febcc3254
80870 F20101114_AABYKN fuhrman_n_Page_033.jpg
830c2082a744b5d4fb3c006b1f76c551
5184d140500dd977ef2da0d471a3ad9c9a6b0997
15750 F20101114_AABZOE fuhrman_n_Page_142.QC.jpg
76b2b7c165c728d5f63dd29adde30ff2
75f4b01db2cacba1005576109a8b7e2176bc9a17
6744 F20101114_AABZNQ fuhrman_n_Page_058thm.jpg
fde40cd70ca07ccd130b52161d5ae115
dda32292490999e434fc4ac93d65514064747eb8
82240 F20101114_AABYJZ fuhrman_n_Page_049.jpg
d3e52861146e2a65db9b2152fa25b996
daf117b88570811259b0a24c3f70be74238be0b4
2435 F20101114_AABYLC fuhrman_n_Page_099.txt
96400230426d35c7202f41cd15ce4aa5
e85872094dee8215beed213f7b446c859b5af058
7153 F20101114_AABYKO fuhrman_n_Page_128thm.jpg
6fe0bcbbbb7b775627f07e64298c6548
a14aa101e390e46386cef3a90b29859336931962
26225 F20101114_AABZOF fuhrman_n_Page_037.QC.jpg
c9f354ca49869ca4d6cccc2e05e75fb3
fdc9284d2249f04940cfdf64f38912ec8ad4afae
25666 F20101114_AABZNR fuhrman_n_Page_081.QC.jpg
908d7686ebe5391f4451cc2a45f6e4e4
3ab9151ad121dbb01e17378c69bdff06a8766853
1053954 F20101114_AABYLD fuhrman_n_Page_121.tif
0ee759ecfc734eccb6111710803b68ee
e904eb759e1e272a9391d0654b9730a7bdfb7478
26150 F20101114_AABYKP fuhrman_n_Page_007.QC.jpg
dc5ba5f39d2ece59105854eacc103dc9
e50a4ec8cd391beb661baa95e452e28b1791390c
22751 F20101114_AABZOG fuhrman_n_Page_006.QC.jpg
c266d808e508fe04689c437356a5ad6c
3b5688932a07d9d08b12bb431a1b3b04af7d44b8
6885 F20101114_AABZNS fuhrman_n_Page_173thm.jpg
b9dffdd84e8dd5b8306d6d99f36888b3
7a7a220faf0961b545203541e4b7881c0843c659
F20101114_AABYLE fuhrman_n_Page_077.tif
b9737e9c21b1ab500bda07c2885f5b4e
f9cb5efe589325c0ebb50e48fbc3024f1561d67a
7330 F20101114_AABYKQ fuhrman_n_Page_041thm.jpg
7e20be1f6537b2b005fceb9568479cd8
b3f5d31c4f389092c114537dd5e5bef0d7e12067
25022 F20101114_AABZOH fuhrman_n_Page_078.QC.jpg
7c4ba3b5785c4591fd11742aea12aa7c
2ce2afc79f0624a5429bb8759255f4e004deee61
15519 F20101114_AABZNT fuhrman_n_Page_015.QC.jpg
376980051203fe523e12e4052862876d
591454ed538b2c68f12c6e5d999c8c70feb2c7c1
56815 F20101114_AABYLF fuhrman_n_Page_027.pro
663cad73b0ddb61a6c7c5d1518abd856
31ead89d0844fb3e8a606674c670c79f34874647
120010 F20101114_AABYKR fuhrman_n_Page_081.jp2
6d988082ef8643931df4ed24c5dfbc78
3a90686b300fe858140382c0a513e35b3c68209f
6774 F20101114_AABZOI fuhrman_n_Page_087thm.jpg
9226c4515ff8c3feb613cb90ea90e075
540b2073cd4c7f7193d5e73fed470c4955d47c15
24243 F20101114_AABZNU fuhrman_n_Page_176.QC.jpg
0df2dd33ead174a8b49b6cbc8b80bc0d
08d8f12114c93009246c75f468831e04777fd2bf
120084 F20101114_AABYLG fuhrman_n_Page_124.jp2
122258386316ee361fe66b2532c23375
6b8720168d63a862ec577dbe142d0221d001a786
24507 F20101114_AABYKS fuhrman_n_Page_167.QC.jpg
5eabb7d02d8c92d85f98843a11a730c0
faeaa3fa87bafee10040f10caa497deb7a626979
26515 F20101114_AABZOJ fuhrman_n_Page_091.QC.jpg
43dd634b2828d493a4e2101c7d3cafa7
6ab7ff58c8bcc888e43cc1dd552262dc27ff1df7
22885 F20101114_AABZNV fuhrman_n_Page_158.QC.jpg
28de053fff0e2032b8319fd621e94a51
0d01a6387e6b1e5c814f2e38aaef2165ec3dffdd
2255 F20101114_AABYLH fuhrman_n_Page_048.txt
a324d1e091cd07e9502c0d7236282667
69820907a9441f2b51993582960fbaa5a5cc601d
111873 F20101114_AABYKT fuhrman_n_Page_080.jp2
6d7b00f006c5961ec12699ca9ea4ddc5
2ac0d3281364782e0202f326a065087d054ee863
23399 F20101114_AABZOK fuhrman_n_Page_175.QC.jpg
2e5196d47965c9059a76df62c17cca7a
00d9a090ee7be6675781ac57e4ce89fc71b80882
F20101114_AABZNW fuhrman_n_Page_020thm.jpg
2a243e553dc2d9c896dca19564fb02ee
a480b168d52bb02db2885491e8accd51b11ed3e2
81278 F20101114_AABYLI fuhrman_n_Page_023.jpg
cbb2e2a50c552491bed3f96f6a18aa6d
68eb65b88f8ca0ec0d38d3ed2d59285d961c27e9
13712 F20101114_AABYKU fuhrman_n_Page_174.QC.jpg
a57e702941f455ede78971b1c5e5cc10
f28a9b1f4611253a37f910255c5522b2b3440a0c
7686 F20101114_AABZOL fuhrman_n_Page_133thm.jpg
836a5f9b55331f1bc6a0ccd6a0776e78
1bb3523875fbd05737faa225ae4d531fab11c05d
26046 F20101114_AABZNX fuhrman_n_Page_026.QC.jpg
f2518560686424654c5c406025a6e901
a2d6c695125971928b999ffc926fccd395592703
122446 F20101114_AABYLJ fuhrman_n_Page_045.jp2
4a5f9a2d4e85db98d2fe6a4e6f6d5e11
b08d9cb3e41bcb787ef45f1b51eaf96277a75926
40477 F20101114_AABYKV fuhrman_n_Page_153.jpg
62efe28856d7f4d2b20f499b563552a1
7968e70649a6946532d2bbb829e1d7785556ec7f
6979 F20101114_AABZPA fuhrman_n_Page_119thm.jpg
9c9e32b731b972dcab607f2de1c02cd8
977882e745a7c2771a375f85614b85780458c241
25396 F20101114_AABZOM fuhrman_n_Page_073.QC.jpg
d63fef655cbf441fedf396de5028f1ef
cd78833c1aa9b4f511e6f695ff6a419ece7cfe27
25101 F20101114_AABZNY fuhrman_n_Page_082.QC.jpg
8c813a52b5fdaf1303df5f1dfd880b59
ac055cf0e55b6a3c0cba56e1b4c542a547ccea66
26218 F20101114_AABYLK fuhrman_n_Page_120.QC.jpg
dd737a489f0dd54d189e452051cdf9f9
aad71f8a1e42687555814b59b04397d23c1d8ef7
6807 F20101114_AABYKW fuhrman_n_Page_071thm.jpg
fdb17723eb3f0b8b3b401ce9789e82de
4562ebcd0a1919e4023aa4e524bf544f3a47a026
7345 F20101114_AABZPB fuhrman_n_Page_049thm.jpg
413a9786431d8dc8654beab6487927f9
bd5603a3506ae624ca338502fd058f015b7e267f
24356 F20101114_AABZON fuhrman_n_Page_064.QC.jpg
6622375b40d7c67464ae5ea40c73fee2
04ee997b659308da4670f1ec04e2dd45b9326767
6939 F20101114_AABZNZ fuhrman_n_Page_017thm.jpg
b9d62ea5acc9d40196b055d2b6c40068
b0343caf8429359007f96c11ce9e8cbb3c492f58
2194 F20101114_AABYLL fuhrman_n_Page_128.txt
9a2a70ecc5268da48155121698ea5be8
546427a0de42e1922f24106703de6d7c2e7c63cb
2076 F20101114_AABYKX fuhrman_n_Page_054.txt
32b65579ab5a461e0a7202555d488fd8
9ca7dfd1c522bebe986e290e21bce7050942cc2e
25755 F20101114_AABZPC fuhrman_n_Page_060.QC.jpg
463bcf08cb4364575c3316e98b4ddea8
70538da10c028ece3d6ed23f7abfaacfd37be34d
28124 F20101114_AABZOO fuhrman_n_Page_179.QC.jpg
bcea37fd43cee8e0a6783698a678daee
53f843c6a29bcaa8f3bff00d4c3e8c512d5adb63
76890 F20101114_AABYMA fuhrman_n_Page_019.jpg
2ffa6efbeebfd6e5d5e33b9a42be1218
905341e3ce5163d5ff4a501b3077998f96e04866
F20101114_AABYLM fuhrman_n_Page_120.tif
57066b2e1aa813ded458b7f4caafe7c6
ca0939c1f44b6b29bbf6fd1f4a4feb861dc995c2
121232 F20101114_AABYKY fuhrman_n_Page_027.jp2
74d04df1bea47ba0ac5116255c7906d8
3a12934e33ab87c98d24aaa16276af5318c53fc4
4194 F20101114_AABZPD fuhrman_n_Page_138thm.jpg
bbce1c4ffd27859b9aefa5539f1ab284
47ff03deaa167995e578590d5512c48284219ecf
6720 F20101114_AABZOP fuhrman_n_Page_182thm.jpg
426bedcd733c90f977b59a7e0d08e839
bcaa6f8f42f066ab6e4cb20a1fcc4dbfad1d83bc
77442 F20101114_AABYMB fuhrman_n_Page_021.jpg
bef5d7caaad1a6fa855e4fda1df5e46f
260a7c418b4c6ca93541036260824ca452907ad2
28384 F20101114_AABYLN fuhrman_n_Page_001.jp2
c0a46c0ed09e02a64e0831f84c8a6424
c1246f24620fd303f57f0fdde58a1c97d0b8ec72
4759 F20101114_AABYKZ fuhrman_n_Page_142thm.jpg
4397b2917b601a9e1a9da77b44258b73
e3701921f0257222e2c649f62f3967836b7a57ef
7039 F20101114_AABZPE fuhrman_n_Page_084thm.jpg
5b6202362086e22553d9e0328779395e
3b6358a26aca552d6b6f46a19da5722c983027d3
7005 F20101114_AABZOQ fuhrman_n_Page_135thm.jpg
fcb42d278a630adc9a898879689dfea6
53b51c3d9345b7ab553dffef885349d3a9b11ecc
78220 F20101114_AABYMC fuhrman_n_Page_022.jpg
4f8bf3e82430426e3894219027144638
2912b15eedc7d7522a733bb430e732167a993b40
210239 F20101114_AABYLO UFE0021289_00001.mets FULL
c25e2649216601ecf353a25258760170
8c4375498510b58ced27a7dcefac97253135605a
5147 F20101114_AABZPF fuhrman_n_Page_136.QC.jpg
0de67638b15346dd3dd00a3f8df3219f
f1e49219f7d50d3f12c01ce7ef42f861766c8ae8
6520 F20101114_AABZOR fuhrman_n_Page_163thm.jpg
c3239dae84947359229433f00ebad4da
d2da93623a3e93a827be41afccf8e08ba92a53ea
79194 F20101114_AABYMD fuhrman_n_Page_024.jpg
c7fccea3eee20408c9493b56db673f6c
7b196a40a15da657465a1f2c6e26d0ed2237a7a3
7087 F20101114_AABZPG fuhrman_n_Page_120thm.jpg
d3b5416eb3923d351906ab190915c09f
a5e34223078533d1413784dcd7f22a717937d3f8
17988 F20101114_AABZOS fuhrman_n_Page_139.QC.jpg
a133e5b15facb0f2fbd7767aa91e250b
b67ca5cb71b98df2fa399a11387a0dfd798a0a06
78548 F20101114_AABYME fuhrman_n_Page_026.jpg
cd06316f2b5be7a08b2d9ec1a6df8326
c6f6f7fe7169ca306358736a4ab7208f4846f520
24537 F20101114_AABZPH fuhrman_n_Page_114.QC.jpg
a5e43d5be7e406645b7db3dc3b539f98
7a8d24d1bc92bac2c64a032a05c72747f13565d0
5540 F20101114_AABZOT fuhrman_n_Page_097thm.jpg
5315ff611d606801097eed8b73d2ebe4
5e808f188e15752a01b1ba9bfaabd5aeef9d4887
79047 F20101114_AABYMF fuhrman_n_Page_028.jpg
80c1f2f84fc74b47001b4d5ab0c828e9
efd93df4fb77253a7555ac649ebec97f37733898
26359 F20101114_AABYLR fuhrman_n_Page_001.jpg
ce2f88f503d502c1ea079104ea29ed3b
c457ebaa09aa1ec9b9d436ce4e0e0e542a548731
6531 F20101114_AABZPI fuhrman_n_Page_052thm.jpg
6b30666087e28fcb61519c9aeef1866b
410b51a728ceecc5c34db7da7073a583cc96815b
22348 F20101114_AABZOU fuhrman_n_Page_160.QC.jpg
95558109615e74e48e72190bffa75c1e
858ee192256d259ed054ab3c25d9d8caa3ea5b86
14353 F20101114_AABYMG fuhrman_n_Page_030.jpg
274959d31e2de18ab64404a10582a3b8
1858aad5c028c02f9ac9f7437751d5862417bd3e
14862 F20101114_AABYLS fuhrman_n_Page_003.jpg
282589d0f4a2b86190116da5785e9b1e
499bb5cbeef13ca3a95175385c293bf7a88970fd
14886 F20101114_AABZPJ fuhrman_n_Page_151.QC.jpg
dfeb0abb38a1a804c6c02ca964e12c3c
614235ff6d0cd50c06a2b72701454d9ba1ca49f1
20195 F20101114_AABZOV fuhrman_n_Page_099.QC.jpg
67ab0b9a6a5bf37a9c6faca24b207697
9c0018817a517faa6b4c2298e41f5248975d2130
23916 F20101114_AABYMH fuhrman_n_Page_031.jpg
2f93378a873ae980808deace3ba31713
07375b5ada467df9a641e6c7ec741095624ef074
61324 F20101114_AABYLT fuhrman_n_Page_005.jpg
cc2f10fe7183818159e6b6d2d1d7f12d
7a96a1bf648ae978b8fa2162502b707d726bddcc
7098 F20101114_AABZPK fuhrman_n_Page_091thm.jpg
3fa1189b6cfd32a4b68d049693a2c2c5
41a40a1e762f73c667c9577a11d0d8a0e6db73cd
7580 F20101114_AABZOW fuhrman_n_Page_031.QC.jpg
0f1b03a41d8831fc257de5ba7deab3c9
2684132bfc0256bf6da837d158009159b232e42c
80554 F20101114_AABYMI fuhrman_n_Page_035.jpg
0cdcec6c3893e153f910d73a6dc304cc
dd39d80c52981ca79de3666c7ecd5617715503d4
108072 F20101114_AABYLU fuhrman_n_Page_007.jpg
816346a5dd2f5fdef9ea0a095baa3474
c5e4651b09ffc734f297b86805bae1e87f09b6f3
14815 F20101114_AABZPL fuhrman_n_Page_103.QC.jpg
0bf004d8a25a32f0a09808793b180b9e
f8f5556ec2642fc49763806470e6eea2fa8a19a1
6673 F20101114_AABZOX fuhrman_n_Page_043thm.jpg
ef206a318aa4e62d05671cbc91b7a949
3179f18c629019ad0faff5969fe8935a1d01d53f
75921 F20101114_AABYMJ fuhrman_n_Page_036.jpg
4a767febf8c2b4d51e8ad8a47a6d2b86
2ac13e661514e625831f05261abe9acabbd3e311
110265 F20101114_AABYLV fuhrman_n_Page_008.jpg
d195f911d2fb74487fe7f827b35680fb
ff5c73240f5e6f8af3dc04077bcfafaf2d39c0bf
6173 F20101114_AABZQA fuhrman_n_Page_016thm.jpg
79460e047c61c00c13799bc7185af602
3eea43c625d7ba35df019af7135e330c4bd93818
14548 F20101114_AABZPM fuhrman_n_Page_150.QC.jpg
4697e4a3fd3d9ef18a9db74d34956921
81bfaf3a3195a0d67ff4c840e643fa68ad9213ef
21827 F20101114_AABZOY fuhrman_n_Page_108.QC.jpg
187d507875db9e450425f68f80bbf1fa
30a9dd31b33bf92e060015173214c63b4247794c
75418 F20101114_AABYMK fuhrman_n_Page_039.jpg
3c8465207c936a5a7a42c726504c373e
c71d1a21cc982bd1e960b4540e910fe67e01f136
109624 F20101114_AABYLW fuhrman_n_Page_009.jpg
bcd6a4adf97d07329f352c9a99028388
de5c612942339ed1ebd7162dacc97e7928617b3f
25918 F20101114_AABZQB fuhrman_n_Page_128.QC.jpg
68bddf146a9d3f0f27bbbca05232baa1
226f44967139d941da4dba0856d801fc10e9e98c
24607 F20101114_AABZPN fuhrman_n_Page_168.QC.jpg
0710c62b90e5f3f203d9e60d135045b2
44e9db4dfc53b29736b5f45a3ad82f31f81f7801
25525 F20101114_AABZOZ fuhrman_n_Page_059.QC.jpg
a2ab2f9443fd674421aa1bd637e3a58f
bbd204b7fe40edfc4682b53bbcaad7ea40a34e56
79899 F20101114_AABYML fuhrman_n_Page_042.jpg
86a2cf995193c26a8814b9b819e4e09c
b7fd26d3ea8764ce1e46669bf48b4555eaceeb0f
97704 F20101114_AABYLX fuhrman_n_Page_010.jpg
4131a2b810c2c77303c9d98701c22037
43a4f0038cf223843b2201441f92d4248d52783c
11631 F20101114_AABZQC fuhrman_n_Page_104.QC.jpg
9b377b054b3fc81f8bd60a9267d99c98
76ab69b07001ff6e034139fd717b6c8290e38d82
24891 F20101114_AABZPO fuhrman_n_Page_170.QC.jpg
0e674ce8a3cd35333681aebd5c9f5543
10068a74d038f828f90b7134a844b90940411711
78936 F20101114_AABYMM fuhrman_n_Page_044.jpg
51f1ab3554b8920db1895e9d44b56f5f
b4cb0167d5aa84baa71fc566c01ab4069119540c
70701 F20101114_AABYLY fuhrman_n_Page_014.jpg
d937d1c06ad1afc0f3509663b7f13bfd
bdfb8e0f9b49c2488f040f47b2af96a968a2bd6d
78454 F20101114_AABYNA fuhrman_n_Page_062.jpg
eb72ddd7e5a5b04550ec0fdf916527b1
e908fa2c411abcbc6972c3df16f7974cd5ad8cb7
6891 F20101114_AABZQD fuhrman_n_Page_022thm.jpg
e11cd13a69c08bb262f8b2b8b91b8acd
74dbecac3787b21618781b16e0a5f0c73d0e7e0d
25553 F20101114_AABZPP fuhrman_n_Page_070.QC.jpg
b7fa5d8bc9ce93aa6e30d121a02ddc28
a096f4800980d7b8f7bd91163964b3e349298ef8
80733 F20101114_AABYMN fuhrman_n_Page_045.jpg
71aea0c4784d2f1a5a88d9f3f6d1f897
1681f4c12e55f4ce50f1d5466bc055bbeedbea92
47573 F20101114_AABYLZ fuhrman_n_Page_015.jpg
dbff4d2030c19506405c70e31f984afd
4d2d9a9369d5cabc7073cfd6b37294267a2f76f1
76133 F20101114_AABYNB fuhrman_n_Page_063.jpg
a6daa846724d8ae664ceb0389ddc3fb6
f0ddf811cab70766b8643ae6b8396d6de211a173
7002 F20101114_AABZQE fuhrman_n_Page_121thm.jpg
b7662b11a52bd2ade794e473993a05d6
8bc53144096774e29669b20e296e818571b0bb4b
6962 F20101114_AABZPQ fuhrman_n_Page_044thm.jpg
4c2ae15154fe4c9ceaff50158a740e56
c977a350f9148291badf61f204c58473f2556b31
78608 F20101114_AABYMO fuhrman_n_Page_046.jpg
9ca0de37bb9c1086738af2f7f78867ad
d23dbb6932c5842562b2f485d1938c2c97e5bf1b
77810 F20101114_AABYNC fuhrman_n_Page_065.jpg
63b588154a22eeaf27f16da49ef00a31
4d3cf285a1b827cedd5baa3a17da145fc933c45a
1752 F20101114_AABZQF fuhrman_n_Page_030thm.jpg
4ebbde8bf0447b710987c6d300b9437d
ed362e26b8b3db8cfd28226e372c0e1fa9dc384c
1795 F20101114_AABZPR fuhrman_n_Page_003thm.jpg
f03b8b070d4f50b2a300ae28c9284b0a
74c5cdb159f43af4991e5e79bfbbb4acb7e43132
76910 F20101114_AABYMP fuhrman_n_Page_047.jpg
1213dfc18c1ff481de40f7e524a1e226
87ac9d278563ed524c6b6f235cdff137aae66826
76011 F20101114_AABYND fuhrman_n_Page_066.jpg
19ed52a1317ea7b0a0e15d3d2fea350d
974bb6f84fb229405da0907b67ef16059a043a00
6616 F20101114_AABZQG fuhrman_n_Page_066thm.jpg
4b2d62982e62ef2606b857ac0a59c7aa
37f2980ef7973fe8e4aaaef1aa08ffef0462bdf8
26903 F20101114_AABZPS fuhrman_n_Page_090.QC.jpg
d0ded2dd3b53eb5bb5f558fb350bc9fd
f13dfc16f883bb6917c184185e0d6d341e40c36f
17671 F20101114_AABYMQ fuhrman_n_Page_051.jpg
d5d23e052d477d069242ca8e13468f31
9a7385dc968d0b40c039b07fb5eb2929e4cba0cb
64265 F20101114_AABYNE fuhrman_n_Page_067.jpg
a2ae80a69319c7010c87996031030d88
3d8dbf0a0ab1b8b4fcc8b162f77f3544f2486121
7017 F20101114_AABZQH fuhrman_n_Page_093thm.jpg
d90b42825f5e6923c96434f68226537d
d85a4dcd660c9efc45b99af40e798016adf51852
4014 F20101114_AABZPT fuhrman_n_Page_141thm.jpg
95d46b16c06f99e1dddfd8b561a44d22
35ab70d96f21515d25140efd141da43b2dd2d81a
71623 F20101114_AABYMR fuhrman_n_Page_052.jpg
75893cc5e14b5614832263d70acc05c6
62cff211cdef2bf816324287029cdd3debab6046
35282 F20101114_AABYNF fuhrman_n_Page_068.jpg
4c58c574dfb552a871d5eeb69c6d9434
25d8c472e2c233a765964649b0f4014b14b1bb5c
6546 F20101114_AABZQI fuhrman_n_Page_088thm.jpg
76f5d11feedfb18249e0de7e415fe65a
6372a161ca13ca52dc7479e7413a82c1ed419a85
7058 F20101114_AABZPU fuhrman_n_Page_055thm.jpg
158f7441f0177223fbc575dfbdfa41b3
abf11f4371978c71e767003239e8c27c08cc6f7b
75261 F20101114_AABYMS fuhrman_n_Page_054.jpg
361ccd091f8baec2ebbf4dd574908a53
b1e8b9def24f2e76a1155e55f4d876b901066ce6
68559 F20101114_AABYNG fuhrman_n_Page_069.jpg
f9f41325010f20c3a380f73f7a2e820f
3e054f747267a8ec323461eb9289f6e9c7dae2db
25300 F20101114_AABZQJ fuhrman_n_Page_036.QC.jpg
53eff8936222c81584a2772eaa0ca435
e85485191c85b6967e922cc20fea6108c78fda84
26236 F20101114_AABZPV fuhrman_n_Page_035.QC.jpg
2e46c904d63ed73aaeb917208ef8efbd
c731ec07c2f4cf067d6201706aad30470e210947
77784 F20101114_AABYMT fuhrman_n_Page_055.jpg
f9b471e6886fd0a3d19da7ac841065b8
e3b1ffb629ecab63f8ed259407111c507287bf32
79170 F20101114_AABYNH fuhrman_n_Page_074.jpg
28a41aa0f61fe7ddbaf1122863a5fa3a
33a0b9e1456c2a9671c70bc93eebe8a5b0872b70
6662 F20101114_AABZQK fuhrman_n_Page_021thm.jpg
217a5ee48607f9b9e1b21114cae92846
2d63278e1f0a9f40c2c060524541dfb74c93a236
5424 F20101114_AABZPW fuhrman_n_Page_100thm.jpg
6c9b1adf5f9c0992317436aff8f4951f
9af67f1a2f4ead127e94ae0c3c9ab42237f929a9
75119 F20101114_AABYMU fuhrman_n_Page_056.jpg
e6d77c1f98af28898b8aec62dc4919a4
2d398da646236e779ef871f8b76de585c44a6ec6
73717 F20101114_AABYNI fuhrman_n_Page_075.jpg
c1c9e681e5e42d327ee9caaf869d4f8f
a9758c05912072b6a5de2e1613161b43743589cf
4856 F20101114_AABZQL fuhrman_n_Page_148thm.jpg
e4e7a5bbf4a1b8371a182a834fc4eb59
e44c01fac7d2389046b806b0a7fe3c9f2f67a437
6286 F20101114_AABZPX fuhrman_n_Page_032thm.jpg
13995609518db682da3b6b6ac5cb112b
47814ba773a8c092b65f67ded3cb95088e62f022
77218 F20101114_AABYMV fuhrman_n_Page_057.jpg
89a574e0ac18a0cba78b1ef22f42057a
a7b4efc391522ce3f30ceed57e5807cf85028737
73140 F20101114_AABYNJ fuhrman_n_Page_076.jpg
cf10fa4f6ccc278790e04bd3f23bdf82
016cf8d839f02bd5db8cdf9254b6fd7ab92f8b12
6591 F20101114_AABZRA fuhrman_n_Page_111thm.jpg
429da4db9c17fe96fc8c1175ce8abe95
d03a2bdb6a65c990915d3ad990f04cb85d2771c9
24326 F20101114_AABZQM fuhrman_n_Page_029.QC.jpg
144fa075a17b8250681a72f5b8650c27
fcb5dcb888cbd8f05f72a7d0c781518df3a99f96
3293 F20101114_AABZPY fuhrman_n_Page_106thm.jpg
dedbc5c1842b9ad9b1363cc3c3962e8f
31481f11fa72b8f5c74c3b4e52f2b3a1d64ce232
76974 F20101114_AABYMW fuhrman_n_Page_058.jpg
b5320d1bf66d9ae135531d31c8812143
3b5e521db16e25a19353beace3bb86ff433f1dee
58920 F20101114_AABYNK fuhrman_n_Page_077.jpg
d3df88f5d4aa002615039bb15c0a3183
ec71ca28288bd20543b3ab05ab01a21303031a33
26843 F20101114_AABZRB fuhrman_n_Page_041.QC.jpg
fe584238d25b93d9fc7de2bfb3242520
9ec161249b79855c453ce8afc4e36cedde7da7a6
26062 F20101114_AABZQN fuhrman_n_Page_038.QC.jpg
fec97bea531180234df57d704342cc71
257c4e23566971d4a677d7d2622958be9054391e
7068 F20101114_AABZPZ fuhrman_n_Page_038thm.jpg
05df6a1ee200399a59978a3efec0e7ce
2e8fb2d3777a27d04900abbe6432b38994f65c2c
75182 F20101114_AABYMX fuhrman_n_Page_059.jpg
8d3c9ef7fbb32e47df4daef88a71bd4c
063f573f99374db697dd0f3033a59b7c89dc50f2
75381 F20101114_AABYNL fuhrman_n_Page_078.jpg
93fe22897edf6bac309063a50192f1a9
e6eb8558948cb00179a872d523510b9a4ca0b2fa
11808 F20101114_AABZRC fuhrman_n_Page_141.QC.jpg
7a6a160d35ea2ecccc2f329f9b348c12
88edd5c5825d144bde1f60471c6a4a516bbe51aa
1889 F20101114_AABZQO fuhrman_n_Page_136thm.jpg
463699669a510f565391d5649deeeab2
e085f116e89e91418804dd0df890c4f3b5008e2a
77341 F20101114_AABYMY fuhrman_n_Page_060.jpg
32e169eae76828cf880e6e6ff360f514
af0ac0b780f89ddbd6782a571c3012d011aba084
16843 F20101114_AABYOA fuhrman_n_Page_095.jpg
424baab2e42afec8f3cb0297e260bf64
b883d69c4f5eeb66c929439d2c1a1967e89ab6fb
73095 F20101114_AABYNM fuhrman_n_Page_079.jpg
46b2699d1347fb8ba2191b4bbb284f0f
8c0bb56dc0fce0b3137e7aab0251b041c1a88d26
26149 F20101114_AABZRD fuhrman_n_Page_074.QC.jpg
69ac5415002239bab72e4e3336e8cea9
79821415d8b2c2b7fb4905390fb014313939edee
26263 F20101114_AABZQP fuhrman_n_Page_121.QC.jpg
36c98d57a8011f0f01f91d3782ee60c4
02d0e4826f376fbaec5c708e0e7f3c593f337a88
78090 F20101114_AABYMZ fuhrman_n_Page_061.jpg
cf0955f38ef60b9bc3322ab6050421ab
721fb8f5df82e39af0dbe059920a720db18af9e5
63145 F20101114_AABYOB fuhrman_n_Page_097.jpg
8121d8f35ad8e0d168c7a3e7d2663742
59daddc0a027f1e3301aca093cc26f7774fcc227
72979 F20101114_AABYNN fuhrman_n_Page_080.jpg
ced3729633326ee7712b021348b1b2e1
9140dcb009b82cd363c724daa228f285a1562539
2443 F20101114_AABZRE fuhrman_n_Page_001thm.jpg
7e6c82c5758008ad6302ac9fa4ded715
9dc0a70696283f87f3c04bba648df0bd7467c0cc
6601 F20101114_AABZQQ fuhrman_n_Page_080thm.jpg
117b4c7276e62c797fdc75b45fbcf470
5f574f9695b5b431c2f51ba3f26f3de004ef99f7
59680 F20101114_AABYOC fuhrman_n_Page_098.jpg
4a7546952cd0b2377a8a32778d60ffd2
26a224def70fe7a5c51bc38516c29b183c14db2d
76950 F20101114_AABYNO fuhrman_n_Page_081.jpg
bcf72c5a61b859b67637dbb1312103b0
79690947aa8af79bc2526d43283db78c78fa4d16
8649 F20101114_AABZRF fuhrman_n_Page_137thm.jpg
5b521d91ed850d636b3f7f3357e9b16e
f2eedd080f0225a29ed12e1d243d4123611b7daf
7233 F20101114_AABZQR fuhrman_n_Page_033thm.jpg
f5a28f215894e33194da9e6fc2389fac
e4781012eaeabd44d7a6cd694a34e40442c260f4
63476 F20101114_AABYOD fuhrman_n_Page_099.jpg
e8611c3c31768bbfc3e582cc270dc849
b794dee1ce8b42c66748796ecf86dc8362222343
75920 F20101114_AABYNP fuhrman_n_Page_082.jpg
49d1889a7f002ebe19c176f173ce8fc4
bc0cdd0ff84c8fb621a99cb07d6b119b60728265
10939 F20101114_AABZRG fuhrman_n_Page_154.QC.jpg
82bfc281f51158058ac6799d2aca30bc
675663fa453b7db17a76852f3e129271410abeef
6496 F20101114_AABZQS fuhrman_n_Page_170thm.jpg
2f758fb9dc4a62215d8cf23cb6687e53
4d5859d58c99986562cf2af0ee9734c1767811b5
47815 F20101114_AABYOE fuhrman_n_Page_103.jpg
43e721272a45ff65f63372d447140df7
b91f0730e27783b4a4df7dad971c4b2baa313b02
81447 F20101114_AABYNQ fuhrman_n_Page_084.jpg
3c6292d07c4658df8591e0aa62342523
3b2951e7d5f227be0ffe3059ab81d924ad12d249
25001 F20101114_AABZRH fuhrman_n_Page_058.QC.jpg
54ac8907b8ba93e657661e5be02b41aa
596772ec632df738ed3801f3fac6cc0af02cf9f0
24610 F20101114_AABZQT fuhrman_n_Page_039.QC.jpg
91efcea9ac0a43f28dca39a4d311ae1d
74d0f47ba1cf5575ea275184c52c27d587053061
26027 F20101114_AABYOF fuhrman_n_Page_105.jpg
085f89f35033d7edf6288adad0183795
c1d609b22d103d009e7c3ba7bc619dca5150be1c
79741 F20101114_AABYNR fuhrman_n_Page_085.jpg
0b89f5bb26b7e3de5f6cbec7ff85777a
b6a4cd81859f2e1000eabe8685cf333c5b84b231
272625 F20101114_AABZRI UFE0021289_00001.xml
09be996c26b7b4e22380e7a9abb423e7
1842b6de78f144ea52d30bb2edacc18c6546a9fb
6809 F20101114_AABZQU fuhrman_n_Page_036thm.jpg
b40198b6f27ea60948717f0caadd5f20
4d4f362c16a08fd7fbf788684c0e3a897bc27a5b
37138 F20101114_AABYOG fuhrman_n_Page_106.jpg
255d69a1d81d62da4ff1a90461eeca47
0dbf2c9f3a777ccc1065ef00682d04061bd0bb0c
72763 F20101114_AABYNS fuhrman_n_Page_086.jpg
6077f6669e168ffef09d6decd84ddd9a
85558b9caedbc72ff22b522925e70fc402d78132
1330 F20101114_AABZRJ fuhrman_n_Page_002thm.jpg
2261d611a43701c65032fd3c36868886
66955b1e7d32f47950621aeac4de5ec7d0b2bc41
23258 F20101114_AABZQV fuhrman_n_Page_113.QC.jpg
62f50e6282074cbd2a1a0b01c25b28fa
952d6b4d755bfdfd0b52384969e69b4cb9455786
36996 F20101114_AABYOH fuhrman_n_Page_107.jpg
7acc5bdac2a61e9262c8d176a6988d6f
c092b952eb20f77a454026493f265734198fb084
78607 F20101114_AABYNT fuhrman_n_Page_087.jpg
2e51ced4089458c021324ca06404d333
fadfde8b0d43d5d0bfdb8fdd0c5d3c4492b03446
26643 F20101114_AABZRK fuhrman_n_Page_023.QC.jpg
54e0b213281e9a5e37771719c71afe1f
b1d2678bd3e7bed2ccb39a39611970d1e99c5647
2674 F20101114_AABZQW fuhrman_n_Page_157thm.jpg
4c594de5942b92f242a25c568e7db6f9
3d13cd9d1923caf30e1fcfa764b6d27862a17b32
77864 F20101114_AABYOI fuhrman_n_Page_112.jpg
1aec8ea6157b522238ac780c5665f610
3c600e5fc3d5211651192c0e3780063fca14136b
69965 F20101114_AABYNU fuhrman_n_Page_089.jpg
c4c67536b7fb4ccb34f7707bee755ed0
d7d3e043853367cf0b29b9be79712877cf0d7a15
7133 F20101114_AABZRL fuhrman_n_Page_023thm.jpg
6e7ff1ace1b8cf050486a398606f599c
5cc37cff71b5e781239165256134b64b13abcde4
24699 F20101114_AABZQX fuhrman_n_Page_079.QC.jpg
117563904b760dfadd8bb2c977caadf7
ac339864058658a98fe3b682050f7e9952b9e4e1
71952 F20101114_AABYOJ fuhrman_n_Page_113.jpg
3d273f975e1a40125233e4969e43c0e7
96abed2b96e7bbbd96dd149a47047383cd166861
82388 F20101114_AABYNV fuhrman_n_Page_090.jpg
cfd74bbb11e390d32fea686b7501d970
45cc87cdb25010b5e83431628247ea9a14193bcf
7248 F20101114_AABZRM fuhrman_n_Page_048thm.jpg
133ed869093c9888afe0ceef056aeded
89d7cdcc02c37348db8b4d3166efeca11ae46a81
22217 F20101114_AABZQY fuhrman_n_Page_014.QC.jpg
05dc9a2bf1857c20cc209476b8005805
cdd7839d86a7a0affd35208de3ad8dc6a874479c
73257 F20101114_AABYOK fuhrman_n_Page_115.jpg
189f4a39d2df203d350698a143594316
7ebfc4b5d24e2782baef478a17308bdffe38951a
79659 F20101114_AABYNW fuhrman_n_Page_091.jpg
84ddfa0a0ee1949dfdfce99dc708348b
9a5e65b594376a2011b8e9d0e6536c4ca497d6b4
6910 F20101114_AABZRN fuhrman_n_Page_073thm.jpg
a40cac95ca4257cc434f9169b88882a8
31cf776532c3c4c7cd4d7022b25b60fc6b2d0dc0
7077 F20101114_AABZQZ fuhrman_n_Page_129thm.jpg
6ee3fdd88d360f0a891a459a3cab215e
554d88a0cb3ca439dc959415977ce3b8420986a0
75937 F20101114_AABYOL fuhrman_n_Page_116.jpg
496eee66629468ef5eb58a95ab79e817
5dd7c16a58b2237dd22bf3aac6661702bd6965f9
73228 F20101114_AABYNX fuhrman_n_Page_092.jpg
095829f460bd74267273ffb91cb56bec
c8d68939df44e4055cb2ac38862c32c67217084f
5296 F20101114_AABZRO fuhrman_n_Page_095.QC.jpg
c25d8b7778de3817f45c5630e2b212f5
8c1f9e3235486fc094c7793572024efcd4104fd6
91199 F20101114_AABYPA fuhrman_n_Page_134.jpg
82fa981530a0a0d54b1e3efabbbd9c66
fd07fbeb4e27316a1a85034e576a5f9f52c913b9
73630 F20101114_AABYOM fuhrman_n_Page_117.jpg
4ec804806ddecb85553da689db492f49
0f4ade98a51fded3319e86a62263be5bbd859947
77188 F20101114_AABYNY fuhrman_n_Page_093.jpg
b62c10bd65d1139401e1329d3ce1963e
ee98e40adc0e06d15f2f026e0aac0974e371cc9f
1976 F20101114_AABZRP fuhrman_n_Page_095thm.jpg
1e176ea9ec5562f11d6d6f72462ff307
8ffa4077522e7faad793ef2c689ba02fa54439e1
105954 F20101114_AABYPB fuhrman_n_Page_135.jpg
88223dde9e0e68a763af06e111076a24
efd554a67548a62ef0d9dfbb42c67ab97b0d3a2a
69909 F20101114_AABYON fuhrman_n_Page_118.jpg
fe97cc8af20724afb7d7e6a6aad68a28
6fd610fe7c1f648d84ccfc8ca4cd05f34094404f
73343 F20101114_AABYNZ fuhrman_n_Page_094.jpg
2dd9a1b3d72b2cfae08cd815920369f4
fcf1cdc8cb38ecdd5797ed2d472ef259a48bbad0
2437 F20101114_AABZRQ fuhrman_n_Page_105thm.jpg
367545eb31761540462028b6e6c1f3fa
908e3a47f6d6179059cc30028fa32a098266c1ce
87879 F20101114_AABYPC fuhrman_n_Page_137.jpg
8e2b340e67c7b4a363daaf9537e59122
2e41b548da69a147d405f602a8a4927426e6e424
80789 F20101114_AABYOO fuhrman_n_Page_119.jpg
9249d7274a4163354d0206cf8401d665
e60c5c36add71b7271559d8ce5a2d319b1b3b8d9
2298 F20101114_AABZRR fuhrman_n_Page_140thm.jpg
053e033314f6c270fd7f66e0a2ae6109
7e60a30ed840015777928fac88f5f3780d60c2e8
50533 F20101114_AABYPD fuhrman_n_Page_138.jpg
964ead597d23d1c6ad4bd92cbf292016
230e338be9364e432143ee07164d71c3c6c07dbc
78410 F20101114_AABYOP fuhrman_n_Page_121.jpg
e61ef81f54386fe8e3e7d062bbf885c6
100ff86c509c6842f46cc306d47dfc5aa5c2b144
13737 F20101114_AABZRS fuhrman_n_Page_144.QC.jpg
bf2230893dbc5355386f09601aa8138e
470325408f03de8dc4970312c2b47192fc746737
28756 F20101114_AABYPE fuhrman_n_Page_140.jpg
5b72e00011f70b891a285d09bc0d1f05
b6d7272aa371eaa375b9eef0ddf9f29e85d33bd4
106915 F20101114_AABYOQ fuhrman_n_Page_123.jpg
df81d3b3078d649f2db1cbad985abdb6
1200d95fb9810fe47b20338be19264eb905a03b9
13208 F20101114_AABZRT fuhrman_n_Page_145.QC.jpg
5c42b5d902b8c0f82edba4f025a9c6ac
d2c59b7804779eff4d418eb2366a95834399ef4c
34962 F20101114_AABYPF fuhrman_n_Page_141.jpg
8f48bf2d62f5d24ac89cf10959979971
bde6d52d269ccfb436eda8ddde9a6b28920413b1
80116 F20101114_AABYOR fuhrman_n_Page_124.jpg
248ea9f612db4da2ad6244349c02ead0
04f9bacbb26788ea6fb85ac2448a2bb7613d1053
12063 F20101114_AABZRU fuhrman_n_Page_152.QC.jpg
f3c3f529c5d37eac7db133a2b57b7498
57c7a76705ce7ce0780b6ac91b890016c48f6440
47450 F20101114_AABYPG fuhrman_n_Page_142.jpg
1322d3557319512f45c0af9f2d9be81f
57c117a4a26c0163e64e1be829e43e6166108c22
82149 F20101114_AABYOS fuhrman_n_Page_125.jpg
3c0acf122826410f9b3ce36f1e0b4221
da6ab852a5381dfa472a82d1e48af4573b18c8ed
26277 F20101114_AABZRV fuhrman_n_Page_162.QC.jpg
59b6f45ae69ee5a1d4c72f0a0c54af9e
29ad9ccc0836986b7a2c87379411bf4dbac0ed24
59590 F20101114_AABYPH fuhrman_n_Page_143.jpg
945638f923a204acd0575fdbb71b2ea5
79f4a8481bf2a3a0af5ff0d116d27471e9aa7c13
77496 F20101114_AABYOT fuhrman_n_Page_126.jpg
f9ca5be3ce5939402c614ce5383c15ab
f034161185ef05a542b35949c4558f70d01bdbca
23863 F20101114_AABZRW fuhrman_n_Page_163.QC.jpg
d9694e78010ff21811ffac6f874ec05d
52a1b6fcf1bd91b67dd17955b0e08e74b7754d95
55814 F20101114_AABYPI fuhrman_n_Page_146.jpg
1aa4631a5873bf2be9f1197a182fc49c
41388a7d27026c569444b9be53a89fc901cac66d
80624 F20101114_AABYOU fuhrman_n_Page_127.jpg
589630e7888bc523ff4152e7e2846571
3693c900b17ea0dd4cbd6840d6dec4b302923ade
4342 F20101114_AABZRX fuhrman_n_Page_164thm.jpg
2b74ed20fe7463582670980ad643c684
0a60973fe76f73699ded081e4e4fb273b2675a04
53366 F20101114_AABYPJ fuhrman_n_Page_147.jpg
7ace795a017805150a9a6086838be529
a1c9b88e1b5b0d1306ecaaee6a9960add3d7d9df
78734 F20101114_AABYOV fuhrman_n_Page_128.jpg
b36ed0dad674791ffb88b5369cb903d5
10ee62ad4c8e15fa0df4e2193de9513fa6d6357e
79999 F20101114_AABYOW fuhrman_n_Page_129.jpg
0dab75ae9d76dde0f72913fd4477c40e
c49edbef3ff194106051aa064a00be5d76e802eb
52782 F20101114_AABYPK fuhrman_n_Page_148.jpg
0d4be4069ceccf2ef85a8cf493dec162
a159d4bd01a2d70b97485ceb4b4e4f63c0635e91
76982 F20101114_AABYOX fuhrman_n_Page_131.jpg
c653000c0e0aae9521c72e1e2ee6d2d3
e9ef83b5c486d26108a0e7ab609fc42d11384b2f
34589 F20101114_AABYPL fuhrman_n_Page_149.jpg
658454b9857c65948aa6b33e0431c9b4
24c5a67e18459d33efefdeffe900d9eac2d6fd1d
83545 F20101114_AABYOY fuhrman_n_Page_132.jpg
655ff429454aa91337ebdd952fb33f57
b8424aa2ade1bd241bb6121ec842c3f0ddfa838f
81363 F20101114_AABYQA fuhrman_n_Page_176.jpg
56d8ccbb546ec28e1b34456020033ec4
90bc65480113b73b3f31aefc83aff36687475517
47686 F20101114_AABYPM fuhrman_n_Page_150.jpg
91fe5629e9a1368bbf748d4631d3d970
fb349d119f2f7aef5a9e3878d583dbb1d978d07d
117699 F20101114_AABYOZ fuhrman_n_Page_133.jpg
cd28a1b8516fd90d6f0a47ed9d096a8b
19782a4dfbcd45a8bac93e9770906c1114d4d2b3
86613 F20101114_AABYQB fuhrman_n_Page_178.jpg
d9636e3ded9c9cc428c9ce4d985ca5c9
4b9ff0e81dcf006778367bf9c1e2fe43437b297a
45826 F20101114_AABYPN fuhrman_n_Page_151.jpg
400f7f128b685eacd0d387ad8aa088af
efeaa3d2e8c3867e096c9f77a534daf7527b5bdf
91606 F20101114_AABYQC fuhrman_n_Page_179.jpg
da5a37ace178d2d33ecb96d76b898b76
40ef6a965a9a0367188b0ebb080ac067e78ea44d
25634 F20101114_AABYPO fuhrman_n_Page_157.jpg
a3a626849530b71f15638b32133938d2
6e547ed22b9e0ad2fe915d62f23f4f324b7ce9c6
58964 F20101114_AABYQD fuhrman_n_Page_181.jpg
be1cab1241d8dad5840394415f5edded
bef94a0f961c62692453ec98ff883edacb2066d0
67112 F20101114_AABYPP fuhrman_n_Page_160.jpg
b89729473c91c428f431e788ac3a3e7e
e1978a1f56565a21c29f20c1beb06599f63d391f
5558 F20101114_AABYQE fuhrman_n_Page_002.jp2
f23182922ada43ce40060b0bee6c0e62
a184853a5f641a8307d51a938f8b16e208252ab7
79644 F20101114_AABYPQ fuhrman_n_Page_162.jpg
4e061775a48348d1f20b7c0182eea815
cc0d16fd6dde0a131b6bba02671c4f314d859680
12756 F20101114_AABYQF fuhrman_n_Page_003.jp2
05d1d30331ff0143e8016bfd4de693d9
2d84e1419400a0ed7f3f457d2ed6351ee8c71778
55725 F20101114_AABYPR fuhrman_n_Page_164.jpg
ecdaeb895db4551d3c14bd5a788c9c9d
87d5491f5dc8f8fe48acbfd766d5fd04fddd2783
118668 F20101114_AABYQG fuhrman_n_Page_004.jp2
93faeed7d594263667149822d0111a74
a2586188da62eeeb42926d01018ca5a464236fc1
75295 F20101114_AABYPS fuhrman_n_Page_165.jpg
0c8b3d79509d30f5a30d23c7900e978e
a3a4eaa4fe3ab7d4e194a71afe89f40f2d5f7d7e
89611 F20101114_AABYQH fuhrman_n_Page_005.jp2
e65bcb82e0a18e9ab302ac570f40bdbb
42360cc220e3eaeab4e2e56a3d0ac436cc02b172
77723 F20101114_AABYPT fuhrman_n_Page_166.jpg
4d14a61fe0bfb8e4dd53e8fe78c6cbf8
061c2c8e1696d6e9af4fd686bdee65cea88b6bea
1051974 F20101114_AABYQI fuhrman_n_Page_006.jp2
5afd1e7acc765a2b409b9039cf0e8396
3c83f06b7d624d392f6d63d503a8d48bd7fb4983
73849 F20101114_AABYPU fuhrman_n_Page_168.jpg
45200012ee0ad162987800e0cea54dbf
cb05ebec29fd9461daff60fd613c873fce858eae
1051942 F20101114_AABYQJ fuhrman_n_Page_008.jp2
5183195388e59dac7bc42282e2b5de42
6c3886290aca908a08139a85cf256f44113a6da9
76769 F20101114_AABYPV fuhrman_n_Page_169.jpg
43312429ddb55574826babc85b2a5332
4a7b527de469702c7737f910399b032f041f0d1d
F20101114_AABYQK fuhrman_n_Page_009.jp2
5fd955e0075668618fe161296516ecfd
101d2fd22c84b45b4723801b119bd00f7329a3ca
75586 F20101114_AABYPW fuhrman_n_Page_170.jpg
379f17054b6f38b12639d0ce89836cdc
9cbaf084cf917604fa2e7184b8d3f210e289630a
116023 F20101114_AABYRA fuhrman_n_Page_034.jp2
3254f3fecf5b661a4da71bf173d0c5a1
dda02336207880dc4f82ded143e62512ea7d668e
1051985 F20101114_AABYQL fuhrman_n_Page_011.jp2
2659d7e811745839b9143d0ef8ee5a14
9d8ce3eeec362608cda356011ffe4132464f02eb
75089 F20101114_AABYPX fuhrman_n_Page_171.jpg
9ea2668c1fb695cb8be32ca16a589d9b
bccf138e0911058ccfaac68f2c7ff90b8bac4b8a
508188 F20101114_AABYQM fuhrman_n_Page_012.jp2
f85dbe54ec9801cac578043bba0cf591
c062d35b9cf6c0702944362f0589537122679b9e
83321 F20101114_AABYPY fuhrman_n_Page_172.jpg
20df207e2650c0c55c015a7617c0a39b
bb7d44e189714a24d932f26e45fef590b95961a4
120594 F20101114_AABYRB fuhrman_n_Page_038.jp2
79080d8e6bba7b37e1c1eb3d1fc69993
818df398d9ef14262476320931617aae338d2bc4
74001 F20101114_AABYQN fuhrman_n_Page_013.jp2
92e29aeb818150a29dd3730f234a48b1
0f1ee7b85b8ee22e747949340d4e29f676bb2d60
76291 F20101114_AABYPZ fuhrman_n_Page_175.jpg
c1d8a4301d42941e3605b3b8bcaa3fb7
3bc13e8ce7ccd9e24a1908533c17e62a678cc729
114565 F20101114_AABYRC fuhrman_n_Page_039.jp2
d9133fbd90e74906de8e16550a56aca9
045efb6c2cce904503f8c90b82b06ca73e4e3cec
102612 F20101114_AABYQO fuhrman_n_Page_014.jp2
4750cc5104f9f5322265ba931c6d043a
8c537f0e2e6a20071452fc97e4b38267b4516eed
110642 F20101114_AABYRD fuhrman_n_Page_040.jp2
0270826d95cc4880d3b92ba443f2b076
5dac74eb9fa3dd1360544c83b38fd409da788235
68887 F20101114_AABYQP fuhrman_n_Page_015.jp2
a84ffc817776a8f3ed86394a7c063504
adf0f704539ee1fe4ddfe3cf3757186bc8ffde3f
125785 F20101114_AABYRE fuhrman_n_Page_041.jp2
4dab4544c8381bc4181b8a7989ec21c9
733351420e3e255fc51c0263a7a4b5b43743b946
104767 F20101114_AABYQQ fuhrman_n_Page_016.jp2
516a5b00a2cd25722ee7ea5d83fe08d9
0c1aaae47f33df03e58195282bd876af3735e48b
112960 F20101114_AABYRF fuhrman_n_Page_043.jp2
0efb0d09d9ac28247cb5cd7d6896026c
4bfe1339dc6e596b3ff0f64d4d7280e17fe71a77
120689 F20101114_AABYQR fuhrman_n_Page_017.jp2
e7baeed901ff8b48257029f939f1a8ab
6fea7acc4487edc767ca34ce4d6a00c70f75b14c
119180 F20101114_AABYRG fuhrman_n_Page_044.jp2
078e62dd698ccec3c1c8c62deb455f2b
4195f4501015bf43f4d26ddffc72caefbafa76fa
116613 F20101114_AABYQS fuhrman_n_Page_019.jp2
fb779cca83ad33dfbafa63b6be6a3b6f
641ce4eaad1e858105e159253d6b1b916fc4d308
120144 F20101114_AABYRH fuhrman_n_Page_046.jp2
6ef5571a0534c0a288a47d0c25768b66
3a87f77f96cb64e680f5c6ea82d6e19273287124
120834 F20101114_AABYQT fuhrman_n_Page_020.jp2
9271d318da14c1c4f4020993840c8a01
f0eb5522eae8f546535a230b806739c84eb94d74
115688 F20101114_AABYRI fuhrman_n_Page_047.jp2
c91ce07fa5c1f0959f1ffa96dce2c141
578de0a2958a0e24f1f0899f9bd70c03c13dc14d
117168 F20101114_AABYQU fuhrman_n_Page_021.jp2
c998e417d6954340c0bb9e2498f0123a
2606f27463020a15f6a12513bd8c836faacad97a
123577 F20101114_AABYRJ fuhrman_n_Page_048.jp2
0ed4c4a85167f1c405917fcb83a600e9
2bc83841b395051d2f5ff866da86617851146ad7
118710 F20101114_AABYQV fuhrman_n_Page_022.jp2
65b45d2873ff5205241384e7214eaffa
6401144905599bb3845ee72e664e9c9d65914845
127003 F20101114_AABYRK fuhrman_n_Page_050.jp2
b14edd351cae79013990c247b9bf59df
27e55731630c6d5fd3bc14601a4f0d43a328043d
122826 F20101114_AABYQW fuhrman_n_Page_023.jp2
e6ba766a008cfbc6b331924fab90d476
dabcf47cf264c418c168305e5752d8096257064d
19634 F20101114_AABYRL fuhrman_n_Page_051.jp2
ff5ff922acf1a2e73d4877f3b1b41db1
ded387eddf31663ea2be193ca7cdf6ef98b8592a
13385 F20101114_AABYQX fuhrman_n_Page_030.jp2
ba3e182fa61ab9152c6738040a82cac9
a55abd2f546989ad2d3dded7376fc962e663ae8d
108755 F20101114_AABYSA fuhrman_n_Page_076.jp2
7f0d49c239c49147cdd16a8ba3bd84a0
1d4936b17e5bc09784141a0f4a56363b1cae3fce
106608 F20101114_AABYRM fuhrman_n_Page_052.jp2
ad146b0eebc16cc86f9b699d16c30a80
d6e41ba205ce7e18a8e970e98b7abbe43965c73c
21069 F20101114_AABYQY fuhrman_n_Page_031.jp2
7f06a3623fdfabc2190ed85e925a6495
13dc56076b57b11c25148ed80f06dce8ebd8ce16
114314 F20101114_AABYSB fuhrman_n_Page_078.jp2
1320298ae8d41dbcf50e4960a02d7649
7e61c0d09a1d88386770b00c663410a29f3a7116
119953 F20101114_AABYRN fuhrman_n_Page_055.jp2
d744912b1ac7f71678f65e32c8076af3
67e61775e7726ccbcab3d6dd836f077a294df91e
123193 F20101114_AABYQZ fuhrman_n_Page_033.jp2
5cc01e4149807427ced4b8187f52e66e
db5575fb5004034f9bd666af6dc1a3096957d6c9
113530 F20101114_AABYRO fuhrman_n_Page_056.jp2
ca1e4b16346d65e113a6f541c087bee9
0d3baaaef7e3b2640ed6607912b6d159e7bd3d19
112713 F20101114_AABYSC fuhrman_n_Page_079.jp2
c6025976b2d5f324e2396547501426e3
947419760715bdfb9f92dbcbbd6d16ae02e53b00
117338 F20101114_AABYRP fuhrman_n_Page_057.jp2
b4f5dac7f6f4dccf365c797bd76a3e6d
64a1657da802a766840a9dea40f885c91a5162d4
116650 F20101114_AABYSD fuhrman_n_Page_082.jp2
ac40bcaf2cbdca7b869f8ce59e441b50
3fd6f17fa0cf20a7a3316a678b093dfba31e6cac
117100 F20101114_AABYRQ fuhrman_n_Page_058.jp2
071f3216a049d319fd89946d8768243b
d7ae62543097b30d0ed03b724ab04368d2eacafb
119789 F20101114_AABYSE fuhrman_n_Page_083.jp2
1242908c12abadd2a893ad6716cc4107
6fbdc7b3fe3af47f13fa1aeb61497ae820a7c00c
116139 F20101114_AABYRR fuhrman_n_Page_059.jp2
9657b735f3543943d23d1debff8bb5bf
74956469169c0c0a8964da13ea53da28a07ea040
121961 F20101114_AABYSF fuhrman_n_Page_084.jp2
af0d8a61d83a87ba1d1f9395e0f31d87
98658cfcf41756079d3185229929305bf797f961
120724 F20101114_AABYRS fuhrman_n_Page_062.jp2
f2180e828eb5552d75619f4e816c1268
9f69f050732429d66ab271dc75508e4809eebb83
122639 F20101114_AABYSG fuhrman_n_Page_085.jp2
2fe7c37709a57282206ac9c15214a1b6
0cbec01f4eaceb72a87b72dc9c88f3f117975a75
116112 F20101114_AABYRT fuhrman_n_Page_063.jp2
ad4917aafdd87bd41b34bf6f47e290c6
1011c8e600099299f851d073caceb854e3987022
109771 F20101114_AABYSH fuhrman_n_Page_086.jp2
b5f74a9d0c9827b51d654f086cfd81c2
e3c711f67a4a5f0d25bcb0e1d8b2d175b6a11af4
117715 F20101114_AABYRU fuhrman_n_Page_066.jp2
025b14d0aa2020c709b9148610271b0f
2c7143480f55dbff47670619d0184defee846190
119466 F20101114_AABYSI fuhrman_n_Page_087.jp2
83753fc165e9d78b735c96df026b3f68
5e7dbb3708ba7d51c1fab327b9fa0aff6fc269e2
651819 F20101114_AABYRV fuhrman_n_Page_068.jp2
78024a6a9737ca49e15a109b7a3ee0a1
1a1504d1d296c2a90dbd0c78507f79ffa4bdd65e
110634 F20101114_AABYSJ fuhrman_n_Page_088.jp2
f07ab654985271874e714591d3c13918
6d945ef2dd710ca427121c1f49955db98e1b6193
118650 F20101114_AABYRW fuhrman_n_Page_070.jp2
95aab5cd668c97db5ee7c8c05c157bcf
0d09f877d162b017e0e4d4d227cfccdf217a7726
106537 F20101114_AABYSK fuhrman_n_Page_089.jp2
57469786d182651f393866460e7a385c
eb4baa6d9a9587963c2bef50d209392cf01e10b7
121825 F20101114_AABYRX fuhrman_n_Page_072.jp2
88a68a646c60ec881ef21d098b77c086
a3621e58ba3cecc3a55c3dba74fc07d5fff7c8c6
110257 F20101114_AABYTA fuhrman_n_Page_115.jp2
c69274f57435f9972de6301f3d28d907
c0d91b3fa41ba493f93ea962d7487544d14db80a
120903 F20101114_AABYSL fuhrman_n_Page_091.jp2
be3f2127b48113e7686a2b35527af7dd
020bf6e76b0022e0dbf0c99a508f842471b9e906
120143 F20101114_AABYRY fuhrman_n_Page_074.jp2
1fbccb396eff346779d4049c69d79b97
b5e7bef4dba9406601b3df6e36f42a24050fae34
113418 F20101114_AABYTB fuhrman_n_Page_117.jp2
cb51ce1fbfeedeea7ab431b5dc0d5613
a26a60c00237c8c94512824bedea5353c45f3fa9
114227 F20101114_AABYSM fuhrman_n_Page_092.jp2
dd9507f38e928c9870be420277c23b69
d745a84094a070e3ca2689ce9ec17451ede65316
111295 F20101114_AABYRZ fuhrman_n_Page_075.jp2
b9ea549c13dfd683ef1f14402ff59948
64d999cdc197decdd1a9d772b75ad1181e0c61a7
109134 F20101114_AABYTC fuhrman_n_Page_118.jp2
09fbe5534836a11b02dc377eea10a1df
8d7817ed86871043a878bca62a567716e664356c
115301 F20101114_AABYSN fuhrman_n_Page_093.jp2
2c78ad23b0acdb50e892863300e08bab
6162f976bb6cb513322e673cbc62d7c07d8e6b5f
18543 F20101114_AABYSO fuhrman_n_Page_095.jp2
2dcf872fecd8d7a78e23b2379ac2d294
5a8b5bcb5d494f4239ffccfdc290b8d43b8be541
121733 F20101114_AABYTD fuhrman_n_Page_119.jp2
b2b95741ddf7cc2b6521f15a4fb64bd7
77c2efb79986a7692e3d86cc2aece40feb842f43
76462 F20101114_AABYSP fuhrman_n_Page_096.jp2
466a5f8e4c7bf5a6a9b3346446d6abc9
89086f2bc2c63287f79e5807b61725bf146ca520
120704 F20101114_AABYTE fuhrman_n_Page_120.jp2
a2c60301229e47b5a7fe7eaf22071ab3
bba82849ba9a84144ac1e0d52b46b6759b56fb55
84718 F20101114_AABYSQ fuhrman_n_Page_099.jp2
b787dea586c8f1eb9c6bc5e8d16d49f2
14a1ae30d8cc13eb7e9cd2be6124cdeab2d6a26a
119632 F20101114_AABYTF fuhrman_n_Page_121.jp2
35058233bcfe3601239f1d26facb2b20
9c5b48e6ddbd2137ac109ffd6c989d46f8645184
78479 F20101114_AABYSR fuhrman_n_Page_100.jp2
f2746eacb7e7e33b3e1e004903d7150c
198293343ebddd63382da5b56da0372531464c96
109538 F20101114_AABYTG fuhrman_n_Page_122.jp2
74cd4f703dad556afa2b0ed8640bcae4
3dcbe0d879bd5f4bee2f1c96e63d3f7cced13591
63277 F20101114_AABYSS fuhrman_n_Page_103.jp2
f6b719ce52877903c040a9198ffe807e
055daee94861316dda78e6ee963adccc8eb38fe7
163556 F20101114_AABYTH fuhrman_n_Page_123.jp2
94f8ea8eaabe7e25c6ba13951bfb08a7
043a68475d24b17f624f13631e85df8448da75bd
82458 F20101114_AABYST fuhrman_n_Page_104.jp2
ed64258d8fe15f1a54b92f2e757d2cb3
1b10949e74278d0edfde0f419cff7ed29cf86c55
124557 F20101114_AABYTI fuhrman_n_Page_125.jp2
f4b8e0dad3a9af6b56067db6bc6a86db
260d6c77631ffaea267e834d89531d21d06bd2b8
30956 F20101114_AABYSU fuhrman_n_Page_105.jp2
272f57b89e501e32d4e9644fc9d8a2f6
d34dcdf4e7c1062aec576c941af01c030111d338
118175 F20101114_AABYTJ fuhrman_n_Page_126.jp2
87d323bab2bdbb90c8fade0a113024ad
ae5587ae4da2c4e21fc8d24330e6ede4bea870f0
80527 F20101114_AABYSV fuhrman_n_Page_107.jp2
d134e9bf2205cecf8b3fe7d84aeaebff
fb67b59de31309d7894a0fc7afd43ae734579511
122642 F20101114_AABYTK fuhrman_n_Page_127.jp2
5b60f3ce283d5035461be8835adbdce1
168d4f7352d77b7f1e53e81e7f3fa4d947d8657b
102087 F20101114_AABYSW fuhrman_n_Page_108.jp2
15d6cc4d49007aab3405bc4862a0f410
9003fcd5719ce6ba6d8e5ba768dfaed4d8ce813c
1004215 F20101114_AABYUA fuhrman_n_Page_156.jp2
5b4c108a8bed4756b2785c0c0943c5c0
81d03f7ef646a5bbb5cde0cb34aedc0f88e48e15
118906 F20101114_AABYTL fuhrman_n_Page_128.jp2
2e4252960d846f72abd82c4e6c5b55ab
ad4cfd47f3b243239739c3bb7fc4cb1c24972905
60377 F20101114_AABYSX fuhrman_n_Page_109.jp2
0ce1b33568f1425b8a3890d739cb3d6c
725b36966b5603939e4d8d4a2e300ec5ce571927
85612 F20101114_AABYUB fuhrman_n_Page_159.jp2
1fe8a7144c6a4c21646b5015beceb1d4
ececb0536d29ac87c230f5ca0a5febfb19211bf7
123012 F20101114_AABYTM fuhrman_n_Page_129.jp2
55b587e359193db5cf0c7f20637cca29
afc39cb274e89836f0b73011ededc11332f2c7f6
32956 F20101114_AABYSY fuhrman_n_Page_110.jp2
cbec66b29f949753626df443b22c9de5
29e8838eccdfdebd71c699b0c9d120f28c5374f3
101881 F20101114_AABYUC fuhrman_n_Page_160.jp2
94318dbca065eae17925d239c66290e6
8090ab85478dab590d78a1588409298f0249ac0f
129248 F20101114_AABYTN fuhrman_n_Page_132.jp2
0843bd0479d0867c21c9d23f14229a12
c33c84ee07df6514fc8ed84b9814b9b9c6225782
117581 F20101114_AABYSZ fuhrman_n_Page_112.jp2
97b6619ce42005cccc6c8d6312eb8e50
2e5e762b5c70541b367411b77fef4cd41a14f65f
106156 F20101114_AABYUD fuhrman_n_Page_161.jp2
e726cbc8da45a8835c3755ba940ad48f
eea0b6956b5e9f33092636b96173065fdc92bb20
1051986 F20101114_AABYTO fuhrman_n_Page_135.jp2
83f350783d5613789b3231d7934ec2a9
c1193bac0a947ceb2a24aad6fbdc20c0a36fae38
169989 F20101114_AABYTP fuhrman_n_Page_136.jp2
09e390d58b06c323ad1cabfc4d8cc65f
e68e2a094d5ac52257fa3a3c253cfc740df3945f
121394 F20101114_AABYUE fuhrman_n_Page_162.jp2
13e1377303cb22754ee8d5d1d23bf771
ffdc2fff9799533c4dca259e4aae1d7c914fe107
916640 F20101114_AABYTQ fuhrman_n_Page_138.jp2
0a8e9efa15ecf71d196ec28b2d0cf570
c3fbf531ecc5f801e13e403af8942f7f0739e0ed
52361 F20101114_AABZAA fuhrman_n_Page_018.pro
40ce0fe72233dcf673d6d438130d6ec2
699672464db1a7d84fa221330806f0dadb4d5331
111052 F20101114_AABYUF fuhrman_n_Page_163.jp2
db2268a0030d0e6fffad5509c523c5bf
9c497ecefc069f5f1e3061dcbd57e6c500a5667a
601510 F20101114_AABYTR fuhrman_n_Page_142.jp2
76930da40ab29bf6dccd57c3948ad061
bf05d9995ee4afdbec734af2327602aa509f312b
56542 F20101114_AABZAB fuhrman_n_Page_020.pro
234312011ffacc3df0d043d60d7ccd91
2c994802ecaa119934cf3f4f0b87d6dc433818fa
111771 F20101114_AABYUG fuhrman_n_Page_165.jp2
e253e2eb11300d4e415bc05c1065403d
d542b36a99ece26d42db88046c75e103eef159df
833065 F20101114_AABYTS fuhrman_n_Page_143.jp2
3486fb4bf68b66ff1a9386befe6c3db0
ca4a937cdbe4bca5719a85c3228b667f522d99b9
53850 F20101114_AABZAC fuhrman_n_Page_021.pro
def16ffc9160b5b24b55887ad379408a
952ba4f1ae14f22f10be9c1e1835b62d768b5054
673765 F20101114_AABYTT fuhrman_n_Page_146.jp2
709854e12ab39ebeee16b6c3a7652dfc
cfa16b5a1d01f5b1ed0fe48f74286d00754abf50
118385 F20101114_AABYUH fuhrman_n_Page_166.jp2
020b15a97711e55f39dd00e0be8b14ec
132d65fc776331006d63b15ca30f9c3e226b70be
55686 F20101114_AABZAD fuhrman_n_Page_022.pro
ec7a131720c4cd5982202b3c9c813320
4dcb87fac6b1a2e1f2e4bca812848c7a5ef2efbb
614577 F20101114_AABYTU fuhrman_n_Page_147.jp2
72bac8fce74ac22c14f6a9d2053f2712
83e1709719dd5fce5840403e65b0158eceadd207
112564 F20101114_AABYUI fuhrman_n_Page_167.jp2
2a67cf04b05ed2c666e73e9ccaba8ae8
e5770f831afb65d2ca40d65f8f5ced62a0c1b6b5
57309 F20101114_AABZAE fuhrman_n_Page_023.pro
443a91f1a83cdc0d5b47005c066c37dc
3cefeb7d388f3d7c335e418c07f5111c2e3ca40d
379854 F20101114_AABYTV fuhrman_n_Page_149.jp2
877a7d0376b9b56a600d0ddfed100364
6501d427bdfaa100fffad00f1884ec8418c9a6f0
112496 F20101114_AABYUJ fuhrman_n_Page_168.jp2
27df5a72dae89c1f5fbd0731ccb1cc82
57d7df1c063e7a7f5a791243f020e018dd5c5d2e
56196 F20101114_AABZAF fuhrman_n_Page_024.pro
396000dfc179d85608e1b68b7b14dc2b
9fb7e7ff7d40fde956666f6dcd540e8a72b48d64
619367 F20101114_AABYTW fuhrman_n_Page_150.jp2
ca9497f749e9d220324e9e73c9ad935a
b99f517942e2c119fd2917157531269f5a424905
115933 F20101114_AABYUK fuhrman_n_Page_169.jp2
350eb8b10e26d1138afcb631977c70a6
f1d4a000fdd4a1b1f6a9b76cea2c19a6c793ddcd
54626 F20101114_AABZAG fuhrman_n_Page_025.pro
83d96c00d4dbbd02dd9588c469fdac9b
479698be5c54e3d04d7a8f71bab6438a8ac98931
466154 F20101114_AABYTX fuhrman_n_Page_152.jp2
5a2241254a377c3b7cfcb7d227314a60
eb5fc1f5f6fbfb082a3684cafd24d17648105b98
25271604 F20101114_AABYVA fuhrman_n_Page_012.tif
f3f1862f5671931ee6c581815bb48777
a0366eb6e51fcb95b2816c659eb83309504f2e66
125035 F20101114_AABYUL fuhrman_n_Page_172.jp2
f86cd0d94d538be46e1e234852e56b1a
ec53562e8be29d7d232330923a96a028a5c1597d
54585 F20101114_AABZAH fuhrman_n_Page_029.pro
da67a59379704ae430147c7e032bc32c
c65a87736b438c6bf78d8a85529206f0154575ad
706441 F20101114_AABYTY fuhrman_n_Page_154.jp2
3ca700e503c31159d84a1fdfee293e6b
a5829c25248dcfc63c8aa883354c5d300f73f269
F20101114_AABYVB fuhrman_n_Page_014.tif
dc2660d9eff5d07019556abe5555f668
794154e2a5f120dbc8efb3d14ec5ed7a34b6f754
114816 F20101114_AABYUM fuhrman_n_Page_173.jp2
f9b36510bb79c4bb01f5cacee5b42c25
63d22c82f6b636ffede60b6e3ea2125b3f841f7f
4645 F20101114_AABZAI fuhrman_n_Page_030.pro
c61be9c3a0f368cde2f1e4b774de3dae
da0461878bb1cd67b0ee010c0c76aa2eabc64d4f
756163 F20101114_AABYTZ fuhrman_n_Page_155.jp2
5316031a04143ca9a78a37df40643821
fe95e5d3f8a588f039f6083e5576a0486b61b445
F20101114_AABYVC fuhrman_n_Page_015.tif
7f98c8b8cf7dc73446b86fcf92107b01
a0fe10e6bef3f0f291859e12742491e46a3d1999
58308 F20101114_AABYUN fuhrman_n_Page_174.jp2
8e5649dbfa94eec5a7929916ba079dcb
ba0d8c65dbd05c1b9a1fc7b5119490d62eb193b6
3033 F20101114_AABZAJ fuhrman_n_Page_031.pro
80e6bc4168b2a39068b377d25dfd47b0
f68c16276697578e8344beb89798f31861103a09
F20101114_AABYVD fuhrman_n_Page_016.tif
2df2e11b2cf7ac57204e04ea003907e4
7a0e2bd27d34fef6a5aaf96b87ec6b00300cc666
122602 F20101114_AABYUO fuhrman_n_Page_175.jp2
0e182126d1f6acff3e85e771ead71447
94a02222149138fc47e0180bf763fab3d63c337d
48565 F20101114_AABZAK fuhrman_n_Page_032.pro
9aa04a04a9315335c281b8d36494b7f2
30ebd999ddb377f71c46142f18bdfc7682e94a80
F20101114_AABYVE fuhrman_n_Page_017.tif
52ac26dd245caf944c5a85600467092e
9ce35051b598756072a1a07fc8d22c2bf72b65bb
126875 F20101114_AABYUP fuhrman_n_Page_176.jp2
2677e0bdad9f4c1fac944c2080b98b80
e62ebfd0e2256037792e5476e579088bf113d261
52309 F20101114_AABZAL fuhrman_n_Page_034.pro
8c3e180b0c480681031e94d36c10129d
8eeed5e4e3a7e58a0fb35b5109507905bb775d9a
143325 F20101114_AABYUQ fuhrman_n_Page_179.jp2
95d7add45578b7c1ed70f419d6651004
52ffd581df335c8e36b010147752aa17b000d9a3
49601 F20101114_AABZBA fuhrman_n_Page_052.pro
9f533cfb7df1cb6b91421ce76a289428
8ff159d42b551dc8eef957ccd7c9b958baaf29c1
57753 F20101114_AABZAM fuhrman_n_Page_035.pro
fa55cbc7ff73df1773e51e00eab90db8
f286c382cee54f20c98a49a05da9f46910c9402a
F20101114_AABYVF fuhrman_n_Page_018.tif
2070bd55dd4e90cdaf968099592fc333
cbe36d2581154976e53592c7eea13a3906928181
82767 F20101114_AABYUR fuhrman_n_Page_181.jp2
ef24adc07f96e85147600d04af750268
41d2f4b0e6119b752be23b20a18c9b81d1cda0df
50746 F20101114_AABZBB fuhrman_n_Page_053.pro
c0c3665bbe342f94cdf71938ae963b08
75490dd83a1794e011a6b87d7d42ab646d6ee734
53815 F20101114_AABZAN fuhrman_n_Page_036.pro
96e56ee691af7da9ee1a458004f9faf3
0ccdf08fada4f5f4986c4688f263d33c78d03523
F20101114_AABYVG fuhrman_n_Page_020.tif
33c389dbfcf35371ab42c49fab497b37
f3942f9b5a8e5236b8d1f0864482c243833603ae
112554 F20101114_AABYUS fuhrman_n_Page_182.jp2
260a0e01bb461e6425923271a7e19fd9
a1efefdf6ef1fd8d5a96a8483fc61f7e35c9c551
52665 F20101114_AABZBC fuhrman_n_Page_054.pro
bfba4a2ca10735cff1c37a7596c8376e
8e45efedb50ec45061d670c22da1670993dfc45c
56049 F20101114_AABZAO fuhrman_n_Page_037.pro
79fded1449d980e6104ad13248fb098d
f84564b8fe25743aa3e48f952f4bd9e86f87acac
F20101114_AABYVH fuhrman_n_Page_021.tif
a5f9d4eff3a29008fab7d022f089dfba
edfe41e68b804c1b0abe268bc0a22db1e0208459
F20101114_AABYUT fuhrman_n_Page_001.tif
734f31e337a2a3e7df9a62390e0a8120
51daacd4e3fc1eda49ba2ea702bbf2426ad20fb4
53212 F20101114_AABZBD fuhrman_n_Page_056.pro
d1bb1963f88a553bedb271278f891eae
58ae069138c249e61bd4ec886f1e94648e14ed89
F20101114_AABYVI fuhrman_n_Page_022.tif
98e833b58f496bc8fe5a00701661b983
6d961641b2039b1b1cd7bf5d7603a214ff20a58a
F20101114_AABYUU fuhrman_n_Page_004.tif
9f19f35a416b8f45c572a342688a6958
0a19c6e6d36032db10c882b47febffbf804b8436
54179 F20101114_AABZBE fuhrman_n_Page_057.pro
1a8197daba0dbf761f6d5aac18377eeb
dbcaf57775d5caf3137ef1c5cfdb90c3eb923b71
56114 F20101114_AABZAP fuhrman_n_Page_038.pro
388ec55494dd0c76d04a0a6ff1d4d5a5
fd3a9090525516fe36f54451d950e0f6f62008b7
F20101114_AABYVJ fuhrman_n_Page_023.tif
6247aa782864e816c4ffd39a0afd0b58
04586c62fb9942dc8d99785ac9da272e870b2b96
F20101114_AABYUV fuhrman_n_Page_005.tif
761230aabfa16addbd0f10b77c396d21
6b25c50a83a0a5728163c6c54d50fc83709b9b89
53736 F20101114_AABZBF fuhrman_n_Page_058.pro
384cd3b4d42db739b85e8e3000a68af4
ac3fecbcdcdee942e69ef21f13b5bd0ae1995b20
52908 F20101114_AABZAQ fuhrman_n_Page_039.pro
fd31a0e0dfd14595900a28727095829b
197eb13e00655b86202647bdfb22901f8ffdda4e
F20101114_AABYVK fuhrman_n_Page_024.tif
da2f7819c6f2660d8e388a3093b25b9d
9664acd989dd6b20179d57491428b3fcf1dd2d42
F20101114_AABYUW fuhrman_n_Page_007.tif
ac133241d5fb5532896a7be7b0906932
4e19c5362a387f1526bb31d6bcadd9c580b0ecd1
53581 F20101114_AABZBG fuhrman_n_Page_059.pro
d76cb29fee8de3fd53e36a3e49a2ec67
ee13969402f65fbc50362a74e9851a804c592df5
56478 F20101114_AABZAR fuhrman_n_Page_042.pro
4be7c4c7e097fe841cfe96695ad26660
a4d5e6750e67639631c4d28687891690d1afd423
F20101114_AABYWA fuhrman_n_Page_052.tif
56413bd3b415892886c26d34be6bae2e
a3d364aaa2538f30593c2cf2b524781a44700de8
F20101114_AABYVL fuhrman_n_Page_027.tif
a36d1ba539ce17fc1f0281962d363377
08af06892a5f27184bb326c4068b9a416a7f68c7
F20101114_AABYUX fuhrman_n_Page_008.tif
8e8965a7df00ad948f277906d3fef16b
0324a8de9e9d826f0c2e6ee80c042ae7a24d8e46
53783 F20101114_AABZBH fuhrman_n_Page_060.pro
5b27fa6bb1e88632d1286316d10df955
fd770e00cf117d517494dee04707945c5914c23a
52654 F20101114_AABZAS fuhrman_n_Page_043.pro
8a23112f5238b6999478a5806e45fd7b
d8f7fc8ba2d28437eafca6ab5d1f3c9d6d40aadd
F20101114_AABYWB fuhrman_n_Page_055.tif
fc8a44866f495c114af4cf390d909958
1488babbe680fb4119f613ee1c3354c85ebcbaa2
F20101114_AABYVM fuhrman_n_Page_028.tif
871930eaf5416d01e16379a7dd04df45
54baac4ee2e7f532b41bcbc6885e0cd456710c92
F20101114_AABYUY fuhrman_n_Page_010.tif
389e7585d0f3a6d5b57bfdadec0d2b83
728a038ce10d95f4b9e797f7bf71c1f1b967e532
55359 F20101114_AABZBI fuhrman_n_Page_061.pro
1cc9759b2fcf82d7b71ed1064ca57331
2dae58b6bf3ecf5b05164dd903b9be3412e422dc
55105 F20101114_AABZAT fuhrman_n_Page_044.pro
d178df99e4e260a375e02d4fbd8b1ed1
2ab286734e6d2ede60ac0d2a280f248b80a0581b
F20101114_AABYWC fuhrman_n_Page_056.tif
4c77910d85ec0ec8cecb6cd917dc30c8
13ebef12dd9d2902f61c8c5648dc4547c59f21dd
F20101114_AABYVN fuhrman_n_Page_029.tif
c3345487e3385d935da060d49e053120
5a64aff6ae855bd3f46bc0a8add50226ed431b09
F20101114_AABYUZ fuhrman_n_Page_011.tif
d10d20b686bf7273962e962346572527
4e2c0e246ec60426a77b987f556a353d59730212
54238 F20101114_AABZBJ fuhrman_n_Page_063.pro
23c5786b3316b7c73bc47678fc899d41
7b8958932f7c25d79be171cf0cb4d3ec3154a6fd
55845 F20101114_AABZAU fuhrman_n_Page_046.pro
6dceee1e3f3cc340769d4e338ae6c5d3
7f8f19d929a1ee594032e00f0a1387b740344ea8
F20101114_AABYWD fuhrman_n_Page_057.tif
7540aa5c2e52764522a1e4651f5eb2ca
3cff8c8fd86c716977b172a4e3b0e47757e70598
F20101114_AABYVO fuhrman_n_Page_030.tif
b7bc7251ae6d59393bf9087fe9644345
5e49d956fe9d54c8ce8c9e5cf0cca3a06c67c70c
55924 F20101114_AABZBK fuhrman_n_Page_065.pro
d0dfbce7ef4eff218bc609dbb26cbb84
798d4e861209839fa9edfa8182fa6b0b68fcff43
54026 F20101114_AABZAV fuhrman_n_Page_047.pro
a9879b100570c8319f1082798468bb6f
c0588125b2ee286b3da84fa777fa248e29e98369
F20101114_AABYWE fuhrman_n_Page_059.tif
d056f5117b9defacae757c8e623a44af
25c7fb3dc66000b88ed4559cf9a21c038c2b96b3
F20101114_AABYVP fuhrman_n_Page_031.tif
0fc13e4fcdc0429d09db3c51f89eea02
aa1dd300a1c7112cc8afc44eaedb731e53547667
53746 F20101114_AABZBL fuhrman_n_Page_066.pro
4cc870da44b3d05ac6cc0d81b3e9fe81
1a4b9c6f16605eb7546f2d047f2a55ffdf10d64f
57330 F20101114_AABZAW fuhrman_n_Page_048.pro
f76fd91344fa0967d1b27c997e1e6849
bf171feb9a7b882fdf419b1f36967331984fd740
F20101114_AABYWF fuhrman_n_Page_060.tif
943a80b8907f4405721a1b373f5af637
1bfea0410113013d12ffda2b38da1345496c7865
F20101114_AABYVQ fuhrman_n_Page_032.tif
10dccc66daad8f342ab3df1eae704ffd
6c6d8facc5c63108028da448334324641d0a7e62
58177 F20101114_AABZCA fuhrman_n_Page_090.pro
3458141714997161c70b0b975086c87f
f66fc3e5d747ff9df79b9f7b325f3ad74915356a
22039 F20101114_AABZBM fuhrman_n_Page_068.pro
b2a9e3cf47bd423b1461cb4b327c758d
0417e8b17dda81ef2fcbb001f765bc1f1897732d
58341 F20101114_AABZAX fuhrman_n_Page_049.pro
1e68f456b1ea65c241346c0499bc80d5
2711288b37e27fd6ca3259bd8a39f7e25df2fb02
F20101114_AABYVR fuhrman_n_Page_035.tif
8f6651d71a4bc91338d8527c689c2004
5d2183a22d70fa4d3d9a6cb2da25d52db5106b81
56213 F20101114_AABZCB fuhrman_n_Page_091.pro
34ec7f073a7063ef363d0b6c50541c7d
89ce0a4f7c327e74da29c64a2019bd2be860f16f
50376 F20101114_AABZBN fuhrman_n_Page_071.pro
2bdc3665867b5b21c36f8f2331a5cb7c
cac77a4d18b792b1cab2b6561e24f215f5657b29
61098 F20101114_AABZAY fuhrman_n_Page_050.pro
341729c76615a685fc2b56ecd77ff4c9
2e8e23ef03cce3b82a8eb5ce0d22c1b893a3eacc
F20101114_AABYWG fuhrman_n_Page_062.tif
3ef8772ea9236cd7995ebd39fd4c1bba
d284dc06abf5cccdfe1a75fe61bb111b0b148c8e
F20101114_AABYVS fuhrman_n_Page_037.tif
eb640b5f319226b31c2d7a709909b8da
16da84c643130d2cbf39dba6ed366d073ac8dc99
52999 F20101114_AABZCC fuhrman_n_Page_093.pro
fd6b327efbc904f8f5fd8eb660aeee91
aaadc84aa9d5469eb5e8ce4394ae7516747a79c0
55037 F20101114_AABZBO fuhrman_n_Page_073.pro
4f92bb0d17bb5fe6ceb7d5c70add0c7d
bf9f921de731032a58b000f51f7c551a315cf283
7208 F20101114_AABZAZ fuhrman_n_Page_051.pro
bdedd61babb8a736171530d8115ac069
6f599724ea2a960717dce51182bce70bf48acc5d
F20101114_AABYWH fuhrman_n_Page_064.tif
227a9c5a439cde3cf2771f5abd5c249a
63905d5c9d44400ddcbee682ce5f17482bb6982f
F20101114_AABYVT fuhrman_n_Page_038.tif
302e2236c09a4f583d10c4ed563c9fee
2251627ee3cdc0c595995b7da8168fc423fd2a42
52193 F20101114_AABZCD fuhrman_n_Page_094.pro
778ee20417e3c05a6c975678afd9d1cf
2470ff247b4755741fd8a16b897c272b558166ea
55809 F20101114_AABZBP fuhrman_n_Page_074.pro
7a4b5539e5c6925720c99551c527de31
d2044d63b3f7b14ccb01fca3498e60da33080fa7
F20101114_AABYWI fuhrman_n_Page_065.tif
861c432283bc573901e998efbcab16ac
d124e5c0b96ec9b0a61cae2507899fe3c5546deb
F20101114_AABYVU fuhrman_n_Page_039.tif
189636d55a4d72510ce2cfff76fa6e39
4b5ffd9932bfa2f826824a6db0250ec9f9410f8d
6859 F20101114_AABZCE fuhrman_n_Page_095.pro
8b800f9f2bc06a793bde1ef2e9a23ec0
8e74f5c27777c60edb65f5749c5d47525f8fad5a
F20101114_AABYWJ fuhrman_n_Page_067.tif
60b24c1b87f134527f1823d0e26c8a2e
feaf3ded0c4bc3774bff30975badd96ee30f7f9f
F20101114_AABYVV fuhrman_n_Page_041.tif
429f6eef31f4b37e126005d2c149a7a3
f7d6629b2a6d18fbb5e189d747a9b1cb7360055b
45381 F20101114_AABZCF fuhrman_n_Page_097.pro
dfc05a1001f98dc214a027f49d1dc20e
12383a6c705986f7358b51bd563a8ceab7cb1bb4
50890 F20101114_AABZBQ fuhrman_n_Page_076.pro
6396dc1b4bfd7d145d6e7361f4549093
f94f8ee3c3522a236783f6af1fe68002ad6f6302
25265604 F20101114_AABYWK fuhrman_n_Page_068.tif
6e77d71aa206100c06cc627399e78a49
c9326cf317fa02044ad835088ea3ddbb2b5ce513
F20101114_AABYVW fuhrman_n_Page_043.tif
01374ad5d4bc63869948d89d2b2d0049
2b1a4de523b821bfe26ab444e6602abb9cb4eada
40486 F20101114_AABZCG fuhrman_n_Page_098.pro
f347ec42840190573fade401d88a1a0c
9ba9ad66fe834df916784eaa88a4405a69d9c14f
40157 F20101114_AABZBR fuhrman_n_Page_077.pro
cdd36e30191fd9f1a1ea47a1da3fb27c
f4a0def3530e10b23350818199c42e19b6d48c0c
F20101114_AABYWL fuhrman_n_Page_069.tif
27de078e761bfdb710b506d898a197b9
8a851267bf1e69e5c777a9f7b52e7ddabc27deb0
F20101114_AABYVX fuhrman_n_Page_045.tif
69b0e832418a3cc695f1d9dfa5c25701
d4b7eafb74c833b2f62024168f427cc4792fc2ed
F20101114_AABYXA fuhrman_n_Page_088.tif
d9b6af7ac22693fbe4b0c1de739b5be7
67bd2d0bba83f6d7fedf7e56d01eff45a8b9cb6d
45122 F20101114_AABZCH fuhrman_n_Page_099.pro
dd87a0d15ebf957cad7baaa16f8a46d8
5b8ca2d10d344d087ff9ad6187348058ca996e52
51646 F20101114_AABZBS fuhrman_n_Page_080.pro
7be3cf92a00c9743415182eba62b9ad5
38276d0a7226f4b7eb260743a0c5df6ae20f233f
F20101114_AABYWM fuhrman_n_Page_070.tif
873d45a91bf1a59d8848475ca936c5ce
b1280464706e916dfe28e4686be9e68559a3986e
F20101114_AABYVY fuhrman_n_Page_046.tif
a26ccda37f2d5c256e29822f07ab29fe
2d97ceb1eba7d82b50c057d88713b398c4e976b0
F20101114_AABYXB fuhrman_n_Page_089.tif
327ff93783cbaca556f2845bb3e0faa2
556655df2bf1c2adb892395a4f371bb1ab27a913
43385 F20101114_AABZCI fuhrman_n_Page_101.pro
ae07429ba080ddc4b8b50be3cc044d7f
2a7b7c89f14cc8f9dcf11b06f8f7eb344432a561
55264 F20101114_AABZBT fuhrman_n_Page_081.pro
67dbf1fc3669c695e51d084aa80d1c59
eb19f89f694082d53d6c9b66d9e58b64bb96e87d
F20101114_AABYWN fuhrman_n_Page_073.tif
5a2b4b50288819e4eed70b0e1d4cb055
e514c82305fa3a75607f311019abda2e7fc9ca9b
F20101114_AABYVZ fuhrman_n_Page_050.tif
e7eed4f87e20c4a6d873cfb264a1cf26
d2308c57508b5558ece3d54b708d391d8a876d02
F20101114_AABYXC fuhrman_n_Page_090.tif
c9b0a81b0f8e2875d0bbfd1ffbd2b4d0
65872c2a8a4d9014043f95f29bea174f02421cbb
31883 F20101114_AABZCJ fuhrman_n_Page_102.pro
135f1bdaa25004bc3dfe249e12f88060
6c5d4b0eaa9a808704ee09d9d5a13cb5eacc3f8e
53691 F20101114_AABZBU fuhrman_n_Page_082.pro
8d2ac5306f080dac3b471d23bf524c86
24c1ba8890e6a8d126f79c1ced179c002d2fdbbb
F20101114_AABYWO fuhrman_n_Page_074.tif
ae29de1284fa961f7f3734ca8e3ff919
9585bfaf4833d778063e4dd0ee5356b057d6a6eb
F20101114_AABYXD fuhrman_n_Page_091.tif
89690d209aa80bc7c7e200f6026206e2
7c7b0dc7821c42907b9c136dbc6b7fcd643772e3
27058 F20101114_AABZCK fuhrman_n_Page_103.pro
6b10406373e6cc4d254b0760c7381a50
185f905eabc80b75e6a1a186a3eec0e782a115c8
55754 F20101114_AABZBV fuhrman_n_Page_083.pro
1e25aec5dd5ca643d77be5e2e8e8ef21
8eaf603116438f08d4a4ff575ce5b65001b1bc07
F20101114_AABYWP fuhrman_n_Page_075.tif
54f282f05d88cc95c88521d93085973a
b5ba0d8e5cd97163143f0f2f28aa46f8243e697a
F20101114_AABYXE fuhrman_n_Page_093.tif
871050e0276cabc21782a9487706899b
e2d92d7818f56184b69741a9d17927881cdd5dac
54330 F20101114_AABZCL fuhrman_n_Page_106.pro
73256ebfad25b3c795523c9fd1b8494c
918f4427a471f1cd01762da75d6f0107c552bf25
50285 F20101114_AABZBW fuhrman_n_Page_086.pro
e6b0fa241db1bb028d786bd44bc3f39f
bac283f758f5a43e24aa9cdaa6b54b105d679d8f
F20101114_AABYWQ fuhrman_n_Page_076.tif
fcb5352fc6817bed822f0b5e75ffbc1b
c61affd13ece008747b5b85b3f1a864da7096481
F20101114_AABYXF fuhrman_n_Page_094.tif
82e3eac3de63912057f8275341a5562b
fb438075bf9a21dc35205c2dcdca6e68b0b0bc11
53959 F20101114_AABZDA fuhrman_n_Page_126.pro
2f849c540cd810c535de220af917ab83
ed4740435328319b4741674deff9969211d860b1
49170 F20101114_AABZCM fuhrman_n_Page_108.pro
da4fd8acd2086601367f7ce33a99a042
431da786080675177a6290c7ba3fbad30c6b6c03
54684 F20101114_AABZBX fuhrman_n_Page_087.pro
652a8a10f6e97363ac56f36e9b73bbc6
246705f2d2781b8d2318f9f8536cb746fc16bb78
F20101114_AABYWR fuhrman_n_Page_078.tif
8576fd2365b7f8ef91c2c0a46bb57bca
d9b13e3e19909b80ea1f685f036e9bad571832d2
F20101114_AABYXG fuhrman_n_Page_095.tif
b5c968f31902b2ee3092367e3efa26e0
285ec18f4c0ec646e211217461a4a2f3782a8993
55813 F20101114_AABZDB fuhrman_n_Page_128.pro
64e0ea37c7f96bc851f19d1fc8e65548
3657b38ceceda088f3fc6c487496310fae811e73
27517 F20101114_AABZCN fuhrman_n_Page_109.pro
792702d3e15c4d1973960391039bd16f
7ca852b46ee12daa195a6090f8dd85c427d55064
50208 F20101114_AABZBY fuhrman_n_Page_088.pro
18b87853d00a643f0c5d296ad079f236
f254a3ce0838199448ee985bc511868fb5cac22e
F20101114_AABYWS fuhrman_n_Page_079.tif
8ecef9dd1cefece7f64c959b81662399
8684fbae4d1913b56e1541e8c6f4d1bcd951d204
56431 F20101114_AABZDC fuhrman_n_Page_129.pro
b2b47b91b554a96b5a74a89b58b12801
9044dc5976897e88850f1e9698ab9a339251cc03
52558 F20101114_AABZCO fuhrman_n_Page_111.pro
b275771c101eb79c43468f381cf644f5
1a807f98c8dca5f3d56401a2a27b5e7222f757e0
48760 F20101114_AABZBZ fuhrman_n_Page_089.pro
cd2c01cb477df3aba31da6e41e43710c
500a834f0b26c025593bdd2434f96cda31718f73
F20101114_AABYWT fuhrman_n_Page_080.tif
50010f32a81acef684fcd94b66ff9888
2b3de0f5059fe22be0ca23108a7631d23986b518
F20101114_AABYAA fuhrman_n_Page_040.tif
7b3f96014c97323ab568383965873c57
9674efb7f20b680ae5e3bf047b3397d81d1c6b74
F20101114_AABYXH fuhrman_n_Page_096.tif
eaba406c9fe2489a1de1026e681e6f8e
6881d6d7d06a0af430d8975a792f0434000c47ff
53685 F20101114_AABZDD fuhrman_n_Page_131.pro
e8f451b980c23a2b619fef0cb28bd90d
4893dd9756dc5045b06b4f22ff3aa298796e247b
50645 F20101114_AABZCP fuhrman_n_Page_113.pro
e1dc9bae0260d899c0a91a5f60886e45
5f2a497f2b68234300c30f9671845fefe6d60585
F20101114_AABYWU fuhrman_n_Page_081.tif
af842c449734ae56cc36a83e2de4b5b4
dc610984b6d48a127c555c67bfdef92b2b485cb1
21856 F20101114_AABYAB fuhrman_n_Page_067.QC.jpg
d91f1b4fbb4f0a8db24c86aa32652e92
ba4104e1b53823d46dcb86aaa8657cac0c50a5ad
F20101114_AABYXI fuhrman_n_Page_100.tif
b60984709ab9c0b30645c9ab58a397ef
693e717cefa4d2ecf0a778dd85a242b1bc35e122
61390 F20101114_AABZDE fuhrman_n_Page_132.pro
43abe82711a4bd5e95f7e02786437137
80f1ac1677eedd880a521b01e31b44210f5eed63
50556 F20101114_AABZCQ fuhrman_n_Page_115.pro
8ba6d13dd16acab3b4c2ec85c5a121ef
9e49fb524e8495ff332da1aab13bb2201fc4ca9a
F20101114_AABYWV fuhrman_n_Page_082.tif
86310f015acfa901de8697bb76176876
2bf0c99f47f28fa66155707a403312118d8b7628
117609 F20101114_AABYAC fuhrman_n_Page_073.jp2
e9f938d1ad082c6313c3b2afdc81a0d6
b8c697d2f74551fd1c01882249b56108191b8476
F20101114_AABYXJ fuhrman_n_Page_102.tif
ffe90dfba6e515a673f96ed45a5e4194
6fbda44822393df062a73f9f6c171b70dfe9d555
89731 F20101114_AABZDF fuhrman_n_Page_133.pro
ccfc5723c129ad15fc299b7c3b751e5e
31fe8e85c32ca6cadb5ebe949a3e6880570cdf9d
F20101114_AABYWW fuhrman_n_Page_083.tif
c02b6cdf27b91c52900cd180148cb072
002691b4e5aba29e8ce4079fbf078b8a56ba59ae
70192 F20101114_AABYAD fuhrman_n_Page_032.jpg
0da31daec2a1fdd73a62ebc0a32d1417
6e0aadac29619d04678e2d5064f6b4d362aa455a
F20101114_AABYXK fuhrman_n_Page_103.tif
f0a1de46f5fc755f55932d8b2116b5bd
cec77be571f9ca939fc851cb34808c70f6fb4088
5828 F20101114_AABZDG fuhrman_n_Page_136.pro
472be633cfb67a0da27095ef59b3cd4b
b6db8cc2087efc36442fc080eb009b80075ea063
52676 F20101114_AABZCR fuhrman_n_Page_116.pro
2c84cd275f57df25ab79f7730d8d3451
4b3832f7f87f45c9bdd1e7246d4398e7f8949a04
F20101114_AABYWX fuhrman_n_Page_085.tif
b8b654db7b4e4ab693c77efe40b9f895
568a63dfd4a1eaca2ebe0bbcb4a27e17f566742f
5348 F20101114_AABYAE fuhrman_n_Page_101thm.jpg
353b3bab8e542768a1a00fe76ec021cc
e4bb15815a96cad13413f7625bfc7e680ae944ec
F20101114_AABYYA fuhrman_n_Page_125.tif
8c84594861ebec7e8fb5d86d220ec431
611b26069d246113414d03e4e26060646b49748a
1054428 F20101114_AABYXL fuhrman_n_Page_106.tif
8617cb810e713d09ddd4d2dbcf464849
8f8045f60da45727d18331f18b73276ca3f63403
18420 F20101114_AABZDH fuhrman_n_Page_137.pro
295d3d3caae705ba7c3eda95e98e0123
c2d669137f71ab30dcfef2cf306515c4acacd3f9
51837 F20101114_AABZCS fuhrman_n_Page_117.pro
5a741ff3d1ae0ef80c089554c53a2072
d26449fead080e68c0651ce90fe5cc3702310737
F20101114_AABYWY fuhrman_n_Page_086.tif
623b723643db4a8912cc9352552bb44e
18d0abe4f42eb81f56b890b170bfd77c105618fd
53421 F20101114_AABYAF fuhrman_n_Page_019.pro
a358a8db029fd588dc0fb9d0cd9b064b
d7ee8cee6a92dfbcf5a91ac6c54a5e9ec9765101
F20101114_AABYYB fuhrman_n_Page_127.tif
64975e3625ad7f8753da3da551b68cae
2173260b61a694689050334ca77129359e7a819b
F20101114_AABYXM fuhrman_n_Page_107.tif
6d971250136aa61ee6314c99d5df8152
e4465c09503e928b6cf692393f02ff1d507c7837
49534 F20101114_AABZDI fuhrman_n_Page_138.pro
41c9326244db2b6eb2209a067058470e
52dcc84a86d63e81aac3dc24f91a690b82bea240
49641 F20101114_AABZCT fuhrman_n_Page_118.pro
de1fa8cf62debba0e16e83e412ed8496
28323fab03923b6eb0286df656a22b91dc95fa27
F20101114_AABYWZ fuhrman_n_Page_087.tif
a2b00698b5bba3d75c406573deaa10a9
a8fa0699e85a7b7b5e205d18684237b0e049f670
52079 F20101114_AABYAG fuhrman_n_Page_168.pro
ad1947e8ecb221a01d34e596468d4e02
b273acedb8976e66c5773896ba6f1da3e3be6916
6886 F20101114_AABXVA fuhrman_n_Page_060thm.jpg
ad18316560f9c18b6f85e68bf20acf31
7fc672433e5a4a3cd35ca8181a158a4d23e715bd
F20101114_AABYYC fuhrman_n_Page_128.tif
1b36fd385bc84095aec09d53370f3555
c32436bd8c689a872eaa91502d8960b31fc4ed19
F20101114_AABYXN fuhrman_n_Page_109.tif
0430260c4eabcb21d62574dce02fc6eb
beef659dfddadd3e467d8f2000ade521cf254c6d
63487 F20101114_AABZDJ fuhrman_n_Page_139.pro
e75ba8374dbc52c3b95ce3d055928e7e
3d6e22e8115c6fede4cfcd0a42b1ce27f5bc12da
F20101114_AABZCU fuhrman_n_Page_119.pro
4d8dfa5da0b08512523806c0b04ab856
51e72503fb622318bf47eac4faee74e91a60a04b
534 F20101114_AABYAH fuhrman_n_Page_105.txt
8d1f698a29fe2a227fdebdd626a24a31
cbc776606ab2b4975c99c304625da04f9a62462e
217 F20101114_AABXVB fuhrman_n_Page_141.txt
8e9ce4a2ddcbf11ff7216b96324f3f2b
e33d18009cd25482ded683159b03f6a3ad7a71af
F20101114_AABYYD fuhrman_n_Page_130.tif
8fc71a0530bbdeb3ff8da39f827ae6fd
f995c90b8338a95f2874db36885b97c0761eb658
F20101114_AABYXO fuhrman_n_Page_110.tif
02ca06a0c0d5e279b5bac3c72bc3e88b
a4decac84ae037b9a43544fab322164b94b9feac
20159 F20101114_AABZDK fuhrman_n_Page_140.pro
36c8ca9aef0a4e9160e19bde68c69103
9c1d4a34242d4753d59686c671420f69da9d4afe
55295 F20101114_AABZCV fuhrman_n_Page_120.pro
6d06096e11979ea2d4a1adb07c77a664
8816bcbd8e19b5f5e30202c6b100991bc2b0970e
F20101114_AABYAI fuhrman_n_Page_158.tif
89615af58be5ac42db2c37d3fdd2d078
2f40d6c6fbe5559e5e5031853758259324253e46
46749 F20101114_AABXVC fuhrman_n_Page_069.pro
39357bad457fa0cbcb890f3b0f4e8800
4d56d32b3772c5ab1903935c95d89643a98a1d0e
F20101114_AABYYE fuhrman_n_Page_131.tif
ac9e423ead32f4948807d54019f59dd8
465aeea9af1e5b04d5a933e91c3930aa6e2a06ce
F20101114_AABYXP fuhrman_n_Page_111.tif
6f929502f4341edf153834234021f391
d98b83aba1701978f6f357edb0e6d1840cce7b32
3592 F20101114_AABZDL fuhrman_n_Page_141.pro
abb8d4e630f0f647969e49fa94e98eb0
06736cd1152a7cb2223e4e83fe6a6c88ebc7f2c9
F20101114_AABZCW fuhrman_n_Page_121.pro
0f6d28b1291f4fec64bae93b772f426a
414bcfa2785af491539262a0b77feafac1b0b14a
24136 F20101114_AABYAJ fuhrman_n_Page_115.QC.jpg
62ad9a4b9411b7ae5772e25ce91827b3
21d7217ea47cd7b3f10f7a4156a8259133e20779
49834 F20101114_AABXVD fuhrman_n_Page_040.pro
649432d66a72b7154f63a3051ac5313a
b4dec8bbf04df49b00a901b56f1dc13b93f90622
F20101114_AABYYF fuhrman_n_Page_133.tif
ddac11b9745b590e1928e074b94e2398
3e8331fa64b11df5eb6188ff97a35fe7229197d7
F20101114_AABYXQ fuhrman_n_Page_112.tif
faa47042212c055dc28b64f6dce0e670
aef0696f1def222751d74969e473578a88f6eb40
57616 F20101114_AABZEA fuhrman_n_Page_162.pro
65da4c47239832b8e16d6f88adb43651
a8655d0720de152194c63a0accd42ba79beb3b45
26029 F20101114_AABZDM fuhrman_n_Page_142.pro
0e9a174642e999afbda1cd7fcec35829
b81ae4aa7e3b9ab83e286bad99cb03ade1358336
50316 F20101114_AABZCX fuhrman_n_Page_122.pro
25d0e0f815ffaa345b884cacde7d89b9
95e6c2b3a4a81c1acd58d44ed2610b959dcee1b4
5593 F20101114_AABYAK fuhrman_n_Page_147thm.jpg
63483c95b36a6edae926d5d301f82db1
a2448490fcc760845d6d4761e37049b6dcf3ff89
F20101114_AABXVE fuhrman_n_Page_033.tif
c71edee7f0169b5347a7a154e29f2bb3
b876ffcecef4eef230e33305851b66e11087f638
F20101114_AABYYG fuhrman_n_Page_134.tif
fe71377eef53cf99f243d9b82a280a14
f40f96fe14735edc3d1d7ffdf5b245cdad59eac5
F20101114_AABYXR fuhrman_n_Page_113.tif
8c4ab40fb99944814553304daf88f5e1
44219c2028ba82542de7584f07cb26ac9b5db6f8
52019 F20101114_AABZEB fuhrman_n_Page_165.pro
5603ac62c781a34ab0297cb47300eeb1
5d7eb5ec92d67e6dc650ada1ff48f74f278b4ef7
41195 F20101114_AABZDN fuhrman_n_Page_143.pro
1eb40c9186316b7c958992e4b9888642
f8792df3df3777ba4e6ef5da41f871ceb98bde4e
82864 F20101114_AABZCY fuhrman_n_Page_123.pro
89a02f1e8c17e65015fcf7fea3cb678d
43c99633c906652c9d276a8efadaf69d42f1f897
60873 F20101114_AABYAL fuhrman_n_Page_096.jpg
a031556d07aba3f2d35b528149f5d7e7
1c5cc4de14811faa5f77cfe70a13ce39d8659d16
2242 F20101114_AABXVF fuhrman_n_Page_085.txt
78993a00947d1c68b25d92ec06fe45f4
63f053fee0d2d40b18ab3826fe671a1ee7306172
F20101114_AABYYH fuhrman_n_Page_135.tif
5d1b3c7707850b7d1e1e97c5a2a21849
b791806e5071af62a24bef89ff87af156eb5a9d3
F20101114_AABYXS fuhrman_n_Page_114.tif
eeb9463576c646430b6fc358d9c988f4
7d150b0947725268659862fa30126379a55e15c0
55007 F20101114_AABZEC fuhrman_n_Page_166.pro
2b4d82ab0c6558180cfd2409b5a1e788
2bfaff478b8c920488763641cc0713d593141622
24980 F20101114_AABZDO fuhrman_n_Page_144.pro
94080012d9087a3ca85f0da2ad91bf3f
19531486a9d93bde27044e9dcee0cf48b7451738
56488 F20101114_AABZCZ fuhrman_n_Page_124.pro
a892410b490c82afd4d11a332ad6037a
839979a40e02308a79119b519f9c875cfe6410b6
16110 F20101114_AABYAM fuhrman_n_Page_164.QC.jpg
61402cf1b67e531fece20d22b3f20427
5ad94d3ca37e1a2252c8ed761f58f2b79ce46a8c
F20101114_AABYXT fuhrman_n_Page_115.tif
eca5ea1825db7b280d29dfa23d95936f
8fcf6e6211b0cc28ac1d778851ab4236d5d521bc
41171 F20101114_AABYBA fuhrman_n_Page_174.jpg
62f37cdf3aba66bf202524e63ff03d33
875c15e03bb5b905fea21a19a555acf3e63d02cc
53158 F20101114_AABZED fuhrman_n_Page_170.pro
c89b981d849d925b376e6c9b892f747a
5ceed2d3da9878a365db420cb25525de0ef961aa
28157 F20101114_AABZDP fuhrman_n_Page_146.pro
2e3f23be36853fcd82ac4caf33ff445b
283e62112c7131391cf80d79329d99fdf04ac597
122765 F20101114_AABYAN fuhrman_n_Page_035.jp2
705312a7e190d13be42b41b7813f669e
f07d04c73bfdcf9ec6be98d3d8cd4c82f785a290
F20101114_AABXVG fuhrman_n_Page_166.tif
5a2603a9fd5f203cd4b50851436a04eb
e27d3a7b771e0707a3bbe725966ae06e9c30772d
F20101114_AABYYI fuhrman_n_Page_137.tif
609652211417e861213f65f813b643c4
6665956ea11d6d0c5222af11bfa436b427ea0bae
F20101114_AABYXU fuhrman_n_Page_117.tif
d01d2b1d70555e6306c8aea3ada01ab7
eb3f0af24b4b84d228c0f0afda0039a66bc78dd6
23603 F20101114_AABYBB fuhrman_n_Page_040.QC.jpg
6649866e3f9df075c7dd45e7b4864943
8cfc231879369ad556492dd95cc639b73dbec1b7
52366 F20101114_AABZEE fuhrman_n_Page_171.pro
097e7b115a4b20a5880335a3ac597ba1
5611b013415f0e23dc00de3b2489d3dfd1425cfe
24953 F20101114_AABZDQ fuhrman_n_Page_147.pro
d15168f3d674ef5e9b96d20a601bd6f5
6b03601cc0990516c5dd42bac5b1aac2b930bce0
5802 F20101114_AABYAO fuhrman_n_Page_077thm.jpg
b0713088a19fe84907b193e2a26a49fe
7cc8264bbf35c31b7eb7b91071a5c199d764eb46
36492 F20101114_AABXVH fuhrman_n_Page_164.pro
ea891a86ea7be220ec438f68a92b03c9
de92c299b6253c7a2ab5035abe97701f96e83f70
8423998 F20101114_AABYYJ fuhrman_n_Page_139.tif
c0fee4daac3e46230e4d31b0a3562042
94b743bda7852b4314ca9016b2eb69c1f24e6a1f
28484 F20101114_AABXUT fuhrman_n_Page_135.QC.jpg
b54f874d3d5b2c1442a73ffd5e036fbe
11fc34215411b36292e975478eaffdab2d3fcb4d
F20101114_AABYXV fuhrman_n_Page_118.tif
81b23b5f61c1eb9ca8feaa8b7cbd102d
59b283ab2987d28bae3bd7f33712ee59d4db44c6
F20101114_AABYBC fuhrman_n_Page_101.tif
3bcd2cd7a3eafcd234bd2b5c1ba1c5c5
c832d34c0e5ac0479fff8e71ff5984eedf52c345
58507 F20101114_AABZEF fuhrman_n_Page_172.pro
2e6e4942577029f3432018d1ac8bc481
7a94f6ffeb9d3a44250f49da33e5ee045959778c
34650 F20101114_AABZDR fuhrman_n_Page_150.pro
e4fe8b52bed0d92b8403d0e53c83134d
540ab57d1b691055077b9a6bf9be825923783e2d
24985 F20101114_AABYAP fuhrman_n_Page_111.QC.jpg
ad5ca8fac0e671eb62d19175c09449d6
73c777cca9e576b69304dabbf55a98f2e0e4bd79
105203 F20101114_AABXVI fuhrman_n_Page_032.jp2
59d02bb7b5882ee8ee14d2925ec47f73
e6ba11c10787e0d948f650c700c76e564ef831ba
F20101114_AABYYK fuhrman_n_Page_141.tif
08177c2a92f1b7cfeacfa4ab945a1c07
d09b9654e99ef75198ac78155d58c7fc1dea45f7
20131 F20101114_AABXUU fuhrman_n_Page_110.jpg
6e99dfa64564446ea4afba63b1cea9a1
0c402b67ac0bef6840d18604b6b54427ba533346
F20101114_AABYXW fuhrman_n_Page_119.tif
4d28ef05a7b744bf2d4172dac0c0cecf
fba30ddafca39560baf912fc343882debe86d76a
115945 F20101114_AABYBD fuhrman_n_Page_018.jp2
23d65af9df0ad5013fa6214e36b06559
a7a78e302a7554c676b1bfab737b73f2024e53b0
25815 F20101114_AABZEG fuhrman_n_Page_174.pro
0023230fcdd98f2df3d34a6983785cb0
7f931bc3f40463504671aa5827cb7165b2610bed
F20101114_AABYZA fuhrman_n_Page_168.tif
016cf0967bb120f6f2a6b1c36f56fc4d
93c08cdfcfc854bbcd8ac6324a555204171bc370
12571 F20101114_AABXVJ fuhrman_n_Page_105.pro
e3ff1cbee0687b8d49cd42e1d60ee269
4c1bb32fb79dcd1ccc7ee4e883f05cbe126be732
F20101114_AABYYL fuhrman_n_Page_142.tif
ee97728e2b0f0a25d551d0fa4aa55d5e
a7f41f106446c1041547ee46419136e35caea75c
2316 F20101114_AABXUV fuhrman_n_Page_027.txt
d88f987814012509c217571ff6437dfe
73bb5dc1e5e364432003d3a9af3888fcee67e291
F20101114_AABYXX fuhrman_n_Page_122.tif
b528b14399ac2087b9f5b20b4fd0c656
2d3bc900fa87776fce38be20e6c9db8702df9816
97895 F20101114_AABYBE fuhrman_n_Page_067.jp2
7d0d57ce84df10269768efd420ba840c
6a8f59390c9511d543d4fded4ee6056e20553f43
57564 F20101114_AABZEH fuhrman_n_Page_176.pro
f039ed581b7074d4b6caf3bb15f70c38
a4c8932704430f284d5a71bd71c9ade8f72dbd01
20042 F20101114_AABZDS fuhrman_n_Page_152.pro
721dbdbe8560cc4ddf5f034324383751
56a3b85a44ec83929467b1fa24a292b10ef99017
F20101114_AABYZB fuhrman_n_Page_169.tif
63f54775ba03eca3c2964e50bd25bb08
ae1be99b1e72319f13090164686db8205b4aeaac
1990 F20101114_AABYAQ fuhrman_n_Page_086.txt
16dda4b9f619ef87c5baea06b3cea274
8f99a537d7890be07c0fc4b045a7f8b1ab1cc541
3269 F20101114_AABXVK fuhrman_n_Page_107thm.jpg
6172f96a5d77e512235c02cfd5ee2c85
b91b2b8afca5bb2ffec1cb11d6b09adf72290ef1
F20101114_AABYYM fuhrman_n_Page_144.tif
2636d4fe85f63d342bc5991c53812cc2
bd548966b77437cf34ffa87fb2692aceb55b6123
6934 F20101114_AABXUW fuhrman_n_Page_126thm.jpg
77fdd882fb270bdbc4b9e47d64319198
d947d7118f974df36ea2a48162df3cdccd433836
F20101114_AABYXY fuhrman_n_Page_123.tif
8679eef25e540a4757b439fc74a409ae
459261029d7e45bd6aa53c65aeea26bfd912a531
42187 F20101114_AABYBF fuhrman_n_Page_100.pro
6101fedb85d2c1c7e5279357e78b62a0
1a39f735988664d473aafa50cc2fc6cbea39687c
63768 F20101114_AABZEI fuhrman_n_Page_177.pro
75961f7b51526dad82f13be44e4bb61e
f5c1d88837847f4b48778176429674a11e48c425
3671 F20101114_AABZDT fuhrman_n_Page_153.pro
e3af1f80e5c1c18cc2db455b5438d6b3
3fffc44a59601b22b72aaca5e282f43c95332fba
F20101114_AABYZC fuhrman_n_Page_170.tif
65fa3be8e9d10286ee308150ae72879d
bb64e6d23654f489a31b884d09e4b870daea98fb
25982 F20101114_AABYAR fuhrman_n_Page_024.QC.jpg
4c8323eb9c66a33c17efccdd78536159
871e7ad04b9b25aa147a6b974a0b1c74f20e3150
74317 F20101114_AABXVL fuhrman_n_Page_114.jpg
5b8f42618a5fe27901e287c08b4b0346
06e0342bd658017302839237e93595360df109ee
F20101114_AABYYN fuhrman_n_Page_145.tif
1e13238a16838fda6522fa2e856100ab
b82853b497e86b2a60835deff400decd4efa6175
966 F20101114_AABXUX fuhrman_n_Page_002.pro
fc3161a2919ab49442d829547368a709
6a604802fa1cfa99cfcf275065cee936a7262aed
F20101114_AABYXZ fuhrman_n_Page_124.tif
16bfe699b41cccbe7f5aeeebb19b1fef
b696682f6f45001cb680dc082d008db71aba3318
75949 F20101114_AABYBG fuhrman_n_Page_011.jpg
b41231db2fd9f730acb350e374258852
fa63f8f741d26903b2cc1fd20cf6d6c04852a69e
6694 F20101114_AABXWA fuhrman_n_Page_029thm.jpg
6f001ad404d15d121629aaec0bc81b53
61219921c02e660203bf5b64523ffbf736928d8f
59669 F20101114_AABZEJ fuhrman_n_Page_178.pro
dfad92547987ce8fb7b38b7ebbf2269f
c11c0877348c9133fd26fc3f4031e16d726a946b
6482 F20101114_AABZDU fuhrman_n_Page_154.pro
e9f73653a527b92b1ce396d57d99e090
95d082f6df6bb5976a8a66ba0339b61a5dede789
F20101114_AABYZD fuhrman_n_Page_171.tif
3b81aeb458e4dda6b539c1db2a4ee8f1
61ce5a3a0b5fb1e7c17281dc858fc58bcc77abcb
F20101114_AABXVM fuhrman_n_Page_092.tif
99466e14bb038cebe9625a563e54f0fc
85885cbc5ae62facf052286241befffae4b8ab7b
F20101114_AABYYO fuhrman_n_Page_146.tif
4fedd5efc68a6baf27d41b3ffff2ea3b
b58de0b5ec6bef80a3be752136eec83b0093fb67
116427 F20101114_AABXUY fuhrman_n_Page_029.jp2
ac65cd3bee34f843c3ef09aa422d2d8d
eae3014bbe5a03210147e9405239cbb260d8d361
F20101114_AABYBH fuhrman_n_Page_061.tif
ffe01122aa9b197e62f6f4cf5018f57a
9c057144f1ca3177e2a4096b0f851fdf928be961
2377 F20101114_AABXWB fuhrman_n_Page_100.txt
09f6dd40d57d977cbe918e4f481c0b41
fc7b3a36f9f412d5a9adb5a2f7d4b670e528d80b
F20101114_AABYAS fuhrman_n_Page_013.tif
f9c4e1e8086327747050d17d5c09d91a
12aac6be5620898f625af645179c40f1a5b110e2
60681 F20101114_AABZEK fuhrman_n_Page_180.pro
46490c8c75cfb5e0f892fca7697ba989
0c74289fb25f30a8bc89b7c10a21ff8f32da96a1
3072 F20101114_AABZDV fuhrman_n_Page_155.pro
65a9d575dc27e9e22a00af96787de7b1
2bc10206588c772ee2eeeabdd68f29dbca180dab
F20101114_AABYZE fuhrman_n_Page_174.tif
f1645f11545ebb2af847787efeb94b0b
e7fa07550931f0cfc498dff2f853150b6fb42181
55795 F20101114_AABXVN fuhrman_n_Page_062.pro
5bcddbc3dee2b6ac52204857124ebb6e
3a882148ae3af8cb0624d654e540ccb5f01aeca5
F20101114_AABYYP fuhrman_n_Page_147.tif
761a86c0f5bb3914bd83a352282f2151
828798dfc988830470f13af919ccab29d5ca6ed2
26219 F20101114_AABXUZ fuhrman_n_Page_083.QC.jpg
499130e76885054f6048d7ae3c6a70e1
1ec229e52012ac13892050a8ef2e1099acbc29bc
6619 F20101114_AABYBI fuhrman_n_Page_064thm.jpg
d77d4c4d048124f13413efacec85933d
5a875463e663ba59138db0cccbea6b48295aa1ff
5664 F20101114_AABXWC fuhrman_n_Page_099thm.jpg
0e5545f3332726397c0b5d02473a011f
35f0b64ef729ebf35d5a7e3e05686b9222136f11
2058 F20101114_AABYAT fuhrman_n_Page_076.txt
e8c415eaf3fdc8d0262287f1bcf7fd7c
136809872f233e327606a0ee5de9fe2771520860
36688 F20101114_AABZEL fuhrman_n_Page_181.pro
97b97a76219166acebe73a83c3b340e8
091398fba96e5f0dcd884b31fe3e30b26779e183
2192 F20101114_AABZDW fuhrman_n_Page_157.pro
fdb9d149e4dd2c6f4561bb9672f0b541
405fc951a1159906b8e27c6f42e4bef085bbaabc
F20101114_AABYZF fuhrman_n_Page_175.tif
24d06f8e6fd6b93d9143dc2947bddf8a
9e27da48c2f4edacee651bd2fda5b2160afd190b
2436 F20101114_AABXVO fuhrman_n_Page_050.txt
cf5dad07271a3235f75962e6340042fa
16aa65f72f88aad1490f123b295b3ed90ef9a6d8
F20101114_AABYYQ fuhrman_n_Page_148.tif
2e5a0f48e7c92904ee70a495c0028783
ef6db0ab347c0ebefd54251d9d493b6ec0e638f9
24749 F20101114_AABYBJ fuhrman_n_Page_116.QC.jpg
ed766d8c9895c3aed4479259260d14e8
b8a18760f782cad9914c835526cc29e81503e3d9
49180 F20101114_AABXWD fuhrman_n_Page_130.pro
061b9d7423982e298b07d6bc4e4f6b79
dfd558e6e7b067525a2e5cc422916b16608571f8
52858 F20101114_AABYAU fuhrman_n_Page_078.pro
0a5633e8dcdb5acc321bea49515ed6a5
611456fd288b3ff8121bbc872963725d2cb81780
2148 F20101114_AABZFA fuhrman_n_Page_025.txt
85869eea3b2e3f21a47f7efc96c7da6f
69de2087fbecde15639d15a25e9e6693dc4e2b22
516 F20101114_AABZEM fuhrman_n_Page_001.txt
791b33c679f7da0192399a8c0ac27593
679db60d6ad4c4cf8a5dd0226128c2ff3a188b6a
49116 F20101114_AABZDX fuhrman_n_Page_158.pro
b2eedd8c01143cebf3d55a06618f1633
c6857fea14efd48d68086e9785fd02ef5b6ff088
F20101114_AABYZG fuhrman_n_Page_177.tif
07e31e182981fa95d7d7daaababd8dd5
4a4fd6ff6a81263ce4e1f3899e08bd2e8d0f091d
1973 F20101114_AABXVP fuhrman_n_Page_040.txt
530448665a7a2df20d9f0a81cc93f42e
d2e12ffe98334cc90820d61ec47a118120b4f5ee
F20101114_AABYYR fuhrman_n_Page_149.tif
8d753bd5247f5925524188da02d302bd
3e7105a9fa8a01253dc8e7344ce2b26741a32994
25583 F20101114_AABYBK fuhrman_n_Page_169.QC.jpg
602f54ae3b97200dfcccfe503a4c3180
cd6b22115783559aad0fd9b48e5eeafcce979626
106269 F20101114_AABXWE fuhrman_n_Page_158.jp2
a4f9fc3f9d8d9780415d713cbbfd3573
61c2a484a220062d114453c6334ff272fe654b43
6291 F20101114_AABYAV fuhrman_n_Page_076thm.jpg
1b29a8e97c33c18251ccc89cde7d5443
92015399dd95cd8f1a50cf7a8cae75900a2914f3
2178 F20101114_AABZFB fuhrman_n_Page_026.txt
85c66fe4ba356d773a553bf2e11fe2bd
55e3df60ebbbf7f2e46a610fcb60c438f988e069
232 F20101114_AABZEN fuhrman_n_Page_003.txt
87a2665df5fc62e2714423cad50bd824
cf386152148f1b1bf97ebf65792892029dac5e04
39883 F20101114_AABZDY fuhrman_n_Page_159.pro
1169cac741f75a3346a4490f86829019
f3c52efef104de63b2b1865f5de1d430bf89e9fb
F20101114_AABYZH fuhrman_n_Page_179.tif
16af0a6d44280f16377e97ea35eb62fd
9b63493160b3ebb96af61887f8504980f62c0186
71068 F20101114_AABXVQ fuhrman_n_Page_130.jpg
a1276eeebcbe722871e6b78ca21b7118
5292e7a92a0e49a8bbbedc81ae8e6436547a1566
F20101114_AABYYS fuhrman_n_Page_151.tif
6b159a9668f9b8c86f33bb4b7ca7caff
4a1100221717c29ce980b4a9a570ef3f56836135
2122 F20101114_AABYBL fuhrman_n_Page_093.txt
d4a6741a3d074f6edc119486a75c07c1
c6bad2b56f4453244995d441905b99a01f7d876c
12651 F20101114_AABXWF fuhrman_n_Page_156.QC.jpg
f8165b44ac8ffa7d81b4d0a2300c91de
19dde9968d383b955b6e62e844db677b83173189
3563 F20101114_AABYAW fuhrman_n_Page_133.txt
da915bcf0820fe7b36656e7740bc82de
5dc1164c75b5bd278bab7ffb99330cde93ac7d39
2356 F20101114_AABZFC fuhrman_n_Page_028.txt
69c237f3fbb5c11a804daba237b792f5
594d19cfdb4c7bb11856a658e1e64f11160a712f
2223 F20101114_AABZEO fuhrman_n_Page_004.txt
7bd6ddef4e1ae0216f908323557a4f01
51e124092f12f94ebf777ee6a75fbaac7380c06b
49450 F20101114_AABZDZ fuhrman_n_Page_161.pro
f2e59cf45f9a898b04b3844b0c5ac280
615c568207556a52ab22a4070597a3c5fe87d62c
F20101114_AABYZI fuhrman_n_Page_180.tif
74407ca820853802bc77fc26f5f18f6e
1e12cca53a908683d49f407f6f935b0ab7225f21
25535 F20101114_AABXVR fuhrman_n_Page_065.QC.jpg
1b9521e6be2291a2a82fb4bd20036cde
1bf4f905e1802e00ac52dc40a550acd50bed0c33
F20101114_AABYYT fuhrman_n_Page_156.tif
73419d1a7d5071f893c32d3cc50841ba
514102a5718b6cc2c9db0d294789e5c07c9391b4
54252 F20101114_AABYCA fuhrman_n_Page_070.pro
4cdd2d596d4328bb1306c91d7926d667
8951b1d79b144f500cc4e93f0b7dd81353fe7ab1
2375 F20101114_AABYBM fuhrman_n_Page_011.txt
869e5cd8c23860bfbf357dc88db3a3ac
04a1dfb4b304b683ad262be900717a8f54574bcc
7018 F20101114_AABXWG fuhrman_n_Page_081thm.jpg
cc30a26e532956ddb63a9298bcd88e95
954748a5c2856fae377c5c3581a6adcd070ecb6b
28565 F20101114_AABYAX fuhrman_n_Page_009.QC.jpg
30459085c48c21e39085b6b0aa9f68b1
f0c0c4cb7133f9ee9a450846103ef3958df78e73
2201 F20101114_AABZFD fuhrman_n_Page_029.txt
304701a324775448211a8c2a7152ebfe
9ccbdff3052eff66da8dcd930f3499fa1e1aabe8
3758 F20101114_AABZEP fuhrman_n_Page_006.txt
72e1bd9da39fac38134d4a56d171c687
8f1641818637bced7a3f5aae21b5db3a2a714469
7919 F20101114_AABXVS fuhrman_n_Page_105.QC.jpg
6edbab37164e8d888c2d002b14cdefdc
9077b0b976ad0b0fa8c4cc60a2244f8251527b1f
F20101114_AABYYU fuhrman_n_Page_157.tif
a09df31761aabe5b4c54f4297e73edfd
a9bd0fc95d5f0790b4c6d41c02af33458ba357a3
F20101114_AABYCB fuhrman_n_Page_007.jp2
95176bb29e09272a4f41b25957fc83d4
7d8c2364391af3f3ab1ab64dc0df17aecf02422a
F20101114_AABYBN fuhrman_n_Page_108.tif
de84eca197109b8c77bf5987423cd4f8
42a7ab068cfe581a9570e5bd6a7e2a81b4ba6040
62426 F20101114_AABYAY fuhrman_n_Page_135.pro
c880d88f3aa476e965315b24cfb13479
a112610c3d55765ea62c7a57b192a880dc8cdd84
187 F20101114_AABZFE fuhrman_n_Page_030.txt
6639bed911be716a95ca51496a4dda2c
f70165c8d9908dc03da05b60335d9ab281af8bd8
5059 F20101114_AABZEQ fuhrman_n_Page_007.txt
a1837f8c74752831d4e994c6b2f60499
f6b1780f598ed13017206cb6ad471402cee53ec7
F20101114_AABYZJ fuhrman_n_Page_181.tif
ed898081194d0f031ca4bddf2f9ee447
a8d3585e85454303502d4ef2075f30cad2025869
38199 F20101114_AABXVT fuhrman_n_Page_145.jpg
2783ed5b396d64314c7a0f9f3ddf3b8c
932ecf8adf384ff063524b1eede518d20c4a0a16
F20101114_AABYYV fuhrman_n_Page_159.tif
d0903d7cddaf44a38e8dacdf8be31d9f
9c4642587fcc15079dda5c0e8de8d3fd4653e423
F20101114_AABYCC fuhrman_n_Page_010.jp2
128fe4fd2c38255602ef365d2c8ade2f
c01f78e0598dfd631cd7f3040f2ce39a62f785da
5333 F20101114_AABYBO fuhrman_n_Page_098thm.jpg
703855b0457e0c59d7f61b61a3a334c1
028d366ba4c2c55ecaabf3ef3dc12a7df617111b
58253 F20101114_AABXWH fuhrman_n_Page_125.pro
48a88dd0cb582ab6246d28bc7a5bb173
2772052abab39822dc097d8248e2c2ea721c7e6c
24568 F20101114_AABYAZ fuhrman_n_Page_034.QC.jpg
72f6af36fc1abe77a506d80cc8fcd3f0
0a5a125c4e6ca1654305105dd6549b8e4367a5ea
165 F20101114_AABZFF fuhrman_n_Page_031.txt
df506615be02b23c9729ce9410abefc7
feb2cfd1b4162e0d54ec52198cd3c9388049e6ef
4928 F20101114_AABZER fuhrman_n_Page_008.txt
5fd3fc3f1557283f1438d14acf90cf29
c2e4b6be71ad9b19682c244e3f39b11883006826
F20101114_AABYZK fuhrman_n_Page_182.tif
664166ee9870d9cec6a322368d1afa33
fb9a9f23581ba5cfbca1453b02813a2be7818fac
73948 F20101114_AABXVU fuhrman_n_Page_064.jpg
43feb7f6f07164279f472c58f2d25661
ca1139b0114314806e801fc4547749d2acad7da3
F20101114_AABYYW fuhrman_n_Page_160.tif
2ea193a3d669614cf4fdf7090a0588db
acaef0f678d872f57555a2fcd9edfa8790b81169
1286 F20101114_AABYCD fuhrman_n_Page_142.txt
a686f3bcceded088284ff5364d2323c7
94bd8e3a2b81d30aba95999fd83f766833eac9f0
4006 F20101114_AABYBP fuhrman_n_Page_155thm.jpg
8bed1545c83b3e35287f6b9c23b5d9d6
06dd9e11a9416904cf7adf402d1ae1e0ecc12b05
F20101114_AABXWI fuhrman_n_Page_049.tif
7110fbf368265f73fc2d17897ffa5bac
3b768d108c65da1c5e6939660c19e588f37f4370
2265 F20101114_AABZFG fuhrman_n_Page_033.txt
c7b70847984d0169c0d8922773fb2dc5
fdbbb96a60987e2e286f19f4b7c5b961f6e882d9
3123 F20101114_AABZES fuhrman_n_Page_010.txt
5364e8736ba9b1284cc77d4a9cd15e73
f918535afa6b6dd4ad3c026887b0f047e2b1c927
9482 F20101114_AABYZL fuhrman_n_Page_001.pro
e1904038c28888444da32b2ab9d1dd04
111ccd8a5df27cd535694b89f66e1fb7d0630813
2088 F20101114_AABXVV fuhrman_n_Page_043.txt
ad8dd3fe835aaaaf9c1887147c58b253
e7308072580b84ea70d044e6a8efced894a05d91
F20101114_AABYYX fuhrman_n_Page_162.tif
91fdaa9a67210eacca9b5741bcdb3606
90262314c3a5cec74a9547a6749eef0ec697059e
F20101114_AABYCE fuhrman_n_Page_066.tif
79150ad0a079e8e2238f2535b9abb48d
a566325aec5de331e9eb0665e26fc41046a6485a
6925 F20101114_AABYBQ fuhrman_n_Page_046thm.jpg
5857ed98b0275673c64b330f78783ba7
4b80af5a1f6680922288fafe731608e7b2ac2fb8
79752 F20101114_AABXWJ fuhrman_n_Page_101.jp2
f4a983ae78a7e2eebbde65813fff8acb
6205a9779ba4329fd7be96d5d916922d466f0d8e
2056 F20101114_AABZFH fuhrman_n_Page_034.txt
1b63cb6f28ff90d8a188d07bbb45265e
d7f313a0ab3920fa83371a9df4798c7800646b40
4307 F20101114_AABYZM fuhrman_n_Page_003.pro
c45b51d5b8eb29f28cc48ee832871323
5d788b772b23b0a28a77f78de70b697b653b564e
2128 F20101114_AABXVW fuhrman_n_Page_126.txt
65509b4b67dc99f8dc05a46593b4eb88
6ad7be88641a990432f2f18fcd51645d0927db6a
F20101114_AABYYY fuhrman_n_Page_164.tif
8528903bc2b8c98074457c989138b61f
1d5ef8332f6940cb8cef18e59a58f46894cb4401
41264 F20101114_AABYCF fuhrman_n_Page_156.jpg
59f6f85c79da329f5079b23d551e0ca1
f3ff0962a180654f2a4a489dd063d143d624e4da
25615 F20101114_AABXWK fuhrman_n_Page_025.QC.jpg
7d4f1c7d42eae7d41a87d79a778be961
ad332c7db4d818410ea72678dbcb2a54eca7d826
F20101114_AABZFI fuhrman_n_Page_038.txt
d7b4730026d9ed92a2009dbad9e7aa68
d309bf7b3e9680b27e217f639e54b5cf43cac39c
606 F20101114_AABZET fuhrman_n_Page_012.txt
dab88c7d898a7b7c633a30b0709e431a
e8ac7a9fbf714f3248d494653ae8c925543a2f7b
55821 F20101114_AABYZN fuhrman_n_Page_004.pro
5f6b07efe19258e9e3f86fdf432cefd8
21ab544eeaa944e9f71fed89b2aaef107312a1db
F20101114_AABYYZ fuhrman_n_Page_165.tif
1559a10c67d8bad8379fd29f388cf13f
c574969109289a39f52ba229c86371aca0aab4c0
F20101114_AABXVX fuhrman_n_Page_143.tif
e972c4a2834094fd58dde9f64e3908f1
9fcc745bbef2423fbdcac2de336a333e02e6032f
19258 F20101114_AABYCG fuhrman_n_Page_143.QC.jpg
45f89b059824976b4c2715746b1671e3
08c58b5b1804bac4e69598c59b6b0e72bcf7e344
2261 F20101114_AABXXA fuhrman_n_Page_124.txt
b5cd8c9a124e5988c86225d65c74595e
69a9ffbf2faae4ed26779fbd8823608565216d4e
83562 F20101114_AABYBR fuhrman_n_Page_050.jpg
e1ff18e9dc32d6342a459d32765d2e80
612d82cd8315536f663014f7a19541e4afa9f096
26256 F20101114_AABXWL fuhrman_n_Page_044.QC.jpg
7f83e11fb59ee7a667106306c4098e9f
a2c7ec5a95a57dc37382e5d9f9e8a21da52e2290
2297 F20101114_AABZFJ fuhrman_n_Page_041.txt
0eeef30f20181d81a2ed8db04eab02cc
368f53fe5f769ef1499af68fd4ab72cc9019f903
1404 F20101114_AABZEU fuhrman_n_Page_013.txt
a8c7ae5f9a2d1797a33dcb695159c3c2
2b313cdc1b41db40f20276763e5ade0c89866372
41431 F20101114_AABYZO fuhrman_n_Page_005.pro
448540c94c6ca860fdf7fb3dd6306275
55dc382d36d9d3df1fcbc15330018210713ec16c
3927 F20101114_AABXVY fuhrman_n_Page_152thm.jpg
e546fe27f22f2fc9648066c416155df7
c702fb8488d67bfe469f9ecfa25b0a85a22a3625
F20101114_AABYCH fuhrman_n_Page_019.tif
f48f4e7e1a669ae190c75c46a2197d0b
2188595e3a91a49db7508a5bdc96d6850c9a6037
113805 F20101114_AABXXB fuhrman_n_Page_170.jp2
c8d763ec8b2e4aa74da536a4865fb83b
bb60dcdce42ae719390d1fbda29331caf3f83732
179597 F20101114_AABYBS fuhrman_n_Page_133.jp2
7feb5617ccab4b5873dfe755cc7c9eee
b41df25156a16ba98dbb3fc0d5f7d9e009f9feb4
2030 F20101114_AABXWM fuhrman_n_Page_115.txt
17fbacbec6c007a90aafa72f0b337461
a5e2e31831a4a13f414f3e04a3f24a9c7adee5cc
2211 F20101114_AABZFK fuhrman_n_Page_042.txt
0040b9d45dc7b7f3e6ccf14b0a94af89
47368fc97ddc7da78c00da51a14013eebdbe2bc7
1194 F20101114_AABZEV fuhrman_n_Page_015.txt
42b0dd76bcf2c6121be726624d8bc0d3
a3823f5c390aa28679d976ceb11bc668ae760205
122874 F20101114_AABYZP fuhrman_n_Page_007.pro
3f415adb8c9d331a034e4c4eccc17849
d36984f3f7573516a398c6ede7fcc6dd3a7e5737
56980 F20101114_AABXVZ fuhrman_n_Page_072.pro
be39442af430b2a5b68832ba62dfabc4
f9d3b217b659468c2186eb8861c38103c64ec032
24331 F20101114_AABYCI fuhrman_n_Page_012.jpg
2c75af40a522c69da63de6d846d0894c
81811e03e8e10c34b22da36d77b4e64a7171cbac
5838 F20101114_AABXXC fuhrman_n_Page_006thm.jpg
a09006e2313890457920b1a096a6113f
5825bb4373c8d62a4e83f765a9a43be870cdc9b7
F20101114_AABYBT fuhrman_n_Page_009.tif
d9b5669627bf57e3fd68fc0b23ed500f
9479879b257db06c1d70f626310594c0e6b0b35b
F20101114_AABXWN fuhrman_n_Page_084.tif
608e4552dbf3ab97699d9d71f89c05a8
93d11d80baa80c055167dd8a99fbb482ee6d7368
2170 F20101114_AABZFL fuhrman_n_Page_044.txt
5879e949c48a0c34bf35c911b767d38a
ee506ddbfde6332bbd51f10ee03683cc94161b12
2163 F20101114_AABZEW fuhrman_n_Page_017.txt
384b292fc9e3fbe8dd025b606ecaa889
5eab67419039f44096f9962af768fff9be95c191
F20101114_AABYZQ fuhrman_n_Page_008.pro
b7406a5012f53e3a6733d59896cbc2af
a59c6bbc3d6ba4bcd009dc0e392a57cefe59b356
7106 F20101114_AABYCJ fuhrman_n_Page_057thm.jpg
d594703fe6142322698ffb211f6cc1c4
7d971a1ac211bc5312318e6bf8dca65ca1daf1ea
2099 F20101114_AABXXD fuhrman_n_Page_170.txt
df7f232238d3ea0fa4db53cfd65b2874
2a280b6902898f57277278ba2dc424e025c009ee
131547 F20101114_AABYBU fuhrman_n_Page_178.jp2
cdbc1a5ee9cfb3cd67ad16d3547e7b7d
673803e484f6e7dd4332f4d861fcc9dcc954ad66
121822 F20101114_AABXWO fuhrman_n_Page_042.jp2
a658bb5cccc368d394c390f3a1c8b74a
adae13743cd66064e96db534d858eb48ecfdfeee
F20101114_AABZGA fuhrman_n_Page_070.txt
2fb489b86d6294b7bbfc9e2cdf10d836
9824d6aac37fea215cf35fffd5ed4fdaab3c2399
2283 F20101114_AABZFM fuhrman_n_Page_045.txt
526dd3be8dddd71f44da0ca3e19110f0
35d2740641b0981d40301fe93d0233af4bf76db4
2075 F20101114_AABZEX fuhrman_n_Page_018.txt
b26eb522f3de071e2fc276de20920032
b6d2678944e79ad55d2f4657fa6bb9dca3ddb5da
87060 F20101114_AABYZR fuhrman_n_Page_009.pro
2f469c685f2c6b7e8305ddf28a4ec329
090c65d89be61cd197a9587b523e6bbf3b86286d
22631 F20101114_AABYCK fuhrman_n_Page_011.QC.jpg
c5d3bc5c02d50056925c47484781bb97
4922a731e7149112c73cb9e26f3f5ef28a17be07
72312 F20101114_AABXXE fuhrman_n_Page_088.jpg
c4a7f2db983e9f0174db9f65d2a71a07
b761ac5b0a4cdea808bbc8bb7c3bf6b36869a30d
77240 F20101114_AABYBV fuhrman_n_Page_025.jpg
05fe77765e705b9f4cabd55d1d506165
bc227b53adebf1c96a7b588a2e2d081be57819c7
5461 F20101114_AABXWP fuhrman_n_Page_159thm.jpg
743d1499fc1b86cb68ee906625f1aeb0
d45e6bf01f2c997848cf47415db7b58bfd8e3e19
2230 F20101114_AABZGB fuhrman_n_Page_072.txt
d27c3ca0657b9dbb87f87061ea990d53
a5c98cb3afb856f36395dce3cdef4861be2cc375
2186 F20101114_AABZFN fuhrman_n_Page_046.txt
9352e910da2f621dfd26dc11df6e0492
66f9e63e7d23c99f37fceebc72f33b330ff865b0
2277 F20101114_AABZEY fuhrman_n_Page_023.txt
f325c7fdb086ea4123421b2128f56815
27f95b74d153625b9bb8c5fcdfb19d1fa92443a2
77973 F20101114_AABYZS fuhrman_n_Page_010.pro
db2ba575519fe5e70cba8fc3b3317a7f
b8d47552b92a45cb7c75c149b9f21c9729aec7a8
52171 F20101114_AABYCL fuhrman_n_Page_079.pro
9cba4878aeb2254ada2e27445e06d674
1dc334ed801fc473d6c5fb95572994b87ee0d4c4
1663 F20101114_AABXXF fuhrman_n_Page_102.txt
937daf8703fada1d7f3b690d11aee23a
7412ce9e648dca378c42e57d75ac8e039b7b05cb
F20101114_AABYBW fuhrman_n_Page_132.tif
d9000e9c1ba59dd1992d8d5d3ecb221a
05675cf008a9ff170451da47b0775dce10a4c1df
111628 F20101114_AABXWQ fuhrman_n_Page_071.jp2
d4142193bef15430887cb5af8cf2ff8c
27ec8a499dfe157a99fb33ae0dbdd523e56f10df
2168 F20101114_AABZGC fuhrman_n_Page_073.txt
8db9046c367ac20429c2eabfde2d8944
3b93408063052680658c3cdae73aac12572c8d6e
2291 F20101114_AABZFO fuhrman_n_Page_049.txt
7586e1c1704347aaf91d330de15c9a74
c532c10e060f5c08cad6cd69c14e7d259f33a67a
2238 F20101114_AABZEZ fuhrman_n_Page_024.txt
13c82d080e1f582173f1ee7704888007
66c9dfde3ebaeff150006a3f6b42c8936cbc66a4
58595 F20101114_AABYZT fuhrman_n_Page_011.pro
5babab521c6bfb4516dfd78428089624
8980dcdd695d319f68b07b1e6b2115e225b7677c
563620 F20101114_AABYCM fuhrman_n_Page_151.jp2
bca3a0477e6907338c5cf6f2c01fde31
429b7d0bc3d5d38723dec6e1ed0783984939ff51
117061 F20101114_AABXXG fuhrman_n_Page_060.jp2
ddea8750854b78c7338acb74d9918072
e5076a48c619828abb522e45cbf6d7c80c21f1e1
23504 F20101114_AABYBX fuhrman_n_Page_086.QC.jpg
a7592ce73e1984fd7c0f0e987f1e655a
6fad18ed7a58425640825da55d0bfbc49de8b243
73955 F20101114_AABXWR fuhrman_n_Page_167.jpg
83233917bbab845c22dcde68f5d9b957
a12f7a6ff833e0be5f935d0f283de9c82880974b
6678 F20101114_AABYDA fuhrman_n_Page_112thm.jpg
222728264d9f7c92d5514f6c1fae270f
aefd79928734110fbefb356b0baa099f9125954d
2195 F20101114_AABZGD fuhrman_n_Page_074.txt
fa60153934367928d16e59bed8c85203
b0e6913d9c2da9d68735a2274e077690ff5debc2
2024 F20101114_AABZFP fuhrman_n_Page_053.txt
8e163abcdde2b0e416569ab9bcd16721
4c9c02d3facb2b95ddc64d53e0f3b94340762bb1
13859 F20101114_AABYZU fuhrman_n_Page_012.pro
9cdbbffb2cc8b2546477d641da7aa84d
8c88537bf570052b1a31fd27998004b05eae6fc9
78856 F20101114_AABYCN fuhrman_n_Page_120.jpg
2f516e321fe50a2f6a2b46ae4759b522
27cd1470c04d35c9fc2baec4c8f8f3c7c5456783
49659 F20101114_AABXXH fuhrman_n_Page_013.jpg
27efe56652601a169d2f3349ad8b5c38
e6e263d6c6b1accae2fd1e753e4cf770996ec98a
F20101114_AABYBY fuhrman_n_Page_080.txt
9baae031e5beb00feb8cb12620a9af24
2c8c9a32c1c4463e2da4c5aeb2f5f5a9a21f99bb
6755 F20101114_AABXWS fuhrman_n_Page_079thm.jpg
ffc0bb7bfa10cdf13e28865f52c730ee
e39c20e0f0c3e71cf50a7ae8840f3a10cc8fa65f
89026 F20101114_AABYDB fuhrman_n_Page_006.jpg
cb873fddf27e0509ebb391b879fcd853
f6c20d2d670b3c01d8ce892ecd72b19bc8b62c5c
1695 F20101114_AABZGE fuhrman_n_Page_077.txt
34aa35f27905779c213e18c603586048
664520c0f215a37a38ce49f35d5bc0c9f922cd35
F20101114_AABZFQ fuhrman_n_Page_055.txt
dd158677721427f334995ef2d97beb2c
20a3cedaba983675a7b1924a3335664e4bc1024e
34292 F20101114_AABYZV fuhrman_n_Page_013.pro
2de08744c6226040aeddf32eaf321847
e05c557365381ba103741856ae3aeb568a091442
1653 F20101114_AABYCO fuhrman_n_Page_005.txt
e8bc4019770b5f989f9fbd76991445cc
69a2eaba8fa888bf022cc0622fce5ded56a9f1fe
6919 F20101114_AABYBZ fuhrman_n_Page_117thm.jpg
4859bb5776be03bd30dbceccbf9d8920
e0f3c4d61c7d5c0e4d69ff366de6dc883be158ee
16787 F20101114_AABXWT fuhrman_n_Page_181.QC.jpg
a15d4fb092b950887221e34bb65262db
4c30178010152629c03de655656f639853959ffe
6791 F20101114_AABYDC fuhrman_n_Page_053thm.jpg
c3fc6ab5e7b94524f4f7ca827783544f
6befd8d8a7c045803997bdcd4a973d48b659518d
2084 F20101114_AABZGF fuhrman_n_Page_078.txt
dbcfd1f0c19d0f99026cd2832acec981
d8318a233ff6906d74d6b25f684840c66aa1523e
2089 F20101114_AABZFR fuhrman_n_Page_056.txt
863d608ac53bb9651030c410f75d3c37
211c753835882e86f4cfa66a34107d50ab6d8fd1
46532 F20101114_AABYZW fuhrman_n_Page_014.pro
bf3129cb3dc8c1a359f875c39236a72d
bd81dfd57fe929cef1c17c5d8d885df42ac4a876
F20101114_AABYCP fuhrman_n_Page_047.tif
5d7df07e8713f4c5a73cb7fb7c5d882b
7c2b8165cab2baea37873c4529b1c00f0e87fb50
25378 F20101114_AABXXI fuhrman_n_Page_173.QC.jpg
cd2999261f3062c024e8cfc44d65ef6d
14360a3edcf5c567637ecc05eaa84c0d85437e00
58363 F20101114_AABXWU fuhrman_n_Page_041.pro
1b0a82b6c53655d5f0dbac4956ffc899
4ccad47c5b8c11d823aa5e682873904d5b77378d
7874 F20101114_AABYDD fuhrman_n_Page_140.QC.jpg
f11bd9332f0a034d48c6b2a83f530d9c
efe414a9c68120a35e3eea25cfcdbbe1d32e739c
2055 F20101114_AABZGG fuhrman_n_Page_079.txt
bfe54b7002de12a4362d6e329e22a7c7
bcc878114b33802f60b0599abbc41b23b6d117a6
2116 F20101114_AABZFS fuhrman_n_Page_058.txt
170768e221335afbba2aa0c1c12503aa
fcba283562b6d0ce6f3214e06440491b05fc7271
29916 F20101114_AABYZX fuhrman_n_Page_015.pro
22a7d7baa0719a53934c46b069c9c15d
62721fd3194945c802e66ace52a4c7b6ddc1e1e6
82950 F20101114_AABYCQ fuhrman_n_Page_041.jpg
12ac10bfedcd700cc6d02aa6e59c2891
ad62c0e5a0bb236add4e3ab7f0b62a4c83246134
112749 F20101114_AABXXJ fuhrman_n_Page_053.jp2
f3b96a682f5b9cb48aa6529af9663592
2b0317516999b3884df5a1a49b4053299fb07fa9
24578 F20101114_AABXWV fuhrman_n_Page_018.QC.jpg
f05feb79326249a0cfe1f1b4f8e94cc5
5ebe7fbf468af24cfed76111691b8211336b7b3a
27262 F20101114_AABYDE fuhrman_n_Page_010.QC.jpg
20df2e5f2cb002d5ccd1831fd0036261
16fba6979414691db4cd40b2f8231c264f4fb834
F20101114_AABZGH fuhrman_n_Page_081.txt
4ad02520d36eda7c07edab2447e4462e
f2c0506a90d1ca6dd3e284bfbd851f99997b9fe6
2102 F20101114_AABZFT fuhrman_n_Page_059.txt
a0a3c6128c9f2d12cb01e84d2b446892
d94a7e068e214cb75d66017cfeab732bc9757b1f
48644 F20101114_AABYZY fuhrman_n_Page_016.pro
e000246282d4c90de2d2cb33b24be0c2
234d1adf1fc2ba7cc675ef63364c2068884a04c5
93671 F20101114_AABYCR fuhrman_n_Page_177.jpg
5abb47f2746cd03cac986bcbe1fd587d
b5f0dd7c160170702bf38a5ef3b8a545a1472b77
70124 F20101114_AABXXK fuhrman_n_Page_158.jpg
bf3b71831ebed0bdb2a6dc3269a50c96
5d85791405690b3c4737d08c6245c267e8175428
137527 F20101114_AABXWW fuhrman_n_Page_177.jp2
8f73921f8230bfb822501cd6402753aa
4a14cef257cd2102b1c9c03233e0dbbb9b2938a3
44580 F20101114_AABYDF fuhrman_n_Page_067.pro
09dabad9f2b2e8068e1e90a8f05e4e4a
89db203fb950a9b51d643da4f355aecdbf8e827a
2112 F20101114_AABZGI fuhrman_n_Page_082.txt
2a89203f1477ea02e9f2ecab036270d2
7aeed6a4aa4e22dcf5a50f03a58a55af74fec662
55106 F20101114_AABYZZ fuhrman_n_Page_017.pro
d38ef20c78d132a5f40d04a5b29fb240
940ec1d4e13caa140abe95bae7c1f9927ed5f66d
80428 F20101114_AABXYA fuhrman_n_Page_004.jpg
899d8e665d69aa847eab99603dfbe6a8
dd0962f622f76deaba7c15332c602bdc5b580137
F20101114_AABXXL fuhrman_n_Page_116.tif
e130f5f8caf25a887431b04357607fdb
ee5392c700ff67ed6ba4f679acd6023f00acbacf
58692 F20101114_AABXWX fuhrman_n_Page_100.jpg
a79aa6a6e5e130c14ec003a68106e1da
0484eadc552614d325a0d77ea622e70e4bd84169
61065 F20101114_AABYDG fuhrman_n_Page_101.jpg
65847406983e31f783d628d1996e2436
132e41b00bb7bacbba169528aa419868383aea95
2177 F20101114_AABZGJ fuhrman_n_Page_083.txt
9f311f61c6bd5acf3bc2fe5780281d95
a6f1411a62f58f1a483e6ebae29d96e933d0b113
2124 F20101114_AABZFU fuhrman_n_Page_060.txt
149d215659194c4c8e8aedbd43507147
333b42f82479dbcd98c3ade2567ea21b6bdee6df
26186 F20101114_AABXYB fuhrman_n_Page_008.QC.jpg
38be83f63e9cdbe93ba7f81e6da326ed
a30980d43c8da06b3d7a55a4b173104b05dca860
74938 F20101114_AABYCS fuhrman_n_Page_182.jpg
d2e27abf70dc5fc735e49cd6e08b7b9a
5d77159f212c14bc2389b5ee970d3ac2bfe66400
F20101114_AABXXM fuhrman_n_Page_072.tif
7b11e6f48e6dacadd5761ed80be98b1a
69af4008186479e520686f39684fbfd46561a894
11314 F20101114_AABXWY fuhrman_n_Page_107.QC.jpg
b519424a42a1937310a0a12799428185
1e36deb5837ba89819aadfaf0689fdf89f594d58
2007 F20101114_AABYDH fuhrman_n_Page_014.txt
ee4542c1f0df7e42347d320a33e6f2f4
7e1f2df473b7e994f13ed3142ee7ffb231c14aaa
2241 F20101114_AABZGK fuhrman_n_Page_084.txt
92d2d9cc3d5877e4b03a9774c0438bd1
ae9c5e85197fba6bfd8a18412c450b4fe8112978
2187 F20101114_AABZFV fuhrman_n_Page_062.txt
413eb89439c90c1265a9c9f77c513395
df31fee94ecab9a108efbd614d10e23ac2f2ddaf
1981 F20101114_AABXYC fuhrman_n_Page_071.txt
8f1a49ec0607da53308803236ceaf1aa
df66ece3f2a8657f5202ac58da4c8b4c850aabc1
78464 F20101114_AABYCT fuhrman_n_Page_017.jpg
c2e0d01c36bc28bbbe21cc91219afd25
abcd7f1aa47d9e394e90d885a77f03ff205d8027
7020 F20101114_AABXXN fuhrman_n_Page_085thm.jpg
2c69c462e6b3a92d5f4508371817dd3f
ba34e9e43e8cf66083b8fa38d0b5e5eae7ca95f1
71491 F20101114_AABXWZ fuhrman_n_Page_139.jpg
ea1b6584620c0d013d4fd7dd3e64355e
55fba54a575f050e4d90907c2edbf73ca43a6e35
84294 F20101114_AABYDI fuhrman_n_Page_097.jp2
c7c63d87df643a02c3e11ac5fbdfc039
24a1c64b1e8c37d02cabec4a53ac82362abf397b
2147 F20101114_AABZGL fuhrman_n_Page_087.txt
3409f6b2ba33c474873062a3151f7975
a55106d06c67b0faf8e433cc7a5f7674e677c38b
2130 F20101114_AABZFW fuhrman_n_Page_063.txt
5eac66e079c4e411a52b1df858d1f633
dd50d5f4a33ee09cd242bec27196d2c09c036bc4
2023 F20101114_AABXYD fuhrman_n_Page_032.txt
3de9c6bea12eabfbd57bff6b122ffa25
19c02d0b4f203c8f0d10a7d522f492489cd01a8e
26700 F20101114_AABYCU fuhrman_n_Page_048.QC.jpg
084b13d427798c7190ff73549deb433a
e839e7efa5791acd8467b039aeb3bc1e6061abc8
692743 F20101114_AABXXO fuhrman_n_Page_148.jp2
e819ddcaf34dc8b380f47c7091130ea4
ec6fcc85c329ab8ac013a6a61297c484c39b2092
2106 F20101114_AABYDJ fuhrman_n_Page_052.txt
82219c69e8318b90a3a9e941ebb6c0e7
1df411438c648e8a2947e0297f79e166eb57bcb2
F20101114_AABZHA fuhrman_n_Page_112.txt
857cd3e91aac7aa6f3c16c6dcb31e198
e7e949dd92bbc8e2c1898324768cd1a1e27e8ebb
1975 F20101114_AABZGM fuhrman_n_Page_088.txt
ad8d94dc19382aee0f22e76d13452587
fa0efc796321ad3ceb1f8101f6bb71e75153fee1
F20101114_AABZFX fuhrman_n_Page_065.txt
9cc7195776d78d1a0792715a311766ec
0f266be19918273a798bc488be8e00dd88c3ea7b
59613 F20101114_AABXYE fuhrman_n_Page_028.pro
83e8b2aff68a153ae1ed8a43b0ada45e
f0750916f81b15f6bd307cbf31d4fc91956529c7
25367 F20101114_AABYCV fuhrman_n_Page_027.QC.jpg
79f1ca13f0392b0478885a9379f779f4
5464b67bd7e3ba72d5e25d916ac5438fcd61744b
F20101114_AABXXP fuhrman_n_Page_153.tif
d760b341d483cbd408408eb2de15f327
9f927983f210926ea529002684041cc9aeb3bf76
3356 F20101114_AABYDK fuhrman_n_Page_104thm.jpg
8fd4b57288589cfac609caa95bbdee81
4ab0ed37667dd66358edf39290008b99a3370a9c
2011 F20101114_AABZHB fuhrman_n_Page_113.txt
1394e935cff49312df57ea1abe2b3f1a
4b8a7b109e6786256966d7f256072f17671ffc08
1974 F20101114_AABZGN fuhrman_n_Page_089.txt
cb1d85dcfe7ea85631df915bd6f168b3
984305f695692676fe204159397434d4f73e896a
913 F20101114_AABZFY fuhrman_n_Page_068.txt
af9ff722833fc22c4be8c1eb31c3c02b
da5440962fafca6536249c59acf9dd8b9d165142
6734 F20101114_AABXYF fuhrman_n_Page_114thm.jpg
7d57b125ed4175b84025c59d68ce2b02
ad0c8c4c14dbbb21cba342b1f465a6348e15f32a
52479 F20101114_AABYCW fuhrman_n_Page_167.pro
12e6b403a5298c56b144a5c92c4d369a
b10f89a7e82b3d4b52c516dce956a479a3676ef0
7084 F20101114_AABXXQ fuhrman_n_Page_037thm.jpg
d0f34e988805add6d9dc5c08629b7abf
c2381bb15482ccfdedb93aba80e68828a8fb2982
F20101114_AABYDL fuhrman_n_Page_053.tif
7dcc4fe2230c6c91adbe3660fecac96f
0fffa98ebf118ee52b3a345e23942bafb3b816db
2087 F20101114_AABZHC fuhrman_n_Page_114.txt
76608fe542e1f1170a65e00ca9b7eabd
3e01c8037192b8bcdab81bd8da6c2e63dafd4e77
2282 F20101114_AABZGO fuhrman_n_Page_090.txt
611d33c2105663e2e99d6f55b04d32b5
5632cf8cc65ed06088512e1f304bb8acb315d021
2003 F20101114_AABZFZ fuhrman_n_Page_069.txt
04eda47b436eb9decfd64834924756bf
8903ca226bd0fcb61a794abad0546e7b4fe9762b
111882 F20101114_AABXYG fuhrman_n_Page_094.jp2
68b8c2ef6bae88fbbec01ad74f9bc220
725801df478a62c42642b5c75d9c7a67a13ba66b
76624 F20101114_AABYCX fuhrman_n_Page_164.jp2
3ed373ff369d1e4ea8737b6ab63dc68b
5959efa44d8c5b44f55f6fb4d17e4723b018a607
113910 F20101114_AABXXR fuhrman_n_Page_111.jp2
b9622830ec668b7ba91b07179d5f737f
fdfca7aa9feb1ee0540cd10eefde727e9b6d29c5
37171 F20101114_AABYEA fuhrman_n_Page_104.jpg
73f13ae2b8c8b4adf67714db3ebc8333
b2595a5800f6103cb022c1d68276397fda38d0c9
F20101114_AABYDM fuhrman_n_Page_036.tif
0fffe23326ab961a0270400ca96d8f93
af66b30403223b662adc6d5e1e3a5734522cc8fa
2083 F20101114_AABZHD fuhrman_n_Page_116.txt
700c55c19e2e45659cf30ee2863f640c
24510844ab595e066c057105122d5cc5985edda3
2200 F20101114_AABZGP fuhrman_n_Page_091.txt
665711ab85e1e530d4bc84ccc534962f
ee90f6af39804502de627f8b9f2502a5ecc0491b
2229 F20101114_AABXYH fuhrman_n_Page_108.txt
013495b40c7b2c09dab7cfd94f52610c
4b05a14e0ee148a77a6c41fec52e72e1fd21df92
6512 F20101114_AABYCY fuhrman_n_Page_118thm.jpg
e793cc5a0b4d0787a6b1eec015f4cc20
f1362adadc66fcc47a463dadf0b7740558f59094
18931 F20101114_AABXXS fuhrman_n_Page_149.pro
600ea7122f75037b3b121a197cbcdb68
60ffaacd092849518e290ee68f56317b82ea9cd5
2077 F20101114_AABYEB fuhrman_n_Page_039.txt
f4ef2ea82af77c9a84c2d37db5cd4169
f535577b06f580b4c925ed4e66e61257b5554706
F20101114_AABYDN fuhrman_n_Page_048.tif
f2dafe26b5574d3226e9d47736470a99
1eff68472eef1eda00a9abe09943572d2041aef3
2057 F20101114_AABZHE fuhrman_n_Page_117.txt
d138b1eaf162e4288d0185e0755c4000
28fab5e75fe9bc069a3d82586d395152ac0caade
2054 F20101114_AABZGQ fuhrman_n_Page_092.txt
561b8954489892b7e3455bbe4787dd13
bba3018094352049a58f07dec9ab53adf51aeb0b
69116 F20101114_AABXYI fuhrman_n_Page_161.jpg
5a4790c5c84bc5cb97e712ccb184870c
028cbed1729268fdce5a74f1bc55c2afbdc2526a
6824 F20101114_AABYCZ fuhrman_n_Page_083thm.jpg
f657fe2825017446b6ee5908167a8077
e4604e7c0dfbe81655da4186a0250b3e626cc5ae
57406 F20101114_AABXXT fuhrman_n_Page_045.pro
c9265d40c62c5868ff9ad11a9b59b162
58378463b50330a6f9c00fcc6efc98d878869ba8
108485 F20101114_AABYEC fuhrman_n_Page_113.jp2
3b4c9d6cca8ab976499c97c944649009
8e0191ed21a32f82f06f79529a4a883f75b3b517
25096 F20101114_AABYDO fuhrman_n_Page_056.QC.jpg
cfcf7d62cba7894a9e17211d7d99de8f
83977b976513b4445741e579324dcab18b203fcb
1967 F20101114_AABZHF fuhrman_n_Page_118.txt
4a3566d9828cedcdaf4a25dafb065a9d
dd471e449d72cd8c6be217089ce9b39f7d018dac
2091 F20101114_AABZGR fuhrman_n_Page_094.txt
ed2c9a04ca8569b101d7b6a0b5e8c209
aa67e8ecda0b72cd13b25570a3befceb0d14df2a
20473 F20101114_AABXXU fuhrman_n_Page_005.QC.jpg
e404d333dd2dca6a8137cd265fadb4b8
c2681a124ea564b55e159a333f1c8907d575be9c
7884 F20101114_AABYED fuhrman_n_Page_001.QC.jpg
004b26649153b11f940fefd0d74859e4
d4190b4352d9a533618bf4d3dc007134a85918bf
2008 F20101114_AABYDP fuhrman_n_Page_016.txt
21243eb81cb3f868b61e991ba13b7e07
153a60adf386f15f52e6132e8a16009689c27ff2
2204 F20101114_AABZHG fuhrman_n_Page_119.txt
26cde5e9cfa01f520387e72ca42088c5
e6e965a61d742860cabb6388422a40fcc548b365
283 F20101114_AABZGS fuhrman_n_Page_095.txt
a86649ed3e6492e0c6d40af155c2fff3
aa1357b468dc289abef868c5030acab6fafa1dec
51927 F20101114_AABXYJ fuhrman_n_Page_092.pro
08d9465b0f8a3376542bcc3b82110dc5
dbf913c48247afb0f841b2c6a354b0f4cb28381f
6278 F20101114_AABXXV fuhrman_n_Page_156.pro
3fe162651ce215c42ea41a9473887d12
7a5b341a42c1ebdb3ec43a526757f1147d7d77d8
80590 F20101114_AABYEE fuhrman_n_Page_072.jpg
8115e81ab7eeb0c21e63ab29f6f04763
f8b725ab5465a73468ab8247eeceed1d6d5cfb28
F20101114_AABYDQ fuhrman_n_Page_022.txt
b3617771b8859f2ec7ff487e091bb7d5
d9de5d99e0fa4d5887d6b6134e5ddbee599d227b
2179 F20101114_AABZHH fuhrman_n_Page_120.txt
5fb1426d416afeed0bd6eae2a5e9435e
7ec171d88074360a654ea73f26c5fd7f4b57c854
2208 F20101114_AABZGT fuhrman_n_Page_096.txt
2583371b74e118896b051649d2983413
dd16812cca41d5d532b8f3886dd2d95b7f2e3dec
F20101114_AABXYK fuhrman_n_Page_093.QC.jpg
b3ddadafe7d679e3c335a06610100f63
3a7026ee189b37757f2dab6a7afb58b3a17cd669
6770 F20101114_AABXXW fuhrman_n_Page_059thm.jpg
9b83258b5b7fb3476b34daedba95747c
0fb3a3843083f38e91156be8c013791cfe6b7c41
6648 F20101114_AABYEF fuhrman_n_Page_175thm.jpg
67c0e468fd34f9907b8f8e4b93c04079
624af04f3a0b9b4a63302068680cb884f49d989b
6574 F20101114_AABYDR fuhrman_n_Page_115thm.jpg
4e8c9848cbc1c865f41e108741820002
bfdf3fe71bf8df142759a67870a43048a060eca3
F20101114_AABZHI fuhrman_n_Page_121.txt
1a46f7350cd7fb6557abe9dfc7c1caaa
19f2b05a8707317b6a8143645e953765f6d7feec
2185 F20101114_AABZGU fuhrman_n_Page_098.txt
b77e7755d6ada440f1fad76d801ff82c
74c10c618c16e23d4951d7930b6df9a7513ae78c
2500 F20101114_AABXYL fuhrman_n_Page_110thm.jpg
228f5c5fda9b3831e0c0bc73225aee44
f2fdf4f7a9793b79abbcfa955aeb3d50edfe7242
101623 F20101114_AABXXX fuhrman_n_Page_069.jp2
6318613a97c8a8da4fa9a5716edb595e
4aa8f049ace16242d4c9942589021a58ea9f37c5
28886 F20101114_AABYEG fuhrman_n_Page_151.pro
1bb967023f3c07c72527ed660b2c024b
e3052c92aa4d598ecd12e547207d45d176fd947b
F20101114_AABXZA fuhrman_n_Page_178.tif
bf95f7e7c464a29cc4a7feeb2d966b91
aad7288d71489cb4f1bb07d933d634986de14455
38676 F20101114_AABYDS fuhrman_n_Page_152.jpg
c4a8ba29c87d3384581117e8f5093cc6
6f21a92831fd25a3c29aadfddf3eff4be2394f21
F20101114_AABZHJ fuhrman_n_Page_122.txt
1604a128e553d7174ce069a0fa9eb39d
4ed05460e6a3cada7360361bbebf0ec7bd51cd3b
F20101114_AABXYM fuhrman_n_Page_003.tif
1a0cf898aed69002b6f22680be7adbdd
6604e4183ec5a42d45ad898869fc4e5aebfc29bb
558810 F20101114_AABXXY fuhrman_n_Page_157.jp2
444f79efb7ef15ef465a13b704426f0e
85a573c9e1398ce802ff6146bb585d49a34acb8e
6561 F20101114_AABYEH fuhrman_n_Page_130thm.jpg
7e610fec77b2edc07e515022e91c0655
e2bd249d994f1eea9b387f0d3e3abccf8118a044
6900 F20101114_AABXZB fuhrman_n_Page_050thm.jpg
f8ac1c0e9fe97d6f1b01d4b0221f8b92
e51d8b4404c8aa61a2c91b8314c5e3445342b31a
3317 F20101114_AABZHK fuhrman_n_Page_123.txt
b762d4e4d694e4313638c44d217ded3b
84cedc0f02e0489b3cf8887867a1f4c447a7ba68
2385 F20101114_AABZGV fuhrman_n_Page_101.txt
f66ff27416cba0901bda874dd83e8104
a890c6d89761d05b6f01b4b09c5b8da00eea6ea0
1023 F20101114_AABXYN fuhrman_n_Page_174.txt
d7321b981b31a11fd5712b7cd9938107
6ec9721a536fd07127e65fff5464576f77d59e2a
F20101114_AABXXZ fuhrman_n_Page_150.tif
b43b04d1630500f65055f3151ed02f75
13b7ded4d6febc33efdc3f06ba546519bacef180
F20101114_AABYEI fuhrman_n_Page_057.txt
33f0c764a2be41fa95d98a1b246719b1
711ca290d985fbd7610e8c6f5800f36dac55c19b
6881 F20101114_AABXZC fuhrman_n_Page_178thm.jpg
debe89c526e988720bd5a95b12d59ee3
9c1b1b905e5ff9fe3ed9dc1d235e91d9ad32f08d
72069 F20101114_AABYDT fuhrman_n_Page_040.jpg
898ecb2c216e6c663b6e826944b4e2c8
4694db13b69251b5112cfb164e81636e9aab9f79
F20101114_AABZHL fuhrman_n_Page_125.txt
bba052eaace387b7a9e3215119152d77
87f0bbe00cf71212371bdb9981411ecf3cf181de
3039 F20101114_AABZGW fuhrman_n_Page_104.txt
0dfedbd90a14a2713ee369bd85864715
b22ac4b1ce45f96b4106db693a412d1b00ccb68e
41632 F20101114_AABXYO fuhrman_n_Page_096.pro
4b4188cffacddba245f478bf55321dfc
7b36190022c9706e42a554513507194f91d8102e
1815 F20101114_AABYEJ fuhrman_n_Page_067.txt
351cc35f4d641d0618305a427acd6006
18ac660a8f320aad2775fde61904e5d64e27a748
57442 F20101114_AABXZD fuhrman_n_Page_085.pro
647b958ba9f0fc575972786ae3ccfc67
e0e091de41b48613da7272811efac94d3d4a29fb
2207 F20101114_AABYDU fuhrman_n_Page_111.txt
bd1e68c7dbd9ddd1135f9c5477b54179
0463e961ac07d2e84a81905f091c04c17de5f660
181 F20101114_AABZIA fuhrman_n_Page_153.txt
bf5b5cb2cc08842010dac2128da9c974
c2bc9238de034729c09db3989f49920336025d6d
2191 F20101114_AABZHM fuhrman_n_Page_127.txt
018767efcb9f20df957483aeaadc728f
ab06baef36d369d888efa071c8294f5bd110e692
3429 F20101114_AABZGX fuhrman_n_Page_106.txt
34c67589e3fb814f6650e3a2f6ecfebf
9815d098b51999cff8f852842247a7fafc6e71f5
6722 F20101114_AABXYP fuhrman_n_Page_082thm.jpg
3b43c2c73796c98605405e9055a23012
f0dba0ee98d92b67a4c7f60048a8b708b2561824
10016 F20101114_AABYEK fuhrman_n_Page_002.jpg
5d822fb7d3915869241dcc33056d64c7
15614321cd39a3b7951692bf4589297f9f97b566
F20101114_AABXZE fuhrman_n_Page_071.tif
1afb3fba78e86a261237f58be29389d1
236469dd3c0cd7a431ef7607bdc32c969890cd3b
F20101114_AABYDV fuhrman_n_Page_097.tif
50d8890b0aa863f491fd6b162350b264
a0872c081f06f1898de7b372696404b4c105c9f7
562 F20101114_AABZIB fuhrman_n_Page_154.txt
323873c607b3e7942d08f868a8362a4c
2881a8b7fd903a8c835ae02e11596b9214cc8c1c
2213 F20101114_AABZHN fuhrman_n_Page_129.txt
072d0e7d9627e95f466d7e46fd940643
a06d9d5c0a9d66e950be842f1a7476014480a6d9
3761 F20101114_AABZGY fuhrman_n_Page_107.txt
1343860a79f91904c3f41c5d2b04f912
4f186e416b53d33be4a068da227fc0fb0c78cdf6
77279 F20101114_AABXYQ fuhrman_n_Page_111.jpg
e7e6200797135a06aaed1b9bde1efc85
7a2d73f3b91fb62464d974325109824205e22e18
1391 F20101114_AABYEL fuhrman_n_Page_146.txt
e125e7483b06257005e553768bd1fb0b
a61bfea6777cb31732cb4cbd563a89d8e00ebee3
F20101114_AABXZF fuhrman_n_Page_163.tif
244854a6f9b37aaf96b31ad731953008
bb0f183a264e2165050ce5e8ad8d4113839e2484
F20101114_AABYDW fuhrman_n_Page_154.tif
c1a62a83c91642782fe9b35633765c46
5fc0198e7f24c69ad8751432145b3198a7fca07d
273 F20101114_AABZIC fuhrman_n_Page_155.txt
c4537dbdf85126c7150accae70c51186
43ad15b57542a88d9a98c6bf7070fb26b2bf7b1c
1946 F20101114_AABZHO fuhrman_n_Page_130.txt
38f1cd9a6c73c812f9b11697a65c14e0
8e19fe5cf7b91c3f699ffddb8ea1927124e5ffe4
1247 F20101114_AABZGZ fuhrman_n_Page_109.txt
a477acd8ae0f6e7e1246722e670bf14d
cdea2e0d123bef9a42b03af8cc9cae38dc725813
F20101114_AABXYR fuhrman_n_Page_152.tif
b6dd74801cf6f4a52fed8a6c53154144
f34c84de84f59e4074d2c7ffb92623dba014ff46
25643 F20101114_AABYFA fuhrman_n_Page_126.QC.jpg
76adf0c9b075a2cd634f60a40135ad0f
ab34f72af4a410a9588a933dd5c500bea419c3a5
704 F20101114_AABYEM fuhrman_n_Page_137.txt
a6857ee69e87d979b851f9345cfaf2e3
5a073f6f490bf26d9aadfcc548d5a6a800ea8916
135965 F20101114_AABXZG fuhrman_n_Page_134.jp2
99b79f1e276a45272928c35c1c4b5d5d
bb34e05ddc03585915c4d6ff888b304aff4f5fdb
83324 F20101114_AABYDX fuhrman_n_Page_106.jp2
26f9ce145a7829f751343c52a123f476
f013f3af1bb96ecc8b421cdf654724fee13c24d1
246 F20101114_AABZID fuhrman_n_Page_157.txt
0a4a5c2bab0d85ce9fabd8c640a87157
9f062541d91154ba2f2da9ea77a4d7e5a0b21c69
F20101114_AABZHP fuhrman_n_Page_131.txt
d41c747c6902f6e0ac0e27495aaf1743
7a1c22c24e7dbb94b39e300d7d144020a7ed64f8
3738 F20101114_AABYFB fuhrman_n_Page_154thm.jpg
78a24c613d4f74cc68d073e005b1f224
5282443b7f6a7e273aa0a08b7c6074cda88724bd
52038 F20101114_AABYEN fuhrman_n_Page_182.pro
3c7e28b409ecb960fc0718858eaa7d4a
c58de1af7cde3a6ec746ee5fd9974a36bb8d3727
5605 F20101114_AABXZH fuhrman_n_Page_146thm.jpg
21ccba98d4bad755b49f182350c7270c
56caa79819294dafa74a6594e99e52651038153b
F20101114_AABYDY fuhrman_n_Page_105.tif
b32aef08c4b0446132d0a849b3f8d336
26754fd235e77945ed4c929a65b735379ee4136e
24579 F20101114_AABXYS fuhrman_n_Page_182.QC.jpg
7e8cb392c5bea5ec976d4d683c528375
bad65c532eaadd0153ad711447dfb3a34feb36ea
2005 F20101114_AABZIE fuhrman_n_Page_158.txt
c578636528af70a0d13263738cfea386
9e5b1f50a887810d22095c5f71387152d330ba80
2728 F20101114_AABZHQ fuhrman_n_Page_134.txt
2d1e8a22f5caa1c9a87e13e425d34ef3
87b30fa15e65abdc57071eaeef05a19dde950f53
53914 F20101114_AABYFC fuhrman_n_Page_173.pro
9eb8ed2d4ce6231d7ec896b0ee9fd215
aa1de274494cd3db00cc36c29b0f3c5731a64b4a
2289 F20101114_AABYEO fuhrman_n_Page_172.txt
61f359e701cdf501e2d22f65bb640329
6d42d7dbc66deecb596467088e38a70da525f281
F20101114_AABXZI fuhrman_n_Page_051.tif
c52dcb4cffafd263c2c5bedc43aa871a
3eb89f43bdaaa1f7c35d81a5d4e02a8de3ca5c75
6153 F20101114_AABYDZ fuhrman_n_Page_014thm.jpg
dcee62c28496ecf1ed0f5462b8b0e6c2
b5bf6fac2dde1f2efea898a7fb1cf49881d15fc5
1051969 F20101114_AABXYT fuhrman_n_Page_137.jp2
6208eaeed8f322c778b46d33cf167a56
43f32a18980a2c6c40ad99e0df42a005ff5fbb61
1919 F20101114_AABZIF fuhrman_n_Page_160.txt
18c0886a8fa675f529326cca36d37e73
886b0c806558ed8ac3de9168e0730ab18c552137
342 F20101114_AABZHR fuhrman_n_Page_136.txt
7e5e9b1a60f0981622776a8f9cb5c9a5
6cbd387691501292711313f6bf2a7ca5555f8d90
6737 F20101114_AABYFD fuhrman_n_Page_018thm.jpg
ca3a56d0f4063123ee98208da75d93a1
53012321ae293dd7ca354351ff08454436e82785
12110 F20101114_AABYEP fuhrman_n_Page_155.QC.jpg
a8691f52b8114144603f598cd380b231
792dcb78f795e5051dfc341b826d1994fc49aa90
6723 F20101114_AABXZJ fuhrman_n_Page_034thm.jpg
1bce4b2dbf78c0a1cf24a4ccca55b011
289018c86c8c1ff6bd028b3058d6276c27f19a7b
81145 F20101114_AABXYU fuhrman_n_Page_048.jpg
6bea366d5ed25fabec0784e82694f876
7336f91830fc13fbed7ef78579a15596216a4d20
1964 F20101114_AABZIG fuhrman_n_Page_161.txt
fdce6ee10cd2520f165aa7c178c72527
cf35ca2cebfaad0d28c4c84b0c3054a54bf522a0
F20101114_AABZHS fuhrman_n_Page_138.txt
dfaee21bbadcddb73e9be37d7b6417a8
952b625e00129f9f9aa2757160ba37e11c7e75dd
434139 F20101114_AABYFE fuhrman_n_Page_140.jp2
6c5d4151b112f49b2e8c709bcae5777e
4d0bd1af45b2cb6b25521b98e813a2fec9aa30c8
24483 F20101114_AABYEQ fuhrman_n_Page_171.QC.jpg
5f7517051a37a655e55efc724d2d0948
46da2c4d274c9d07295e85678952f4d9a71caaaa
121826 F20101114_AABXYV fuhrman_n_Page_037.jp2
075fb327044ae59d8e877b538d0da773
3e63608a2da3c5fc51f5bb99e5555a1d13237ee1
2253 F20101114_AABZIH fuhrman_n_Page_162.txt
9e336faafd5ca37d1476dabcbf865cbb
53bc97c11bd7228a668f983ee1493cd166260394
840 F20101114_AABZHT fuhrman_n_Page_140.txt
ac3afc47e5a119bea703c59f787832df
4e38a63b76e1b2b6ab6d53181b4b04f7fa25d281
72430 F20101114_AABYFF fuhrman_n_Page_122.jpg
329102c736011ba3f4f0c4067229ccb3
1da4812f40796418355e2ed2731d36aebaef78eb
121022 F20101114_AABYER fuhrman_n_Page_026.jp2
cb34cdcc0e563695eb866df319ca6550
d1c71040bfd24235f8952e4ce4dd667904f8a363
26520 F20101114_AABXZK fuhrman_n_Page_180.QC.jpg
dec13a44b4dee42c57a24117e0039414
debb89a4016ca9a6b20262a817735a628b390d02
12947 F20101114_AABXYW fuhrman_n_Page_153.QC.jpg
1d70d4241d6bd5609059f8be23c50f24
08fce1826ec5c37befc4f9c7495014ac47fa4746
2029 F20101114_AABZII fuhrman_n_Page_163.txt
8ee7cebd4d8ee881a635e8fa7c1fedc2
52af862314d725e3668a2ca36bb25d7703d1ed42
1184 F20101114_AABZHU fuhrman_n_Page_144.txt
e4eda718af6b69a60b69483a7faa1568
ce2ae5a6bf3d251782e7b1740b13ee61e4c41732
F20101114_AABYFG fuhrman_n_Page_172.tif
13c30c2bba92edb2dae64ca4ce44bf42
3074ac39c8c74134f5c85c13f4e5a54b47d47cca
F20101114_AABYES fuhrman_n_Page_054.tif
b7c4e68717a2c5d31e0edda03a663675
8b45f035598bc5754d4e1504f590c7f025c23e78
4698 F20101114_AABXZL fuhrman_n_Page_102thm.jpg
4c022d5c1ea1cc7ee204362bdff25778
9258b31f11820e17ac44702d5dd7be3f25148eac
75160 F20101114_AABXYX fuhrman_n_Page_018.jpg
ca7ce5f713a51ae771bab0b06b8c49bf
0daf5763d1f394ace08dc29cdcd3edd12c8c9726
2104 F20101114_AABZIJ fuhrman_n_Page_165.txt
016bfb1812721951f31e49a0fca6c21c
6933ae6256aa9f7a0b6012930c52d7bc6ebe92d4
600 F20101114_AABZHV fuhrman_n_Page_145.txt
54db0044759a64e995cd5356e2f02148
03bcef24d79d1a5f37c88af8aac78b5fa1611191
13267 F20101114_AABYFH fuhrman_n_Page_145.pro
bed84aafa0ec6ae1a16df1856cdb3603
4b074ce4e2c78c213e1a9e5d850e6e00be79f850
52799 F20101114_AABYET fuhrman_n_Page_114.pro
de9dac3223c62fb374d3241794bdbf14
aedb02b75d010170e7595439c14e7a91b8182a11
25790 F20101114_AABXZM fuhrman_n_Page_062.QC.jpg
6b7ab294c52e56307afbf11613046308
16a4849a9fc5084d758d1136df6b766a5374df68
F20101114_AABXYY fuhrman_n_Page_155.tif
111cb409d789dbb3a0854c405da1f306
1c70d39243e035f82485c8408f55a7936886316f
2164 F20101114_AABZIK fuhrman_n_Page_166.txt
fc802b44d916b21d496022feb5a05fd3
a79f146265173363719926a108fd5cf523502e18
23997 F20101114_AABYFI fuhrman_n_Page_088.QC.jpg
a522af0235b734f3bd7e442931921ad0
b3623d5c17f51a40224193ffe52a5277a5884dba
F20101114_AABXZN fuhrman_n_Page_176.tif
d78a36902c71048f5613dd7863577ea7
409a15e23fa6f5b5d8d0a2233bca5e6b96c35d44
F20101114_AABXYZ fuhrman_n_Page_025.tif
f277e2364a7237d13c572ea32c3b2b41
caa749c6140e5de6cd595b13fec788663d3bb186
2068 F20101114_AABZIL fuhrman_n_Page_167.txt
e30e2dbf9769e17ff78cf9e5a69187f2
b163f9d37324dea8d47ca48c8227bfdaa39aae40
1193 F20101114_AABZHW fuhrman_n_Page_147.txt
fffd7d05ad626a83f179f2c0457f5f16
4f5a8f4846caf22bfc2b38112f7864f51172e9ed
118718 F20101114_AABYFJ fuhrman_n_Page_025.jp2
3e05e3b2336e5db99769031f96cc64e8
32e37d86d95a88d28978102aeeafb45c46fb744f
32173 F20101114_AABYEU fuhrman_n_Page_133.QC.jpg
478dc9a26b55c34f21f435956dd03410
6e7b1a7929324279de17c875b01ddfe6ea932194
F20101114_AABXZO fuhrman_n_Page_140.tif
3fe88c8cdb2c635652b32aad48ea1255
9e4252a452eab8e1b6f2f604419af7f315391f4e
27098 F20101114_AABZJA fuhrman_n_Page_177.QC.jpg
f5173375a2ebf3ffb4828cf608899d6b
1a6baf0b071553be6297bde94fc7ccb0d4fd57de
2046 F20101114_AABZIM fuhrman_n_Page_168.txt
70219cb43a3ff309d255209bdcabe927
4e81c8294f7f8f3f66e9f4f178b1e03acabe5648
1436 F20101114_AABZHX fuhrman_n_Page_148.txt
e772af3369a8056fd52b198be31d2a6f
52b2e34c1d6641a608291bb37d421439305b50f6
F20101114_AABYFK fuhrman_n_Page_006.tif
1b0db6cb4f37702545e640afd00d8236
179237ac85a69df5d76fc822544496054879e405
2806 F20101114_AABYEV fuhrman_n_Page_135.txt
6e3c56126b33a1d6e878507d2f5ef748
ac775db103029d9d5b8882cb0980a2aab58ee211
51241 F20101114_AABXZP fuhrman_n_Page_075.pro
a8ba69c55b3345e6a53bd4e9a4a2d5c5
d7b3ce25c78709fadb238ba2ad850d77ecd72943
4502 F20101114_AABZJB fuhrman_n_Page_015thm.jpg
9e847fc0811da7b3dda7a76e9d38c701
145f8916eaf84f43ae92a3e1687dce189c1e7e7f
2142 F20101114_AABZIN fuhrman_n_Page_169.txt
7d7447be6587f309270e8b21e57d8f57
e0a08fcaecb7ddd9e175dd37a219970398530d64
1723 F20101114_AABZHY fuhrman_n_Page_150.txt
a4ee281ff7d4cdcf9589fc8ecc5bdf32
59cc007d57aefb12d585d459a1c365ab2018a667
2359 F20101114_AABYFL fuhrman_n_Page_097.txt
88a06a6da8d8dbcacf94281f2c3fc117
34afaa24eb77873897c857c2f0bea148d1f3a705
2292 F20101114_AABYEW fuhrman_n_Page_035.txt
ce7515ec911b6447ec841c9d1931819d
664c21cbb4083ddc9e64466f35af21aad1dbcad9
73368 F20101114_AABXZQ fuhrman_n_Page_163.jpg
89684d4a3e41a45f23b5e73777b50c29
c05113a5d4a9d971b056bee668d11bdac9b6247e
6952 F20101114_AABZJC fuhrman_n_Page_162thm.jpg
eef092dfbd726eb70b2309ec4c1b180d
cf11afbbb70ecfd1119f7d7f200b8fca0af39c55
2063 F20101114_AABZIO fuhrman_n_Page_171.txt
2d5c13c34ed8d3ac7810ac064534f37a
04c5f266714f31256ecee0c3a76dc969c9fa0cb7
1518 F20101114_AABZHZ fuhrman_n_Page_151.txt
4ba0046d55ed38a30754f1c6d8f1c939
95c8d50f2fbdb7db3a24b10b4099b2ddd0cc47e5
108811 F20101114_AABYFM fuhrman_n_Page_130.jp2
4b2a95ac6cea8b3c3a7172a6d4ed56e4
c751d44216212b3a21044d694f5d9c9ce5085793
57376 F20101114_AABYEX fuhrman_n_Page_033.pro
420e5e4e2b32d9ae6e23500f61e02fcb
d507ee32b18143f8b9e1f2385d0f6661b0cd3f8c
32249 F20101114_AABXZR fuhrman_n_Page_148.pro
e355a5316a855bc03a5dce35cc2b45a9
983c9bb428a9afc1e5b0ee53f8e9f7c1167e1358
111542 F20101114_AABYGA fuhrman_n_Page_064.jp2
4a6d88a3f46a5c5ca3821cc2ee0d18bd
fc11a6de5515c393ba573e4a6f18451700b82afb
6248 F20101114_AABZJD fuhrman_n_Page_086thm.jpg
b627157b087af72ec3af5bb2d7070d41
aba231b3dce58f9007cbd70b5107c035caf6f4f1
2126 F20101114_AABZIP fuhrman_n_Page_173.txt
cdd84dc82f8c5aeda5f6d59c75240885
2e14b9dddaf4f70c9d773f8a3a7dc17b18eb99c8
56892 F20101114_AABYFN fuhrman_n_Page_175.pro
f3206e93992ce875909800520410b834
28ebc36df2133d5228835a529d6ecc4c9dc254f9
4646 F20101114_AABYEY fuhrman_n_Page_145thm.jpg
2b65d13d19b3f998b6565c8d3121777d
c3db9b8e3fcb188ef6e9fa3153bfc3501f1ddabe
2145 F20101114_AABXZS fuhrman_n_Page_066.txt
111b9ca73bfc14f03eec612fd54b1f77
04436c3e55817c1863f7478a7a3502917f0662d1
3546 F20101114_AABYGB fuhrman_n_Page_009.txt
9a351ad5557325712f56f7bdddc86767
fc802c4cf4f0ce2b7707f6b33b5340454134ebde
25420 F20101114_AABZJE fuhrman_n_Page_087.QC.jpg
377e081f632ff4d2f906f659d8a229e9
ff5f4d698e0b3e2b6f1fc8e2930906fbfabd003b
2301 F20101114_AABZIQ fuhrman_n_Page_175.txt
83d0ee6e02fcb8022f93834c9db7634d
5a6030905b483583a854494e4534836a6cae8df2
24024 F20101114_AABYFO fuhrman_n_Page_094.QC.jpg
aeeb470dce636c3b54debc843d6937b2
7991fe8b64aa2fd83e24d12d4a3adc867a8fd689
2441 F20101114_AABYEZ fuhrman_n_Page_132.txt
eb3a29b92d5c898288165e8d5ff8bcb8
558f38540356cd6a9cdbbbaa80d392f1dc931c08
7013 F20101114_AABXZT fuhrman_n_Page_177thm.jpg
1f083c7113bb11276dba9a1bcf6c9240
1b39b1cc5537837c215ca98f1b1fbd713e59282a
7829 F20101114_AABYGC fuhrman_n_Page_157.QC.jpg
8486a075201072d4eca9c34c8867b4be
36c51b31942226665f07f3227afb283e048cb53a
5785 F20101114_AABZJF fuhrman_n_Page_067thm.jpg
e38575106947e305bcef29bb49c4750a
9093f3141a77bfc61d6384237f5ed7dea433949d
2577 F20101114_AABZIR fuhrman_n_Page_177.txt
b8eddc5e04e362d04dabfcd25e87f272
22d310c02e9492e30ca31876209652d3246bcca6
F20101114_AABYFP fuhrman_n_Page_026.tif
e34c6e204bda731c86207d87d76cc7fd
b92457576416664c1d75484a122239ae67bd0bd0
54375 F20101114_AABXZU fuhrman_n_Page_169.pro
bfd9700bda5710ed0803d096b285ed7a
a4b64c68da04c707cc87700a669655327314890c
F20101114_AABYGD fuhrman_n_Page_136.tif
a3dbb7e36b5ed4a52b72abaa761a3af1
63c9367851e09f0349953a3cc3225babf3c9036b
6654 F20101114_AABZJG fuhrman_n_Page_075thm.jpg
d90b174b30c15c17986ff6989037d782
ad8b1191bade8d086e4ef5b588defb1ae60c1b77
2413 F20101114_AABZIS fuhrman_n_Page_178.txt
2d727f0aee1b099d8b19a6fa7e16d173
c2ffb2b0fd1b97435a9ea679ca86f7a9243984bc
401050 F20101114_AABXZV fuhrman_n_Page_145.jp2
a82a37cf8fd80d9c107b69c91cedc81a
0c52a6612b07f118f4f8dd1a26a4395424e8ec8a
1921 F20101114_AABYGE fuhrman_n_Page_143.txt
5f5d23f9c6947c0c3b505b1d8af09ec2
8e8625f3638f5bc7f35113b2971c9f74c256e07f
73545 F20101114_AABYFQ fuhrman_n_Page_053.jpg
34dd35310b187cdd4a4b7fc8098ee0ab
9942297fd2cc6b76e2764d096a39f5c7e4b73e4a
F20101114_AABZJH fuhrman_n_Page_063.QC.jpg
8873466467e59e0e1b1b8c0f5b92aae7
28041b9ec714058026ffa1109571d8a31ca40db7
2661 F20101114_AABZIT fuhrman_n_Page_179.txt
d25c9b5ead23e9f6fa950eac6991b5f8
ef12e3af0f25aac02855538d24f8ce91655564ed
57763 F20101114_AABXZW fuhrman_n_Page_159.jpg
b10c06f79a18edc484bbe2733490815d
d1710d80a108151ed43e30ad70002da6e1f4daa2
7095 F20101114_AABYGF fuhrman_n_Page_035thm.jpg
28ac105ca23bd41d1aea19e8476943dd
471b721ba6b6d0bff1dc4b18a72459ab71d4fafb
25324 F20101114_AABYFR fuhrman_n_Page_047.QC.jpg
28400bd8d82f87a4ae01faa6b1b9df7d
b924a709ad43312e42bba7a8ac58ee28030ae163
25323 F20101114_AABZJI fuhrman_n_Page_021.QC.jpg
dd114859e40d57e003370fa22372faeb
58e0b474f6712550a5bb6c1f3132c0d1c791f1b7
2445 F20101114_AABZIU fuhrman_n_Page_180.txt
c555c045da87355f23c55eb9100f160a
05cdfbab27c3f53fa0050daf4bf93ac752a29da5
2826 F20101114_AABXZX fuhrman_n_Page_139.txt
919a19034acc69e86d11c7c172a86972
f13c1f564e9251fa1fb4c40e7597b388bdb7e798
F20101114_AABYGG fuhrman_n_Page_002.tif
3627b010ab79c0926dbae859e1e0dc26
87b11a7788cf57c207a885035b8ce6f878a4ac2d
6901 F20101114_AABYFS fuhrman_n_Page_026thm.jpg
ccdbe5a09b1a89f274af3945a4ea879b
2a6689ae8abf22edf7f4c5c92865b0c88e3cd809
23776 F20101114_AABZJJ fuhrman_n_Page_075.QC.jpg
9bd564c9ce59ce118c3ffb617e456d8f
b2cae07f3bd5b4fbdd2e0ba36398ae42468ac250
1500 F20101114_AABZIV fuhrman_n_Page_181.txt
a3e1dc960a6690d71ecbb6e4f590a29a
8b7f0deae2d9dd9438941c6e440301621e84c061
6569 F20101114_AABXZY fuhrman_n_Page_122thm.jpg
40b9684603060d62b1ffb46ec7e7de0c
e51a4db327b00bcf160518250bc6b5763ff91aaf
24225 F20101114_AABYGH fuhrman_n_Page_122.QC.jpg
4a18b04ac8f712745b879f5246ac03ef
325c645c0441e807c962ab18dfc3936cbeb47cfb
11256 F20101114_AABYFT fuhrman_n_Page_110.pro
2e5ee46ad3311e7d0e455656102cecec
3a57e841f9e602a10be94819f0649ece50afa9fc
25936 F20101114_AABZJK fuhrman_n_Page_042.QC.jpg
d24d26f57cd07dd618ada42e1547780b
93fef7e05c4f0b2a79dc406cdb4ea370a4fff4b6
F20101114_AABZIW fuhrman_n_Page_182.txt
968a4674359ebd69eeb83573681dc688
c4e074c65bf437e61c28802908d9d170eb4da927
F20101114_AABXZZ fuhrman_n_Page_167.tif
7073a77a2090b1284577c6d2baa9a4eb
5f3ab3b29dda8b4f09eae49019dbc3a2932fa4a2
124299 F20101114_AABYGI fuhrman_n_Page_090.jp2
4dde2008a80fda2de18388d2ba15111f
0392c889310630809e1ba9b1132affae24c59de5
74515 F20101114_AABYFU fuhrman_n_Page_102.jp2
d97cd3acb831e546721f57df2a292461
ae3a9cfb821d5e599e166ef9cd07be05e7c8703d
5209 F20101114_AABZJL fuhrman_n_Page_096thm.jpg
3e81cae8248e3c454ff83b0b1a18f3dc
525f33867de0858dd7266303e378276d0df3ae4f
76088 F20101114_AABYGJ fuhrman_n_Page_098.jp2
7d4c1c85ec5c3b6b2d336966b4c6013e
349b8b1d3d6ace54963bba818a8c328b8fc54326
25625 F20101114_AABZKA fuhrman_n_Page_022.QC.jpg
8422bab59638b7430c1adc16a63595ab
0e153a0f26e7573eec36457d23811c5bba619f0a
6667 F20101114_AABZJM fuhrman_n_Page_056thm.jpg
b9ddaf7395d11e60c1d57fea764d5c8a
0a8b4431a86eeacdfdd66c1472ca84d76df069c3
1887395 F20101114_AABZIX fuhrman_n.pdf
a03e87678fdd9d9c02c3c193df821e0f
b191ab46c1b3d8aafcacdcbfbde8d82aa686cf12
24958 F20101114_AABYGK fuhrman_n_Page_165.QC.jpg
d363ca72e7b8d0856e54c3513a2f197e
1a5ab5749a5cae0610c0cc2086c1e7562a36e518
F20101114_AABYFV fuhrman_n_Page_044.tif
b14d5d76933c9ac5b928401110746b3e
740425fe624958b101ddfe81b1f8fc10dd18af79
6799 F20101114_AABZKB fuhrman_n_Page_065thm.jpg
f7b2528c9be7479dc4fdaa5559bfd809
5350e6aaeb0a6fb1e4e43a265180cc62324c3274
6083 F20101114_AABZJN fuhrman_n_Page_108thm.jpg
819ae16a7e93e74b5fe9d97eadbfe3f5
89e25fc8b80a553ab2ce520c6a13078941ba0057
6048 F20101114_AABZIY fuhrman_n_Page_051.QC.jpg
3ec70a084869495818c1cb6d36818c35
332add9a6ee3cc8f3ba2519d86938358bb9b678a
24612 F20101114_AABYGL fuhrman_n_Page_117.QC.jpg
d30be1d16e7849caebc9cc9a234b7621
ea95ffa529d2db313617e3d6231047e1eb511f71
118240 F20101114_AABYFW fuhrman_n_Page_065.jp2
611197b9b2bc68349286b4bb74ed2c80
72342654993eebe9b27540f298a8440f4d4ce5f7
7008 F20101114_AABZKC fuhrman_n_Page_010thm.jpg
6e9d4363b05bf4fbc5db759709ef3edd
16ff97b9a8f88fa80a99843a1ad0a742218ae23d
5708 F20101114_AABZJO fuhrman_n_Page_143thm.jpg
4e208f427ec26b9e5be02df8cf0439ff
622f872884f06c5fa9fb3f46151f9ec0273deee0
27376 F20101114_AABZIZ fuhrman_n_Page_049.QC.jpg
713cedf918bb66e271106098779b1c4e
543a527ad1188a01098bd6ed9ded7f9d94f7da9b
F20101114_AABYHA fuhrman_n_Page_037.txt
9873e3c248fab44b750e6c22a54596dc
0c1e97e4c63569f358835587b2a638232ca5bf84
19447 F20101114_AABYGM fuhrman_n_Page_097.QC.jpg
fd22d8516b8b37a8418b818664747cda
4b6adef367213e3b5815b4c91ea508a0bda8778d
6499 F20101114_AABYFX fuhrman_n_Page_161thm.jpg
3b48d31b24f1cb49ed4c2e5fe2c1c3bc
3efe8b0cfd2881f9bcc52f832cbbb1961f07090f
11424 F20101114_AABZKD fuhrman_n_Page_106.QC.jpg
2e8f6798dda782c5978247d349890488
5f6b65d032ce66c5d1b4c1ab6517fd8c6534e367
6451 F20101114_AABZJP fuhrman_n_Page_113thm.jpg
93f166da91bdb9d154d210fa9de3da7a
3c94c64e2ca1cbf0ea0341d03a0128192fd94341
26383 F20101114_AABYHB fuhrman_n_Page_045.QC.jpg
2209b6f47d60d633e1de44b7acb0eb8f
b325a84b23c12d9dc6da0b1283ba526b879d344e
52310 F20101114_AABYGN fuhrman_n_Page_064.pro
ab4e25e5ec3efcc6ca2929d7bb0ac59c
6bb21a7c261ab2b59f85b178bee89fa421c642f3
679924 F20101114_AABYFY fuhrman_n_Page_141.jp2
0e2efeb99f2fcce146c3a115939b2437
1d9281e45bc5fb1d511b4d1005901670ead15013
6519 F20101114_AABZKE fuhrman_n_Page_040thm.jpg
347483d8e7cdc48390b3f33edd5adad4
2d3ca3927b60abfe6be0671cc7764a554073576e
7533 F20101114_AABZJQ fuhrman_n_Page_123thm.jpg
d0698450f5b1042c3670105416730b45
f680eb13793c4ec4e7adb1332dc765407f01f49b
36396 F20101114_AABYHC fuhrman_n_Page_155.jpg
b79f5c36743875eeace38c07201ea560
e654f0206f70f69acb19dc570adce8ddf05db88d
6777 F20101114_AABYGO fuhrman_n_Page_027thm.jpg
62295b3783af89d8854f5982546d5c41
590877de1ec67a4d3f845530cc8f5911715c7db5
F20101114_AABYFZ fuhrman_n_Page_047.txt
ce86c81154e3837d920ce42806e7fcb6
020d72ca1d6dab02d36ea3901f34989afb5a2513
25039 F20101114_AABZKF fuhrman_n_Page_019.QC.jpg
56055ebb9dfb833bfd99236a60d0644d
8b3a33cd27f563af67a80b6c2f87f773efee99f6
6071 F20101114_AABZJR fuhrman_n_Page_011thm.jpg
f5d216d1e2e03348251988370ec1f866
836adb79051cd87267868454e58d50421e35a688
349 F20101114_AABYHD fuhrman_n_Page_156.txt
375b43080461755b9600f9e3d1ba113b
ec3d68aa57d1a82e09f2a241b5bfc4f53787d411
F20101114_AABYGP fuhrman_n_Page_129.QC.jpg
751044c8bcee243565392626bea11109
c8134d716f1d71cfdcc984b83ea10640bc1fded2
6762 F20101114_AABZKG fuhrman_n_Page_169thm.jpg
51f87e2459f960b71f431d8bbdcac533
c43c94c28b080b6ddbb3c83998732e9cb7e093a6
25871 F20101114_AABZJS fuhrman_n_Page_124.QC.jpg
19fd98dc66e156c60d96a4092fda65cc
a6f5cf6bcc90697153f4005220a92e08d7276c06
121211 F20101114_AABYHE fuhrman_n_Page_028.jp2
7ac5ff359ef18b97de7f28e1d83445a2
40e261797173024976425a753f04299ffbb6b09d
F20101114_AABYGQ fuhrman_n_Page_058.tif
ebabaa26a52249f0645126591d0aad3f
835491894adcd7640b1e60b9b0bd7142515da8ac
6469 F20101114_AABZKH fuhrman_n_Page_168thm.jpg
6cf92eedf19c486c08841b7198c9c0bc
21f4b940b9bd9bc0960678baf3b80c8a5a2448f0
7088 F20101114_AABZJT fuhrman_n_Page_072thm.jpg
768a2b0df3f29a74e6e4f5d130ee7e3e
83f0f956d5a22cf4739660aca824a347f315e39d
901 F20101114_AABYHF fuhrman_n_Page_152.txt
84f4f97b17c21e5899ee5c20943bd184
491261c0e9e8ce3c32c1e9cf024dd7175fd5910f
2113 F20101114_AABYGR fuhrman_n_Page_036.txt
aecd994fbf8d82c9cb96174f5aabf106
9595bf6993dac7da6db5534c4cefbc2c25ae489d
24831 F20101114_AABZKI fuhrman_n_Page_053.QC.jpg
c55c0a563c3df0e0d3c198787050fbb1
ef772d86393f5376b7e247a761df0b1638701279
18938 F20101114_AABZJU fuhrman_n_Page_098.QC.jpg
5a2417cc0e9210b4bcfd21b7361b045b
0fbf934b202f63c5cda25940a28cf6341f62ce7b
551171 F20101114_AABYHG fuhrman_n_Page_144.jp2
ad0a15f16ed0c91556b72c357bd77be8
28b344847b1d81148746d979305d40a086b2c0e5
25743 F20101114_AABYGS fuhrman_n_Page_166.QC.jpg
1bb7a542f121f9dc10d582d379f142e3
a211fa69eeb337fd9a49d153fb051c6278bb8aaf
18796 F20101114_AABZKJ fuhrman_n_Page_100.QC.jpg
3ff783f05f98b52e856112e7a6283c7f
5f2f582e6c8a6dd40cd9fbd5be1952bf9320124f
26177 F20101114_AABZJV fuhrman_n_Page_119.QC.jpg
4738b126f08efb1422cb77f4ac6caa6f
cb9e4d69637d4aade4f54b8940edcf05abe96dc5
912350 F20101114_AABYHH fuhrman_n_Page_153.jp2
6b4a1991ad99d46ff6c1ad6297e4f6d6
7c5761efe04256301d2a333feda942d008509eb7
23542 F20101114_AABYGT fuhrman_n_Page_089.QC.jpg
ccf0467c66894a12288f265e12e3b4b2
a9670c0a2a441b987e9d486801b00d91f218d229
25696 F20101114_AABZKK fuhrman_n_Page_178.QC.jpg
311f948bf6b2f60e3e1d49342b7fe56b
2be8f99f833af6074479cbf3836b6f18c668e977
4727 F20101114_AABZJW fuhrman_n_Page_181thm.jpg
1b68b7de81f45bd52d3baf64a719e18c
098ebcb84a6803f58655dcf908dd1804dd3c94c4
123339 F20101114_AABYHI fuhrman_n_Page_049.jp2
0d2626726d72d6ff1eee219903ab34ce
b404131cf8150b2e6549c566e40821e06f5fbe9f
2129 F20101114_AABYGU fuhrman_n_Page_064.txt
40bbe895ff4dac541fe36fc9229218e5
b8556b998a3b43e9f68c04145c4ca9b9d3f2f338
4285 F20101114_AABZKL fuhrman_n_Page_151thm.jpg
41dfa8e36484b898566bb749cd0f16be
c267f183acb8b8ff351ffb52672bced5f36b5f55
16907 F20101114_AABZJX fuhrman_n_Page_102.QC.jpg
40283403ab9f88aa48e6bf64bb0a4df3
440275eb5b35f8acafb6fd4beeda8bc546053ac3
F20101114_AABYHJ fuhrman_n_Page_063.tif
35f485b0bb99b0cab0da121930f523de
3baf733773cc79a923dd323c6bd2435b95fe3101
2705 F20101114_AABYGV fuhrman_n_Page_031thm.jpg
85a36c04299043bb4a2a9dc92a265e81
851f5d13f6c1adceedba90842f446ef4b6e117b2
26329 F20101114_AABZLA fuhrman_n_Page_085.QC.jpg
123c102b3a0f8606aec59dd517db9bc0
11436f43da2d072a0745da9b9fd6e0e00158a3c5
24903 F20101114_AABZKM fuhrman_n_Page_054.QC.jpg
5e79e431a79bcae6b83d7b5baf74d673
95a932758d7d771a5ea47554b12872f51810a1d0
53731 F20101114_AABYHK fuhrman_n_Page_102.jpg
7bddbba63926f36a8cd0e64e9be8a99f
d8d9da6bae1aace624c146409ad54129c22bfa2a
23164 F20101114_AABZLB fuhrman_n_Page_130.QC.jpg
ad008f2f84022fb2fad624d2af6041a1
60e9208c868f4f9a49e472948d2ad636db701a8b
24583 F20101114_AABZKN fuhrman_n_Page_071.QC.jpg
06164e3518264a8eb203334a684a09b2
74e44459c77c5c85aa9f2abb61acfa8a7c09d671
6794 F20101114_AABZJY fuhrman_n_Page_094thm.jpg
66b3969688d0358c2d07d3a8d3d3bd9b
e5f9c4c083e65e40178760679640cb389ed21485
1631 F20101114_AABYHL fuhrman_n_Page_159.txt
39fc639eb63a28626e6093d87399224c
a57ac12af1e826c41b4d87173250a48b315ed18c
7033 F20101114_AABYGW fuhrman_n_Page_024thm.jpg
58e8363cb14381e31dcffe286c62cbcc
b8914b90d4cd5adbf0edf14ad25a98be0016ba54
7026 F20101114_AABZLC fuhrman_n_Page_042thm.jpg
55aa53648aea34284235a0595a911c77
1bd50587e8b6b65766329b2b9dc3064b142dbb6f
25620 F20101114_AABZKO fuhrman_n_Page_057.QC.jpg
b5c511f7e4ddddfcffbcbf98974c9665
73f8e5eb044c0513075bac80da3f4d4e8bc11341
2415 F20101114_AABZJZ fuhrman_n_Page_012thm.jpg
20239a2bc46101271a21f5b8ae4b8de2
e59b0dd8820396630cbd19c88dc113ee0d79df35
4146 F20101114_AABYHM fuhrman_n_Page_013thm.jpg
376ebef9043125a9b4d02328a3ffca1e
b6830bb7a5a7ae8c06620f67bfb166156860e109
1601 F20101114_AABYGX fuhrman_n_Page_164.txt
da8b884715868b54f7f5b6a4fccddbfe
2d55fc3be61e561481ba1928557a417aa0ab1181
33563 F20101114_AABYIA fuhrman_n_Page_154.jpg
3e70841e2c2af651917de950ed4eac23
dfab90c92ca762fb893d45bf791c0cdf75af2e1e
7100 F20101114_AABZLD fuhrman_n_Page_045thm.jpg
4958a59bb51a58e17dd7160506533e1b
51ab8bf6098d35c2d29e7349aeae3792c3187292
29907 F20101114_AABZKP fuhrman_n_Page_137.QC.jpg
286e9c9c43c2cfc18b72550df3c286aa
e1002ef00d563b2df0999c3985bf478a909527dc
F20101114_AABYHN fuhrman_n_Page_161.tif
8baf1db95d34ec70273360de181b2e80
e1ab5cb7d29be7fca3f857356bb2b3ac65a42eef
120362 F20101114_AABYGY fuhrman_n_Page_061.jp2
5d16d5dff6f93e90e21f80f6cccbc7e1
4ae60100522c0785d1304a751ff30bd59dc80231
4651 F20101114_AABYIB fuhrman_n_Page_139thm.jpg
d8386651b44bbab5e84bca2719d60c74
5174410e82ec17d2ec23b665488c85e4aba797f6
14372 F20101114_AABZLE fuhrman_n_Page_013.QC.jpg
d4b4ef75d72b5838fc45033f1b1477bf
2b2b1585f227176305f2a128d230641213915802
3100 F20101114_AABZKQ fuhrman_n_Page_002.QC.jpg
27d20b789c17c11ee533422a919e6c6a
68d061b6ff40421db1c1e4d8e6e77d71fe9e4677
522 F20101114_AABYHO fuhrman_n_Page_110.txt
528ee3d55341a9f45232a5106929ac23
a71aacc9e45558e9d54b016216f9466177d4fcae
55943 F20101114_AABYGZ fuhrman_n_Page_055.pro
7bb27c5b579d6b477d2e3fbc71ecc890
03258f1569207c106fd7c7788051c6ac110a6430
F20101114_AABYIC fuhrman_n_Page_019.txt
28c89f4a9973d768635e250b4a13e5fd
7fa7e3c2043075744a16d209f28a855ac80fab9b
23286 F20101114_AABZLF fuhrman_n_Page_052.QC.jpg
c7698e2cbce188479bed12524cac875b
419ad489b61f9f33fad7a79a3f0b065bffb8c8b9
24757 F20101114_AABZKR fuhrman_n_Page_043.QC.jpg
9680cc5bf07204cb6b90c29da06ea9a0
da78e3c77777d7e5c8c9bebadad528932ab416ab
17229 F20101114_AABYHP fuhrman_n_Page_136.jpg
d4d76e9f995c07f2d233e08b333699b0
3e80edf1fbfab8343c5a9fd286265debfcc65ace
F20101114_AABYID fuhrman_n_Page_061.txt
ffe5be914bff0e0ea94afd78d2e79cf2
311669f6eed59129026904d69504e3778ad3f82d
6763 F20101114_AABZLG fuhrman_n_Page_116thm.jpg
72f2802f250364b21e0b8454f58bdb48
fd584f43a27918534e1af10d3d62c61bae1eb18f
6825 F20101114_AABZKS fuhrman_n_Page_165thm.jpg
f83ee82abf26efe87146c54ab4c4203e
0c3538991106a20697f1aa391b5a3c1b367b5b33
51548 F20101114_AABYHQ fuhrman_n_Page_163.pro
de91cd00c3794936ebdae76af9e6b9fd
2b2977ae5d2827d8421b5013c242e1a087517fcc
1051871 F20101114_AABYIE fuhrman_n_Page_139.jp2
11d939199e486d2c9e9418d09a30f438
d1ba2b6312ff069f66722be14efd450885e4d4d1
6063 F20101114_AABZLH fuhrman_n_Page_134thm.jpg
4ecbc53e35148f3cbc19a096042b75d8
44193c86ade5b6d8f980d8e2b0838bfcc6a1580f
6773 F20101114_AABZKT fuhrman_n_Page_039thm.jpg
070090bce5049a6092a8d9380829d573
e8dc16d0feee72a26a7562fc7db8a6ec4579c34a
F20101114_AABYHR fuhrman_n_Page_173.tif
1215507335f8b87fcd14afd7edd30220
6bb60e1a8bd8067b3ca4ebee23c1c206277c4a30
89320 F20101114_AABYIF fuhrman_n_Page_180.jpg
b76001292c43f249fedc1c41218b13c4
c2df3bf24c148311ac0ad9200ee6d8478ec14908
4024 F20101114_AABZLI fuhrman_n_Page_156thm.jpg
b27ff97520b58863b57c769c5f537ed7
2bf4e838d030273731e64228ebce7263bdae6d4e
30737 F20101114_AABZKU fuhrman_n_Page_123.QC.jpg
5cadf65a6c961b95456c59cc0ab74f62
2a1ea05654b489843cfcc5455a27caa67b903cb5
F20101114_AABYHS fuhrman_n_Page_126.tif
b12c5ae9d45e5b88c4d4d16198a2fb83
9aa0167f9b961412ebdac3150b4076a950110921
14515 F20101114_AABYIG fuhrman_n_Page_138.QC.jpg
6bb53b9954009b47c884195138961125
68bd805d19f0a4c364f78a71d5a4abc53b46b639
7076 F20101114_AABZLJ fuhrman_n_Page_061thm.jpg
2156bcc0eec606bc869a709ce35fc779
71d46379a3aa064338fdf135220da1d4dc26bfa5
25933 F20101114_AABZKV fuhrman_n_Page_017.QC.jpg
bc44c6dd6a46a61d5e6e98daf96a2a9c
92520f274e8c5ce100ef6ebb7bde4346d5592b01
2021 F20101114_AABYHT fuhrman_n_Page_075.txt
bf135b72a721dfb8a996e2b6f43b8c71
895c5f3303b4b24f30f1597f899ddb5f5cc86a9c
114453 F20101114_AABYIH fuhrman_n_Page_054.jp2
92b8a7a085cacc13131f1a43f6f7b41f
e57600a288b524edcb6dd6bd7bc4c6b26b9642c1
25805 F20101114_AABZLK fuhrman_n_Page_046.QC.jpg
8bd9cd11c0ec48d4ad01309f4ee97880
2d3b8c0c7d18616ccd6485a7d3b722d46ba265e8
3763 F20101114_AABZKW fuhrman_n_Page_068thm.jpg
92bbd60d76949e32bb7b9db0595fa1bc
684c035a6d1931a7bbac1266f80b1cee8e0ec60a
6272 F20101114_AABYHU fuhrman_n_Page_158thm.jpg
c36cf65f78b88e923027852075834379
caf642c3ef491f853b04ff57a2d95263bdbd33ad
78816 F20101114_AABYII fuhrman_n_Page_037.jpg
2e5c2af8fd40c93713c83a05fa1a7131
db2b9be2e95811535fa356425a6d965ee386b3c9
18393 F20101114_AABZLL fuhrman_n_Page_147.QC.jpg
395b8f6c2e95ae78ba265334c2bcfcff
81562900d895d3d197c26fcfa9da6f7e63993173
F20101114_AABZKX fuhrman_n_Page_127thm.jpg
5cc5db2b3489ffb7ec817a639eebc237
932177633bd31c700cc13373619ea40ed113668d
2320 F20101114_AABYHV fuhrman_n_Page_176.txt
0498f737f12028f902a9172ccf1679ce
81ae2e1d2c6e36a859674ffe15d6255bc4e048fe
116651 F20101114_AABYIJ fuhrman_n_Page_131.jp2
b3a39cfa939c2a9e14006b84943325e1
e2775f719bb5880e261d5496bd0647a6da89fcfb
7221 F20101114_AABZMA fuhrman_n_Page_124thm.jpg
4b5c4fe632e6ecea1c1a9d8ce9d4cca2
9ebc71c3f9734732feb03255eb5b9f7e05bb189e
6303 F20101114_AABZLM fuhrman_n_Page_028thm.jpg
6da19bcac46d554cebbb5d02e5042534
083fba5b0c91e8c05f19cb8dfd8d896f403750e1
23210 F20101114_AABZKY fuhrman_n_Page_032.QC.jpg
74eaf324197ef1bfdd9c9ccbd8a266a8
43c42d884020f85d449eec494b105dfbab63186b
F20101114_AABYHW fuhrman_n_Page_074thm.jpg
6fb62003b08d26f65443b98c4d4d87ef
6e487ec8ef9a9deb2bc881fe4cc308f8b8953305
67596 F20101114_AABYIK fuhrman_n_Page_134.pro
e71ee8bd7bddd19e641f1a6742d3ea03
ee5b2370841c0b8b01b98acb2220ee903895d6fa
F20101114_AABZMB fuhrman_n_Page_078thm.jpg
21a863d52832607029aca7740001d8dc
1a52fdfba9ba512d91b66e571022aeb14d56a669
26413 F20101114_AABZLN fuhrman_n_Page_033.QC.jpg
0e9c227390d49c5f46def42e86ca4bef
45d6e303008a953fc6765d5304e4b25fa79eeac9
F20101114_AABYIL fuhrman_n_Page_131thm.jpg
204fec00e801d17e75198dd6460432c6
109b5153a24ff482f25290e63da8d403196d507d
F20101114_AABZMC fuhrman_n_Page_171thm.jpg
7d5d5e86f05ac687c5c42c633c11edcf
2b0ffd9fa78182bd702bfa99ad1d79c57ed4901f
26711 F20101114_AABZLO fuhrman_n_Page_132.QC.jpg
4d80b45368cbc8710a0c14ef4e951e77
3fec224d980e973683fcafdcfa11ff368b8fc876
6988 F20101114_AABZKZ fuhrman_n_Page_092thm.jpg
20cb33daa9e78c1a354df668bc93ef7a
6372cff417bc8e088c51e2db958530845fb9170e
71791 F20101114_AABYHX fuhrman_n_Page_108.jpg
22fd82fe99829bc39f4d2d504fc6a9fb
fb9a604a0905543611770a2f6d3fe499f639ad39
1255 F20101114_AABYJA fuhrman_n_Page_103.txt
64f27834e658e2454104447d4894e696
4d0c488cffb94b1aba4bc0c85991b39e5aa1f816
93 F20101114_AABYIM fuhrman_n_Page_002.txt
af77f273de8f60af8a5475307af2c8f0
90e669234507585067ef6bcc13125ddf78663c04
25659 F20101114_AABZMD fuhrman_n_Page_061.QC.jpg
c1010011ec9de7389127bdb8c3ed3535
e84dd3dffece990b6367814b5cd4eb9102d01297
6703 F20101114_AABZLP fuhrman_n_Page_167thm.jpg
fad3dfc48de285720affb604e2687449
cfad4ae2ccbb0da62e17d89531de7c3daf35b5e2
26421 F20101114_AABYHY fuhrman_n_Page_072.QC.jpg
edcfc2b3b66c3010f9eb58fcb068ba8c
715161fda72b13e628ebc48c6dacfecf8f841501
F20101114_AABYJB fuhrman_n_Page_104.tif
367e449a341984ce59983fdd51ced8a0
a61daf180a18105043de91736d491a9d169096f9
79967 F20101114_AABYIN fuhrman_n_Page_020.jpg
88fc7d37a194efa60e0435f5cec3b6e6
054d751cc9aa4c9c2ec215f39fe39687cbb117d4
25662 F20101114_AABZME fuhrman_n_Page_055.QC.jpg
1db61a414108b2d95af9d3eb9fe7c4d6
162d14453466eeb385e20b2d2ff6fd6ba37b32c6
26220 F20101114_AABZLQ fuhrman_n_Page_127.QC.jpg
0fb889f14db4df2b0990efb41de03ac0
2224c08d786c59511243f66608ac579cc6289d71
55602 F20101114_AABYHZ fuhrman_n_Page_112.pro
258ad00c2953cd756004b1c6b4831bb0
55d1ac66bde0be0b6b8df0d05b4cb66e8dddb456
55993 F20101114_AABYJC fuhrman_n_Page_127.pro
7a9e9cd6acee5dea63b56c8ca7f7de2a
509c0dd9c19e260974e4d449a23bd7774a4394d4
F20101114_AABYIO fuhrman_n_Page_129.tif
3071871e9d842ee5e7b2433dc521d770
14f6f4d7b9c919a36df72513f0514a099f5fbe56
22363 F20101114_AABZMF fuhrman_n_Page_016.QC.jpg
37ba1e1815ad7c805401db4b797319f9
0b78e2ef0394f3490d07f5198bf64dd1f840a70f
F20101114_AABZLR fuhrman_n_Page_047thm.jpg
02704c4f6baef8e6e0db8255af2bf978
f329afb033652a16e3f6265e0dfb4e8fa0ff7f40
132521 F20101114_AABYJD fuhrman_n_Page_180.jp2
f6923504cbc6b8fd126cd9d9236ab2f6
898adb424c42c97dafcc1fa3da28dc6000840b05
288 F20101114_AABYIP fuhrman_n_Page_051.txt
c16959528a2e3c80c3295747c5772910
2f5e85bd4f0ba11e5dfb61eeb3749c49c6897b23
6637 F20101114_AABZMG fuhrman_n_Page_176thm.jpg
0fd111f2054deb879c4c6d02d83e37e7
7c5b88f37fe8c90387448cd150b8a27ca60189db
6635 F20101114_AABZLS fuhrman_n_Page_054thm.jpg
cae9cb22641938c1f460d0b3146484ff
3a4f63752340f78cff73e28aa753e046cea39797
7170 F20101114_AABYJE fuhrman_n_Page_004thm.jpg
34b65c739722ec9fff4836766dcf284b
e447b2d8825f854f2130cb6283f2e7b0fde385f4
994 F20101114_AABYIQ fuhrman_n_Page_149.txt
a0479e959f5fe57a50ef3675d5185dcf
c27f7ba8b92eca35a2ad6f0cd63ed1f8d1ef0c20
6726 F20101114_AABZMH fuhrman_n_Page_063thm.jpg
bcea757b2cba58eaf3feba9ea1cf1e7a
78d538bfb32e0a3b0d508b58b230cdf14f20b5d6
F20101114_AABZLT fuhrman_n_Page_009thm.jpg
70979b80c634039cea53b1cc6764f444
138d7c9280e804a8e9c9027b53776f85bf2fc9c1
2228 F20101114_AABYJF fuhrman_n_Page_020.txt
8a511e828f01e0cbff126b180275306a
7fb23bfa97cde72f05456887d0735a4aeacac15d
116888 F20101114_AABYIR fuhrman_n_Page_036.jp2
2308da82cc9ae6d9da296a81f65974d2
d9df9c31d9ad7596d866ab0ca58ed2344fa847c0
6845 F20101114_AABZMI fuhrman_n_Page_180thm.jpg
ece59e911b42e6e98bf119d2ac806443
d84207d8b1a5dcc55ff71459f755738cfa3c8527
11721 F20101114_AABZLU fuhrman_n_Page_068.QC.jpg
e888b32770630bbcde9132af7909ec15
dfb8bd31e011855b804047ca78fc16cbfe0369fb
79567 F20101114_AABYJG fuhrman_n_Page_027.jpg
923c8c12359e192dd62973a4d21a32a4
57b49c0e927d7e903aa42dbb150263ca8c965ebb
14110 F20101114_AABYIS fuhrman_n_Page_109.QC.jpg
3a7514dac17b448b2e5bdfeb0ef6b30b
aea7e92b2499c3a94f35caaf3f490d5184f2610f
6336 F20101114_AABZMJ fuhrman_n_Page_007thm.jpg
aa0cded5fad60de480fe3e9e8c96cd37
725349d0865ce06634150622ba56506d4803b66f
6727 F20101114_AABZLV fuhrman_n_Page_070thm.jpg
e4811804571be8dbe5d0b93860525930
3f7fabf440de1e049e2d50922cbf66a19e623b48
78867 F20101114_AABYJH fuhrman_n_Page_083.jpg
9e8ce3df455d886161661a7d3261e6cf
dfd142cf196f0ed6b7f5305afbf12720c5779358
71907 F20101114_AABYIT fuhrman_n_Page_071.jpg
a07bd1c86e63d6d262eed69f5da3270e
9bfe6a6fb091215a7d46d98205d9f358354b1121
26935 F20101114_AABZMK fuhrman_n_Page_125.QC.jpg
c1457c281be946f0c13efe70dfbb878d
98ed9b640ddd3a8fda934e4d71ac387426f991d0
26487 F20101114_AABZLW fuhrman_n_Page_004.QC.jpg
0d6d099ee634e549ed456f02b154bd0e
cbe3d9f7cf1c2c6a9a24c07389b251dcd4ef0b6f
48095 F20101114_AABYJI fuhrman_n_Page_160.pro
bc25ccf1e3b2a1f99a85190ca1d30cee
cdde23e9d69e00636bbba730ae3254cbe4024d2a
F20101114_AABYIU fuhrman_n_Page_098.tif
d47ef12a4fa3f6df6690c41c1c4c5770
8ddf993bfee895fb42797cf51724587d8ed265c0
26142 F20101114_AABZML fuhrman_n_Page_050.QC.jpg
d9a953403eec2a5f173976804d4373ff
f91faa4c905e05911e14d8cb3134f82d98f657fa
3625 F20101114_AABZLX fuhrman_n_Page_149thm.jpg
f6cfd34bf03610156b848d306bee3591
f920f700e0ce98c62b98834038aae495ef356685
75742 F20101114_AABYJJ fuhrman_n_Page_034.jpg
bbb6c747ee99a90dc5029639572a63e9
f9e04e90f947df93993e064d8cf2977c63b2afc8
64816 F20101114_AABYIV fuhrman_n_Page_107.pro
28e3f35cb60863f50cc17e531b41d663
022bf86cca53fbd35355bc39cc4c3d1007c2b66f
23142 F20101114_AABZNA fuhrman_n_Page_161.QC.jpg
36a06ac5a7c75d5a5cd8fbe84a316bae
da9ea8adf5ec09254010b133ae127c32faa4c907
6855 F20101114_AABZMM fuhrman_n_Page_166thm.jpg
9febbd415aa304376593e97a177a7ecd
c7629921ef602ef1178c3ec51cedc72534ae4ef0
19235 F20101114_AABZLY fuhrman_n_Page_159.QC.jpg
7509a34dc17f194016012bbc38aa2672
0c2fce0a957dcff51d7bb095f3fa5d37b1d721d5
55649 F20101114_AABYJK fuhrman_n_Page_026.pro
8912abd15e14f3c9ab69e27c90c18dc1
f760ea7a58b351f63831dc1a3e50315a3559ecc0
77118 F20101114_AABYIW fuhrman_n_Page_070.jpg
ff96c7db5cc4f120d52e436196381ebe
e9dae04d8ee7c2f0dfe942f857c2aab885e929ed
27142 F20101114_AABZNB fuhrman_n_Page_172.QC.jpg
1a62bb32c8946b62cd260a484042c935
2d1f208c0c206b5a8ca036ccf5a13689bcd5d90f
4160 F20101114_AABZMN fuhrman_n_Page_103thm.jpg
d8d043aac88f0c09083c68191400a949
4cbbe31edb814a7c8fe8b2673a9f3777d4f3b96c
6183 F20101114_AABZLZ fuhrman_n_Page_069thm.jpg
8fc3c4ef2426bf8687f0b135ce5e446c
14ceb7e22f72dc33425b453163f27fc60c7ae3f2
F20101114_AABYJL fuhrman_n_Page_042.tif
fef1a4d660ad90a5ca01e12671d0c749
23a31048c8dc92b579a6902d6b7c23cacb6c5afc
46487 F20101114_AABYIX fuhrman_n_Page_109.jpg
b235780907e74ee56fba69a9300fa977
d8707f20b9614ee8e42a6029bdd34db361fb1163
23606 F20101114_AABZNC fuhrman_n_Page_028.QC.jpg
2dac3e68b7188e04690a988c6d9bd0df
256cc55860395f9d9d9db56d57bd642046cbd9f2
4173 F20101114_AABZMO fuhrman_n_Page_153thm.jpg
71a438c62c87e02a778bbdd727c2491d
c4d9750b651f89b36525753f1145439eb62e51ec
78927 F20101114_AABYKA fuhrman_n_Page_038.jpg
518fea1a4705b420dba1d2e759ec92ec
ea0279c90c939a04bbef539299f7a76f9b88bfe8
75793 F20101114_AABYJM fuhrman_n_Page_173.jpg
3f1d98b25cc87acdaf9d91fe36fd8426
066560b24f2ed1be60902d87fdadade648d9dc43
4120 F20101114_AABZND fuhrman_n_Page_109thm.jpg
a812fd0c4ce450e3e25143ce6bafa83c
baa8b34f89e1c1f8928c8a4fd9dc675853f5af3b
4843 F20101114_AABZMP fuhrman_n_Page_030.QC.jpg
18b53d5f94ace364942b19e6fcd913cb
a35e92665eba89ae5a2186609cd0a355dedeeda7
112121 F20101114_AABYKB fuhrman_n_Page_171.jp2
c9f5710f54ac4a31f955bbfab3fe2752
779fa1449c1d03f11807f58547608114b55e0a10
113058 F20101114_AABYJN fuhrman_n_Page_116.jp2
4917d49e6ce0e3b31dc2a24b763a263f
f0fe8e90f075b250f3243f11dfd68bfb11173a61
F20101114_AABYIY fuhrman_n_Page_099.tif
ab038cab42924b4843381adb1f2270f7
58d38aa0c9dc0c748a6f284066c9be07c95c1642
6445 F20101114_AABZNE fuhrman_n_Page_160thm.jpg
bba065244fd5b5ecc5e033b749a463be
810e754b2fdfdb7afff9ed430f1646ed53ec6db3
7185 F20101114_AABZMQ fuhrman_n_Page_132thm.jpg
fe82bf14e1b7ce18c89f956095478de7
f18c5a03e3c15d9792a90f21299c879f78eca485
44073 F20101114_AABYKC fuhrman_n_Page_144.jpg
c27e50475baa8bb6ca6d3c9533354fc9
8b8ea72d45f4510ec51cd47780fb165a86fb6753
21910 F20101114_AABYJO fuhrman_n_Page_069.QC.jpg
7784df9e9ad1f3be5c95080c13fc2d5c
d65eeaed80573007673714e11d4a737da9712e5b
66281 F20101114_AABYIZ fuhrman_n_Page_179.pro
b62c6339d4c1e0463c1d7d0824ed3788
4a97945685f7997c1bc12ac6bb37cf92a8852c20
3965 F20101114_AABZNF fuhrman_n_Page_174thm.jpg
365f2496ebd97ac15e67e45580c4e222
10beb95c9f6dccb405fa53998a66dfbd63bee7fb
7328 F20101114_AABZMR fuhrman_n_Page_090thm.jpg
adf4ff01a76362afe5adf9c7254028ec
2d7db4035ec08b86b1f9f5ac42fe8e5953fdfcab
77512 F20101114_AABYKD fuhrman_n_Page_073.jpg
98a4aab7ff1157368d6df892dcf3a9a4
1532027e1887d58934560a1e5c9a451da3f66e6c
F20101114_AABYJP fuhrman_n_Page_034.tif
ac7b714b67ab30f836b2bb6c933f2f8d
5ab08cb1c3241eac1a22f1ef24b327b55d8d3a82
26183 F20101114_AABZNG fuhrman_n_Page_020.QC.jpg
6cfd4c1e682c84ee0dbd732a34c70804
48612a6aa83c23ff3080dfa2d57a1495d5e65661
25234 F20101114_AABZMS fuhrman_n_Page_134.QC.jpg
13aea393341196b3152eb2eca232d32f
fe9c0d0795fb38bc697e65043ab652e7462a8c9a
74552 F20101114_AABYKE fuhrman_n_Page_043.jpg
4c837177a7a02714f160be19e7474765
c5acc0ddbbdfeee4ac3b57f5827b59b8ef571791
76805 F20101114_AABYJQ fuhrman_n_Page_029.jpg
4dab66ae8d41f2cd0b540ecc245c1c51
aabd3e4229e00d4b19566265c6d8bd23f08660cb
6626 F20101114_AABZNH fuhrman_n_Page_008thm.jpg
d8aa361edaaee18388cb9b2c01f98914
a5c7c08389b81deebf1a847bad3b6e48dc9e8ab8
7014 F20101114_AABZMT fuhrman_n_Page_062thm.jpg
86de1c03b78e627fc882b2879de93c7f
36b425fc967f22fd005fe71d01a507d894c24108
114603 F20101114_AABYKF fuhrman_n_Page_114.jp2
22dd1d158471d991da539a5c99d8af46
3e137266171c25988708b5d7df913ec2168c37f7
F20101114_AABYJR fuhrman_n_Page_138.tif
4ec12cda97f3b5c2a25ec10f3754e244
54b70caa255f3dab2ae895cb620535bd6349f53c
16428 F20101114_AABZNI fuhrman_n_Page_148.QC.jpg
7f1968a7ad2010a8dece7dc9b8c5dae0
9609db70e4e588f43ac0132dcf5fe8b0293c9098
7218 F20101114_AABZMU fuhrman_n_Page_125thm.jpg
4c28bd6441c41bf93fb2c306670295be
75e241ea1823714f46fed959a27abe1afd8f3195
26517 F20101114_AABYKG fuhrman_n_Page_084.QC.jpg
1166844bbd4aa0f83df2517bcc35e3b3
9e181867e1e0afe5e7699ab8774c5dc4659dbc77
24088 F20101114_AABYJS fuhrman_n_Page_080.QC.jpg
a1397b1b3b3685c6bc9ace878261f947
8e9c8cf6965a0472881b281f98bdda3499e425cd
F20101114_AABZNJ fuhrman_n_Page_005thm.jpg
8db78b378d8db85a36130c35d1b196cf
584b41ec5b19e53c15682780339d939a20fd56d8
6823 F20101114_AABZMV fuhrman_n_Page_025thm.jpg
3b82aa5470c7238f318a01a28cdbf215
3f70be470a3898f0a6e08ee9b462e3cce2d7265f
11084 F20101114_AABYKH fuhrman_n_Page_149.QC.jpg
477b21e5b42926afc7327154c420cb10
a7a25adc04af6cbfd1c11e8e4c8e92e0e50f51f7
120167 F20101114_AABYJT fuhrman_n_Page_024.jp2
5e3a111065b6edfdb986f1f6529bafd9
5b17968cae874d611be9cf889ae034d85acd29a6
23048 F20101114_AABZNK fuhrman_n_Page_076.QC.jpg
d3d842a9530314507c37ca0958a929c2
ea2ca675ecd8d07432198fe5c717d3f36d142212
7278 F20101114_AABZMW fuhrman_n_Page_012.QC.jpg
455c334d15fadd5bc8b2205c2ded8894
b848b0dcda8a30a87b1e0ccf69796cbff8d13d29
2114 F20101114_AABYKI fuhrman_n_Page_021.txt
429697f9d7a10f34fec12cee4fc5edf7
d8e4a12a690b4d756ec5caad1ed08f3858075758
19068 F20101114_AABYJU fuhrman_n_Page_077.QC.jpg
a9c0648dedc9725c00ace05a73b897db
24ff3934c9f705213a0f678e673f3582e83041df
25475 F20101114_AABZNL fuhrman_n_Page_066.QC.jpg
3b26f165191d76368cc47d9743cf3d36
80eceb43affd16e4db8cc4f48033d1d1a2c73378
2073 F20101114_AABZMX fuhrman_n_Page_051thm.jpg
757b702c53e2e031609c6a2872715ee8
30c7794a09a3cb4a02f9515452308e22dd3aac15
7403 F20101114_AABYKJ fuhrman_n_Page_179thm.jpg
4a68fddf330c374c79e33b00de1bea37
42bbe55b740bdd540c1fcd4adade65221f48e5ee
24441 F20101114_AABYJV fuhrman_n_Page_112.QC.jpg
6b600d5bebea8c8cd443b1a6af2d716e
bf56d654ae822f8e00df74c132628c23746e895a







PREDICTING COMMITMENT TO ENGAGE IN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE
BEHAVIORS USING INJURED AND NON-INJURED ANIMALS AS TEACHING TOOLS




















By

NICHOLAS E. FUHRMAN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































2007 Nicholas E. Fuhrman

































To my former students. They helped me discover my true passion-teaching-and inspired me
to always search for new knowledge. Gang, I hope this study helps!









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document would not have been possible without the support and guidance of many

people. I would like to begin by thanking my graduate committee. I thank Dr. Glenn Israel for

his expertise in statistics and for our birding conversations in the hallway. I thank Dr. Linda

Cronin-Jones for her environmental education wisdom and for showing me the potential of a

study with Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo. I thank Dr. Brian Myers for his expertise in teaching and

learning and for always helping me keep this often overwhelming task in perspective. Finally, I

give my most sincere thanks to my advisor, Dr. Howard Ladewig. I made many fellow graduate

students jealous by having the beyond-exceptional guidance and mentoring he provided me. I

have never met someone with the gift of being able to take the most complicated of subjects and

explain them in a way that a child could understand. In aspiring to become a university professor

myself, I look at Dr. Ladewig as a role model and friend. Although we spent several months

apart since his retirement, I always looked forward to our phone conversations. During such

conversations, his wife, Ms. Kathi, always made me smile with wildlife stories from their lake

home in Texas and I thank her for her warm spirit.

This study would not have been possible without the incredible help and support of

someone who has become a great friend-even though he is an Ohio State graduate. Mr. Jeff

Ewelt with Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo was kind enough to present every one of the birds of prey

presentations involved in this study. I have yet to meet an educator who has as much passion for

what they do and who is as gifted as Jeff. He brought a smile to the faces of so many people

during his presentations for this study and taught us all so much about helping wildlife.

In completing this study, I spent many hours in an office with folks I'll never forget. I

thank the "Den Mother," Ms. Ann De Lay, for her always positive outlook and kind cards and

post-it notes on our desks. I also thank Mr. Andrew Thoron (BS #1) for his great attitude,









friendship, and for the hundreds of hilarious emails we sent back and forth to one another. We

all know who has the bigger backspace bar.

Finally, I thank my distant friends and family. I thank my Mom (Dawn Fuhrman) for

instilling in me a love of animals and for her extreme confidence in my success. Hearing how

often she talked about me, I never had any doubt that she was proud of me. I thank my Dad

(Mark "Jerry" Fuhrman) for his continuous support, funny phone calls, and for having so much

pride in what I do. I thank my sister, "Nurse Erin," for an always funny phone call and for the

many cards and gifts she sent from Hawaii addressed to "Dr. Nick Fuhrman, Ph.D." I also thank

two old buddies from my days at Virginia Tech-Rob Kish and Dave Pinto-for their continued

friendship over the years. I thank my best friend, Josh Deal, for being there when I needed

anything and for some of the best laughs I've ever had. A very special thanks goes to my dear

friends from Wytheville, Virginia, Mr. Bob Grubb and his wife, Ms. Nora, for their friendship

and always positive encouragement.

Last but certainly not least, I owe a world of thanks to the love of my life. There were so

many weekends when Ros and I wanted to be outside, enjoying the Florida sun, and opted to

head to the office to work. To the both of us, it never mattered what we did, so long as we did it

together. Her love for teaching and working with students is contagious and inspiring. Finally,

our little cat Smokey also deserves some thanks for keeping my lap warm while I worked on this

document.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A CK N O W LED G M EN T S ................................................................. ........... ............. .....

L IS T O F T A B L E S .........................................................................................10

LIST OF FIGURES .................................. .. .... ..... ................. 12

L IST O F T E R M S ...............................................................................................13

A B S T R A C T ................................ ............................................................ 14

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... ................. ........... .............................. 16

Benefits of Using Live Animals with Youth and Adults......................................................18
Linking the Theory of Planned Behavior, Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, and Zoos............20
R atio n a le ..................................................................................................2 3
State ent of the P problem ............................ ................. ....................................................24
P purpose ............... ..................................................................27
Study O bjectives................................................ 28
R research H ypotheses ... .......... .................................................... ... .... ...... .... 29
L im stations ...... ....................................................................................... ............... ...............29

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................... ............................. 32

Introduction ............... ......... ... ..................... ..... .............. ......... 32
Empathy-altruism Hypothesis and Research Involving Animals........................................33
A attitudes T ow ards A nim als ........................................................................... ...................35
Ecologistic Attitudes Tow ards Anim als...................................... ........................ 36
Hum anistic Attitudes Towards Anim als ........................................ ...... ............... 37
A esthetic Attitudes Tow ards Anim als....................................... .......................... 38
Attitudes Towards Animals Based on Animal Appearance....................................40
Attitudes Towards Habitat Conservation and Birds of Prey as Teaching Tools.............41
Theory of Planned Behavior, Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, and Birds of Prey..............41
Behavioral Intention and Actual Behavioral Engagement ......................................43
Attitudes, Environmentally-responsible Behavioral Intention, and Adult Learners .............44
A dult Learning Theory ........................ ..... ...... ......................... ............. .............. 45
Benefits of Animal Interaction for Older Adults................... .... ...................47
Response to Interaction with Animals and Participant Characteristics..............................48
Rationale for Testing the Empathy-altruism Hypothesis with Animals in Need ...................49

3 M E T H O D S ............................................................................... 52

Introduction ................ ......... ......... ..........................................52









Population of Interest .......... ........ .... ............ ............................... .... 52
Sampling and Presentation Regime .......... ........ ...................................... 53
Description of Retirement Communities ................. ...... ..... ....................... ............... 53
P presentation L ogistics....... ..................................................................... .... .... .... ... 54
D ata C o lle ctio n ................................................................................................................. 5 5
Instrum entation and M easurem ent .............................................................. .....................57
P re -a sse ssm e n t........................................................................................................... 5 7
Post-assessm ent .................................................................... ................... 59
Perceived L evel of N eed ................................................ .............................. 59
E m p a th y ............................................................................................................. 6 0
A ltruism (C concern) .......................................... ............... .... ..... .. 6 1
B ehavioral C om m itm ent ................................................ .............................. 61
Social N orm s Regarding Behaviors ........................................ ...... ............... 62
P articipant Satisfaction .................................................. ............................... 63
Sum m ary of M ethods and Theory .............................................................................. ...63
Im plem entation of Pilot Study ................................................................ ............... 64
Pilot Study R results ................................................. 64
D ata A analysis ................................................... 66
Su m m ary ...... ......... .. ............. .. ........................................................ 6 7

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................... .........69

Introduction ..................................................................................... 69
O objective O ne ............... ......... ........ ................. ............................... 69
Determine the Characteristics of Participants Attending the Birds of Prey Outreach
P re sen tatio n s .................................................................6 9
S ex a n d A g e ............................................................................................................... 6 9
Permanent Residence .................. ... .......................... ...............70
Environmental/Conservation Organization Membership ................... .............70
Pet O w nership ........................................71
Previous Conservation-related Behaviors by Presentation ............... ...............72
Previous Conservation-related Behaviors by Sex ........................................ ....74
Summary of Obj ective One ............................... ......................... ........... 76
Explanation of Dependent and Independent Variables .............................. 76
Item Analysis and Reliability by Instrument Construct ........................................ ...77
Factor Analysis and Construct Validity ..................................................77
Attitudes Toward Wildlife Habitat Conservation............................ ...............78
A attitude T ow ard B irds of Prey ........................................................................................78
E m p ath y .................. ......... .................................................................7 8
Perception of the Level of Need ................................ .........79
A ltru istic M otiv atio n ................................................................................................. 7 9
O objective Tw o ............................ ....... ....................... ...... .. ...........................80
Identify the Relationship Between Selected Participant Characteristics and
Associated Levels of Empathy, Altruism, and Commitment to Engage in
Environmentally-responsible Behaviors ................................................ .............. 80
Relationship Between Independent Variables and Commitment to Engage in
Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Injured Birds of Prey ..................................80


7









S u m m a ry ................................................. .............. ... .......... ............... 8 3
Relationship Between Independent Variables and Commitment to Engage in
Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Non-injured Birds of Prey..........................84
Summary .............................................. ... ........ ........ .......... 85
Relationship Between Independent Variables and Commitment to Engage in
Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Pictures of the Same Birds of Prey ............86
S u m m a ry ..........................................................................................8 7
Sum m ary of Objective Two ........................................................................ 88
O objective T three ........................................89
Build a Regression Model to Predict Commitment to Engage in the
Environmentally-responsible Behaviors Advocated by the Zoo Educator .................. 89
Sum m ary Statistics for M ajor Constructs ................................................ ............... 89
R egression A ssum options ........................................................................ ...................90
R egression A analysis ............................................ ............. .... .. .... 91
P ath M odel ................................................................................................................. 92
Follow-up Logistic Regression Analysis.................................... ......................... 92
Sum m ary of Objective Three ....................................................................... 93
O objective F our ...................................................................... ..... ...............93
Measure the Level of Satisfaction that Participants Have with Tampa's Lowry Park
Zoo Birds of Prey Outreach Presentation ............................................................93
Qualitative responses ............................................................... .. ... ..... 94
S u m m ary ................... ...................9...................4..........

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. .......... 111

In tro d u ctio n ................... ...................1.............................1
O b j e c tiv e s ................................................................................................................... 1 1 1
Research Hypotheses ................ ................................. .............. ........ .. 112
M e th o d s .............................................................................................1 12
Sum m ary of Findings ..................................... ................. ........... .. ............ 115
Objective One ..................................................................... ........ 115
Participant D em graphics .............................................. .............. ............... 115
Previous Engagement in Conservation-related Behaviors................................... 116
Objective Two .................. ........ ...... ............ ........ ..... ........... 117
Summary of Major Constructs Measured ................ ............. ...............117
F actor A naly sis F indings......... ................................................................... ... 118
Associations Among Variables/Constructs by Presentation Type .........................119
O bje ctiv e T h re e ....................................................................................................12 0
O bjectiv e F ou r ................................................................................. 12 1
R research H hypothesis O ne .................................................. ...................................... 12 1
R research H hypothesis Tw o .................................... ................................................... 122
R research H ypothesis Three ........................................................................... 122
C conclusions .................................................. 123
Discussion and Im plications ............... ................. ............................................... 124
Objective One: Describe the characteristics of participants of the birds of prey
outreach presentations........ ................................................................. ...... ........ 124



8









Objective Two: Identify the relationship between selected participant
characteristics and their associated level of empathy, altruism, and commitment
to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors.............................................. 125
Objective Three: Build a regression model to predict commitment to engage in
environm entally-responsible behaviors ................................................................ 128
Objective Four: Measure the level of satisfaction that participants have with
Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo birds of prey outreach presentation ........... .................132
R ecom m endations for R research ................................... ................................... ............... 132
R ecom m endations for Practice ........................................................................... .. 134

APPENDIX

A LETTER TO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ........... ........................... ............135

B POSTER USED TO RECRUIT PARTICIPANTS AND ADVERTISE
PRESENTATION................... ........ .. .... ..... .... ........... 137

C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL AND INFORMED CONSENT .......138

D DATA COLLECTION IN STRUM EN T ................................................... .....................141

E POWERPOINT SLIDES USED WITH comparison GROUP PRESENTATIONS ............153

F ITEM ANALYSIS AND RELIABILITY BY INSTRUMENT CONSTRUCT .................. 158

Pre-assessment: Part One -Previous Conservation-related Behaviors......................158
Pre-assessment: Part Two Attitude Toward Wildlife Habitat Conservation..............158
Pre-assessment: Part Three Attitude Toward Birds of Prey ................ ...............159
Pre-assessment: Part Four Participant Demographics.....................................159
Post-assessment: Part One Perception of Need.................................. ... ................ 159
Post-assessment: Part Two Empathy..................................................160
Post-assessment: Part Three Altruism ...................... ...................160
Post-assessment: Part Four Commitment to Engage in Conservation-related
B eh av io rs ................ ... ......... ........................................16 0
Post-assessment: Part Four Acceptability of Behaviors to Others .............................161
Post-assessment: Part Four Likelihood of Performing Behaviors if Others Knew.... 161
Post-assessment: Part Five Customer Satisfaction...............................................161
Internal Consistency Findings ........ ...... ............. ................. .......................... 161

G DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THREE WILDLIFE PRESENTATIONS .....................165

Presentation One: Exposure to All Injured Birds of Prey ................ ... ...............165
Presentation Two: Exposure to All Non-injured Birds of Prey..................................168
Presentation Three (Comparison Group): Exposure to Pictures of Birds of Prey.........172

LIST OF REFEREN CES ......... ...................................... ......... ...... ................... 175

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ......... ................. ............................................. .......................... 182









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Sex of Respondents by Presentation Type (N = 210)........................................................96

4-2 Respondent Age by Presentation Type (N = 206) .................................. ............... 96

4-3 Respondent Permanent Residence by Presentation Type (N = 212) ..............................96

4-4 Respondent Membership in Environmental or Conservation Organizations by
P presentation T ype (N = 2 13)...................................................................... ..................97

4-5 Respondent Membership in Environmental or Conservation Organizations by
Location of Permanent Residence (N = 212).......................................... ...............97

4-6 Respondent Membership in Environmental or Conservation Organizations by Sex (N
= 2 1 0 ) ................... .......................................................................... 9 7

4-7 Respondent Pet Ownership by Presentation Type (N = 213) ........................................98

4-8 Respondent Engagement in Discussing Wildlife Habitat Conservation-related Issues
with Others by Presentation Type (N = 210) ....................................... ...............98

4-9 Respondent Engagement in Properly Disposing of Trash that Could Harm Wildlife
by Presentation Type (N = 212)............................................... .............................. 98

4-10 Respondent Engagement in Attending Public Wildlife Presentations by Presentation
T ype (N = 2 11) ....................................................................... .. .... ...... .... 99

4-11 Respondent Engagement in Owning or Sponsoring a Bird House by Presentation
T ype (N = 2 11) ....................................................................... .. .... ...... .... 99

4-12 Respondent Engagement in Donating Money to a Wildlife Habitat Conservation or
Environmental Organization(s) by Presentation Type (N = 212)................................99

4-13 Respondent Engagement in Discussing Wildlife Habitat Conservation-related Issues
w ith Others by Sex (N = 207) ............................................................. ............... 100

4-14 Respondent Engagement in Properly Disposing of Trash that Could Harm Wildlife
by Sex (N = 209) .................................... ......................... ..... .... ........ 100

4-15 Respondent Engagement in Attending Public Wildlife Presentations by Sex (N =
2 0 9 ) .......................................................... ................................... 1 0 0

4-16 Respondent Engagement in Owning or Sponsoring a Bird House by Sex (N = 208) .....101

4-17 Respondent Engagement in Donating Money to a Wildlife Habitat Conservation or
Environm ental Organization(s) by Sex (N = 209)..........................................................101









4-18 Factor Loadings for Attitude Toward Wildlife Habitat Conservation (Pre-assessment,
Part Two) (N = 213)...................... .......... .. .. ........ .. ........... 101

4-19 Factor Loadings for Attitude Toward Birds of Prey (Pre-assessment, Part Three) (N
= 2 13) ... ...... .................................................................... ...... 102

4-20 Factor Loadings for Empathy (Post-assessment, Part Two) (N = 213)...........................102

4-21 Factor Loadings for the Level of Need Associated with the Birds of Prey in the
Educational Presentations (Post-assessment, Part One) (N = 213) ..............................103

4-22 Factor Loadings for Altruism (Concern) (Post-assessment, Part Three) (N = 213)........103

4-23 Correlations Between Variables for the Injured Presentation Only (N = 213)..............104

4-24 Geometric Scoring for the Dependent Variable: Commitment to Engage in
Environm entally-responsible Behaviors (N = 213) ....................................................... 105

4-25 Correlations Between Variables for the Non-injured Presentation Only (N = 213)........106

4-26 Correlations Between Variables for the Pictures Group Only (N = 213)......................107

4-27 Summary Statistics of Summated Scale Scores for Major Instrument Constructs by
P presentation T ype (N = 2 13)............................................. ......................................... 108

4-28 Multiple Regression Analysis to Predict Commitment Score for Performing
Conservation-related Behaviors (N = 213)........................................... ............... 109

4-29 Participant Satisfaction with Zoo Educator and Presentation by Presentation (N =
2 1 0 ) ........................................................................................ . 1 0 9

F-l Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) for Construct Sections of the Pre- and
Post-assessm ents .................................... ................................ ......... 164

F-2 Follow-up Logistic Regression Results on Each of the Six Environmentally-
respon sible B behaviors .................................................................. ................. ... .. 164









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Theoretical Model Linking the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Empathy-
altruism Hypothesis .................. ............. .................... .............

3-1 Summary of Constructs M measured in Study. ........................................ ............... 68

4-1 Path Model Showing Direct Effects of Significant Independent Variables on
Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-responsible Behaviors..............................110









LIST OF TERMS


Altruism: The generation of concern for animals with similar needs as the one(s) being used for
educational purposes.

Empathy: An other-oriented feeling of concern produced by taking the perspective of an animal
believed to be in need (Batson, 1991; Schultz, 2000).

Environmentally-responsible behavior: A behavior performed in the best interest of the
environment (habitat) where educational animals and those flora and fauna associated with
those animals are found.

Injured bird of prey: A bird of prey with a visible, permanent injury or bird of prey that exhibits
behaviors that indicate a permanent injury, including a damaged eye, blindness, or missing
and/or amputated appendages.

Non-injured (imprinted) bird of prey: A bird of prey with no visible injuries and that has been
born and/or raised in captivity.

Perception of another in need: When a participant recognizes (a function of attention being
given to the object in question) a negative discrepancy between the educational animal's
current and potential states on one or more dimensions of well-being. Dimensions of well-
being could include being free from unpleasant states (physical pain, anxiety, and stress)
and experiencing pleasant states such as physical pleasure, satisfaction, and security
(Batson, 1991).










Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

PREDICTING COMMITMENT TO ENGAGE IN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE
BEHAVIORS USING INJURED AND NON-INJURED ANIMALS AS TEACHING TOOLS

By

Nicholas E. Fuhrman

August, 2007

Chair: Howard Ladewig
Major: Agricultural Education and Communication

The purpose of my study was to determine if and how different types of birds of prey

presentations influence the empathy, altruism, and behavioral intentions of adults living in

retirement communities. My study examined the applicability of the empathy-altruism

hypothesis (Batson, 1991) in explaining participant commitment to engage in environmentally-

responsible behaviors following exposure to one of three presentations: (a) an educational

presentation involving injured birds of prey, (b) a presentation with non-injured birds of prey,

and (c) a slideshow presentation involving pictures of the same birds of prey. The same educator

presented each of the scripted presentations. This quasi-experimental study involving 213

participants was the first of its kind to test the relevance of the empathy-altruism hypothesis with

live injured and non-injured animals.

Regression analysis revealed that regardless of the type of presentation used, individuals

who discussed wildlife habitat conservation issues with others, experienced feelings of

compassion (empathy) from a wildlife presentation, and believed the behaviors advocated during

the presentation were acceptable to others were more likely to be committed to engaging in the

behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. When live birds of prey (injured or non-injured)









were used, compassion and disturbed empathic emotions were common. When pictures only

were used, compassion feelings were common. Based on this study, it takes a live animal to

generate disturbed feelings in elder citizens. However, only specific feelings of being

empathically compassionate toward the birds of prey presented contributed to commitment to

engage in helping behaviors.

While the type of presentation to which participants were exposed did not significantly

influence their likelihood to commit to performing the behaviors advocated by the educator,

perhaps the type of behaviors being advocated must be considered. Schultz (2002) advocates

that generic information about conservation is not as effective at motivating behaviors as

targeted, specific information is. Some of the behaviors being advocated during the

presentations and being measured in this study were non-specific conservation-related practices.

For example, telling a friend about conservation, something the educator advocated during each

presentation, could be improved by discussing specific conservation topics related to each

species of raptor.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The use of live animals in interpretive presentations, demonstrations, and contests is a

significant part of the programming efforts of zoos, the Cooperative Extension System, and

environmental educators. Given the diverse audience base participating in such programs, the

need to address environmentally related questions, issues, and problems with local relevance is

essential (Hudson, 2001). To capture the attention and stimulate the imagination of this

heterogeneous public, Brewer (2001) called on educators to determine the most effective ways of

translating the science of conservation biology to bring about public action. The use of live

animals as teaching tools seems to be one way to provide this translation.

The need for proactive public action regarding habitat conservation is more important now

than ever before. Florida is said to be one of the fastest growing states in the nation and U.S.

Census Bureau population projections estimate that the state's population will increase from

about 16 million residents in 2000 to nearly 29 million in 2030 (Clouser, 2006). This influx of

people to the state will continue to impact natural resources as more land is required for roads,

developments, and other necessities.

Land requirements for human habitation result in wildlife habitats that are fragmented by

roads and building developments. In response to increased concern over habitat conservation on

the urban-rural interface in Florida, Main, Hostetler, and Karim (2003) noted several essential

criteria for evaluating and prioritizing areas for wildlife. Habitat connectivity was one of their

most important factors. The creation of roads and developments results in a patchy, non-

contiguous distribution of habitat which increases the likelihood of negative human-wildlife

interactions.









Habitat fragmentation can be both beneficial and detrimental to some types of wildlife

such as birds of prey. As predatory species, birds of prey, including owls, hawks, eagles,

falcons, and vultures, benefit from the vegetative edge created by developments and roads and

can often be seen hunting in such areas. Hunting along roadways is advantageous to the birds as

flight paths over roads are free from obstructions normally encountered in woodlands, such as

trees. Not only is access not an issue for the birds, but the prey the raptors hunt (such as rodents)

are often attracted to the roadside in search of food-scraps discarded by passing motorists. In

fact, Pusser (2004) cited automobile collisions as one of the leading causes for raptor treatment at

wildlife rehabilitation centers. Using birds of prey as teaching tools to convey habitat

conservation messages such as those related to land fragmentation could be an extremely

relevant way to answer Brewer's (2001) call for public action. What more appropriate message

ambassador for wildlife habitat conservation in Florida than one directly impacted by the intense

population growth in the state?

The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), the North American Association for

Environmental Education (NAAEE), and the Cooperative Extension System also recognize the

need for wildlife habitat conservation. Numerous science education theorists, as well as the

AZA and NAAEE, advocate that educational efforts related to the environment move

participants along a continuum from being aware of environmental issues to taking the necessary

action to resolve them (Cronin-Jones, 2005; Henderson, 1984; Hudson, 2001; Jacobson, 1999).

In fact, conservation messages developed by the AZA include: (a) sharing knowledge and ideas

that empower people to take conservation action and (b) providing animal experiences that instill

a sense of wonder (Conservation Education Committee: Conservation Messages, 2000). When

used as ambassadors of environmental and conservation-related messages, live animals have the









potential to enhance the likelihood for permanent commitment to environmentally-responsible

behaviors.

Benefits of Using Live Animals with Youth and Adults

Both in formal (classrooms) and non-formal (zoos) educational settings, live animals have

been successful at improving attitudes and knowledge about wildlife conservation and

stewardship for children and adults (Davison, McMahon, Skinner, Horton, & Parks, 1993;

Swanagan, 2000; Wickless, Brooks, Abuloum, Mancuso, Heng-Moss, & Mayo, 2003; Yerke &

Burns, 1991). Morgan and Gramann (1989) and Morgan (1992) used native snakes as teaching

tools in a study evaluating the influence of various non-formal wildlife education approaches on

middle school student attitudes. Student attitudes were significantly more positive toward snakes

and related subject matter when both factual information and direct contact opportunities with

snakes were provided. More recently, Hull (2003) reported significant improvements in attitudes

toward animals and conducting research when psychology undergraduate students were asked to

observe animal behaviors during several zoo visits.

While interaction with captive, wild animals can improve conservation attitudes and

knowledge, direct interaction with domesticated animals has also received considerable attention

in the literature. In a synthesis of research on the use of animals in education, Siegel (2004)

reported that animals such as dogs and cats used in formal education can significantly improve

elementary and high school student attitudes toward working with others, subject matter, and

learning in general. An animal sciences workshop for youth was found to create a positive

learning environment, teach scientific principles of animal science, and educate youth on careers

in agriculture through hands-on activities with horses, beef cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, and

chickens (Rusk & Machtmes, 2002). Miniature horses, cattle, llamas, goats, and rabbits used in









a 4-H animal care program with delinquent girls provided therapeutic value by serving as a

teacher, listener, comforter, distracter, and friend (Weigel, Caiola, & Pittman-Foy, 2002).

Interaction with domesticated animals has also been found to benefit elder adults.

Specifically, interaction with domesticated animals may help contribute to healing physiological

disorders and prolong human life. Friedman, Katcher, Lynch, and Thomas (1980) found that the

companionship of a pet was a significant predictor of one's successful recovery from a heart

attack. Companionship with domesticated animals such as dogs can also significantly reduce

one's blood pressure (Friedman, Katcher, Thomas, Lynch, & Messent, 1983).

For adults in acute care settings such as nursing homes and hospitals, animal visits have

helped reduce depression levels (Francis, Turner, & Johnson, 1985) and resident animals (e.g.,

caged birds) have helped reduce psychiatric symptoms in elderly adult patients (Beck,

Seraydarian, & Hunter, 1986). Considering pet ownership and elderly health, Siegel (1990)

found that when sex, age, race, education, income, employment status, social network

involvement, and chronic health problems were controlled for, older adults who owned pets

reported fewer physician contacts than those without pets. Financially speaking, medication

costs dropped from $3.80 per patient per day to $1.18 per patient per day in nursing homes that

contained domesticated pet-type animals (Montague, 1995). More recently, Geisler (2004)

reported that companion animals can improve the quality of life for those in hospice care by

providing a means for conversation, acting as a non-threatening visitor, and allowing patients to

serve as caregiver rather than the recipient of care. Although much research exists on the

benefits that domesticated, traditionally pet animals, bring to elder adults, would visiting this

audience with captive, wild animals such as birds of prey inspire engagement in conservation

behaviors?









Linking the Theory of Planned Behavior, Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, and Zoos

Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo in central Florida attempts to promote environmentally

responsible behaviors by using live animals to convey species protection information. Like all

AZA-accredited institutions, the zoo promotes wildlife conservation action through both on-site

and outreach educational programs. Zoo educators, including those at Lowry Park, often use

injured and imprinted (non-injured) animals in presentations designed to increase awareness

about wildlife habitat conservation, negative human interactions with wildlife, and discarding

trash that could be harmful to wildlife. Along with awareness, these non-formal educators use

animals to promote conservation behaviors such as building habitat components (e.g., nest

boxes) and donating funds to protect/conserve habitats.

According to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), the intent to retain trash that

could be harmful to wildlife, build a nest box, or donate funds will not result solely from

exposure to broad information about environmental health or attitudes supporting habitat

conservation. Rather, an individual's intent to behave in a manner benefiting birds of prey and

their habitat, such as by donating funds to conservation organizations, is a function of an

individual's: (a) attitudes about donating funds, (b) perceptions of social norms about donating

money, and (c) perceived ability to donate funds. The theory of planned behavior suggests that

an individual's behavioral beliefs and associated attitudes toward a target behavior influence

their intention to act. However, if zoo visitors identify with an injured or imprinted bird of prey

used in an educational presentation, would this be enough to motivate affective emotions and

encourage environmentally-responsible behaviors?

The empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) is a model representing the affective

component of the theory of planned behavior and offers potential in predicting participant

behavior following exposure to injured or imprinted animals (Figure 1-1). According to the









empathy-altruism hypothesis, taking the perspective of a human being harmed generates

empathy that evokes altruistic motivation-the motivation to help directed toward increasing the

welfare of another rather than oneself. Based on over two decades of empirical evidence, this

other-oriented emotional response congruent with the perceived welfare of another person has

been found to evoke helping behavior (Batson, 1991; Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002;

Batson, Lishner, Cook, & Sawyer, 2005; Krebs, 1975).

While the empathy-altruism model has been used extensively to explain the behavior of

individuals with regards to helping humans in need, little research exists testing the model's

relevance in explaining the behavior of individuals with regards to helping animals in need.

However, empathy has been measured with a wide range of human subjects, including a young

woman with AIDS, a homeless man, a convicted murderer, and a heroin addict (see Batson et al.,

2005 for a review).

Shelton and Rogers (1981) were among the first to apply the empathy-altruism model with

animals in need. Participants were exposed to films showing unpleasant scenes of industrial

whaling and films showing a pro-environmental action organization saving whales from whalers.

The authors predicted that exposure to scenes of bodily injury inflicted on whales would

strengthen intentions to help protect the species. Results indicated that the films in fact elicited

empathy, which led to strengthened intentions to help save whales (Shelton & Rogers, 1981).

More recently, Schultz (2000) asked participants to view color images of injured animals and

measured associated levels of empathy and altruism. Injured animals were "those being harmed

by nature" (p. 398) and included a seal caught in a fishing net, an eagle on a smoky factory

smokestack, an otter in an oil spill, a bear in a trash pile, and a bird with a plastic bag around its

neck. Schultz (2000) reported that when asked to take the perspective of an injured animal,









individuals were significantly more empathic and altruistic than individuals who were asked to

be objective. As such, if participants identify with an injured raptor used in a presentation and

generate empathy, Schultz (2000) suggests that this would be enough to generate biospheric

concern for other similarly injured animals (altruism) and would lead to environmentally-

responsible helping behavior.

Batson et al. (2005) examined nurturance as a possible source of empathy felt for both

humans and animals. Nurturance tendencies are commonly associated with things in need of

special protection (i.e., most vulnerable) and were described as involving "a desire to care for

and protect the other... and a clear recognition of the distinctiveness, even possible dissimilarity,

of self and other" (Batson et al., 2005, p. 20). The study compared levels of empathy that

college students felt for four different subjects: a 20-year-old college student, a 3-year-old child,

a 5-year-old dog, and a 4-month-old puppy, all being assisted with rehabilitation exercises

following a severely broken leg. Each subject was described in an article read by participants as

being, "badly hurt and struggling." Given the assumptions associated with nurturance mentioned

previously, the authors predicted that nurturance tendencies, and thus empathic concern, would

be less for the college student (a person similar to the subjects being measured and not in need of

special protection) and stronger for the child, dog, and puppy. In fact, results indicated that the

child, dog, and puppy (dissimilar subjects likely to evoke nurturant concern) evoked significantly

more empathy than the college student (similar subject) (Batson et al., 2005).

The findings mentioned previously suggest that, for example, an injured bird of prey

(perceived to have greater need than an uninjured raptor) would evoke higher empathic

responses due to its vulnerability and need for special protection than an uninjured raptor. In

turn, empathy felt toward an injured raptor would be expected to produce altruistic motivation









and, according to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, that motivation should lead to increased

helping (depending on the behavioral options available) (C.D. Batson, personal communication,

April 27, 2006). Considering the environmentally-responsible behaviors most often promoted by

zoos and other environmental educators using birds of prey in educational programs, the most

likely helping behaviors might include: (a) discussing conservation with others, (b) motivating

oneself and encouraging others to not discard food scraps along roadways (a reason for raptor-

vehicle collisions), (c) building or sponsoring a bird nesting box, and (d) donating funds to

conservation organizations (such as raptor-rehabilitation clinics).

Rationale

Few authors have speculated on the applicability of the empathy-altruism model in

explaining attitudes toward animals in need. However, zoos often use injured, non-releasable

animals as teaching tools in their efforts to educate the public. Birds of prey are often used in the

outreach educational presentations of smaller zoos and environmental education organizations

(due to easier housing, handling, and transport abilities during off-site visits when compared to

larger mammals). The reason for the increased use of birds of prey in conservation education

programs is due to their involvement in automobile accidents. For example, of the

approximately 10,000 birds treated at the Carolina Raptor Center since 1980, 37% were involved

in collisions with automobiles (Pusser, 2004). In addition, all birds of prey species are federally

protected by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. However, limited research exists on

the use of raptors as teaching tools in promoting environmentally responsible behavior. Low-

level behavior change was found by Yerke and Bums (1993) who reported that when injured and

imprinted birds of prey were used as teaching tools with fifth grade students, more than half of

the students reported talking with their families about saving wildlife after interacting with the

birds. In addition, when injured and imprinted raptors were used in a zoo program, participants









had significantly more positive attitudes toward conservation following the presentation (Yerke

& Bums, 1991). Given evidence that birds of prey with different characteristics (injured, non-

injured, and variability among species type) have the potential to improve attitudes and influence

pro-environmental behaviors, an examination of the effect of individual raptor characteristics on

the likelihood of participant engagement in environmentally-responsible behaviors is needed.

In the Shelton and Rogers (1981), Schultz (2000), and Batson et al. (2005) studies, no real,

live, injured animals were used. Instead, participants in these studies were given written

instructions to empathize with animals described as being injured and in need. Aside from these

studies, no research exists examining the influence of live, injured or non-injured animals on

empathy, altruism, and participant intent to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors

(C.D. Batson, personal communication, April 27, 2006). Testing the empathy-altruism

hypothesis with such animals could provide information that would significantly enhance the

ability of zoos, aquariums, and other non-formal educators to increase the likelihood that

participants of their educational interventions would engage in behaviors that benefit wildlife and

wildlife habitat. Specifically, if one type of animal (injured or non-injured) is more influential at

encouraging participants to engage in behaviors that benefit wildlife over another, perhaps

conservation messages could be "adjusted" to increase the likelihood of participant engagement

in pro-environmental behaviors when the option to use either an injured or non-injured animal

does not exist.

Statement of the Problem

While live animals are often described as having the "potential" to influence engagement

in environmentally-responsible behaviors among participants of educational programs, little

empirical evidence can be found linking the two (Dierking, Burtnyk, Buchner, & Falk, 2002).

Kreger and Mench (1995) cited empirical research as being the key to designing appropriate zoo









visitor-animal interactions and advocated that more studies be conducted on whether visitors

actually engage in the behaviors advocated by educators following exposure to zoo exhibits,

animal shows, and animal contact areas. In her review of 15 years of research, Zimmermann

(1996) cited methodological and statistical problems as a concern in environmental education-

related research and called for more rigorous experimental manipulations to measure knowledge

and affect. Although studies involving animals as interpretive tools in zoos and aquariums have

investigated public perceptions of animals, little research exists specifically investigating how

visitor experiences at AZA institutions have influenced conservation behavior after their visit

(Dierking et al., 2002). In a survey of research in North American zoos and aquariums, the

percentage of AZA institutions conducting research had increased from 70% to 88% between

1986 and 1996. However, a lack of incentives to publish such research in peer-reviewed journals

may be one reason that zoos and aquariums are not viewed as places of valid scientific

investigation (Stoinski, Lukas, & Maple, 1998).

Although research on the use of live animals as teaching tools has been criticized for

lacking rigor and not focusing on participant behavior change, some suggest that the reality of

the educational situation must be considered. In a multi-site study by Dunlap and Kellert (1989),

most incoming zoo visitors cited the aesthetic, emotional, and entertainment appeal of zoos when

asked about their perceptions of what zoos offer the public. While visitors to zoos and other

free-choice learning settings come with a desire to satisfy their curiosity and seek out fun,

relaxation, and intellectual stimulation, rarely do they desire to become an expert on a subject or

affect more active behaviors (Falk & Dierking, 2000).

With regards to specific visitor demographics, Hudson (2001) noted the need for

environmental educators to respond to the growing number of older adults participating in









conservation-related programs. Guion, Turner, and Wise (2004) suggested that more research be

conducted to determine the most effective teaching methods to use with elder individuals who

participate in Extension programs. Most zoo program activities that use live animals involve

education staff presenting conservation-related messages to this typically non-captive audience

for less than half-an-hour. What outcomes then can be realistically expected to result from such

one-shot, limited time exposures to a zoo educator and several animals given the entertainment

(and non-educational) appeal of zoos?

Hargrove and Jones (2004) found that Extension participants believed a single exposure

activity was not enough to inspire participant involvement, learning, and action following the

activity. Hatry (1999) notes that measuring participant impact from single exposure activities

can be difficult, given the potential influence of other, more extended activities on participant

knowledge, attitude, and behavioral engagement. Thus, are zoo educators expecting too much of

participants? Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman (2004) suggest that such questions can be answered

with consideration of the relationship between program activities and intended outcomes

(program impact theory). They advocate that a program's impact theory can provide a starting

point for assessing what outcomes are reasonable to expect, given the nature of a program.

Others report that participation in interpretive programs has little or no effect on environmentally

responsible behavior (Knapp & Poff, 2001; Leeming, Dwyer, Porter, & Cobern, 1993). Perhaps

the behaviors that are being measured are not realistic to expect, given the nature of the

educational intervention. What is it about those programs that do result in positive behavior

change that makes them so effective? An examination of the characteristics of the "tools" used

to inspire environmentally-responsible behaviors in zoo education programs is needed. With

such knowledge, zoo, Extension, and environmental educators who use injured and/or non-









injured animals as teaching tools will be better able to develop interpretive activities and

programs with a greater likelihood of inspiring realistic pro-environmental behaviors.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to: (a) describe key traits of elderly audiences participating

in zoo outreach presentations and (b) determine if and how different types of raptor presentations

influence the empathy, altruism, and behavioral intentions of elder adults living in retirement

communities. Given the prevalence of both injured and non-injured birds of prey in educational

programs presented by zoos and environmental organizations, this research provides

conservation educators with information on whether an animal's physical characteristics have an

influence on inspiring engagement in pro-environmental behaviors among participants.

Specifically, this study examined the applicability of the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson,

1991) in explaining participant intent to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors

following exposure to one of three presentations:

* Presentation One: A 40-45 minute zoo presentation where four injured birds of prey were
used as teaching tools/ambassadors of conservation-related messages.

* Presentation Two: A 40-45 minute zoo presentation where four non-injured (imprinted)
birds of prey were used as teaching tools/ambassadors of the identical conservation-related
messages as mentioned previously.

* Presentation Three (Comparison Group): A 40-45 minute PowerPoint presentation where
color photographs of the same injured birds of prey and the same non-injured birds of prey
mentioned previously were used during the discussion of the same conservation-related
messages as used in presentations one and two.

All zoo outreach presentations took place at retirement communities in the Clearwater,

Florida and Tampa, Florida area. The dependent variable in this study was the behavioral

intention of participants to commit to engage in pro-environmental practices advocated by the

zoo educator. Specifically, these behaviors included:

* Telling a friend about the wildlife presentation









* Telling a friend about conservation in general
* Not discarding food scraps along roadways
* Attending another wildlife-related presentation
* Building or sponsoring a bird nesting box
* Donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization

These six behaviors were listed in this order with the assumption that the amount of effort

required to engage in the behaviors increased as one moved down the list. As such, Guttman-

type scoring was used to code the behaviors. Higher scores indicated a greater degree of

commitment to performing more effort-intense conservation behaviors and as such, a greater

commitment to wildlife conservation.

Along with the physical status (injured or non-injured) of the educational animal,

additional independent variables included:

* Conservation-related behaviors of the participant three months prior to attending the
presentation
* Participant attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation prior to attending the presentation
* Participant knowledge regarding birds of prey prior to attending the presentation
* Participant attitudes toward birds of prey prior to attending the presentation
* Participant level of empathic emotional response to the presentation
* Participant level of altruistic motivation following the presentation
* Whether the participant belongs to an environmental or conservation organization
* Whether the participant owns any pets
* Participant permanent residence
* Participant sex
* Participant age

Study Objectives

The following four objectives guided this study:

1. To determine the characteristics of participants of the birds of prey outreach presentation.

2. To identify the relationship between selected participant characteristics and their associated
level of empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible
behaviors following exposure to (a) all injured birds of prey, (b) all non-injured birds of prey,
or (c) pictures of the same birds of prey and identical conservation messages.

3. To build a regression model to predict commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible
behaviors based on a participant's characteristics prior to attending the wildlife presentation,









their empathic emotional response to the presentation, and their altruistic motivation
following the presentation.

4. To measure the level of satisfaction participants have with Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo birds of
prey outreach presentation.

Research Hypotheses

Using the aforementioned literature on the empathy-altruism hypothesis as a guide, the

following research hypotheses were developed:

1. Injured birds of prey will evoke higher levels of empathy, altruism, and commitment among
participants to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors than will non-injured birds
of prey and color photographs of both injured and non-injured birds of prey.

2. Higher empathy levels will lead to higher levels of altruistic motivation.

3. Higher levels of empathy and altruistic motivation will result in a stronger commitment to
"help" and engage in the pro-environmental practices advocated by the zoo educator.

Limitations

While this research is specific to the programmatic and educational goals of Tampa's

Lowry Park Zoo, Morgan and Hodgkinson (1999) advocate the need for conducting site-specific

research, despite the apparent lack of generalizability. Although retirement communities were

randomly assigned to receive one of the three presentations (as Ary et al., 2002 recommend), one

limitation of this study includes the use of a convenience sample to attain retirement community

participation. Additional limitations aside from those associated with sampling error include

those associated with measurement error. A panel of experts was used to ensure face and content

validity of the survey instrument and principal component factor analysis procedures were used

to ensure construct validity, reliability, and test for dimensionality of the data (data reduction

technique), thus minimizing the influence of measurement error. Methods associated with the

tailored design method (Dillman, 2000) were used to adjust for the potential for measurement

error associated with instrument design and layout. The group administration of the survey









instrument used to measure participant emotional and behavioral intention responses to the

educational presentations controlled for issues regarding nonresponse error.

























Figure 1-1. Theoretical Model Linking the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Empathy-
altruism Hypothesis









CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

In Chapter 1, the benefits of using live animals as teaching tools were reviewed, including

the potential for live animals to influence the knowledge, attitudes, and quality of life of youth

and adults. However, a lack of rigorously measured empirical evidence on the ability of live

animals to promote environmentally responsible behavioral action was noted as a deficiency in

the zoo and environmental education research. The empathy-altruism hypothesis was introduced

as a theoretical model of potential utility in understanding the relationship between the

characteristics of animals used as teaching tools and the likelihood of program participants to

engage in environmentally responsible behaviors. Because of the relevance of both injured and

non-injured (imprinted) animals-particularly birds of prey-in the educational efforts of zoos,

environmental educators, and the Cooperative Extension Service, rationale was provided for

testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis with animals in need. No research currently exists

testing the applicability of the empathy-altruism hypothesis with live animals. Finally, Chapter 1

questioned the reality of current behavior change expectations following the single exposure

program activities that are common in zoo and environmental education outreach settings. This

chapter will introduce the empathy-altruism hypothesis in the context of zoo education research,

compare the empathy-altruism hypothesis with other behavior change theories in zoo and

environmental education, and provide rationale for testing this model with animals in need. In

addition, this chapter will summarize available literature on the relationship between participant

characteristics and the likelihood of engagement in environmentally-responsible behaviors.









Empathy-altruism Hypothesis and Research Involving Animals

The empathy-altruism model hypothesizes that feeling empathy for a person in need

evokes altruistic motivation to help that person (Batson, 1991). The magnitude of empathic

emotion felt for another in need is a function of the magnitude of the perceived need associated

with the one in need of help and the strength of the perceiver's attachment to the one in need.

Batson (1991) describes perceived need as involving "recognition of a negative discrepancy

between the other's current and potential states on one or more dimensions of well-being" (being

free from unpleasant states and experiencing pleasant states) (p. 75). The ability of a person to

perceive another in need is influenced by one's prior experiences in similar situations and by

feelings of attachment (Batson, 1991).

Perception of need is influenced by feelings of attachment toward another subject. With

regards to live animals, Batson (1991) noted the ability of interpersonal relationships to elicit

feelings of attachment, including relationships with pets. In a synthesis of research, Siegel

(2004) noted the ability of pet animals to enhance communication between students and teachers

and in improving student attitudes toward learning. Weigel, Caiola, and Pittman-Foy (2002)

found that domesticated animals such as miniature horses, llamas, goats, cattle, and rabbits had

therapeutic value for at-risk youth. Specifically, these animals aided in teaching youth about

self-awareness, were listeners when youth wanted to verbalize their problems, and served as an

unconditional, uncompromising friend (Weigel, Caiola, & Pittman-Foy, 2002).

Although numerous studies have been conducted testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis

with people in need, little research exists testing the model's relevance in explaining the behavior

of individuals with regards to helping animals in need. In fact, nearly every investigation of the

link between empathy and pro-social behavior has involved people helping other people (Batson

et al., 2005; Shelton & Rogers, 1981). Shelton and Rogers (1981) were the first to propose an









extension of the theory to predicting motivation to engage in behaviors to protect endangered

animal species threatened with extinction. Their experiments involved undergraduate students

enrolled in introductory psychology courses (an audience often used for such studies due to

convenience sampling) exposed to one of four 19-minute videotapes. One videotape contained

gory scenes of whales being hunted, killed, and processed (high noxiousness manipulation); one

contained industrial whalers engaged in the hunting, killing, and processing whales with gory

scenes omitted (low noxiousness manipulation); one showed scenes of a Greenpeace (a pro-

environmental action organization) crew saving whales from whalers (high response efficacy

manipulation); and one showed neutral scenes of the same Greenpeace crew at sea (low response

efficacy manipulation). Empathy was manipulated by either instructing participants to watch a

videotape about whales (low-empathy manipulation) or by instructing participants to "imagine

how the whale feels," "sympathize with the whales," and "trade places with the whale" while

viewing the video (high-empathy manipulation).

Results of a post-experiment questionnaire measuring the intentions of participants to help

save whales and support Greenpeace indicated that videotapes showing gory scenes of industrial

whaling and films showing Greenpeace successfully saving whales strengthened participant

feelings of empathy and influenced intentions to help save whales (Shelton & Rogers, 1981).

Given such results, these authors were among the first to suggest that appeals for empathy can

elicit others to help even when the potential beneficiaries symbolize/represent the many others

exposed to the same danger. Such a finding potentially explains why educational programs that

use live animals as ambassadors for the protection and conservation of similar, wild species are

successful at influencing the emotions of their participants.









Attitudes Towards Animals

An explicit definition of attitude is a minimal prerequisite to the development of valid and

reliable procedures to measure such a concept (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Thurstone (1931)

views an attitude as a one dimensional concept that refers to "the amount of affect for or against

a psychological object" (p. 261). Allport (1967) defines an attitude as "a mental and neural state

of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the

individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related" (p. 8). Fishbein and

Ajzen (1975) describe an attitude as having three basic components: (1) it is learned, (2) it

predisposes action, and (3) such actions are consistently favorable or unfavorable toward an

object. Combining the aforementioned definitions and considering an attitude as a measure of

intensity of a predisposition to act in certain ways under certain circumstances, attitudes are also

evaluative. They are an evaluation of an attribute and are a function of beliefs linking the

attribute to other characteristics and evaluations of those characteristics (Fishbein & Ajzen,

1975). Thurstone (1967) argues that an attitude is "a complex affair which cannot be wholly

described by any single numerical index" (p. 77).

In regards to attitudes towards animals specifically, Kellert (1980) echoes Thurstone's

(1967) thoughts, suggesting that attitudes primarily describe only basic perceptions, not

behaviors, and that rarely will all of one's actions be explained by one attitude. Kellert (1980)

developed a typology of attitudes that Americans have towards animals which is relevant to

research on the use of animals as ambassadors of conservation messages and this study. His

typology suggests that Americans have 10 major attitudes regarding wild and domestic animals.

These attitude types include naturalistic, ecologistic, humanistic, moralistic, scientistic, aesthetic,

utilitarian, dominionistic, negativistic, and neutralistic. Several of these attitudes are directly

applicable to research on the reactions of participants of programs which use injured and non-









injured animals as tools to encourage environmentally-responsible behaviors. Specifically, the

ecologistic, humanistic, and aesthetic attitude types are most relevant to the emotional reactions

and behavioral intentions of participants following exposure to raptor presentations where all

injured or all non-injured birds are used as teaching tools.

Ecologistic Attitudes Towards Animals

Based on Kellert's work, the ecologistic attitude towards animals focuses on the

interrelationships that wildlife species in particular-as apposed to domestic animals-have

within an ecosystem. Those with an ecologistic attitude exhibit concern for the dependencies

between animals and their natural habitats. In addition, an ecologistic attitude towards wildlife

focuses on the behaviors of large numbers of animal species, instead of focusing on individual

animals. In this way, wildlife is valued for its ability to help humans understand how broader

natural systems function. Based on Kellert's 1978 national sample of over 3,000 respondents,

individuals classified as "zoo enthusiasts" had low ecologistic scale scores when compared to

other respondents. Overall, an estimated seven-percent of the 1978 American population was

strongly ecologistically-oriented (Kellert, 1980).

In the context of this study, the ecologistic attitudes of participants attending birds of prey

presentations were measured prior to viewing the presentations using questions that examined

participant attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation and wildlife habitat conservation

programs (Appendix D). Although an individual who is strongly ecologistically oriented is

concerned more for broader groups of animal species than individual animals, as Shelton and

Rogers (1981) reported, an individual animal can effectively represent general groups of animal

species and influence ecologistic attitudes and behavioral intentions. In this way, a single great

horned owl (Bubo virginianus) used as a teaching tool in a presentation could serve as an









ambassador for other great horned owls, owls in general, and the broader family of raptors

through representation and influence ecologistic attitudes.

Humanistic Attitudes Towards Animals

Contrary to the broader focus on groups of animal species associated with ecologistic

attitudes, the humanistic attitude towards animals emphasizes feelings of strong affection and

attachment to individual animals such as pets (Kellert, 1980). Individuals who are strongly

oriented toward the humanistic attitude express the same feelings and emotions toward animals

that are typically expressed toward other people. Individual animals are valued most as basic

sources of affection and companionship. For individuals with strong humanistic tendencies,

animals may be viewed as human substitutes. According to Kellert (1980), "considerable

empathy for animal emotion and thought typically accompanies the humanistic perspective and,

as a consequence, anthropomorphic tendencies can result" (p. 34). In addition, the humanistic

attitude toward wildlife typically involves strong affection for animals that are large and

aesthetically appealing. Based on Kellert's 1978 national sample, an estimated 35% of the

American population was strongly oriented toward the humanistic attitude type. Specifically,

individuals who belonged to environmental protection organizations and those who visited zoos

scored very high on the humanistic attitude scale. Females were the most humanistically

oriented, males were the least humanistically-oriented, and individuals over 76 years of age were

the least humanistically-oriented (Kellert, 1980).

In the context of this study, although birds of prey were not portrayed as domesticated pets

during zoo outreach presentations, humanistic attitudes toward birds of prey were expressed by

presentation participants. Given the link between humanistic attitudes towards animals (Kellert,

1980) and empathic emotional responses to animals in need presented in Chapter 1 (Batson et al.,

2005; Schultz, 2000; Shelton & Rogers, 1981), participants with more empathy for birds of prey









would likely have stronger humanistic attitudes towards birds of prey. Given the findings

previously presented and this hypothetical link, participants who indicated belonging to

conservation organizations would be more likely to experience stronger empathic emotions

toward animals as teaching tools in general. If females are more humanistically-oriented, female

participants of zoo outreach presentations would also be more likely to experience stronger

empathic emotions towards animals than males and thus more likely to engage in behaviors to

help animals in need. In fact, Batson (1991) reported that females are more likely to experience

stronger empathic emotions, more likely to feel stronger altruistic tendencies, and thus be more

likely to engage in helping behaviors when compared to males.

If humanistic attitudes towards animals are related to empathic emotional responses to

animals used as teaching tools, large, aesthetically appealing animals used as teaching tools in

zoo outreach presentations will be more likely to result in stronger levels of empathy than

smaller, less attractive animals. As such, one might expect a presentation containing a large,

great homed owl (aesthetically appealing) to elicit stronger empathic responses than a

presentation containing an equally large, black vulture (Coragyps atratus) (potentially less

appealing). In the context of the empathy-altruism hypothesis, if the great horned owl and black

vulture were both injured, the theory suggests that the great horned owl would elicit stronger

empathic emotions, more altruism, and thus a greater likelihood of helping behavior than would

the black vulture (Batson, 1991; Batson et al., 2005).

Aesthetic Attitudes Towards Animals

Given the relevance of addressing the visual appeal of the living teaching tools used by

zoos, environmental educators, and Cooperative Extension, Kellert's aesthetic attitude type must

also be considered. According to Kellert (1980), aesthetic attitudes towards animals are those

which emphasize the attractiveness or symbolic significance of animals. However, Kellert









(1980) suggests that a major concern of individuals with strong aesthetic attitudes towards

animals revolves around the appeal of the animal as "emblematic of particular meanings" (p. 34).

As such, if symbolic characteristics of animals are significant in influencing aesthetic attitudes,

perhaps the physical condition/characteristics of an animal would influence aesthetic attitudes.

Following his 1978 national study, Kellert (1980) reported that an estimated 15% of the

American population was strongly oriented towards the aesthetic attitude type. Unfortunately,

useful scales were not developed to quantitatively measure the aesthetic attitudes of the general

public.

Considering one's aesthetic attitudes towards animals used as teaching tools may provide

insight into their emotional reaction to a presentation and perhaps their resulting behavioral

intentions. For example, if the physical condition of a bird of prey permanently injured

following a collision with a building were viewed as emblematic of habitat fragmentation for

human development, participants may be more likely to feel compelled to support habitat

conservation efforts. Similarly, because the birds of prey used in outreach presentations with

Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo are in captivity as a result of human actions (injured or illegally raised

in captivity), participants may be more likely to engage in behaviors which counter those of

others. According to Kaiser and Shimoda (1999), empathy toward such birds of prey may be the

result of feelings of guilt for one's own and/or others' ecological behaviors. If people feel guilty

for what they do (e.g., discarding food scraps along roadways) or fail to do (e.g., not picking up

litter), they are likely to feel morally responsible for the environment (Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999).

If then the self-ascription of responsibility (associated with moral responsibility) predicts a

considerable portion of a person's ecological behavior (Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999; Schwartz,









1977), participants of the raptor presentation that feel guilty after viewing an injured or imprinted

bird and hearing the accompanying story would be more likely to exhibit ecological behavior.

Attitudes Towards Animals Based on Animal Appearance

The appearance of animals used in educational programs influences participant attitudes

and learning experiences (Kellert & Dunlap, 1989; Knegtering, Hendrickx, van der Windt, &

Schoot-Uiterkamp, 2002; Tunnicliffe, 1995). In their assessment of non-governmental

organization attitudes toward species conservation, Knegtering et al. (2002) suggested that the

charismatic appearance of butterflies influenced the level of conservation importance placed

upon insects when compared to other taxa. Tunnicliffe (1995) examined the conversations of

elementary school students and accompanying adults when viewing animal exhibits in zoos.

Exhibit viewers commented often on the appearance of the animals, including their size and

overall body shape (Tunnicliffe, 1995). Often these aesthetically appealing animals are referred

to as "charismatic megafauna" (Rohlf, 1991) and their attractiveness has been found to invoke

feelings of personal attachment and empathy (Siegel, 2004).

An examination of the literature related to the appearance of educational animals was

necessary because of the documented relationship between the attractiveness of an animal and

feelings of attachment in those interacting with the animal. According to Batson (1991),

cognitive processes such as attractiveness can contribute to feelings of attachment. Attachments

are typically based on personal contact and relationships with animals such as pets can instill

feelings of attachment (Batson, 1991). The level of empathic emotion one feels toward a subject

in need is said to be positively related to one's feelings of attachment (Batson, 1991; Siegel,

2004).









Attitudes Towards Habitat Conservation and Birds of Prey as Teaching Tools

A limited number of studies exist on the effectiveness of outreach programs that use

animals to convey environmental messages (Dierking et al., 2002; Swanagan, 2000).

Specifically, very few studies exist pertaining to the impact of bird of prey presentations on

educational participants. Yerke and Bums (1991) examined the impact of a flying birds of prey

presentation on the attitudes and knowledge of zoo visitors. Although there was no significant

difference in the percentage of correct answers to factual questions on birds of prey before and

after the show, participants had more positive attitudes toward conservation immediately after

the presentation. In addition, visitors participating in the presentation had more positive attitudes

toward the importance of personally acting to protect wildlife.

In a related study, Yerke and Burns (1993) evaluated the effectiveness of a zoo outreach

program that used trained birds of prey in 30-minute assembly presentations at schools. Results

indicated that fifth grade students participating in the raptor program had more positive attitudes

toward conservation than they had prior to participation. More than half of the students reported

talking with their families about saving wildlife after seeing the presentation. Aside from these

studies, limited knowledge exists pertaining to the effectiveness of using birds of prey as

teaching tools to inspire participant engagement in environmentally-responsible behaviors.

Theory of Planned Behavior, Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, and Birds of Prey

The logic behind educational outreach programs presented by zoos such as Tampa's Lowry

Park Zoo can be related to the theoretical underpinnings of the theory of planned behavior

(Ajzen, 1985) and the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991). Using birds of prey as an

example, often zoo educators strive to convince program participants that they have the ability to

positively influence raptor conservation efforts at the local (e.g., not discarding food scraps along

local roadways) and global (e.g., donating funds to international conservation organizations)









levels. Zoo educators also strive to provide participants with the tools necessary to inspire

engagement in conservation-related behaviors. When birds of prey are the animal ambassadors

for conservation, a simple tool to inspire engagement in conservation practices could be

providing participants with instructions for building owl nest boxes. According to the empathy-

altruism hypothesis, using an injured bird of prey in an educational presentation would increase

the likelihood of participant engagement in behaviors to help other birds of prey and their habitat

because of the bird's vulnerability and need for special protection (Batson, 1991; Batson et al.,

2005). The theory suggests that empathy felt toward an injured bird of prey would produce

altruistic motivation which should increase the likelihood of engagement in helping behaviors

(C.D. Batson, personal communication, April 27, 2006).

The birds of prey outreach presentation at Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo currently provides

participants with information and reminders about the consequences of engaging in particular

behaviors like discarding food scraps along roadways and the ease with which the action can be

corrected (e.g., leaving a small plastic bag in an automobile to collect food scraps, then properly

discarding the bag). According to the theory of planned behavior, to generate intention to act in

favor of birds of prey and their habitat, zoo educators should discuss the number of visitors who

have reported not discarding food scraps or who have built owl nest boxes after participating in

the program. Because the theory also suggests that participant attitude toward the target

behavior influences their intention to act, if participants identify with an injured raptor used in an

outreach presentation, Batson (1991), Batson et al. (2005), and Shelton and Rogers (1981)

suggest that this would be enough to generate empathy. Schultz (2000) suggests that this

establishment of empathy would be enough to motivate positive environmental attitudes. The

theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and Swanagan (2000) suggest that these positive









attitudes toward a target behavior influence one's intention to engage in behaviors to benefit

birds of prey and their habitat.

Behavioral Intention and Actual Behavioral Engagement

Considering the aforementioned discussion of attitudes, Fishbein (1967) reported that the

relationship between attitude and behavioral intention is stable and strongly positive. Although

such correlations vary considerably depending on the type of behavioral intention options

presented, the correlation between attitude and the sum of behavioral intentions tends to be high

(Fishbein, 1967). Fishbein (1967) suggests that behavioral intentions are determinants or

consequents of one's attitude. Based on the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior

(Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), considering participant intentions to engage in

behaviors that benefit birds of prey should provide good estimates of participant attitudes toward

birds of prey and habitat conservation.

The single best predictor of an individual's actual behavior is a measure of his/her

intention to perform that behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) suggest

that the relationship between behavioral intention and the actual performance of that behavior

should be high. In fact, "if one wants to know whether or not an individual will perform a given

behavior, the simplest and probably most efficient thing that one can do is to ask that individual

whether he intends to perform that behavior" (Fishbein & Ajzen, p. 369). The size of the

relationship between a behavioral intention and an actual behavior can depend on the specificity

of the behavioral intention being considered (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In

addition, although one's attitude may initially be related to a specific behavioral intention, this

association may or may not persist, depending on how specific and often the reinforcement

associated with the behavioral intention is provided (Fishbein, 1967).









While zoo outreach presentations often expose participants to a variety of emotion-

impacting stories and living examples of the consequences of human actions on birds of prey,

they also provide participants with specific knowledge regarding the conservation and habitat

status of the animals used as teaching tools. As part of the knowledge-deficit model, Schultz

(2002) advocates that knowledge alone does not necessarily influence behavior but that a lack of

knowledge can be a barrier to behavioral engagement. Specifically, Schultz (2002) infers that

knowledge that is specific and targeted to an audience or topic of concern can be one helpful

component in promoting pro-environmental behavior but that "generic," non-content/situation-

specific knowledge is not helpful. By providing locally relevant, species-specific information to

program participants, as apposed to generic information regarding birds of prey, zoo educators

increase the likelihood that participants will engage in behaviors to help conserve birds of prey

and their habitat (Schultz, 2002).

Attitudes, Environmentally-responsible Behavioral Intention, and Adult Learners

Hudson (2001) advocated that environmental educators respond to the growing number of

older adult visitors participating in their programs. However, no suggestions were offered as to

how this might be done.

With an increase in the number of older adults participating in conservation-related

programs at zoos and aquariums, this study measured the environmentally-oriented behavioral

intentions of older adults following exposure to birds of prey used as ambassadors of

conservation messages. The population for this study included elder adults residing in retirement

communities located around the Tampa and Clearwater, Florida areas. With a focus on the

emotional reactions and behavioral intentions of senior adult participants following exposure to

birds of prey used as teaching tools in this study, some discussion of adult learning theory and its

relation to zoo outreach education techniques is necessary.









Adult Learning Theory

Adults learn differently than children and adult learning theory suggests six principles that

should be considered when evaluating educational activities with the adult learner in mind

(Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998). First, the adult learner must know the purpose for

learning what they are being taught. Outreach presentations that use live animals to convey

environmental messages to adults should explicitly state why the audience is being asked to

remember and act on the messages being conveyed. Second, adults take control of how they

learn and are self-directed learners. When using live animals as teaching tools with adult

audiences, the conservation educator must therefore promote a learning environment where the

participant's informational and emotional needs are considered. For example, an injured

animal's specific physical condition may intrigue the adult learner to want to know more about

the health of the animal and adult learning theory suggests that the educator cater to the concerns

of the learner before moving further. Third, what is to be learned by the adult is impacted by

prior learning experiences. As such, the conservation educator who uses live animals as teaching

tools must consider the learner's previous experiences and encounters with similar educational

programs and even the actual animals themselves. For example, experiential learning theory

(Kolb, 1984) suggests that a previous encounter (positive or negative) with the same kind of

animal used in an educational presentation could significantly influence the learning experience

for the participant. In situations where the previous encounter was a negative one (e.g., with a

stereotypical animal such as a snake), the ability of the zoo educator to effectively relate

environmental/conservation messages to the animal being presented would be hindered.

Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998) suggest three other principles of adult learning

theory that could potentially influence the ability of the zoo educator to effectively convey

conservation-related messages to the adult learner and thus promote engagement in behaviors to









benefit birds of prey and their habitat. The fourth principle relates to the previous example

concerning prior encounters with educational animals and involves the fact that adult learners

need to be ready to learn. The use of educational animals with commonly associated negative

stereotypes may prevent the adult participating in an educational activity from being "ready" to

learn. Because of this, injured and non-injured birds of prey were the only kind of animals used

as teaching tools with adults in this study.

The fifth and sixth principles relate directly to the educational techniques and philosophies

typically associated with non-formal environmental educators, zoo educators, and Extension

professionals. The fifth principle states that adults learn best when information is presented in a

real-life setting (the problem-solving approach to instruction) and the sixth principle suggests

that for adults to be motivated to learn, the new knowledge presented must help them solve

problems they perceive are important. This implies that the information presented and perhaps

the educational animals used to help convey conservation-related messages must be relevant to

the life of the adult learner. Kreger and Mench (1995) made several recommendations regarding

the use of common, native species in educational programs. When conveying messages related

to the protection of a rare species, they suggest using a related common species because

participants are more likely to care about and express fewer negative stereotypes toward a locally

relevant animal (Kreger & Mench, 1995). Gippoliti and Amori (1998) argue that a greater

emphasis on more common species in educational programs would allow participants to receive

a broader view of the animal world (not being dominated by large, exotic animals as currently

emphasized in zoos) and biodiversity. The majority of the birds of prey used as teaching tools in

this study were native to Florida and/or the United States. Details concerning the specific

species of birds used in the outreach presentations are presented in Chapter 3.









With regards to the learning of older adults specifically, Merriam, Caffarella, and

Baumgartner (2007) suggest that educators should provide older adults with advice on useful

resources to consult after the educational experience has ended. In an attempt to increase the

likelihood of engagement in behaviors advocated by the zoo educator to help birds of prey and

their habitat, the zoo educator in this study provided all participants with written information on

how to build an owl nesting box as a way to enhance habitat for birds of prey. Because program

participants were reminded that they have the capacity to improve conditions for raptors and

other wildlife and were provided with the tools to do so, Bandura's (1977, 1994) self-efficacy

theory would predict that participants who believe they have the capacity to improve wildlife

conditions will be more likely to act in this way.

Benefits of Animal Interaction for Older Adults

A significant body of research exists on the benefits of animal interaction for older adults.

For elder citizens, interaction with domesticated animals can aid in the recovery process

following a heart attack (Friedman et al., 1980), reduce blood pressure (Friedman et al., 1983),

lower depression levels for those in nursing homes (Francis et al., 1985), reduce medical care

costs (Montague, 1995), and improve overall quality of life (Geisler, 2004). However, little

research exists on the impact of wildlife interactions with older adults. Shore (2002) as cited in

Vining (2003) notes that caring for an individual domesticated animal does not translate into

proper caring for a wild species. Myers and Saunders (as cited in Kahn & Kellert, 2002) suggest

that caring about an individual animal may lead to caring about that animal's needs, well-being,

and ultimately broader environmental caring. Vining (2003) advocates that more research be

conducted to determine whether there is a link between caring for individual animals, caring for

populations, and caring for entire ecosystems.









There is a lack of research on the connection between human-animal relationships and

one's interest in environmental protection (Vining, 2003). Vining (2003) suggests that if a

relationship does exist between empathy for individual animals, their species, and their habitat,

an understanding of this may be crucial to encouraging resource conservation and environmental

protection. Given the current lack of information regarding the impact of zoo outreach education

efforts on participant intentions to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors to benefit

animals and their habitat (Dierking et al., 2002; Swanagan, 2000), the link between empathy

generated for animals and intent to engage in pro-environmental behaviors must be explored.

With evidence that a positive link already exists between older adults and animal interaction, this

study examined the emotional responses and behavioral intentions of elder adults living in

retirement communities.

Response to Interaction with Animals and Participant Characteristics

Knowledge of the relationship between sex and emotional response to animals is lacking

and somewhat unclear. In fact, Vining (2003) notes that little attention has been given to the

concept that men and women may react to animals in different ways. Considering feelings of

empathy, Batson (1991) suggests that females are more likely to respond empathically to animals

in need and exhibit helping behaviors than are males, although most research on empathic

response has examined only female participants. Kellert (1980) reported that females are more

likely to exhibit emotional attachment to animals. With regards to injured animals, males and

individuals over 76 years of age were least emotionally impacted by knowledge of the welfare of

animals (Kellert, 1980). However, Shelton and Rogers (1981) found no effect of sex on

participant emotions and empathic response to injured whales. Other studies that have examined

empathic response to descriptions of injured animals (e.g., Batson et al., 2005) sampled females

only. Taylor (2002) found that women responded to stressful situations by tending or comforting









others whereas men isolated themselves from others. Gilligan and Attanucci (1994) reported a

similar finding in that women tended to have a morality of caring and men had a morality of

justice. If witnessing an injured bird of prey is classified as a "stressful situation," perhaps

females will be more likely to generate empathy and intend to engage in behaviors beneficial to

birds of prey and their habitat than will males.

Rationale for Testing the Empathy-altruism Hypothesis with Animals in Need

According to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, feeling empathy for person in need

evokes altruistic motivation to help that person (Batson, 1991). Here, the more empathic

emotion one feels for a subject in need, the more altruistic motivation to have that need reduced

will result. However, according to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, feeling empathy for a

subject in need is said to evoke motivation to help where any benefits to oneself are unintended

consequences and not the ultimate goal of helping. In fact, all motivation to help that is evoked

by empathy is altruistic-done to increase the welfare of the one in need (Batson, 1991).

Although previous research suggested that the degree of empathy felt for a subject in need

was positively related to the degree of similarity one had with that subject, more recent research

suggests otherwise. In fact, Batson et al. (2005) reported that the less similar a subject in need

(an injured dog and puppy) is to the one with the ability to help, the more likely it is that the

individual with the ability to help will feel empathy and help. Others such as Schultz (2000)

have asked participants to view color images of injured animals and then measured associated

levels of empathy and altruism. When asked to take the perspective of an injured animal,

individuals were significantly more empathic and altruistic than individuals who were asked to

be objective (Schultz, 2000). As such, if participants identify with an injured bird of prey used in

a zoo outreach presentation and generate empathy, Schultz (2000) and Batson et al. (2005)

suggest that this would be enough to generate biospheric concern for other similarly injured









raptors (altruism) and would lead to an intent to engage in behaviors that would help birds of

prey and their habitat. However, in both the Schultz (2000) and Batson et al. (2005) studies, no

real, live, injured animals were used. Aside from these two studies and an earlier study

involving industrial whaling (Shelton & Rogers, 1981), no other research exists examining the

influence of injured animals on empathy, altruism, and engagement in helping behaviors (C.D.

Batson, personal communication, April 27, 2006). In fact, no research exists examining the

influence of live animals on empathy, altruism, and intentions to help. Given the limited amount

of research available concerning this phenomenon, further verification of the applicability of the

empathy-altruism model with live animals in need is warranted.

Some might question the parsimoniousness of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Batson

himself notes the rather simplistic nature of this model:

"As presented [in the model], empathy evokes no motivation to help directed toward the
egoistic goals of gaining rewards, avoiding punishments, or reducing aversive arousal. It
is easy to imagine a weaker form of the empathy-altruism hypothesis, in which empathic
emotion evokes both egoistic and altruistic motivation" (Batson, 1991, p. 87).

He provides strategic justification for ignoring egoistic explanations, noting that if empirical

evidence supports the more parsimonious form of the model, "then we have no need for the more

complicated procedures and more sensitive measures required to test the weak form [that

involving egoistic explanations]" (Batson, 1991, p. 88). However, he does offer a brief

disclaimer regarding egoistic motives:

"To claim that empathic emotion evokes altruistic motivation and only altruistic
motivation, as the strong form [that without egoistic explanations] of the empathy-altruism
hypothesis does, is not to claim that the empathically aroused individual is experiencing
only altruistic motivation. He or she may also be experiencing egoistic motives arising
from sources other than empathy. These egoistic motives and the altruistic motive are
assumed to be distinct, but to the extent that the goals of these motives are compatible,
their magnitudes should sum" (Batson, 1991, p. 88).









Given the implications suggested by Batson (1991) of empirically testing the empathy-altruism

hypothesis without consideration of egoistic motives of engagement in helping behavior, this

study tested the model that ignores egoistic explanations of helping behavior.









CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Introduction

Chapters 1 and 2 highlighted some of the methodological limitations cited in evaluative

studies of zoo and environmental education programs that use live animals to convey

conservation-related messages. From a methodological standpoint, one of the overarching goals

of this study was to improve the rigor with which measurements of participant affect and

behavioral intention are conducted, analyzed, and reported in the literature. In addition, the

practical significance of research results has been highlighted through the reporting of variance

explained terms (R-squared). An emphasis on the practical significance of research results helps

ensure that the findings of this study are usable to interested stakeholders (e.g., Tampa's Lowry

Park Zoo education staff). In this chapter, issues regarding the population of interest, sampling

and types of presentations administered, measurement (validity, reliability, and sensitivity), and

data analysis methods are discussed.

Population of Interest

The literature has previously cited the importance of examining the currently older

population of individuals participating in zoo and environmental education outreach

presentations (Hudson, 2001). In response, this study examined the emotional and behavioral-

intention responses of older adults participating in outreach presentations conducted by Tampa's

Lowry Park Zoo. Specifically, the population of interest for this study included elder individuals

residing in retirement communities around the Tampa, Florida area. Because the purpose of this

study was to determine if and how different bird of prey presentations influence the behavioral

intentions of this population, sampling had to ensure that participants had the ability and

opportunity to engage in the behaviors advocated by the zoo educator. The retirement









communities in the convenience sample were comprised of older adults who were physically

able to leave the community grounds as needed. Senior centers and nursing homes were not

selected for sampling because these facilities traditionally house adults with limited physical

abilities who may not be able to participate in the environmentally-responsible behaviors

advocated by the zoo educator.

Sampling and Presentation Regime

A quasi-experimental research design was used (Ary et al., 2002). A convenience sample

of retirement communities located around the Tampa/Clearwater, Florida area was obtained. An

on-line database of retirement communities in this area was consulted and used to select

retirement communities to participate in the study. A total of 53 retirement communities were

contacted and seven communities agreed to participate in the study.

Description of Retirement Communities

The seven retirement communities that participated in this study were located within 40

miles of Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo. Five of the communities were located in Clearwater, Florida

and two were located in Tampa, Florida. The communities located in the Clearwater area

included Glen Ellen Mobile Home Park, Sunny Grove Mobile Home Park, Embassy Mobile

Home Park, Shady Lane Oaks Retirement Village, and Island in the Sun Clearwater Retirement

Community. Each of these communities contained between 50 and 150 homes. The majority of

residents in these communities lived there between November and May each year. The two

communities located in the Tampa area included John Knox Village Retirement Community and

Regency Cove Mobile Home Park. Most of the residents of John Knox Village resided there

throughout the year and lived in apartment-style homes. Regency Cove Mobile Home Park

contained approximately 180 homes and the majority of residents lived in the community

between November and May each year.









Once a community was selected, the researcher called the President of the Homeowners

Association for that community, explained the purpose of the study, and asked for voluntary

participation. Often the President would be required to present the idea to the Homeowners

Association Board for voting prior to agreeing to participate. To facilitate this process, the

researcher would send the Homeowners Association President a letter (Appendix A) by fax or

postal mail explaining the purpose of the study and briefly summarizing the methods to be

implemented.

Once a retirement community agreed to participate, members of the community were

recruited to attend the educational presentation using two techniques. First, the retirement

community newsletter was used as a venue to alert community members of the upcoming

presentation and visit from the zoo. Second, the researcher emailed the President of the

Homeowners Association a color poster (Appendix B) which could be posted throughout the

community to advertise the presentation and recruit participants.

The size of each retirement community that agreed to participate varied from 30 homes to

over 200 homes. An estimated 30,000 adults age 55 and over resided in the Tampa/Clearwater,

Florida area between November and April in 2005 (Tampa Tourism Bureau, personal

communication, May 30, 2007). As such, using a confidence interval of+/- 6, according to

Cochran's (1977) sample size formula, a sample size of 264 people was needed.

Presentation Logistics

Each retirement community that agreed to participate in the study was randomly assigned

to receive one of three indoor educational presentations. Of the seven communities sampled, two

communities participated in the pilot study and received the all injured birds of prey

presentation. Five communities participated in the data collection as part of the main study.

Two communities received the non-injured birds of prey presentation, two communities received









the slideshow presentation, and one community received the all injured birds of prey

presentation. Most presentations occurred in the club house of each retirement community.

Each presentation was conducted by the same zoo educator. This individual holds a degree in

Environmental Interpretation from a major land-grant university, has more than 10 years of

experience using birds of prey as teaching tools in zoo-related educational presentations, and has

been featured on local and national television programs promoting zoo education. Each

presentation was between 40 and 50 minutes in length and was scripted, conveying the same

conservation-related messages to each audience. To ensure minimal educator variability

between presentations and to document/account for the behavior of the live injured and non-

injured birds of prey, all presentations were videotaped. For communities receiving the

slideshow presentation, once all instruments were returned to the researcher and data collection

was over, the researcher and the zoo educator together presented a live Eurasian eagle owl and

free-flew the owl over the audience in appreciation for their attendance. The specific content of

each of the three presentations is detailed in Appendix G.

Data Collection

Data collection involved the group administration of a self-administered questionnaire. As

such, procedures outlined by Dillman (2000) were followed to reduce the potential for

measurement error. Prior to the start of each presentation, the researcher explained the purpose

of the study and the fact that participation was completely voluntary. As Dillman (2000)

suggests, a nearly identical introduction was provided at each community presentation and the

facilitator expressed his appreciation for each individual's attendance and for taking the time to

participate in the study. The researcher then explained the informed consent process of the

University-approved study and provided each participant with two copies of the informed

consent document, one for their records and one to be returned to the researcher once signed









(Appendix C). The data collection instrument, printed in 8.5" x 11.0" booklet format, was then

distributed (Appendix D). Participants were informed of the steps to completing the

questionnaire and asked to complete only the pre-assessment portion of the questionnaire (parts

one through four).

Although Dillman (2000) suggests that the facilitator remind participants that the

questionnaire is not a test with right and wrong answers, the researcher found that the

participants in this study seemed to respond well to humorous remarks to "keep their eyes on

their own paper" and to "not cheat." These comments seemed to allow participants to feel like

they were back in school, and perhaps helped ensure that they take completing the questionnaire

seriously. The use of visual cues such as the stop sign graphic and arrows to indicate where to

write a response were also used to help reduce the potential for measurement error (Dillman,

2000; Israel, 2005).

Once all participants completed the pre-assessment, the researcher introduced the zoo

educator and participants watched the birds of prey presentation. Immediately following the

presentation, the researcher asked participants to turn the page in their booklets and complete the

post-assessment portion of the questionnaire. As participants completed the post-assessment and

returned them, they received a small gift for their efforts. Participants who handed in a

completed questionnaire received a University of Florida pen. To ensure that all parts of each

questionnaire were completed, the researcher again used humor and a "back in school" analogy

with participants. Before awarding a pen to each participant, the researcher quickly flipped

through that participant's booklet and said, "let me make sure you got all of the answers correct."

While participants found this humorous, this technique allowed the researcher to quickly glance

over the instrument to ensure that all parts were completed. If a section of the instrument was









left blank, the researcher brought this to the participant's attention. In nearly all instances, the

participant apologized and completed the appropriate sectionss. Data collection began on

March 15, 2007 and ended on April 23, 2007.

Instrumentation and Measurement

A panel of eight experts comprised of university faculty and graduate students from the

Department of Agricultural Education and Communication and the School of Teaching and

Learning at the University of Florida and zoo education specialists from Tampa's Lowry Park

Zoo, evaluated the instrument for face and content validity. Construct validity and internal

consistency were measured using principal components factor analysis (Crocker & Algina, 1986)

with a Promax oblique rotation to aid interpretation when needed. Although Hair, Anderson,

Tatham, and Black (1995) suggest that an orthogonal rotation should be applied if the subscale

scores are to be used in regression, given the highly associated nature of the items within each of

the instrument constructs (e.g., the 17 items used to measure empathy), an oblique rotation was

more appropriate from a confirmatory sense (D. Miller, Professor of Educational Psychology,

personal communication, June 1, 2007). Factor scores were used in a regression analysis to

meet objectives two and three of this study. Reliability within each of the constructs (internal

consistency) was measured using Cronbach's alpha during the pilot phase of the study.

The pre- and post-assessment instruments were distributed to participants as one 8.5" x 11"

booklet (Appendix D). As Dillman (2000) and Israel (2005) suggest, steps were taken to

enhance the face validity of the instrument, including the placement of a clear title, graphic

representing the topic of the questionnaire, and logos from the study sponsors on the front cover.

Pre-assessment

The pre-assessment portion of the instrument (Appendix D) was used to determine

respondents' prior conservation-related behaviors, entry-level attitudes toward wildlife habitat









conservation, entry-level attitudes toward birds of prey specifically, and demographic

characteristics. Part one of the pre-assessment included five items measuring respondent

conservation-related behaviors three months prior to attending the educational presentation.

Response options for each item included "yes" (coded as 1), "no" (coded as 0) and "did not have

the opportunity to" (coded as 2).

Part two of the pre-assessment included six items measuring respondent attitudes toward

wildlife habitat conservation. Response options for each item ranged from "not at all important"

(coded as 1) to "very important" (coded as 5) with a "no opinion" option (coded as 6). The

continuous scale of these response options followed Dillman's (2000) conventions for wording

in differentiating between options along a 6-point continuum. No opinion responses were

omitted from scoring. Summated scale scores were created to summarize participant attitudes

toward wildlife habitat conservation with higher scores implying a more positive attitude. No

opinion responses were examined separately using frequencies.

Part three of the pre-assessment included five items measuring respondent attitudes

regarding birds of prey specifically. Response options for each item ranged from "strongly

disagree" (coded as 1) to "strongly agree" (coded as 5) and included a middle "neutral" option

(coded as 3). Summated scale scores were created here to examine overall level of agreement

with positive statements concerning birds of prey. Higher scores implied greater agreement.

Part four of the pre-assessment included five items intended to assess respondent

demographic information. Individuals were asked to indicate whether they currently belonged to

an environmental or conservation organization ("yes" or "no," "yes" coded as 1 and "no" coded

as 0) and if yes, which one(s). They were asked to indicate whether they currently owned any

pets ("yes" or "no," "yes" coded as 1 and "no" coded as 0) and if yes, what kind. For both of









these items, the suggestions proposed by Dillman (2000) and Israel (2005) were implemented,

including the use of visual cues such as arrows and open boxes for respondents to write in.

Respondents were also asked about their location of permanent residence (city and state), their

sex (coded as 1 = male, 2 = female), and the year they were born. Israel (2005) suggests that

four connected, open boxes be used to reduce the likelihood of measurement error in asking for

respondent age and the pre-assessment implemented this technique. The same pre-assessment

instrument was given to all three presentation groups.

Post-assessment

The post-assessment portion of the instrument (Appendix D) was used to measure

participants' perceptions of need associated with the birds of prey in the presentation and test

each of the components of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Specifically, the post-assessment

measured empathic emotional response to the presentation, altruistic motivation following the

presentation, and the environmentally-responsible behavioral intentions of participants. In

addition, to meet objective four of the study, part five of the post-assessment examined the

satisfaction of participants of each of the presentations.

Perceived Level of Need

Part one of the post-assessment measured the level of need associated with the birds of

prey presented in each presentation. Batson (1991) suggests that perception of need be measured

prior to measuring empathy, then developed as an index, and used as a covariate in a regression

model. Perception of need was measured by asking respondents to indicate how in need the

birds of prey were of specific actions, including aid, protection, veterinary care, affection, time

away from people, and companionship. Birds that were perceived to be in need of "aid" were

assumed to be worthy of physical, non-medical related attention from humans (such as a zoo

official). Birds perceived to be in need of "protection" were assumed to be worthy of human-









related efforts to keep the animal from being negatively impacted by other humans or their

actions (including habitat loss). Birds perceived to be in need of "veterinary care" were assumed

to be worthy of medical related attention from a veterinarian. Birds perceived to be in need of

"affection" were assumed to be worthy of emotional attention from humans. Birds perceived to

be in need of "time away from people" were assumed to be exhibiting behaviors of distress in

front of humans and worthy of alone time. Finally, birds perceived to be in need of

"companionship" were assumed to be worthy of time with other birds of prey.

As a concept, perceived level of need was defined using Batson's (1991) definition which

has since been applied to descriptions of both humans and animals in need. This definition

assumes that the participant recognizes (a function of attention being given to the subject in

question) a negative discrepancy between the subjects' current and potential states on one or

more dimensions of well-being. Dimensions of well-being could include being free from

unpleasant states (physical pain, anxiety, and stress) and experiencing pleasant states such as

physical pleasure, satisfaction, and security (Batson, 1991).

Perceived level of need was measured according to the procedures previously used to test

the empathy-altruism hypothesis following exposure to descriptions of subjects (humans and

animals) in need. Respondents indicated their response along a continuum of need as Batson

(1991) suggests, from "not at all needed" (coded as 1) to "very needed" (coded as 5), with a "no

opinion" response option (coded as 6). Again, Dillman's (2000) conventions for wording for

continuous 6-point response options were followed.

Empathy

Part two of the post-assessment measured empathic emotional response to each

presentation. To measure empathy, conventions suggested by Batson (1991) and Batson et al.,

2005 were followed. This included using the 17 adjectives employed in previous studies to









measure empathy and the response scale suggested by Batson (1991). Respondents indicated

their level of empathy felt while viewing the birds of prey along a 7-point continuum from "not

at all" (coded as 1) to "extremely" (coded as 7) with a "moderately" middle response option

(coded as 4). Summated scale scores were created to summarize overall participant levels of

empathy following each presentation. Higher scores implied stronger feelings of empathy.

Altruism (Concern)

Part three of the post-assessment measured the altruistic motivation of respondents and

utilized the suggestions of Batson (1991) for assessing altruism. Specifically, feelings of

concern toward the birds of prey viewed during the presentation, other birds of prey in the wild,

and wildlife habitat were examined using seven items. Each item asked respondents to indicate

their level of concern along a 6-point continuum from "not at all concerned" (coded as 1) to

"very concerned" (coded as 5) with a "no opinion" response option (coded as 6). Dillman's

(2000) suggestions for response option wording along a 6-point continuum were again applied.

Summated scale scores were created with higher scores signifying stronger feelings of altruism.

Behavioral Commitment

Part four of the post-assessment measured the environmentally-responsible behavioral

intentions of respondents. Three main questions were asked, each with six sub-items to consider

associated with each main question. The first question in this section asked respondents to

indicate whether or not they were committed to performing six different environmentally-

responsible behaviors now and in the future. These six behaviors were the same actions

advocated by the zoo educator during the all injured, all non-injured, and slideshow group

presentations. These behaviors included (a) telling a friend about the presentation, (b) telling a

friend about conservation, (c) not discarding food scraps along roadways, (d) attending another

wildlife-related presentation, (e) building or sponsoring a bird nesting box, and (f) donating









money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization. Respondents indicated whether or not

they were committed to performing each action by responding "yes" or "no." Responses were

geometrically scored and coded so that it would be obvious which of the six behaviors (if any)

respondents indicated being committed to performing. For example, a response of "yes" to the

first item was coded 1, a response of "yes" to the second item was coded 2, a response of "yes"

to the third item was coded 4, and so on, with each response of "yes" doubling the score given

for a previous "yes." Summated scale scores were again created and higher scores indicated

greater commitment to engage in the behaviors advocated during the presentation. This item

served as the dependent variable in the study.

Social Norms Regarding Behaviors

The second question in part four of the post-assessment measured the acceptability of the

same six behaviors to others. This item addressed the influence of social norms that the theory

of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) suggests can determine likelihood of action. The six

behaviors were listed in the same order and respondents were asked to indicate their level of

acceptability along a 6-point continuum from "not at all acceptable" (coded as 1) to "very

acceptable" (coded as 5) with a "no opinion" response option (coded as 6). Dillman's (2000)

suggestions for response option wording along a 6-point continuum were utilized. Excluding the

"no opinion" response option, a summated scale score was created for this item. Respondents

were given an "acceptability to others" score for the six behaviors collectively. Higher

summated scale scores signified greater acceptability of the behaviors.

Finally, the third question in part four of the post-assessment measured the likelihood that

respondents would perform those same six behaviors if others around them were aware that they

engaged in such activities. The six behaviors were again listed in the same order and

respondents were asked to indicate the likelihood that they would perform the behaviors along a









6-point continuum from "not at all likely" (coded as 1) to "very likely" (coded as 5) with a "no

opinion" response option (coded as 6). Dillman's (2000) suggestions for response option

wording along a 6-point continuum were again utilized. Excluding the "no opinion" response

option, a summated scale score was created for this item. Each respondent was given a

"likelihood to perform" score for the six behaviors collectively. Higher summated scale scores

signified a greater likelihood to perform the behaviors collectively.

Participant Satisfaction

Part five of the post-assessment measured respondents level of satisfaction with the zoo

educator's performance and the overall educational presentation, meeting objective four of this

study. Three items were included in this section. The first item asked respondents to rate the

zoo educator's level of excitement for wildlife conservation along a continuum from "very low"

(coded as 1) to "very high" (coded as 5) with a "no opinion" response option (coded as 6). A

second item asked respondents to indicate how well the presentation held their attention with

response options ranging from "strongly disagree" (coded as 1) to "strongly agree" (coded as 5)

with a "no opinion" option (coded as 6). For this item, respondents were given the opportunity

to explain their answer in writing. Finally, the third item asked respondents to indicate whether

there was anything else they would have liked to have seen as part of the presentation.

Qualitative responses to this item were summarized and provided to the zoo educator.

Summary of Methods and Theory

The empathy-altruism hypothesis was tested by assigning each retirement community to

either a presentation involving all injured birds of prey, a presentation involving all non-injured

birds of prey, or a presentation involving pictures of birds of prey. Figure 3-1 summarizes the

theoretical underpinnings of the empathy-altruism hypothesis and theory of planned behavior

and illustrates the presentation regime of the study.









Implementation of Pilot Study

A pilot study was implemented with two retirement communities prior to the official data

collection period to determine initial estimates of instrument validity, reliability, and sensitivity.

Two presentations with all injured birds of prey were selected for the pilot study as the all

injured presentations were expected to elicit the strongest emotional responses among

participants. Data from the two all injured presentations were entered into SPSS Version 14.0

for Windows. Internal consistency of each of the parts of the pre- and post-assessment was

examined using Cronbach's alpha and item discrimination procedures (corrected item-total

correlation) were used to assess the sensitivity of items. Items with a corrected item-total

correlation less than 0.20 were revised or deleted so long as Cronbach's alpha would increase if

that item was deleted.

Adjustments to instrumentation items were made prior to the data collection period using

the results of the pilot study. In addition, the pilot study allowed the researcher to examine the

consistency with which the zoo educator delivered educational messages to the two presentation

groups through the use of videotaping. Because the same educator facilitated all presentations,

any variability in delivery styles noted from the video recordings was addressed with the

educator and adjustments were made prior to data collection. The researcher visually examined

the video recordings for unusual bird behaviors and took detailed notes of the zoo educator's

messages.

Pilot Study Results

A total of 33 people participated in the two all injured birds of prey presentations. Internal

consistency and item discrimination were examined within each of the parts of the pre- and post-

assessments using the responses from these individuals. The internal consistency of part one of

the pre-assessment was 0.53. Item discrimination statistics revealed that one item related to









littering had a corrected item-total correlation of-0.020 and this item was deleted. The internal

consistency of part two of the pre-assessment was 0.84. Item discrimination statistics revealed

that all six items in this section had corrected item-total correlations ranging from 0.42 to 0.71,

therefore no items were deleted. The internal consistency of part three of the pre-assessment was

0.81. Item discrimination statistics showed that all five items in this section had corrected item-

total correlations ranging from 0.42 to 0.81, therefore no items were deleted. Internal

consistency and item discrimination statistics were not calculated for part four (participant

demographics) of the pre-assessment.

The internal consistency of part one of the post-assessment (perceived need of birds) was

0.94. Item discrimination statistics showed that all six items in this section had corrected item-

total correlations between 0.76 and 0.91, therefore no items were deleted. The internal

consistency of part two of the post-assessment (empathy) was 0.92. Item discrimination results

indicated that these 17 items had corrected item-total correlations ranging from 0.41 to 0.80,

therefore no items were deleted. The internal consistency of part three of the post-assessment

(altruism) was 0.73. Item discrimination statistics revealed that these seven items had corrected

item-total correlations ranging from 0.20 to 0.55 and no items were deleted.

The internal consistency and item discrimination statistics were checked for each of the

three main questions in part four of the post-assessment (behavioral intentions), with each main

question having six sub-items concerning specific conservation-related behaviors advocated by

the zoo educator. Question 31 of the post-assessment (commitment to perform six

environmentally-responsible behaviors), to be used as the dependent variable in the study, had an

internal consistency of 0.83. Item discrimination statistics indicated that the six components of

this item had corrected item-total correlations between 0.40 and 0.71, therefore no adjustments









were made. Question 32 of the post-assessment (acceptability of the six behaviors to others) had

an internal consistency of 0.90. Item discrimination statistics ranged from 0.28 to 0.87 and no

items were deleted. Finally, question 33 of the post-assessment (likelihood to perform the six

behaviors if others were aware) had an internal consistency of 0.93. Item discrimination

statistics were between 0.58 and 0.84, therefore no items were deleted. Because only three

customer satisfaction related questions comprised part five of the post-assessment, internal

consistency and item discrimination were not checked.

Data Analysis

SPSS Version 14.0 for Windows was used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics,

including frequencies, means, standard deviations, and cross-tabulations, were calculated to

summarize the characteristics of the participants of the birds of prey outreach presentations and

meet objective one of this study. To meet objectives two and three, a correlation matrix was

developed prior to implementing multiple regression analysis to investigate the potential for

collinearity among the independent variables and to verify association between independent

variables and the dependent variable (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). According to Davis (1971),

independent variables and the dependent variable should be moderately to highly correlated, but

moderate to high correlations among independent variables indicate multicollinearity. If certain

independent variables were not moderately to highly correlated with the dependent variable,

these variables were not included in the regression model. Prior to building regression models,

additional assumptions associated with multiple regression were tested and verified, following

the procedures suggested by Osborne and Waters (2002). The normality assumption was

verified by visually inspecting data plots for skew, kurtosis, and the presence of outliers. The

homoscedasticity (homogeneity in variances) assumption was verified using Levene's test.









Principal component factor analysis (Crocker & Algina, 1986) with a Promax oblique

rotation to aid interpretation was used as a data reduction technique prior to regression analysis.

Factor scores for each of the multi-item constructs were then used as variables/coefficients in

multiple regression equations. Finally, to meet objective four, descriptive statistics, including

frequencies, means, and standard deviations, were used to summarize the level of satisfaction

that participants had with the zoo educator and educational presentation for each of the three

presentations.

Summary

This chapter described the sampling and statistical methods used to meet the objectives of

this study. The all injured birds of prey, all non-injured birds of prey, and slideshow group

presentations were described in detail. Development of the instrumentation used in this study

was discussed, including question items and response scales utilized to measure empathy,

altruism, and the behavioral intention of participants following the three presentations. The pre-

assessment and post-assessment portions of the questionnaire were described in detail and group

administration techniques were revealed to explain how the questionnaire was implemented.

Methods used to implement the pilot study were discussed and the results of the pilot study were

presented to justify revisions to the instrumentation. Finally, data analysis procedures were

described, including the use of factor analysis in measuring emotional responses and multiple

regression techniques to predict likelihood of engagement in the environmentally-responsible

behaviors advocated by the zoo educator following each presentation.









Pre-assessment


Participant
conservation-
related
experiences
(Part 1)


Attitude
toward wildlife
habitat
conservation
(Part 2)


Attitude
toward birds of
prey
(Part 3)


Participant
personal
characteristics
(Part 4)


Presentations


Presentation 1:
All injured
birds in live
presentation


Presentation 2:
All non-injured
birds in live
presentation


Presentation 3:
Slide show w/
pictures of
same birds and
matching
messages as
above


Post-assessment


Bird viewed as
being in need
(Part 1)


Altruistic
motivation
(Part 3)


Behavioral
intention:
Social norms
regarding
behavior
Commitment to
perform behavior
(Part 4)


Figure 3-1. Summary of Constructs Measured in Study.


Note. Items in parentheses represent components of the data collection instrument (Appendix D) measuring that construct









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the data analysis procedures described in Chapter 3.

Results are presented by research objective and/or research hypothesis. It was the general

purpose of this study to determine if and how different wildlife presentations influence empathy,

altruism, and commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. Three

wildlife presentations were compared: those containing all injured birds of prey, those containing

all non-injured birds of prey, and those where color photographs of birds of prey were used to

convey identical conservation messages.

Objective One

Determine the Characteristics of Participants Attending the Birds of Prey Outreach
Presentations

Of the 231 questionnaires received from participants of the three presentations, 213 were

usable and 18 were due to item nonresponse. A total of 63 people participated in the all injured

birds of prey presentation, 78 people participated in the all non-injured presentations, and 72

people participated in the pictures group presentations.

Sex and Age

Table 4-1 summarizes the sex of the participants by presentation group. The majority of

participants in the injured, non-injured, and pictures group presentations were female. The

injured presentation had the greatest proportion of female respondents (70.5%). A significant

difference did not occur between groups (Chi-square = 0.327, df= 2, p = 0.849).

Table 4-2 presents data on the age breakdown of participants in the three presentations.

The oldest respondent was born in 1909 and participated in one of the non-injured presentations.

Nine respondents in the non-injured presentation, including the individual born in 1909, were









more than 90 years old. Only one respondent in the injured presentation and one respondent in

the pictures group were more than 90 years old. Considering all presentations, respondents in

the all injured presentation had the highest mean age, although the mean ages for all presentation

groups were in the low to middle 70s. The range for the all injured presentation was 35 years,

the range for the non-injured presentation was 43 years, and the range for the slideshow

presentation group was 34 years.

Permanent Residence

Fourteen states and five Canadian provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario,

Quebec, and Saskatchewan) were represented by participants of this study (Table 4-3).

Permanent residence was defined as the location where the respondent lives for more than six

months of the year. Although Canada and Florida were classified separately, the remaining 13

U.S. states were categorized by region. The majority of respondents (60.8%) across the three

presentations were from Florida. Canadian residents represented over 12% of the sample.

Considering each presentation group individually, the majority of respondents in the all injured

(73.0%) and the all non-injured (80.5%) presentations resided in Florida for most of the year.

Almost one-third of the pictures group was from Florida, while nearly one quarter of the pictures

group was from Canada. No significant differences were found between presentation groups and

regions where participants were from (Chi-square = 7.29, df = 6, p = 0.343).

Environmental/Conservation Organization Membership

The majority of respondents (88.7%) did not belong to an environmental or conservation

organization (Table 4-4). Although twice as many respondents in the non-injured presentation

indicated belonging to an environmental or conservation organization, no significant difference

was found between presentations (Chi-square = 2.134, df = 2, p = 0.344). Four respondents

indicated belonging to more than one environmental or conservation organization. Organizations









in which respondents belonged included: Audubon, Big Cat Rescue, the National Wildlife

Federation, the Nature Conservancy, the Peregrine Falcon Foundation, Sierra Club, the World

Wildlife Fund, and a variety of zoos. No significant difference was found between presentation

groups (Chi-square = 2.134, df = 2,p 0.344).

Members of environmental or conservation organizations were compared by location of

residence (Table 4-5). Fifteen of the 129 respondents (11.6%) with permanent residences in

Florida indicated belonging to an environmental or conservation organization. Two of the 26

respondents (7.7%) with permanent residences in Canada indicated belonging to an

environmental or conservation organization. Considering regions, proportionally more

respondents from the Midwest were members of environmental or conservation organizations

when compared to the other regions.

Members of environmental or conservation organizations were also compared by sex

(Table 4-6). Of the male respondents (n = 68), 10.3% were members of environmental or

conservation organizations. Of the female respondents (n = 142), 12.0% were members of

environmental or conservation organizations. No significant difference was found between

respondent sex and membership in environmental/conservation organizations (Chi-square =

0.128, df = 1,p = 0.721).

Pet Ownership

Table 4-7 summarizes the pet ownership of respondents. Looking across presentations, 47

of the 213 respondents reported owning pets. Regardless of the presentation they were exposed

to, those who owned pets owned a cat, dog, bird, fish, or a combination thereof. Of those who

owned a pet(s), 53.2% (n = 25) owned a cat, 36.2% (n = 17) owned a dog, 4.3% (n = 2) owned a

bird, and 6.4% (n = 3) owned a fish. No significant difference was found between number of pet

owners across presentations (Chi-square = 5.024, df = 2, p = 0.081).









Previous Conservation-related Behaviors by Presentation

Respondents were asked about their engagement in five conservation-related behaviors

during a three month period prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. These behaviors

included discussing wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others, properly disposing

of trash that could harm wildlife, attending public wildlife presentations, owning or sponsoring a

bird house, and donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental

organizationss. Table 4-8 summarizes respondents who indicated discussing wildlife habitat

conservation-related issues with others. Nearly half of the respondents (47.1%) in all three

presentations indicated that they had not discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues

with others in the three months prior to attending the presentation. However, about 44% of the

participants in the non-injured presentations indicated that they had discussed wildlife habitat

conservation-related issues with others three months prior to attending the presentation. There

were no significant differences in those who indicated discussing wildlife habitat conservation-

related issues with others and the type of presentation they participated in (Chi-square = 4.874,

df= 4,p = 0.300).

Table 4-9 summarizes respondents who indicated that in the three months prior to

attending the educational presentation they properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife.

The majority of respondents (90.1%) indicated that they have properly disposed of trash that

could harm wildlife in the three months prior to the educational presentation. When compared to

participants of the non-injured and pictures group presentations, a greater proportion of

participants of the all injured birds of prey presentation (98.4% compared to 87.2% and 86.1%)

indicated that they had properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife. No respondents from

the all injured presentation indicated not properly disposing of trash that could harm wildlife in

the three months before the presentation. There were no significant differences between









respondents who indicated properly disposing of trash that could harm wildlife and the type of

presentation they participated in (Chi-square = 7.687, df = 4, p = 0.104).

Table 4-10 presents a summary of respondents' attendance at other public wildlife

presentations in the three months prior to the zoo outreach presentation conducted for this study.

Comparing across presentation types, the majority of respondents (62.6%) indicated not

attending public wildlife presentations. However, a greater proportion of respondents of the

pictures group (26.4% versus 14.8% and 12.8%) indicated that they have attended other public

wildlife presentations in the three months prior to the zoo's visit to their community. There were

no significant differences in respondents' engagement in attending public wildlife presentations

and the type of presentation they attended (Chi-square = 5.392, df = 4, p = 0.249).

Table 4-11 summarizes the proportion of respondents who indicated that they owned or

sponsored a bird house in the three months prior to the zoo presentation. The majority of

respondents (64.0%) across the three presentations indicated that they had not owned or

sponsored a bird house in the three months prior to the zoo presentation. However, almost twice

as many respondents in the non-injured and pictures group presentations indicated that they have

owned or sponsored a bird house when compared to injured presentation participants who

indicated owning or sponsoring a bird house. About one-third of the respondents of the three

presentations collectively indicated owning or sponsoring a bird house in the three months prior

to the zoo's visit to their community. No significant differences were found between

presentation types (Chi-square = 5.458, df = 4, p = 0.243).

Table 4-12 presents the proportion of respondents indicating that they donated money to a

wildlife habitat conservation or environmental organization in the three months prior to attending

the zoo presentation. Examining across presentations, the vast majority of respondents indicated









not donating money to such organizations. The proportion of respondents indicating that they

did donate money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental organization was twice as

large for the non-injured presentation when compared to the injured or pictures group

presentations. No significant differences were found between participants of the three

presentation types on this variable (Chi-square = 4.405, df= 4, p = 0.354).

Previous Conservation-related Behaviors by Sex

Table 4-13 summarizes respondent engagement in discussing wildlife habitat conservation-

related issues with others, sorted by sex. The proportion of males (39.7%) and females (37.4%)

indicating that they had discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others in the

three months prior to the zoo's visit was similar. The proportion of females indicating that they

had not discussed such issues with others (48.2%) was slightly higher than the proportion of

males (44.1%). Nearly half of all respondents reported not discussing wildlife habitat

conservation-related issues with others. No significant differences were found between sexes

and their engagement in this behavior (Chi-square = 0.323, df = 2, p = 0.851).

Table 4-14 reports the proportion of males and females who indicated that they properly

disposed of trash that could harm wildlife in the three months prior to the educational

presentation. The vast majority of males (92.6%) and females (88.7%) indicated that they had

properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife prior to attending the zoo's presentation. No

significant differences were found between respondent sex and their engagement in this behavior

(Chi-square = 1.005, df = 2, p = 0.605).

The proportion of males and females attending public wildlife presentations three months

prior to the zoo's presentation is presented in Table 4-15. The majority of respondents (62.2%)

indicated not attending public wildlife presentations. Comparing between males and females, a

higher proportion of females indicated not attending public wildlife presentations prior to









attending the educational presentation for this study. A higher proportion of male respondents

indicated having attended public wildlife presentations in the three months before the zoo's visit.

About one-fifth of males and females did not have the opportunity to attend public wildlife

presentations in the three months prior to the zoo presentation. No significant differences were

found between respondent engagement in attending public wildlife presentations and sex (Chi-

square = 1.263, df = 2,p = 0.532).

Table 4-16 presents the proportions of males and females who indicated owning or

sponsoring a bird house prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. The majority of males

(61.8%) and females (65.0%) reported not owning or sponsoring a bird house prior to the zoo's

presentation. However, about one-third of the respondents indicated that they had owned or

sponsored a bird house. Comparing by sex, a slightly higher proportion of females indicated that

they had not owned or sponsored a bird house in the three months prior to attending the birds of

prey presentation. No significant differences were found between respondents' engagement in

this behavior and sex (Chi-square = 0.316, df= 2,p = 0.854).

The proportions of males and females who donated money to a wildlife habitat

conservation or environmental organization in the three months before the zoo presentation are

reported in Table 4-17. The majority of male (75.0%) and female (70.9%) respondents indicated

that they had not donated money to a habitat conservation or environmental organization three

months before the birds of prey presentation. However, the proportion of females indicating that

they had donated money was almost twice as large as the proportion of males who indicated

donating money. No significant differences were found between engagement in this behavior

and the sex of the respondent (Chi-square = 3.133, df = 2, p = 0.209).









Summary of Objective One

Sixty-three respondents participated in the all injured birds of prey presentation, 78

respondents participated in the non-injured birds of prey presentation, and 72 respondents

participated in the slideshow presentation. Most respondents across presentation types were

female. The mean age was 73.3. Most respondents were from Florida. The majority of

respondents did not belong to a conservation/environmental organization and did not own any

pets. Although most respondents indicated that they properly disposed of trash that could harm

wildlife in the three months prior to the birds of prey presentation, most had not discussed

wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others, attended a public wildlife presentation,

owned or sponsored a bird house, or donated money to a wildlife habitat conservation

organization during that time period.

Explanation of Dependent and Independent Variables

The dependent variable in this study was level of commitment to engage in six

environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator to benefit wildlife and

their habitat. These six behaviors included the following:

a. Telling a friend about the presentation
b. Telling a friend about conservation in general
c. Not discarding food scraps along roadways
d. Attending another wildlife-related presentation
e. Building or sponsoring a bird nesting box
f. Donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization

Along with the injury status (injured or non-injured) of the educational animal, additional

independent variables in this quasi-experimental study examined prior to experiencing one of the

three presentations were as follows:

a. Conservation-related behaviors of the participant three months prior to attending the
presentation, including whether participants had:

i. Discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others









ii. Properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife

iii. Attended public wildlife presentations

iv. Owned or sponsored a bird house

v. Donated money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental organization

b. Participant attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation

c. Participant attitudes toward birds of prey

d. Membership in an environmental or conservation organization

e. Pet ownership

f. Permanent (at least six months of the year) residence

g. Sex

h. Age

Independent variables examined after experiencing one of the three presentations included:

i. Empathic response to the presentation

j. Altruistic concern following the presentation

Item Analysis and Reliability by Instrument Construct

Appendix F presents item analysis and reliability (Cronbach's alpha) results for each

section of the pre and post-assessment. The major constructs measured in each section of the pre

and post-assessment are described in detail in this appendix.

Factor Analysis and Construct Validity

During each of the presentations, respondents were asked a series of questions related to

their attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation and birds of prey, perceptions of the level of

need of birds of prey, empathy towards birds of prey, and their altruistic motivation. Principal

component factor analysis was used to examine the reliability of each of these constructs and to

ensure validity of the constructs being measured. When rotation was necessary to aid in the









interpretation of the extracted hypothetical variables, Promax rotation was used because this

oblique rotation technique is advised when the researcher believes the individual items

comprising a broader variable should be highly related (Kim & Mueller, 1978).

Attitudes Toward Wildlife Habitat Conservation

Table 4-18 presents results of a principal component factor analysis on the six items

representing respondent attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation before experiencing the

birds of prey presentation. Together, the six items accounted for about 63% of the variability in

respondent attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation with only one factor extracted. The

factor structure accounted for almost 74% of the variance in the item reflecting level of

importance to encourage others to participate in wildlife habitat conservation programs.

Attitude Toward Birds of Prey

Table 4-19 summarizes results of a principal component factor analysis on the five items

representing respondent attitude toward birds of prey prior to experiencing the birds of prey

presentation. Prior to running factor analysis, the item asking respondents to indicate their level

of agreement with the statement, "birds of prey make me nervous because of the threat of

disease" (item 15) was recorded. Collectively, the five items accounted for nearly 58% of the

variability in respondent attitudes toward birds of prey before experiencing the birds of prey

presentation. Only one factor was extracted. The factor structure accounted for 71% of the

variance in the item that birds of prey are beautiful creatures.

Empathy

A principal component factor analysis was conducted on the 17 items comprising the

empathy construct and the results are presented in Table 4-20. Two factors were extracted and

Promax rotation was used to better interpret the data. The first factor was comprised of 13 items

and accounted for nearly 49% of the variance in empathy. The second factor was comprised of









four items and accounted for an additional 16% of the variance in empathy. The four items

contributing to the second factor included the terms compassionate, moved, intrigued, and warm,

four of the 17 adjectives used by Batson (1991) to measure empathy. Given the items

comprising this factor, Factor 2 was termed "compassion." The remaining thirteen items

associated with Factor 1 were considered collectively and termed "disturbed." Examining the

communalities (similar to an R-square term for each item), this term was selected because the

two factors together accounted for over 81% of the variance in the term "disturbed"

(communality of 0.812). The item reflecting "disturbed" feelings toward the birds of prey

viewed accounted for the most variance within the two factors. Together, the two factors

explained over 65% of the variability in empathy. A weak to moderate positive association

existed between the two factors (r = 0.26) (Davis, 1971). Given the adjectives use collectively in

measuring empathic emotional responses to stimuli, one might expect these two factors to be

strongly associated.

Perception of the Level of Need

Table 4-21 presents results of a principal component factor analysis on the six items

representing each respondent's perception of the level of need associated with the birds of prey

in the educational presentation. Collectively, the items accounted for nearly 69% of the variance

in respondents' perception of the level of need associated with the birds of prey viewed in each

of the three presentations. One factor was extracted. Examining the communalities, the factor

structure accounted for over 75% of the variance in the level of need associated with the birds of

prey in the educational presentations.

Altruistic Motivation

Table 4-22 presents results of a principal component factor analysis of the seven items

representing the altruistic motivation (concern) that respondents felt following exposure to each









of the presentations. Two factors were extracted and Promax rotation was used to better interpret

the data. The first factor was comprised of five items and accounted for nearly 50% of the

variance in altruistic concern. These four items included those related to concern for wildlife

habitat in general and the loss of wildlife habitat. As such, Factor 1 was termed "Habitat

Concern." The second factor was comprised of three items and accounted for over 22% of the

remaining variability in altruistic concern. These three items related to concern for birds of prey

and wildlife in general used which are used in educational programs. As such, Factor 2 was

termed "Program Animal Concern." Together, these two factors accounted for over 72% of the

variance in altruistic concern. A moderate positive association existed between the two factors (r

= 0.33) (Davis, 1971). Given this correlation between similar factors, Promax rotation was

acceptable (Kim & Mueller, 1978).

Objective Two

Identify the Relationship Between Selected Participant Characteristics and Associated
Levels of Empathy, Altruism, and Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-
responsible Behaviors

Prior to building a regression model to predict respondent commitment to engage in

behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat (dependent variable), the relationship between the

independent variables and the dependent variable was examined for each of the presentation

groups.

Relationship Between Independent Variables and Commitment to Engage in
Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Injured Birds of Prey

Sixty-three individuals participated in the presentation using injured birds of prey. A

correlation matrix of the independent variables and commitment to engage in the six

environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator (dependent variable)

following exposure to the injured birds of prey is presented in Table 4-23. Prior to running a









correlation analysis, commitment to engaging in six environmentally-responsible behaviors was

geometrically scored. A response of "yes" to telling a friend about the presentation was given a

score of 1. A response of "yes" to telling a friend about conservation was given a score of 2. A

response of "yes" to not discarding food scraps along roadways was given a score of 4. A

response of "yes" to attending another wildlife-related presentation was scored 8. A response of

"yes" to building or sponsoring a bird nesting box was scored 16, and a response of "yes" to

donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization was given a score of 32. All "no"

responses were given a score of 0. Table 4-24 presents a scoring summary, including number

and percentage of how respondents scored.

By summing these scores for each participant based on his/her responses, the researcher

could identify which of the six behaviors the individual indicated being committed to performing

now and in the future following exposure to the injured birds of prey presentation. The possible

range of scores was zero to 63. The summated score for commitment to engage in the six

behaviors, the summated score for acceptability of the behaviors to others, and the summated

score for the likelihood to perform the behaviors if others knew were used in the correlation

matrix. Factor scores for attitude toward habitat conservation, attitude toward birds of prey,

empathy, and altruism were also used in the correlation analysis.

An examination of Table 4-23 reveals several statistically significant moderate to strong

associations between independent variables and respondent commitment to engage in the

environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator. A significant moderate

positive association existed between respondents who previously discussed habitat conservation-

related issues with others and their altruistic concern for wildlife habitat following exposure to

all injured birds of prey (r = 0.36). A significant moderate positive association also was found









between those who previously discussed habitat conservation and their commitment to engage in

environmentally-responsible behaviors after witnessing live, injured birds of prey (r = 0.29). For

respondents who had previously attended public wildlife presentations, a moderate positive

association was found with their altruistic concern for wildlife habitat (r = 0.27). However, a

significant moderate negative association was found between those who previously attended

public wildlife presentations and their likelihood to perform one or more of the six conservation-

related behaviors (r = -0.28).

A negative association between previous attendance at wildlife presentations and

likelihood to perform the behaviors could be explained in several ways. As Schultz (2002)

suggests with regards to knowledge-deficit theory, perhaps the general conservation information

often presented during zoo and environmental education programs, including the zoo's

presentation in this study, is not targeted, species specific information and participants feel as

though their capacity to "save the world" with generic behaviors is less. As Knowles et al.

(1998) suggest with regard to adult learning theory, adult learners are impacted by their prior

experiences with knowledge being presented. A negative experience with a previous public

wildlife presentation resulting from feelings of helplessness and lack of pictures due to too much

information/environmental issues to solve might explain the negative association found in this

study (Kaplan, 2000). For respondents who indicated that they donated money to

conservation/environmental organizations prior to attending the zoo presentation, as might be

expected, a moderate positive association was found between their membership in conservation

or environmental organizations (r = 0.36).

Participants of the all injured birds of prey presentation who believed wildlife habitat

conservation was important were more likely to have a positive attitude toward birds of prey (r =









0.32). However, a significant negative association was found between respondents' attitude

toward birds of prey and their age (r = -0.28). A significant negative association was also found

between respondent age and their feelings of empathic compassion for the injured birds they saw

(r = -0.29). As Kellert (1980) reported, compared to other age groups, individuals over 76 years

of age were the least humanistically oriented-expressing the least empathic affection toward

individual animals. Given the mean age of participants of this study (M= 73.3), this age

demographic may be less likely to experience feelings of empathic affection toward the birds of

prey they witnessed. A significant moderate association was also found between those who

believed wildlife habitat conservation was important and their altruistic concern for wildlife

habitat (r = 0.42). Those who believed wildlife habitat conservation was important were more

likely to commit to performing one or more of the six behaviors discussed during the

presentation (r = 0.27).

Summary

The correlation matrix in Table 4-23 provides support for the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

As the theory suggests, a positive association was found between feelings of being disturbed

(empathic emotion) by the injured birds of prey and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat (r =

0.36). A strong positive association was also found between empathic feelings of being

disturbed and altruistic concern for other animals used in educational programs (r = 0.53).

Empathic feelings of compassion toward the injured birds of prey were also positively associated

with altruistic concern for wildlife habitat (r = 0.41). However, no significant relationship was

found between empathic compassion for the injured birds of prey and altruistic concern for other

animals used in educational programs. Just as Batson (1991) predicts, those with empathic

compassion for the injured birds of prey were more likely to commit to performing the six

behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat (r = 0.47). As the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,









1985) predicts, this study also found that for participants of the all injured birds of prey

presentation, the acceptability of the six behaviors was significantly positively associated with

their commitment to perform them (r = 0.30) and their likelihood to perform the behaviors was

significantly positively associated with their commitment to perform them (r = 0.40).

Relationship Between Independent Variables and Commitment to Engage in
Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Non-injured Birds of Prey

Seventy-eight respondents participated in the all non-injured birds of prey presentation.

Table 4-25 presents a correlation matrix portraying the relationship between independent

variables and commitment to engage in one or more of the six environmentally-responsible

behaviors for these respondents. As with the all injured presentation, a significant relationship

was found between respondents who previously discussed wildlife habitat conservation issues

with others and their commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat (r =

0.23). However, unlike respondents of the all injured raptor presentation, a significant negative

association was found between participants of the non-injured presentation who previously

attended public wildlife presentations and their level of commitment to engage in behaviors to

help wildlife and their habitat (r = -0.25). As Kaplan (2000) and Knowles et al. (1998) suggest,

perhaps previous experience with public wildlife presentations and the information shared during

them left those who attended these presentations feeling overwhelmed by too much information

and less committed to performing the six behaviors advocated during the presentation. As

expected, a significant positive association was found between those who donated money to

conservation/environmental organizations prior to the zoo's presentation and membership in

conservation or environmental organizations (r = 0.34).

Correlation analyses revealed several different sets of associations for the non-injured

presentation than were found in the all injured birds of prey presentation. For example, while a









positive association was found between those who believed wildlife habitat conservation was

important and their commitment to helping wildlife and their habitat following the injured

presentation, no such relationship was found following the non-injured presentation (r = 0.16).

Although no significant relationship was found between a positive attitude toward birds of prey

and compassion for the birds of prey witnessed during the all injured presentation, a significant

positive relationship was found between attitude towards birds of prey and feelings of

compassion for participants of the non-injured presentation (r = 0.34). In addition, while pet

ownership for the injured presentation group members was not significantly associated with

empathic feelings of being disturbed by the birds of prey, pet ownership was significantly

positively associated with feelings of being disturbed by the non-injured birds of prey (r = 0.40).

This may have been because individuals at the all injured birds of prey presentation were

restricted to the type of pet they could have while living in the retirement community. One of

the all non-injured presentation groups was not restricted in terms of pet ownership.

Summary

The emotional responses of participants of the non-injured presentation supported the

theoretical underpinnings of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Empathic feelings of compassion

were significantly positively associated with altruistic concern for wildlife habitat (r = 0.39).

Those empathic feelings of compassion were also significantly associated with likelihood to

perform behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat (r = 0.29) and were significantly positively

associated with respondent commitment to engage in one or more of the six conservation-related

behaviors advocated by the zoo educator (r = 0.36). As the empathy-altruism hypothesis

suggests, altruistic concern for wildlife habitat and altruistic concern for program animals were

significantly associated with commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their

habitat (r = 0.26 and 0.28, respectively). Just as the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985)









suggests, this study found that the acceptability of the six conservation-related behaviors to

others was significantly associated with the likelihood that respondents would perform these

behaviors (r = 0.45). This was also found with the injured birds of prey group.

A significant negative association was found between the sex of the respondent and their

commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat (r = -0.27). Considering

respondent age, a significant negative correlation was also found between the age of the

respondent and their commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat (r = -

0.26).

Relationship Between Independent Variables and Commitment to Engage in
Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Pictures of the Same Birds of Prey

Seventy-two respondents participated in the presentation involving pictures of birds of

prey. Table 4-26 presents a correlation matrix of the relationship between the independent

variables in the study and respondent commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and

their habitat. A significant negative association was found between respondents who previously

attended public wildlife presentations and their commitment to engage in behaviors to help

wildlife and their habitat following exposure to non-injured birds of prey (r = -0.25). No

significant relationship was found for participants following exposure to all injured birds of prey

or following exposure to pictures of the same birds of prey. A significant positive association

was found between respondents who believed wildlife habitat conservation was important and

their level of compassion toward the pictures of the birds of prey (r = 0.45). No significant

association was found between wildlife habitat conservation attitudes and compassion toward the

birds of prey viewed for participants of the injured or non-injured presentations.









Summary

Results of the presentations involving pictures of birds of prey somewhat contradicted

what the empathy-altruism hypothesis would predict. No significant association was found

between positive attitudes toward birds of prey and compassion (empathy) toward the birds of

prey viewed by participants of the all injured presentation. However, a strong positive

association was found between attitudes toward birds of prey and compassion toward the birds of

prey viewed for participants of the slideshow presentation (r = 0.57). While studies testing the

empathy-altruism hypothesis have found that a positive association exists between empathic

emotion and altruistic concern following exposure to pictures of injured animals, this study

found no significant association between feeling disturbed (empathy) and altruistic concern for

wildlife habitat. As the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests, significant positive associations

were found between compassion (empathy), altruistic concern, and commitment to engaging in

helping behaviors (r = 0.33 and 0.41, respectively). As the theory of planned behavior suggests,

a strong significant relationship was found between the acceptability of the conservation-related

behaviors to others and the likelihood of performing those behaviors for participants of the

slideshow presentations (r = 0.76). Positive associations were also found between the

acceptability of the behaviors to others and commitment to performing such behaviors (r = 0.40).

While participants of the slideshow presentation did not see any live birds of prey, one

unique association was found that was not found for respondents who experienced all injured or

all non-injured, live birds of prey. A significant positive association was found between

compassion (empathy) felt for the birds of prey witnessed (via pictures only) and altruistic

concern for animals used in educational programs for participants of the slideshow presentation

(r = 0.29). However, no significant relationship was found between compassion and altruistic









concern for animals in educational programs following exposure to all injured or all non-injured

birds of prey.

Summary of Objective Two

For the injured birds of prey presentation, a significant association was found between

respondents who previously discussed habitat conservation-related issues with others and both

their altruistic concern for wildlife habitat and their commitment to engage in environmentally-

responsible behaviors. A significant negative association between age and feelings of empathic

compassion was found, supporting the earlier findings of Kellert (1980). A strong positive

association was found between feelings of empathic compassion toward injured birds of prey and

altruistic concern for wildlife habitat, supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson,

1991).

Individuals with empathic compassion for the injured birds of prey were more likely to

commit to performing behaviors to benefit wildlife and their habitat. For the non-injured

presentation, a positive association was again found between individuals who previously

discussed wildlife habitat conservation with others and commitment to engage in pro-

environmental behaviors. The empathy-altruism hypothesis was supported with those who

experienced the non-injured presentation. Empathic feelings of compassion were positively

associated with altruistic concern for wildlife habitat. Empathic feelings of compassion were

also associated with commitment to engage in behaviors to benefit wildlife and their habitat.

Finally, for slideshow participants, results somewhat contradicted what previous studies

examining the empathy-altruism hypothesis with pictures of injured animals have found. No

significant relationship was found between feeling empathically disturbed by the presentation's

message and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat. However, positive associations were found









between empathic compassion, altruistic concern, and commitment to engage in helping

behaviors for slideshow participants.

Objective Three

Build a Regression Model to Predict Commitment to Engage in the Environmentally-
responsible Behaviors Advocated by the Zoo Educator

Prior to running regression analysis, descriptive statistics were used to summarize and

compare participant attitudes between the three presentation types. After examining the attitudes

of participants, factor analysis procedures allowed the researcher to determine which items

comprising each construct measured on the instrument best described that construct and which

related to commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors. Factor scores were

then used as variables in the regression equation.

Summary Statistics for Major Constructs

Table 4-27 reports summated scale scores for each construct measured and compares

participants by construct and presentation type. Higher summated scale scores imply stronger

feelings/attitudes or intentions to engage in an environmentally-responsible behavior. No

opinion response options (originally coded as 6) were excluded from this analysis.

Regardless of the type of presentation participants experienced, individuals believed

wildlife habitat conservation was fairly important. In addition, participants of each of the three

presentations had a moderately positive attitude towards birds of prey (Table 4-27).

In the post-assessment, participants of the injured and non-injured presentations felt that

the birds of prey were less in need than participants of the slideshow presentation-more needy

than the live birds of prey. Similarly, participants of the slideshow presentation indicated feeling

moderately empathetic overall for the birds of prey whereas participants of the injured and non-









injured presentations indicated feeling lower levels of empathy (Table 4-27). Altruistic feelings

were similar between presentation groups with participants feeling somewhat to fairly concerned.

Considering the dependent variable (commitment to engage in environmentally-

responsible behaviors) and the constructs measuring the influence of social norms, commitment

scores were slightly lower for participants of the injured birds of prey presentation than for the

non-injured and slideshow presentations (Table 4-27). Regardless of presentation type,

individuals believed the behaviors advocated by the zoo educator were fairly acceptable to others

and were fairly likely to perform the behaviors if others were aware that they performed them.

Regression Assumptions

The assumptions associated with regression, including homogeneity in variance and

normality, were also verified prior to running regression analysis. Lewis-Beck (1980) suggests

that the researcher check for multicollinearity by taking each independent variable and regressing

it on the other independent variables and the dependent variable, one at a time, and examining

the resulting R-square value each time. For example, independent variable "A" would serve as

the dependent variable against independent variables "B," "C," and "D," then independent

variable "B" would serve as the dependent variable against independent variables "A," "C," and

"D" and so on. The larger the R-square value, the greater the risk of multicollinearity (Agresti &

Finlay, 1997). R-square values above 0.40 were considered indicative of multicollinearity

between the variable in question and the others. Such variables were considered in the context of

the behavioral theories mentioned earlier and eliminated from the model if not essential.

In checking for multicollinearity in this study using the suggestions of Lewis-Beck (1980),

four independent variables were identified as contributing to multicollinearity. These variables

included the factor score for importance of wildlife habitat conservation (R-square = 0.44), the

factor score for disturbed (empathy) (R-square = 0.44), the factor score for altruistic concern for









wildlife habitat (R-square = 0.52), and the summated scale score for likelihood to engage in the

six behaviors advocated by the zoo educator (R-square = 0.42). The variables were removed

from the model.

Regression Analysis

Considering the levels of association between independent variables and commitment to

engage in the six environmentally-responsible behaviors (dependent variable) collectively across

presentations and the multicollinearity results previously stated, three independent variables were

selected for regression analysis. These independent variables included (1) whether or not a

participant previously discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others, (2) the

level of acceptability of performing those six behaviors to others, and (3) the level of compassion

felt toward the birds of prey viewed. Table 4-28 reports the regression model.

Collectively, the three variables explained 16.2% of the variability in commitment scores

for performing the six environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator.

Participants who previously discussed wildlife habitat conservation with others, believed the

behaviors being advocated were acceptable to others, and felt compassion (empathy) for the

birds of prey they saw were more likely to be committed to performing the conservation-related

behaviors advocated by the zoo educator, regardless of the presentation they received. Unlike

what Batson et al. (2005) and Schultz (2000) found with regards to written descriptions of

injured animals, there was no presentation effect found in this study. The all injured presentation

was coded 01, the all non-injured presentation was coded 001, and the slideshow presentation

was coded 0001. The researcher chose not to code the presentation type as 1, 2, or 3 because of

the inherent variability between these three codes and the potential that such variability might

influence a potential true presentation effect. A second set of codes were used to represent each

presentation and to further test the potential of a true presentation effect. This time the all









injured presentation was coded 001, the all non-injured presentation was coded 010, and the

slideshow presentation was coded 100. Again, no significant presentation effect was found.

Finally, analysis of covariance was used and no significant presentation effect was found.

Path Model

A path model was constructed using standardized beta coefficients from the regression

analyses as path coefficients representing the explanatory power of each independent variable on

commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat (dependent variable).

Figure 4-1 depicts the model.

The path model shows that the largest influence on commitment to engage in

environmentally-responsible behaviors to aid wildlife and their habitat was the participant's

feelings of compassion for the birds of prey they witnessed. The variable with the next highest

explanatory power on commitment to engage in pro-environmental behaviors was whether the

individual discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others.

Follow-up Logistic Regression Analysis

The dependent variable, a summated geometric score for commitment to engage in the six

behaviors advocated by the zoo educator, was recorded so that each behavior could be used as a

dichotomous dependent variable. The researcher wanted to test if one specific behavior was

more important to respondents than others. Given the lower reliability of the commitment item,

the potential for measurement error was at 44%. Although the current multiple regression model

(see Table 4-28) accounts for 16.2% of the variability in the 56% reliability, a further check was

made given the potential for measurement error.

Using each dichotomous variable as a separate dependent variable, logistic regression was

run using the variables that correlated significantly with each individual behavior. Table F-2

reports the variance explained terns for each individual behavior examined as a separate









dependent variable. The only significant independent variables in the logistic regression models

were empathic compassion (already in the multiple regression model) and likelihood to engage

in the behavior. The logistic regression results suggest that the general model is adequate in

accounting for the variability in commitment to engage in the six behaviors when examined

collectively. In fact, running another multiple regression model with the four most important

behaviors included in predicting commitment to engage resulted in 14.8% of the variability being

explained, compared to the 16.2% of the variability being explained in the model using all six

behaviors as the dependent variable. The model reported in Table 4-28 seems to be the more

efficient model in predicting commitment to engage in recommended behaviors.

Summary of Objective Three

Regression analysis revealed that individuals who previously discussed wildlife habitat

conservation-related issues with others, felt compassion for the birds of prey they saw, and

believed the behaviors advocated by the zoo educator were acceptable to others were more likely

to be committed to performing those behaviors.

Objective Four

Measure the Level of Satisfaction that Participants Have with Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo
Birds of Prey Outreach Presentation

Table 4-29 summarizes the satisfaction of participants with the zoo educator's enthusiasm

for wildlife conservation and the presentation's ability to hold participant attention following the

three presentations. Participants of the all injured birds of prey presentation rated the presenter's

level of excitement for wildlife conservation higher than did participants of the non-injured and

pictures group presentations. Examining across presentation groups, respondents believed the

presenter's level of excitement for wildlife conservation was very high. The mean rating

associated with the degree to which the presentation held the participants' attention was lowest









for participants of the slideshow presentation. Regardless of presentation type, respondents

strongly agreed that the presentation held their attention.

Qualitative responses

In examining the written responses concerning additional items participants would have

liked to have seen as part of the zoo presentation, very few participants of the all injured or all

non-injured birds of prey presentations answered this question. Those who participated in the all

injured or all non-injured presentations and included a response to this question most often

wanted to see a bald eagle. For those respondents who did not directly answer this question, this

space was used to write positive comments such as "wonderful job" and "outstanding

presentation." However, the majority of the participants of the pictures group slideshow

presentation did answer this question and would have liked to have seen "a real bird." Many

respondents indicated the type of bird, such as "a live hawk" or "a real owl." Several

participants of the slideshow presentation requested to see "a video of birds flying" or "hear

birds calling."

Summary

This chapter presented the findings of the study. Item analysis, reliability (internal

consistency), and construct validity (factor analysis) results were presented. Correlation analysis

results supported the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) and the theory of planned

behavior (Ajzen, 1985) for the three presentation groups. However, whether a participant

experienced a presentation with all injured birds of prey, all non-injured birds of prey, or pictures

of the same birds of prey did not significantly influence their commitment to performing

environmentally-responsible behaviors. Multiple regression analysis revealed that individuals

who previously discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others, felt

compassion for the birds of prey they saw, and believed the behaviors advocated by the zoo









educator were acceptable to others were more likely to be committed to performing those

behaviors.

Findings presented in this chapter will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

Conclusions, recommendations, and implications will also be presented.









Table 4-1. Sex of Respondents by Presentation Type (N = 210)
Presentation
Injured Non-injured Pictures Total
f % f % f % f %
Male 18 29.5 26 33.8 24 33.3 68 32.4
Female 43 70.5 51 66.2 48 66.7 142 67.6
Total 61 100 77 100 72 100 210 100
Note. Three respondents did not indicate whether they were male or female. Chi-square = 0.327,
df = 2,p = 0.849


Table 4-2. Respondent Age by Presentation Type (N = 206)
Age
Presentation M (yrs) SD Range (yrs) n
Injured 74.7 8.38 35 60
Non-injured 73.8 11.14 43 76
Pictures 71.4 7.68 34 70
Total 206
Note. Seven respondents did not indicate the year they were born.


Table 4-3. Respondent Permanent Residence by Presentation Type (N = 212)
Presentation
Injured Non-injured Pictures Total
Region or f % f % f % f %
Country
Florida 46 73.0 62 80.5 21 29.2 129 60.8
Northeast 4 6.4 9 11.7 20 27.9 33 15.6
Midwest 9 14.4 1 1.3 14 19.5 24 11.3
Canada 4 6.3 5 6.5 17 23.6 26 12.3
Total 63 100 77 100 72 100 212 100
Note. One respondent did not indicate a permanent residence. Chi-square = 7.29, df = 6, p =
0.343. Northeast = Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island. Midwest = Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota









Table 4-4. Respondent Membership in Environmental or Conservation Organizations by
Presentation Type (N = 213)
Presentation
Injured Non-injured Pictures Total
Belongs to f % f % f % f %
Organizations)
No 57 90.5 66 84.6 66 91.7 189 88.7
Yes 6 9.5 12 15.4 6 8.3 24 11.3
Total 63 100 78 100 72 100 213 100
Note. Three respondents in the non-injured presentation indicated that they belong to an
organization but did not indicate the specific organization. Chi-square = 2.134, df= 2, p = 0.344


Table 4-5. Respondent Membership in Environmental or Conservation Organizations by
Location of Permanent Residence (N = 212)
Membership in Organization
Region or Country No Yes Total
Florida 114 15 129
Northeast 32 1 33
Midwest 18 6 24
Canada 24 2 26
Total 188 24 212
Note. One respondent did not indicate a permanent residence. Northeast = Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. Midwest = Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota


Table 4-6. Respondent Membership in Environmental or Conservation Organizations by Sex (N
=210)
Membership in Organization
Sex No Yes Total
f % f % f %
Male 61 32.8 7 29.2 68 32.4
Female 125 67.2 17 70.8 142 67.6
Total 186 100 24 100 210 100
Note. Three respondents did not indicate whether they were male or female. Chi-square = 0.128,
df= ,p = 0.721









Table 4-7. Respondent Pet Ownership by Presentation Type (N = 213)
Presentation
Injured Non-injured Pictures Total
Pet Ownership f % f % f % f %
No 55 87.3 56 71.8 55 76.4 166 77.9


Yes 8 12.7
Total 63 100
Chi-square = 5.024, df= 2,p = 0.081


28.2
100


23.6
100


47
213


22.1
100


Table 4-8. Respondent Engagement in Discussing Wildlife Habitat Conservation-related Issues
with Others by Presentation Type (N = 210)
Presentation
Injured Non-injured Pictures Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f %
No 32 51.6 30 38.5 37 52.9 99 47.1
Yes 20 32.3 34 43.6 26 37.1 80 38.1
Did not have the opportunity to 10 16.1 14 17.9 7 10.0 31 14.8
Total 62 100 78 100 70 100 210 100
Note. Three respondents did not reply to this item. Chi-square = 4.874, df = 4, p = 0.300


Table 4-9. Respondent Engagement in Properly Disposing of Trash that Could Harm Wildlife
by Presentation Type (N = 212)
Presentation
Injured Non-injured Pictures Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f %
No 0 0.0 8 10.3 7 9.7 15 7.1
Yes 61 98.4 68 87.2 62 86.1 191 90.1
Did not have the opportunity to 1 1.6 2 2.6 3 4.2 6 2.8
Total 62 100 78 100 72 100 212 100
Note. One respondent did not reply to this item. Chi-square = 7.687, df = 4, p = 0.104










Table 4-10. Respondent Engagement in Attending Public Wildlife Presentations by Presentation
Type (N= 211)
Presentation
Injured Non-injured Pictures Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f %
No 40 65.6 51 65.4 41 56.9 132 62.6
Yes 9 14.8 10 12.8 19 26.4 38 18.0
Did not have the opportunity to 12 19.7 17 21.8 12 16.7 41 19.4
Total 61 100 78 100 72 100 211 100
Note. Two respondents did not reply to this item. Chi-square = 5.392, df = 4, p = 0.249


Table 4-11. Respondent Engagement in Owning or Sponsoring a Bird House by Presentation
Type (N= 211)
Presentation
Injured Non-injured Pictures Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f %
No 46 73.0 46 59.0 43 61.4 135 64.0
Yes 11 17.5 27 34.6 21 30.0 59 28.0
Did not have the opportunity to 6 9.5 5 6.4 6 8.6 17 8.1
Total 63 100 78 100 70 100 211 100
Note. Two respondents did not reply to this item. Chi-square = 5.458, df = 4, p = 0.243


Table 4-12. Respondent Engagement in Donating Money to a Wildlife Habitat Conservation or
Environmental Organization(s) by Presentation Type (N = 212)
Presentation
Injured Non-injured Pictures Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f %
No 48 76.2 53 67.9 53 74.6 154 72.6
Yes 8 12.7 19 24.4 10 14.1 37 17.5
Did not have the opportunity to 7 11.1 6 7.7 8 11.3 21 9.9
Total 63 100 78 100 71 100 212 100
Note. One respondent did not reply to this item. Chi-square = 4.405, df = 4, p = 0.354









Table 4-13. Respondent Engagement in Discussing Wildlife Habitat Conservation-related Issues
with Others by Sex (N= 207)
Sex
Male Female Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f %
No 30 44.1 67 48.2 97 46.9
Yes 27 39.7 52 37.4 79 38.2
Did not have the opportunity to 11 16.2 20 14.4 31 15.0
Total 68 100 139 100 207 100
Note. Six respondents did not reply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 0.323, df=
2, p = 0.851


Table 4-14. Respondent Engagement in Properly Disposing of Trash that Could Harm Wildlife
by Sex (N = 209)
Sex
Male Female Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f %
No 4 5.9 11 7.8 15 7.2
Yes 63 92.6 125 88.7 188 90.0
Did not have the opportunity to 1 1.5 5 3.5 6 2.9
Total 68 100 141 100 209 100
Note. Four respondents did not reply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 1.005, df
= 2, p = 0.605


Table 4-15. Respondent Engagement in Attending Public Wildlife Presentations by Sex (N=
209)
Sex
Male Female Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f %
No 39 57.4 91 64.5 130 62.2
Yes 15 22.1 23 16.3 38 18.2
Did not have the opportunity to 14 20.6 27 19.1 41 19.6
Total 68 100 141 100 209 100
Note. Four respondents did not reply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 1.263, df
= 2,p= 0.532









Table 4-16. Respondent Engagement in Owning or Sponsoring a Bird House by Sex (N = 208)
Sex
Male Female Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f %
No 42 61.8 91 65.0 133 63.9
Yes 21 30.9 38 27.1 59 28.4
Did not have the opportunity to 5 7.4 11 7.9 16 7.7
Total 68 100 140 100 208 100
Note. Five respondents did not reply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 0.316, df=
2,p = 0.854


Table 4-17. Respondent Engagement in Donating Money to a Wildlife Habitat Conservation or
Environmental Organization(s) by Sex (N = 209)
Sex
Male Female Total
Engagement in Behavior f % f % f %
No 51 75.0 100 70.9 151 72.2
Yes 8 11.8 29 20.6 37 17.7
Did not have the opportunity to 9 13.2 12 8.5 21 10.0
Total 68 100 141 100 209 100
Note. Four respondents did not reply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 3.133, df
= 2, p = 0.209


Table 4-18. Factor Loadings for Attitude Toward Wildlife Habitat Conservation (Pre-
assessment, Part Two) (N = 213)
Factor
Variable Communality
Encourage Participation 0.860 0.739
Importance of Conservation 0.817 0.667
Engage in Activities to Help 0.802 0.643
Financially Support Programs 0.777 0.603
Media Coverage 0.759 0.576
Conservation in Cities 0.739 0.546
Eigenvalue 3.775
Percent of Variance Explained 62.912









Table 4-19. Factor Loadings for Attitude Toward Birds of Prey (Pre-assessment, Part Three) (N
=213)
Factor


Variable
Beautiful Creatures
Beneficial to Public
Important Rodent Control
Interesting Animals
Nervous Over Diseases
Eigenvalue
Percent of Variance Explained


0.843
0.814
0.771
0.707
0.640
2.878
57.554


Table 4-20. Factor Loadings for Empathy (Post-assessment, Part Two) (N
Factors


Communality
0.710
0.662
0.595
0.500
0.410


213)


Variable
Disturbed
Worried
Troubled
Sorrowful
Upset
Grieved
Distressed
Perturbed
Heavy-hearted
Low-spirited
Alarmed
Concerned
Sympathetic
Compassionate
Moved
Intrigued
Warm
Eigenvalues
Percent of Variance
Explained
Cumulative Percent of
Variance Explained
Correlation Between
Factors


Disturbed (F1)
0.883
0.868
0.854
0.848
0.831
0.820
0.792
0.779
0.771
0.711
0.678
0.671
0.635
0.302
0.294
0.242
0.316
8.226
48.994

48.994


Compassion (F2)
-0.179
-0.102
-0.141
-0.087
-0.217
-0.134
-0.067
-0.114
0.019
-0.220
-0.241
0.295
0.147
0.831
0.779
0.777
0.694
3.589
16.173


Communality
0.812
0.764
0.749
0.727
0.738
0.691
0.631
0.620
0.594
0.554
0.518
0.537
0.425
0.782
0.694
0.662
0.581


65.167


0.26









Table 4-21. Factor Loadings for the Level of Need Associated with the Birds of Prey in the
Educational Presentations (Post-assessment, Part One) (N = 213)
Factor


Variable
Vet Care
Protection
Aid
Time Away
Affection
Companion
Eigenvalue
Percent of Variance Explained


0.867
0.849
0.847
0.827
0.822
0.757
4.123
68.711


Communality
0.752
0.720
0.717
0.685
0.675
0.574


Table 4-22. Factor Loadings for Altruism (Concern) (Post-assessment, Part Three) (N = 213)
Factors


Variable


Habitat Concern
Losing Habitat
Wild Birds of Prey
Wild Bird Habitat
Well-being of Birds
Wildlife in Education
Birds of Prey in
Education
Eigenvalues
Percent of Variance
Explained
Cumulative Percent of
Variance Explained
Correlation Between
Factors


Habitat Concern (Fl)


0.826
0.807
0.759
0.758
0.648
0.503
0.565

3.475
49.641

49.641


Program Animal
Concern (F2)
-0.329
-0.420
-0.123
-0.378
0.366
0.713
0.700


Communality


0.790
0.828
0.591
0.718
0.553
0.762
0.809


1.576
22.511

72.152


0.33











Table 4-23. Correlations Between Variables for the Injured Presentation Only (N = 213)
Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 -- .090 .099 .041 .146 .280* .158 .124 .190 -.023 .038 -.081 .225 .360* -.047 -.017 .102 .294*
2 -- .051 .056 .049 -.096 -.133 .042 .049 -.085 -.005 .108 -.126 .170 .152 -.121 -.132 -.040
3 -- -.059 -.162 -.002 .091 -.137 -.162 -.132 .001 .258 .035 .266* .186 -.177 -.128
.283*
4 -- -.175 .196 -.046 -.007 -.175 .023 .310* .157 -.165 .034 .147 .259 .235 -.038
5 -- .082 .008 .363* .284* .038 -.188 .093 .160 .179 -.070 .042 -.094 .190
6 -- .320* .075 -.116 .089 .092 .232 .109 .416* .119 .270 .270* .271*
7 -- .181 -.211 -.117 .009 .221 .221 -.175 .090 .019 .035
.283*


- -.124


.104 -.129 -.164 -.134 -.299* -.049 -.187 .077
.269*


- .251


-.021 .252 .087 -.116 .055 -.029 .047
.353*


-.198 -.237 -.062 .045 -.151 .212 .037 .006
.170 .041 .282* .157 .169 -.037
.287*
.203 .361* .529* .086 .137 .202
-- .413* .237 .169 .336* .470*
-- .421* .328* .275* .241
-- .001 .156 -.003
-- .402* .299*
-- .402*


18
Note. *p<.05


Variable Number
1 (pre)
2 (pre)
3 (pre)
4 (pre)
5 (pre)
6 (pre)
7 (pre)
8 (pre)
9 (pre)


Variable
Previously discussed conservation
Previously disposed of trash
Previously attended presentations
Previously owned bird house
Previously donated money
Habitat conservation attitude
Bird of prey attitude
Member of conservation org.
Owns pets


Variable Number
10 (pre)
11 (pre)
12 (post)
13 (post)
14 (post)
15 (post)
16 (post)
17 (post)
18 (post)


Variable
Sex
Age
Disturbed (Empathy 1)
Compassion (Empathy 2)
Habitat concern (Altruism 1)
Animal concern (Altruism 2)
Behavior acceptability
Likelihood to perform
Commitment to perform (DV)









Table 4-24. Geometric Scoring for the Dependent Variable: Commitment to Engage in
Environmentally-responsible Behaviors (N = 213)


Behavior
Tell a friend about the presentation
Tell a friend about conservation
Not discard food scraps along roadways
Attend another wildlife-related presentation
Build or sponsor a bird nesting box
Donate money to a habitat conservation org.


How Scored No. Scoring


208
202
195
200
113
147


97.7
94.8
91.5
93.9
53.1
69.0











Table 4-25. Correlations Between Variables for the Non-injured Presentation Only (N = 213)
Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 -- .028 .050 .121 .043 -.008 .281* .055 -.091 .027 -.029 .111 .215 .210 .116 -.095 .059 .234*
2 -- -.082 .037 .128 .036 .190 .057 .155 -.031 -.182 .049 .259* .139 -.170 .009 .194 -.023
3 -- -.037 .050 -.095 -.004 .049 -.070 .112 -.005 -.177 -.057 -.137 -.151 -.059 -.033
.245*
4 -- .089 .294* .127 .063 -.037 -.108 .046 -.004 .068 .071 .111 .064 .288* .157
5 -- .302* .121 .337* .109 .154 .227* .184 .260* .254* .017 .060 .275* .077
6 -- .309* .211 .206 .254* .101 .138 .064 .535* .265* .349* .539* .164
7 -- .221 .092 -.001 .035 .344* .369* .098 .293* .348* .008
.276*


- .128 .231* .033 .055 .226* .228* -.023 -.086 .148 -.001
.129 .026 .396* .032 .157 .129 .128 .239* -.038
.258* -.118 .054 -.137 .083 .171
.230* .265*
-- -.036 .013 .246* .077 .046
.376* .264*
.348* .253* .391* -.087 .148 .273*
-- .386* .065 .039 .288* .359*
-- .291* .303* .383* .259*
-- .042 .141 .284*
-- .452* -.011
-- .114


Variable Number
1 (pre)
2 (pre)
3 (pre)
4 (pre)
5 (pre)
6 (pre)
7 (pre)
8 (pre)
9 (pre)


Variable
Previously discussed conservation
Previously disposed of trash
Previously attended presentations
Previously owned bird house
Previously donated money
Habitat conservation attitude
Bird of prey attitude
Member of conservation org.
Owns pets


Variable Number
10 (pre)
11 (pre)
12 (post)
13 (post)
14 (post)
15 (post)
16 (post)
17 (post)
18 (post)


Variable
Sex
Age
Disturbed (Empathy 1)
Compassion (Empathy 2)
Habitat concern (Altruism 1)
Animal concern (Altruism 2)
Behavior acceptability
Likelihood to perform
Commitment to perform (DV)


8
9
10

11

12
13
14
o
a 15
16


18
Note. *p<.05











Table 4-26. Correlations Between Variables for the Pictures Group Only (N = 213)
Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 -- -.024 .157 .023 .190 .184 .252* .187 .074 -.068 -.112 -.053 .261* .325* .000 .180 .066 .229
2 -- .149 .158 .164 -.117 .414* -.024 .034 -.114 -.047 -.200 -.020 -.048 -.070 -.043 -.094 .103
3 -- -.119 .322* .156 .184 -.067 -.110 -.178 -.019 .040 .007 .108 .158 .035 .084 .020
4 -- -.093 -.146 -.019 .022 -.208 .013 .131 -.093 -.044 -.010 .009 -.021 -.013 .196
5 -- .007 .084 .605* -.037 .118 .149 -.072 -.044 .084 -.155 .087 .118 .207
6 -- .281* .014 .277* -.063 .124 .231 .454* .489* .177 .303* .396* .172
7 -- -.014 .179 .007 .574* .376* .057 .291* .322* .224
.340* .339*
8 -- -.168 .000 .198 -.026 -.025 .092 -.128 .186 .153 .171
9 -- -.023 -.064 .203 .401* .180 .291* -.007 .038 .060
10 -- .005 -.198 -.152 -.114 -.154 -.121 -.102 -.102
11 -- -.142 -.074 -.014 -.230 -.039 -.029
.423*
12 -- .335* .205 .261* .124 -.032 .215
13 -- .610* .288* .487* .450* .330*
14 -- .303* .413* .419* .407*
15 -- -.041 -.007 .019
16 -- .757* .396*
17 -- .461*
18-
Note. *p<.05


Variable Number
1 (pre)
2 (pre)
3 (pre)
4 (pre)
5 (pre)
6 (pre)
7 (pre)
8 (pre)
9 (pre)


Variable
Previously discussed conservation
Previously disposed of trash
Previously attended presentations
Previously owned bird house
Previously donated money
Habitat conservation attitude
Bird of prey attitude
Member of conservation org.
Owns pets


Variable Number
10 (pre)
11 (pre)
12 (post)
13 (post)
14 (post)
15 (post)
16 (post)
17 (post)
18 (post)


Variable
Sex
Age
Disturbed (Empathy 1)
Compassion (Empathy 2)
Habitat concern (Altruism 1)
Animal concern (Altruism 2)
Behavior acceptability
Likelihood to perform
Commitment to perform (DV)










Table 4-27. Summary Statistics of Summated Scale Scores for Major Instrument Constructs by
Presentation Type (N = 213)


Instrument Construct
Importance of wildlife
habitat conservation (max.
possible score = 30.00)


Attitude towards birds of
prey (max. possible score
= 25.00)


Perception of birds in need
(max. possible score =
30.00)


Empathy (max. possible
score = 119.00)



Altruism (max. possible
score = 35.00)



Commitment to perform
behaviors (max. possible
score = 63.00)


Acceptability of behaviors
to others (max. possible
score = 30.00)


Likelihood to perform if
others were aware (max.
possible score = 30.00)


Statistics
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
n
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
n
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
n
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
n
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
n
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
n
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
n
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
SD
n


Presentation Type
Injured Non-injured
7.00 14.00
30.00 30.00
24.60 26.43
4.98 3.84
60 74
17.00 15.00
25.00 25.00
21.45 22.54
2.38 2.56
58 69
6.00 6.00
30.00 30.00
17.57 15.71
9.64 8.13
60 77
17.00 17.00
99.00 98.00
44.98 45.13
16.32 17.18
55 78
9.00 11.00
35.00 35.00
24.27 25.68
6.38 5.76
59 77
4.00 5.00
63.00 63.00
40.47 47.78
21.38 19.15
60 72
16.00 13.00
30.00 30.00
25.13 25.56
4.60 5.11
54 71
6.00 10.00
30.00 30.00
23.00 26.20
7.42 4.89
56 74


Note. Higher summated scale scores imply stronger feelings/intentions for that construct.


Slideshow
15.00
30.00
26.27
3.80
70
15.00
25.00
21.89
2.39
63
6.00
30.00
22.50
7.54
66
18.00
116.00
63.51
20.90
65
15.00
35.00
27.37
5.61
70
5.00
63.00
46.67
19.88
70
10.00
30.00
23.40
5.42
63
6.00
30.00
24.03
6.51
63










Table 4-28. Multiple Regression Analysis to Predict Commitment Score for Performing
Conservation-related Behaviors (N = 213)


Variable
Constant
Previously Discussed Wildlife Habitat
Conservation with Others
Acceptability of Behaviors to Others
Compassion for the Birds They Saw
R-squared
Standard Error of the Estimate


B SE
30.045 7.241
8.379 2.950


0.496
5.423
0.162
18.559


fl t
4.149
0.204 2.840


P
< 0.001
0.005


0.285 0.126 1.737 0.084
1.538 0.259 3.525 0.001


Table 4-29. Participant Satisfaction with Zoo Educator and Presentation by Presentation (N
210)


Injured
Item M SD
The presenter's level of excitement 4.92 0.331
for wildlife conservation was...a
The presentation held my attention. 4.89 0.451
b


Presentation
Non-injured
M SD
4.86 0.448


Pictures
M SD
4.82 0.457


Overall
M SD
4.86 0.421


4.92 0.268 4.79 0.411 4.87 0.381


Note. aRating Scale was 1 = Very Low to 5 = Very High.
b Rating Scale was 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.











Discussing Wildlife
Habitat
Conservation-
related Issues with
Others


Acceptability of the
Behaviors to
Others


Feeling
Compassion for the
Birds of Prey
Witnessed


0.204





0.126






0.259


Figure 4-1. Path Model Showing Direct Effects of Significant Independent Variables on Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-
responsible Behaviors


Commitment to Engage in
Environmentally-
responsible Behaviors









CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to determine if and how different types of birds of prey

presentations influence the empathy, altruism, and behavioral intentions of elder adults living in

retirement communities. Specifically, this study examined the applicability of the empathy-

altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) in explaining participant commitment to engage in

environmentally-responsible behaviors following exposure to one of three presentations: (a) a

presentation involving birds of prey with visible injuries, (b) a presentation with non-injured

birds of prey, and (c) a slideshow presentation involving pictures of the same birds of prey.

This study was the first of its kind to test the relevance of the empathy-altruism hypothesis

with live injured and non-injured animals (C.D. Batson, personal communication, April 27,

2006). The dependent variable in this study was commitment to engage in six conservation-

related behaviors to benefit wildlife and their habitat that were advocated by the zoo educator

during each of the three presentations. These behaviors included (1) telling a friend about the

birds of prey presentation, (2) telling a friend about conservation, (3) not discarding food scraps

along roadways, (4) attending another wildlife-related presentation, (5) building or sponsoring a

bird nesting box, and (6) donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization. These

six behaviors were selected because they are often encouraged during zoo and conservation

education programs throughout the country (Dierking et al., 2002), including the programs of

Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo.

Objectives

1. Determine the characteristics of participants of the birds of prey outreach presentations.

2. Identify the relationship between selected participant characteristics and their associated level
of empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors









following exposure to (a) all injured birds of prey, (b) all non-injured birds of prey, or (c)
pictures of the same birds of prey and identical conservation messages.

3. Build a regression model to predict commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible
behaviors based on a participant's characteristics prior to attending the wildlife presentation,
their empathic emotional response to the presentation, and their altruistic motivation
following the presentation.

4. Measure the level of satisfaction that participants have with Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo birds
of prey outreach presentation.

Research Hypotheses

The following research hypotheses were developed based on available literature on the

empathy-altruism hypothesis and research on behavioral intentions.

1. Injured birds of prey will evoke higher levels of empathy, altruism, and commitment among
participants to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors than will non-injured birds
of prey and color photographs of both injured and non-injured birds of prey.

2. Higher empathy levels will lead to higher levels of altruistic motivation.

3. Higher levels of empathy and altruistic motivation will result in a stronger commitment to
"help" and engage in the pro-environmental practices advocated by the zoo educator.

Methods

This study used a quasi-experimental design to examine elder adults living in retirement

communities around the Tampa/Clearwater, Florida area. Because the dependent variable was

commitment to engage in the conservation-related behaviors advocated by the zoo educator,

sampling had to ensure that this population had the ability and opportunity to engage in these

behaviors. As such, retirement communities that agreed to participate were comprised of older

adults who were physically able to leave their community grounds as needed.

A listing of all retirement communities around the Tampa/Clearwater, Florida area was

obtained. The sampling goal was to obtain a sample of nine retirement communities. Once

retirement communities agreed to participate, they were randomly assigned one of the three









presentations. Accordingly, this convenience sample consisted of three communities for each

presentation.

Data collection involved the group administration of a self-administered questionnaire. As

such, procedures outlined by Dillman (2000) were followed to reduce the potential for

measurement error. The data collection instrument consisted of a pre- and post-assessment, both

contained in a single booklet. Participants completed the pre-assessment prior to viewing one of

the three presentations, viewed the presentation, and then completed the post-assessment.

Four live birds of prey were included in both the injured and non-injured presentations.

The all injured birds of prey presentation consisted of an eastern screech owl, a Mississippi kite,

a red-shouldered hawk, and a great horned owl. The all non-injured birds of prey presentation

consisted of a barn owl, a barred owl, a black vulture, and a Eurasian eagle owl.

The slideshow presentation contained color photographs of the same birds of prey used in

the all injured and all non-injured presentations. Pictures of three of the injured birds and three

of the non-injured birds were presented during the PowerPoint presentation. The three injured

birds of prey presented during the first half of the slideshow were the great hored owl, red-

shouldered hawk, and Mississippi kite. The three non-injured birds of prey presented during the

second half of the slideshow were the barn owl, barred owl, and black vulture.

The same zoo educator facilitated each highly scripted educational presentation. Every

presentation was videotaped so that consistency in the delivery style of the educator and in the

educational messages presented could be verified. Videotapes also enabled the researcher to

examine the potential influence of the behaviors of the live birds of prey on respondent levels of

empathy and altruism following each presentation.









The data collection instrument used in this study was researcher developed. A panel of

experts critically evaluated the instrument to enhance face and content validity prior to a pilot

study. Construct validity and reliability were measured using principal component factor

analysis with a Promax oblique rotation to aid interpretation when needed.

The pre-assessment of the instrument examined the prior conservation-related behaviors,

attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation, attitudes toward birds of prey specifically, and

demographics of participants of each presentation. Reliability within each of the constructs was

measured using Cronbach's alpha during the pilot study. Demographics included whether

participants were members of conservation/environmental organizations (and if yes, which

organizations), whether they owned pets (and if yes, what kind), their location (city and state) of

permanent residence, sex, and age.

The post-assessment examined the major theoretical components of the empathy-altruism

hypothesis and theory of planned behavior. Specifically, the post-assessment measured empathic

emotional response to the presentation, altruistic motivation following the presentation, and the

commitment of participants of each of the three presentations to engage in behaviors to help

wildlife and their habitat. In addition, the post-assessment examined the satisfaction of

participants of each of the presentations.

The data collection instrument was broken into parts and each part measured a major

attitudinal or behavioral construct associated with the empathy-altruism hypothesis and the

theory of planned behavior. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and compare

participant attitudes between the three presentation types. Summated scale scores were used to

summarize participant attitudes. Higher summated scale scores implied stronger

feelings/intentions associated with that construct. After examining the attitudes of participants,









factor analysis procedures allowed the researcher to determine which items comprising each

construct best described that construct and which related to commitment to engage in

environmentally-responsible behaviors.

To examine relationships among the variables and develop a regression model and path

diagram, a correlation matrix was developed prior to implementing multiple regression analysis

to investigate the potential for collinearity among the independent variables and to verify

association between independent variables and the dependent variable. Principal component

factor analysis with a Promax oblique rotation was used as a data reduction technique prior to

regression analysis. Factor scores were used in multiple regression. Finally, descriptive

statistics, including frequencies, means, and standard deviations were used to summarize the

level of satisfaction that participants had with the zoo educator and educational presentation.

Summary of Findings

Objective One

Participant Demographics

The first objective sought to describe the characteristics of participants of the birds of prey

outreach presentations. A total of 213 usable questionnaires were obtained. Sixty-three

respondents participated in the all injured birds of prey presentation, 78 respondents participated

in the non-injured birds of prey presentations, and 72 respondents participated in the slideshow

presentations. The majority of respondents across presentation types were female.

The mean age of respondents across presentation groups was 73 years. The highest mean

age was in the all injured presentation group. The oldest respondent was born in 1909 and

participated in one of the non-injured presentations. To check for bias in using the mean as an

accurate descriptor of the sample age, the median and mode age were also examined. The

median age was 72 and the mode was 65 (occurring 14 times).









Fourteen U.S. states and five Canadian provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario,

Quebec, and Saskatchewan) were represented by participants of this study. The majority of

respondents reported that their permanent residence was in Florida.

The majority of respondents did not belong to a conservation or environmental

organization. About one-tenth of male and female respondents were members of

conservation/environmental organizations.

Considering pet ownership among participants, the majority of respondents did not own

pets. This may have been a function of the restrictions sometimes placed on retirement

community members regarding pet ownership. Those who indicated owning pets owned a cat,

dog, bird, fish, or a combination thereof.

Previous Engagement in Conservation-related Behaviors

Respondents were also classified according to their engagement in five conservation-

related behaviors during the three months prior to attending the birds of prey presentation.

About one-third indicated that they had discussed wildlife habitat conservation with others.

Most respondents indicated that they had properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife but

had not attended a public wildlife presentation in the three months prior to attending the birds of

prey presentation. Similar to the pet ownership issue, responses to this item may have been a

function of the retirement community's rules.

When asked about owning or sponsoring a bird house in the three months prior to the zoo's

visit, two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they had not engaged in this behavior. One-

third of the respondents indicated that they had not donated money to a wildlife habitat

conservation or environmental organization during the three months prior to the birds of prey

presentation. Perhaps the lack of opportunity to donate money or sponsor a bird house may have

been due to the limited budgets of the respondents. Chi-square was used to test for differences









among participants for each of these conservation-related behaviors and no significant

differences were found.

Objective Two

The second objective sought to identify the relationship between selected participant

characteristics and their associated level of empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in

environmentally-responsible behaviors following exposure to the three presentations. Prior to

measuring the association between independent variables and commitment to engage in the six

behaviors advocated by the zoo educator, principal component factor analysis was employed.

Summary of Major Constructs Measured

Before running factor analysis, each of the major constructs (indicated as "parts" on the

instrument) was summarized using descriptive statistics. Higher summated scale scores implied

stronger feelings or intentions to engage in an environmentally-responsible behavior.

Regardless of the type of presentation participants experienced, individuals believed

wildlife habitat conservation was fairly important. In addition, participants of each of the three

presentations had a moderately positive attitude towards birds of prey.

In the post-assessment, participants of the injured and non-injured presentations felt that

the birds of prey were less in need than participants of the slideshow presentation. Similarly,

participants of the slideshow presentation indicated feeling moderately empathetic overall for the

birds of prey whereas participants of the injured and non-injured presentations indicated feeling

lower levels of empathy. Altruistic feelings were similar between presentation groups with

participants feeling somewhat to fairly concerned.

Considering the dependent variable (commitment to engage in environmentally-

responsible behaviors) and the constructs measuring the influence of social norms, commitment

scores were slightly lower for participants of the injured birds of prey presentation than for the









non-injured and slideshow presentations. Regardless of presentation type, individuals believed

the behaviors advocated by the zoo educator were fairly acceptable to others and were fairly

likely to perform the behaviors if others were aware that they performed them.

Factor Analysis Findings

Factor analysis procedures were used to examine the influence of individual items on the

broader construct being measured. All respondents regardless of presentation type were included

in this factor analysis. Factor analysis was conducted on the six items representing respondent

attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation before experiencing the birds of prey presentation.

A single factor was extracted and it was termed "encourage participation in conservation."

Factor analysis on the five items representing respondent attitude toward birds of prey prior to

experiencing the educational presentation also resulted in one factor being extracted, termed

"beautiful and beneficial creatures."

The 17 adjectives that Batson (1991) recommends using to measure empathy were factor

analyzed. Two factors were extracted and Promax rotation was used to better interpret the data.

The first factor was termed "disturbed." The second factor was termed "compassion" based on

the items comprising the factor.

The six items representing each respondent's perception of the level of need associated

with the birds of prey in the educational presentations were factor analyzed. One factor was

extracted and entitled "human care."

The seven items representing the altruistic motivation (concern) that respondents felt

following exposure to each of the presentations were factor analyzed. Two factors were

extracted and Promax rotation was used to better interpret the data. The first factor was termed

"habitat concern." The second factor was termed "program animal concern."









Associations Among Variables/Constructs by Presentation Type

Considering the injured birds of prey presentation, several statistically significant moderate

to strong associations were found between the independent variables and respondents'

commitment to engage in the environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo

educator. Significant moderate associations were found between respondents who previously

discussed habitat conservation-related issues with others and their altruistic concern for wildlife

habitat and commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors. However, a

significant negative association was found between respondents' attitude toward birds of prey

and their age and between age and feelings of empathic compassion for the injured birds they

saw. Thus, the empathy-altruism hypothesis may not hold for elder citizens.

The correlation analyses developed as part of this study provide partial support for the

applicability of the empathy-altruism hypothesis with live, injured animals. As the theory

suggests, a positive association was found between feelings of being disturbed (empathic

emotion) by the injured birds of prey and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat. A strong

positive association was also found between empathic feelings of being disturbed and altruistic

concern for other animals used in educational programs. Empathic feelings of compassion

toward the injured birds of prey were also positively associated with altruistic concern for

wildlife habitat, supporting the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Individuals with empathic

compassion for the injured birds of prey were more likely to commit to performing the six

behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat.

The emotional responses of participants of the non-injured presentation supported the

empathy-altruism hypothesis. Empathic feelings of compassion were significantly positively

associated with altruistic concern for wildlife habitat and were also significantly associated with

likelihood to perform behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat and commitment to engage in









conservation-related behaviors. As the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) suggests, the

acceptability of the conservation-related behaviors to others was significantly associated with the

likelihood that respondents would perform these behaviors.

Finally, for the slideshow presentation, a significant positive association was found

between respondents who believed wildlife habitat conservation was important and their level of

empathic compassion toward the pictures of the birds of prey. No significant association was

found between wildlife habitat conservation attitudes and compassion toward the birds of prey

viewed for participants of the injured or non-injured presentations.

Considering the empathy-altruism hypothesis, results of the slideshow presentation

somewhat contradicted what theory would predict. While studies testing the empathy-altruism

hypothesis have found that a positive association exists between empathic emotion and altruistic

concern following exposure to pictures of injured animals (Schultz, 2000), this study found no

significant association between feeling disturbed (empathy) and altruistic concern for wildlife

habitat. As the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests, significant positive associations were

found between compassion (empathy), altruistic concern, and commitment to engaging in

helping behaviors for the picture group participants. Given these findings, slideshow

presentations seem to be more effective at generating empathic compassion in participants who

already have a positive attitude toward birds of prey. Slideshow presentations do not seem to be

as effective as presentations using live injured and non-injured birds of prey at eliciting disturbed

empathic feelings to generate altruistic concern for wildlife habitat.

Objective Three

This objective sought to build a regression model to predict commitment to engage in

environmentally-responsible behaviors based on a participant's characteristics prior to attending

the presentation, their empathic emotional response to the presentation, and their altruistic









motivation following the presentation. Analysis revealed that if the participant previously

discussed habitat conservation issues with others, felt empathic compassion for the birds of prey

they witnessed, and believed the behaviors advocated during the presentation were acceptable to

others they would be more likely to have higher predicted commitment scores. The most

influential variable was respondent feelings of compassion for the birds of prey witnessed.

The effect of participating in a presentation with all injured birds of prey, all non-injured

birds of prey, or pictures of the same birds of prey did not significantly contribute to predicting

one's commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. Further examination

of the dependent variable revealed that in addition to having low reliability, the behaviors were

not discriminating; over 90% of participants indicated a commitment to four of the six behaviors

following each of the presentations. Although the variables in the regression equation accounted

for 16% of the variability in commitment scores, this low variance explained may be due more to

measurement error. As such, the dependent variable is not a good measure for this sample.

Objective Four

This objective sought to determine the level of satisfaction that participants had with the

presentations. Regardless of presentation type, respondents believed the presenter's level of

excitement for wildlife conservation was very high. Respondents also strongly agreed that the

presentation held their attention, regardless of presentation type. Most respondents indicated that

they would have also liked to have seen a bald eagle as part of the birds of prey presentation.

Participants of the slideshow presentation indicated wanting to see a live bird of prey.

Research Hypothesis One

This hypothesis posited that injured birds of prey would evoke higher levels of empathy,

altruism, and commitment among participants to engage in environmentally-responsible

behaviors than would non-injured birds of prey and color photographs of birds of prey.









Although the empathy-altruism hypothesis would support this prediction, this study found no

significant presentation effect on respondent levels of empathy, altruism, and commitment to

engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat.

Research Hypothesis Two

This hypothesis predicted that higher empathy levels would lead to higher levels of

altruistic motivation, as the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests. This study found that

respondents who felt empathically disturbed from the injured and non-injured birds of prey

presentations were more likely to have altruistic concern for animals in educational programs.

Participants of the slideshow presentation who felt compassionate (empathy) toward the

photographs they witnessed were more likely to have altruistic concern for educational program

animals than were participants of the injured and non-injured presentations. Based on the results

of this study, evidence exists to conclude that higher empathy levels lead to higher levels of

altruism.

Research Hypothesis Three

This hypothesis predicted that higher levels of empathy and altruistic motivation would

result in a stronger commitment to "help" and engage in the pro-environmental practices

advocated by the zoo educator. This study found that higher levels of empathy, specifically

feelings associated with being empathically compassionate, significantly contributed to a

stronger commitment to engage in the pro-environmental practices advocated by the zoo

educator. However, although higher levels of empathy led to increased altruistic feelings,

increased altruistic feelings did not result in a greater likelihood to help. Instead, only feelings of

being empathically compassionate contributed to the likelihood to help. Thus, the empathy-

altruism hypothesis was only partially supported, perhaps in part due to measurement error in the

dependent variable.









Conclusions


1. Participants in this study were mainly females in their early to middle 70s with permanent
residences in Florida. Most did not belong to a conservation or environmental organization
and did not own pets. In the three months prior to the birds of prey presentations, about one-
third had discussed wildlife habitat conservation with others and owned or sponsored a bird
house. Over this time period, most participants properly disposed of trash that could harm
wildlife, had not attended a public wildlife presentation, and had not donated money to a
wildlife habitat conservation or environmental organization.

2. With this demographic and birds of prey, empathy can be defined in two ways: feeling
disturbed by the birds and their associated stories, or feeling compassion for the birds and
their stories. Altruism can also be defined in two ways: feeling concern over wildlife habitat,
or feeling concern for the animals in educational programs.

a. With live, injured birds of prey, a significant positive association exists between feeling
empathically disturbed and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat.

b. With live, non-injured birds of prey, a significant positive association exists between
empathic feelings of compassion and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat.

c. With pictures of the same birds of prey, no significant association was found between
feeling empathically disturbed and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat.

3. Regardless of the injury status of live birds of prey or the vicarious exposure provided by
pictures of the same birds, elder individuals who discuss wildlife habitat conservation issues
with others, experience feelings of compassion from a wildlife presentation, and believe the
behaviors advocated during the presentation are acceptable to others are more likely to be
committed to engaging in the advocated behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat.

4. Elder individuals tend to be very satisfied with a wildlife presentation facilitated by an
educator with a very high level of excitement for conservation and a presentation that holds
their attention, regardless of whether live (injured or non-injured) birds of prey or only color
pictures of birds of prey are presented.

5. Injured birds of prey did not evoke significantly higher levels of empathy, altruism, and
commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors when compared to non-
injured birds of prey and color photographs of birds of prey.

6. As the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests, higher levels of empathy led to higher levels of
altruism. However, it depends on the type of empathy and altruism being examined. When
live birds of prey are used, compassion and disturbed empathic emotions seem common.
When pictures only are used, compassion feelings are common. Based on the results of this
study, it takes a live animal to generate disturbed feelings in elder citizens.

7. Although higher levels of empathy led to increased altruistic feelings, increased altruistic
feelings did not result in a greater likelihood to help. Only specific feelings of being









empathically compassionate toward the birds of prey presented and discussed contributed to
commitment to engage in helping behaviors.

Discussion and Implications

Objective One: Describe the characteristics of participants of the birds of prey outreach
presentations

Although this study evaluated off-site, zoo outreach presentations at retirement

communities throughout the Tampa/Clearwater, Florida area, the participants in this study were

somewhat representative of those who visit zoos and aquaria. Just as Hudson (2001) predicted,

there is a greater influx of older visitors in settings such as zoos, aquaria, and museums. Falk,

Moussouri, and Coulson (1998) reported that 20% of museum visitors were 55 years of age and

over. More recently, Falk and Adelman (2003) reported that over one-third of aquarium visitors

were over 50 years of age and, similar to the findings of this study, nearly 80% were not

members of environmental organizations. Nearly two-thirds of the visitors were from U.S. states

other than the state where the aquarium was located and 7% were from countries other than the

United States. In both studies, more females visited these environments than males.

The majority of participants in this study did not own pets. However, in speaking with

many participants in conversation after each presentation, it became apparent that several of the

retirement communities (three out of nine communities) visited as part of this study did not allow

residents to have pets. Perhaps participants would have liked to own a pet(s) but were not given

the option of indicating such on the instrument. Given the work of Siegel (2004), individuals

who own domestic pets may have different beliefs regarding environmental issues than non pet

owners. Including a qualitative response option on the questionnaire for those who did not own

pets to describe why may have provided more detailed information regarding pet ownership.

Two-thirds of the participants in this study also did not own or sponsor a bird house in the

three months prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. One of the retirement









communities visited as part of this study did not permit residents to have a bird house on their

property. As such, several respondents indicated this on their questionnaire. Including a

response option related to the rules of the retirement community may have reduced this potential

for measurement error.

Regardless of sex, the majority of participants indicated not donating money to

environmental or conservation organizations prior to attending the birds of prey presentation.

However, several questionnaires contained short explanations beside this item detailing potential

reasons for the lack of donations to organizations. Most respondents who included an

explanation indicated that they would like to donate funds to environmental or conservation

organizations but simply were not financially able. Including a response option on the data

collection instrument such as "not financially able to donate" would have provided more detailed

information on participants' environmental/conservation organization donation habits.

Objective Two: Identify the relationship between selected participant characteristics and
their associated level of empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in
environmentally-responsible behaviors

In some earlier research on the link between empathy, altruism, and engagement in helping

behaviors (Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Neuringer-Benefiel, 1986; Batson et al., 1989; Toi & Batson,

1982), principal component factor analysis results were reported concerning the dimensions of

empathy. Each adjective loaded on two factors: a personal distress emotion (consisting of the

adjectives alarmed, grieved, troubled, distressed, upset, disturbed, worried, and perturbed) and an

empathy emotion (consisting of the adjectives sympathetic, moved, compassionate, warm, soft-

hearted, and tender). Such results are similar to the principal components factor analysis results

of this study, where a disturbed empathy dimension and a compassion empathy dimension were

found. In the aforementioned works and other more recent studies (Batson et al., 2005, Schultz,

2000), empathy has been measured following respondent exposure to descriptions of a subject in









need. The results of this study verify that the two empathy dimensions found over two decades

ago using written descriptions of fictional subjects are also emotions that respondents feel

following exposure to live birds of prey.

While empathic emotional response to subjects in need has typically been measured using

multiple items, altruism has been measured using a single item (see Batson, 1991 for a review).

The item typically asks respondents to indicate how much they found themselves caring about

the welfare of the subject in question along a nine-point scale from not at all to very much. For

obvious reasons, factor analysis was not possible with a single item and therefore altruism,

within the context of testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis, has been regarded as one

dimensional. However, in this study, altruism was measured using seven items and principal

components factor analysis revealed two dimensions of altruism in the context of conservation

education: concern for wildlife habitat or concern for animals in educational programs.

No significant relationships were found between participant sex and empathy, altruism, or

commitment to engage in the environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo

educator, regardless of the type of presentation experienced. However, Batson (1991), Batson et

al. (2005), and Kellert (1980) suggest that females are more likely to exhibit nurturance

tendencies, anthropomorphism, humanistic attitudes toward animals, empathy, altruism, and

engage in helping behaviors when compared to males. Two-thirds of the participants in this

study were females. While the results of this study contradict what previous research has found

regarding sex, perhaps the older age of the females examined here should be considered as other

studies have examined a younger demographic.

For those viewing only pictures of birds of prey, regardless of sex, disturbed (Batson refers

to as distressed) empathic emotions were not elicited. However, the photographs of the birds of









prey used in this study were close-up pictures of the birds and not graphic photographs of injured

birds of prey. Previous studies testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis with animals in need

have used pictures of animals being harmed by humans (Schultz, 2002; Shelton & Rogers,

1981). For example, Shelton and Rogers (1981) exposed participants to 19-minute videotapes

containing gory scenes of whales being hunted/killed and videos of Greenpeace successfully

saving whales and found that intentions to help save whales and support Greenpeace were

strengthened after viewing the videos. Others have found that viewing shocking photographs

can help with information retention (Zillmann, Knobloch, & Yu, 2001). With regards to

environmentally related issues, DeLuca (1999) suggested that disturbing photographs portraying

habitat destruction and wildlife injury can provide a broader perspective on the ramifications of

human actions, help others consider the consequences of their actions, and inspire public action.

Perhaps if more graphic photographs of injured birds of prey were used in this study, participants

may have indicated feeling empathically disturbed and have been more likely to engage in

behaviors to reduce such feelings and help birds of prey.

Schultz (2000) asked participants to view color images of injured animals and found that

when asked to take the perspective of an injured animal, individuals were significantly more

empathic and altruistic than individuals who were asked to be objective. However, in this study,

no significant association was found between feeling disturbed (empathy) and altruistic concern

for wildlife habitat. This is particularly surprising since Batson (1991) suggests empathic

emotions should be stronger for females (due to nurturance, see Batson et al., 2005) and 66.7%

of the slideshow group was female. Although Kellert (1980) found that females were more

humanistically oriented (exhibiting feelings of strong affection and attachment to individual

animals such as pets), this study found no significant relationship between sex and empathy and









altruism. With regards to Kellert's ecologistic attitude type (evident in individuals with a

concern for the dependencies between animals and their natural habitats), regardless of the type

of presentation one participated in, most participants in this study indicated ecologistically-

related behaviors. These participants discussed wildlife habitat conservation issues with others,

owned or sponsored a bird house, and properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife in the

three months prior to attending the birds of prey presentation.

Participants of the slideshow presentation had a greater number of significant relationships

with the variables of empathic compassion, habitat concern, acceptability of the behaviors being

advocated to others, and likelihood that they would perform such behaviors when compared to

participants of the injured or non-injured presentations. One potential explanation for this is that

the live birds of prey distracted participants, thus preventing them from retaining the information

being presented regarding environmentally-responsible behaviors that would help birds of prey.

Given the body of literature suggesting that live animals can promote engagement among zoo

participants (see Dierking et al., 2002 for a synthesis), the engagement of participants in this

study directed toward the live birds of prey may have diverted their attention away from the zoo

educator and his environmental messages, potentially explaining the difference in responses for

the slideshow participants.

Objective Three: Build a regression model to predict commitment to engage in
environmentally-responsible behaviors

The results of this study suggest that the type of wildlife presentation does not significantly

influence the level of commitment that elder individuals have toward engaging in

environmentally-responsible behaviors. According to the empathy-altruism hypothesis,

empathic emotion is followed by altruistic motivation to help and it is this motivation that

inspires behavioral engagement. However, in this study, altruistic motivation was not found to









be a precursor to commitment to engage in helping behaviors. For participants who previously

discussed wildlife habitat conservation issues with others and felt the behaviors being advocated

were acceptable to others, empathic compassion was the only significant variable of the

empathy-altruism hypothesis that contributed to increased behavioral commitment.

The fact that participants who believed the behaviors were acceptable to others were more

likely to be committed to performing them agrees with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,

1985) which suggests that societal norms play an important role in influencing intent to engage

in a behavior. Based on the work of De Young (2000), perhaps those who discussed habitat

conservation issues with others and believe the behaviors are acceptable to others are more

committed to performing such behaviors because they get satisfaction knowing they are doing

something that benefits what others value as well (here, wildlife habitat). Hungerford and Volk's

(1990) findings suggest that individuals who discuss habitat conservation-related issues with

others may be more likely to commit to engaging in pro-environmental behaviors because they

have knowledge of habitat conservation and with such knowledge, may feel more empowered to

act. Still others like De Young (2000) and Kaplan (2000) might suggest openly discussing

habitat conservation and ensuring a behavior is acceptable leads to commitment because of

egoistic, personal feelings of satisfaction from "doing their part" to help species in need.

The empathy-altruism model has been tested extensively on undergraduate, female college

students who read a paragraph description of a subject in need and indicate their level of

empathy, altruism, and intention to engage in behaviors to help the one in need. Before now, the

model has not been verified with (a) live subjects (animals) in need or (b) older adults. One

potential reason for the lack of a presentation effect on participant emotional response to the

birds of prey could be the low variability on the dependent variable-the commitment score for









engaging in environmentally-responsible behaviors. An examination of Table 4-24 reveals that

only the last 2 behaviors (commitment to build or sponsor a bird nesting box and commitment to

donate money to a habitat conservation organization) discriminated high from low commitment

scores. Perhaps these two behaviors attracted fewer participants because of the degree of effort

required to perform them compared to the other four behaviors.

While the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests that the injured birds of prey would evoke

stronger feelings of empathy and altruism and result in a greater commitment to help than would

non-injured birds of prey or pictures of the birds of prey, perhaps the type of environmentally-

responsible behaviors being advocated must be considered. Schultz (2002) advocates that

generic information about conservation is not as effective at motivating behaviors as targeted,

specific information is. Some of the behaviors being advocated during the presentations and

being measured in this study were non-specific conservation-related practices. For example,

telling a friend about conservation, something the zoo educator advocated during each

presentation, could be improved by discussing specific conservation topics related to each

species of raptor.

In line with the suggestions of Schultz (2002), the theories of reasoned action and planned

behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) suggest that the size of the

relationship between a behavioral intention and an actual behavior can depend on the specificity

of the behavioral intention being considered. As such, if more specific conservation-related

behaviors were advocated by the zoo educator and included on the post-assessment

questionnaire, perhaps the likelihood that participants would actually engage in the practices

would be greater.









Although the behaviors being advocated by the zoo educator in this study were non-

specific, some could be considered community-based types of environmental actions (e.g., not

discarding food scraps along roadways). According to community-based social marketing theory

(McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999), as with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), societal

norms influence the likelihood that an individual will engage in a behavior. Specifically, social

marketing theory suggests that the likelihood that someone will engage in a behavior can be

increased by asking that individual to commit to performing a behavior which benefits a broader

organization of people (community). Given that commitment to engage in the behaviors being

advocated by the zoo educator was the dependent variable in this study, advocating (and asking

about on the questionnaire) specific behaviors that would benefit the participants' own retirement

community may have provided different results.

The potential influence of the characteristics and teaching style of the zoo educator who

presented the wildlife presentations in this study were not examined but may have contributed to

the resulting commitment level of participants of the live animal and slideshow presentations.

Interpretation theory (Tilden, 1957) suggests that the specific behaviors of an educator can

influence learner outcomes following exposure to a single educational intervention much like

those presented in this study. Educators who can personally relate to their audience, reveal

information about themselves and their topic, and provoke participants to engage in positive

actions are more likely to have a lasting impression (Tilden, 1957). The zoo educator who

facilitated the wildlife presentations in this study related to his audience with personal stories and

humorous anecdotes, and revealed information about himself and his topic by sharing facts about

his experience and commitment to conservation. Other educational theorists also suggest that the









characteristics and teaching style of the educator can make a significant difference on learner

outcomes (Nilson, 2003; Rosenshine & Furst, 1971).

According to adult learning theory (Knowles et al., 1998), relating the behavior being

advocated to something the participant believes will help resolve an issue of personal

significance will enhance the likelihood of learning. If the personal relevance of the behaviors

being advocated by the zoo educator were emphasized with regards to this older population,

perhaps their commitment to engage in the behaviors would have been even stronger.

Objective Four: Measure the level of satisfaction that participants have with Tampa's
Lowry Park Zoo birds of prey outreach presentation

Kellert (1980) reported that approximately 15% of the American population was strongly

oriented toward the aesthetic attitude type. Aesthetic attitudes towards animals are those which

emphasize the attractiveness or symbolic significance of animals. Perhaps participants in this

study wished to see a bald eagle because of the bird's symbolic significance as representing

patriotism and the United States. Furthermore, the non-injured presentation group experienced a

presentation in which three of the four birds were owls. As Kellert (1980) suggests, the cultural

and symbolic significance associated with owls as being wise may need to be considered as a

possible explanation for the differences in found with the non-injured presentation group that

were not found with the all injured or slideshow presentation groups.

Recommendations for Research

1. Generic, non-specific environmentally-responsible behaviors were advocated during wildlife
presentations in this study. Further research is needed to examine the influence of targeted,
species specific information directed at the objects (live animals or pictures) being used as
teaching tools (e.g., donate five-dollars to the Audubon Center for Birds of Prey in Maitland,
Florida to help their rehabilitation and conservation efforts [specific] versus donate money to
a wildlife habitat conservation organization [general]).

2. Seven items were used to measure altruism in this study and two types of altruism were
found. Previous research testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis has used a single item to









measure altruism. Using more than one item to measure altruism is recommended as this
will test whether the kinds of altruism found in this study are relevant with other subjects.

3. Verification of the regression model developed as part of this study is needed. Testing the
model and presentation regime used in this study with younger audiences, as Batson has done
in examining the empathy-altruism hypothesis with college students, could provide
information that could be compared to Batson's existing research more directly. Testing the
model using path analysis would also provide greater detail on potential causal influences
and indirect effects leading to commitment to engage in pro-environmental behaviors.

4. Unique differences were found in the non-injured group that were not found in the all injured
or slideshow groups. The non-injured group experienced a presentation where the majority
of birds were owls. An examination of the potential cultural and symbolic influences of
specific species type (e.g., owls vs. vultures) and anthropomorphic tendencies on empathy,
altruism, and commitment to engage in helping behaviors is needed.

5. The ethnicity of participants was not measured in this study. Given the cultural and symbolic
significance of certain birds of prey species, an examination of the potential relationship
between the ethnicity of zoo program participants and their emotional response to birds of
prey presentations is needed.

6. Because live birds of prey were equally effective at influencing commitment to engage in
environmentally-responsible behaviors as a slideshow presentation of pictures of birds of
prey, additional research is needed to evaluate outreach presentations that use a combination
of live animals and technology (additional pictures, movie-clips, sound-bites) in the same
presentation.

7. The slideshow presentations used in this study contained non-graphic, close-up photographs
of birds of prey. Given the effects of viewing graphic images on emotions and behavioral
intentions, more research is needed on the influence of using graphic pictures of injured birds
of prey on zoo program participant emotions and environmentally-related behavioral
intentions. Information regarding the appropriateness of various graphic images with zoo
audiences (which may include children) is also needed.

8. Participants of the slideshow presentations had different behavioral commitment-related
responses than did participants of the injured and non-injured birds of prey presentations.
More research is needed to determine if using live animals in educational programs distracts
audience attention away from the messages being presented by the educator.

9. Given the effectiveness of both live animals and color photographs of animals at inspiring
commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors, additional research is
needed to examine the influence of the educator's characteristics and teaching style on
participant commitment to engage in the behaviors he or she advocates.

10. This study assessed participant commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible
behaviors advocated by the zoo educator. Follow-up longitudinal research is needed to
examine actual participant engagement in such behaviors at various time intervals following
exposure to live birds of prey and/or pictures of birds of prey.









Recommendations for Practice


1. This study found that when elder adults participate in wildlife presentations that create
feelings of empathic compassion, those participants are more likely to have commitment to
engage in the behaviors advocated during the presentation. Regardless of whether a live bird
of prey or a picture of a bird of prey is used in the presentation, the educator should strive to
share conservation-related stories and messages that instill a sense of compassion for the
animals. The American Zoo and Aquarium Association also emphasized this
recommendation.

2. Educators using live birds of prey or pictures of birds of prey as teaching tools should share
information about the social acceptability of the conservation-related behaviors they share
with their audiences. With regards to outreach education in communities, this
recommendation is supported by community-based social marketing theory (McKenzie-Mohr
& Smith, 1999).

3. When using a live bird of prey (injured or non-injured) is not compatible with the educational
situation/setting (such as indoors at a senior center or retirement community), the results of
this study suggest using a color slideshow of pictures of the birds of prey with audiences of
elder adults. This teaching method was found to be equally effective at eliciting empathy and
inspiring commitment to engage in conservation-related behaviors as live, injured and non-
injured birds of prey were.

4. If using a live bird of prey is permissible, the results of this study suggest that live birds of
prey be used in conjunction with a slideshow presentation of pictures of birds of prey.
Participants often commented on their desire to see the birds fly as part of the presentation.
Including a brief movie-clip of raptors flying as part of a slideshow presentation may add
additional educational value to live raptor presentations conducted where birds are not
allowed to free-fly. In addition, the use of technology as part of a slideshow presentation
may allow the educator to interject sound-bites of bird calls typically unable to be heard by
participants of a live birds of prey presentation only (a multi-sensory learning opportunity).

5. When live birds of prey are able to be used in educational outreach presentations with the
public, educators should emphasize the presence of live animals in their advertising efforts.
The results of this study suggested that live birds of prey can be used as a marketing strategy
to encourage voluntary participation in educational presentations that visit communities.









APPENDIX A
LETTER TO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

UNIVERSITY of
UF LORIDA
IFAS

Department of Agricultural Education and Communication 305 Rolfs Hall
PO Box 110540
Gainesville, FL 32611-0540
Telephone: (352) 392-0502
Fax: (352) 392-9585
January 22, 2007

Glen Ellen Mobile Home Park,
Homeowners Association
2882 Gulf to Bay Blvd
Clearwater, Florida 33759

Dear Homeowners Association President:

My name is Nick Fuhrman and I am a graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. in the
Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida.
The purpose of this letter is to ask for your community's participation in a FREE
educational wildlife presentation given by Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo.

As part of my research toward a doctorate, I am working with Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo
to determine if and how different types of wildlife presentations influence the emotions
and behavioral intentions of adults 55-years old and over. As such, I am asking
retirement communities to participate in one of three different wildlife presentations.
One of the presentations will involve an outreach educator with the zoo (Mr. Jeff Ewelt)
using four live, injured birds of prey (owls, hawks, eagles, falcons, vultures) as teaching
tools in a 30-45 minute presentation. One of the presentations will involve Mr. Ewelt
using four live, non-injured birds of prey in a 30-45 minute presentation. Finally, one of
the presentations will involve Mr. Ewelt presenting a 30-45 minute slide show of pictures
of birds of prey. Before and after each presentation, participants will be asked to
voluntarily complete a short questionnaire. For my dissertation research, I will compare
the responses on the questionnaires between the three wildlife presentations. Again,
your retirement community would only be asked to participate in one of these free
presentations.

Thank you so much for your consideration. If you have any questions at all, please feel
free to call my cell phone at (352) 226-1199 or Mr. Ewelt at (813) 935-8552 ext. 273.
My email address at the University of Florida is nifuhrma@ufl.edu. Tampa's Lowry Park
Zoo and I look forward to hopefully visiting with you and your group soon!










Sincerely,


Nicholas E. Fuhrman, M.S.
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Agricultural Education and Communication
University of Florida









































The Foundation for The Gator Nation
An Equal Opportunity Employer






APPENDIX B
POSTER USED TO RECRUIT PARTICIPANTS AND ADVERTISE PRESENTATION

Come Participate in a FREE

Wildlife Presentation

Coming to Shady Lane Oaks


Tampa's Lowry Park
Tuesday, April


Zoo will visit the Club House on
10th, 2007 at 7:001m


Come learn about owls, hawks, falcons, eagles, and
vultures in an interactive presentation. Plus, a LIVE
animal or two might also make an appearance. The
visit will be part of a research study sponsored by
the University of Florida. Participants will be asked
to complete a short survey after the presentation.
Everyone completing the survey will receive a gift for
their time.


~1-~
r-











APPENDIX C
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL AND INFORMED CONSENT


UF Institutional Review Board
UNIVERSITY of FLORIDA


DATE:

TO:


FROM:


PO Box 112250
Gainesville, FL 32611-2250
352-392-0433 (Phone)
352-392-9234 (Fax)
irb2@ufledu


March 6, 2007

Nicholas E. Fuhrman
PO Box 110540
Campus
Ira S. Fischler, Chair
University of Florida L
Institutional Review B


SUBJECT: Approval of Protocol #2007-U-0229


TITLE:


Predicting Environmentally Responsible Behavior Using Injured and Non-injured
Animals as Teaching Tools


SPONSOR: Unfunded


I am pleased to advise you that the University of Florida Institutional Review Board has
recommended approval of this protocol. Based on its review, the UFIRB determined that this
research presents no more than minimal risk to participants. Given your protocol, it is
essential that you obtain signed documentation of informed consent from each participant.
Enclosed is the dated, IRB-approved informed consent to be used when recruiting participants
for the research.

It is essential that each of your participants sign a copy of your approved informed
consent that bears the IRB approval stamp and expiration date.


If you wish to make any changes to this protocol, including the need to increase the number
of participants authorized, you must disclose your plans before you implement them so that
the Board can assess their impact on your protocol. In addition, you must report to the Board
any unexpected complications that affect your participants.


If you have not completed this protocol by March 5, 2008, please telephone our office (392-
0433), and we will discuss the renewal process with you. It is important that you keep your
Department Chair informed about the status of this research protocol.

ISF:dl


An Equal Opporuntly Inslitution















INFORMED CONSENT


Protocol Title:
Predicting Environmentally Responsible Behavior Using
Injured and Non-injured Animals as Teaching Tools


Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.


My name is Nick Fuhrman and I am a graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. in
the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of
Florida. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this research study. Your
participation is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating and
there are no risks or direct benefits associated with your participation. The purpose
of this study is to determine if and how different types of wildlife presentations
influence the empathy, altruism, and behavioral intentions of adults. If you choose
to participate, you will answer items on a confidential questionnaire that will take
about 15 minutes to complete. Please do not write your name on the questionnaire
booklet so as to protect your identity.

You will complete the first half of the questionnaire before watching the
educational presentation. When everyone has completed the first half of the
questionnaire, you will be asked to watch the presentation. Immediately after
watching the presentation, you will complete the second half of the questionnaire
and return it to Nick Fuhrman when you finish. For your efforts today, you will be
given a University of Florida pen as a token of appreciation for your time. The
coding on the questionnaires is done to help the researcher during later analysis.
You can stop at any time without penalty and you do not have to answer any
question you do not wish to answer. All answers are confidential to the extent
provided by law. The results of this study will be published in a Ph.D. dissertation
made available to the public.

The educational presentation you will be watching will be videotaped.
However, only the presenter and animals will be filmed-as an audience member,
you will not be recorded. Only Nick Fuhrman will have access to the tapes. The
tapes will be destroyed at the conclusion of the study.

If you would like to learn more about this study, please contact me at 310
Rolfs Hall, Gainesville campus, 352-392-0502 ext. 238 or my faculty supervisor,
Approved by
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2007-U-0229
For Use Through 03/05/2008















Dr. Glenn D. Israel at 218 Rolfs Hall, Gainesville campus, 352-392-0502 ext. 246.
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611-
2250, phone: 352-392-0433.

Thank you for your time and consideration! If you choose to participate, please
read the agreement statement below and sign your name. Thanks!

Agreement:

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the
procedure and I have received a copy of this description.


Participant


Date


Date


Principal Investigator


Approved by
University of Florida
Institutional Review Board 02
Protocol # 2007-U-0229
For Use Through 03/05/2008






APPENDIX D
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT



Wildlife Presentation
Participant Survey













UNIVERSITY of
UF WFLORIDA
S(IFAS


ID #










Wildlife Presentation Pre-assessment Questionnaire


Thank you for participating in this study examining if and how different wildlife presentations
influence the emotions and future actions of adults. Your input is valuable!


START HERE
PART ONE

Directions: Please respond to the following statements regarding your environmental
behaviors during the past three months.

In the past three months, I have...


1. Discussed wildlife habitat conservation-
related issues with others

2. Properly disposed of trash that could
harm wildlife


3. Attended public wildlife presentations


4. Owned or sponsored a bird house


5. Donated money to a wildlife habitat
conservation or environmental
organizations)


Did not have the
YES NOt



YES NO Did not have the
opportunity to


Did not have the
YES NO

opportunity to

Did not have the
YES NO

opportunity to

Did not have the
YES NOt
opportunity to

Did not have the
YES NO
opportunity to


Please continue to the next page...











PART TWO
Directions: Please respond to the following statements by circling the number that
corresponds to your feelings about wildlife habitat conservation.

6. How important is wildlife habitat conservation to you?


1
Not at all
important


2
Slightly
important


3
Somewhat
important


4
Fairly
important


5
Very
important


6
No opinion


7. How important is it to you that the news media cover wildlife habitat
conservation issues?


1
Not at all
important


2
Slightly
important


3
Somewhat
important


4
Fairly
important


5
Very
important


6
No opinion


8. How important is it for you to engage in activities that help conserve wildlife
habitat?


1
Not at all
important


2
Slightly
important


3
Somewhat
important


4
Fairly
important


5
Very
important


6
No opinion


9. How important do you believe wildlife habitat conservation is for people who
live in the city?


1
Not at all
important


2
Slightly
important


3
Somewhat
important


4
Fairly
important


5
Very
important


6
No opinion


10. How important is it to you to encourage others to participate in wildlife
habitat conservation programs?


1
Not at all
important


2
Slightly
important


3
Somewhat
important


4
Fairly
important


5
Very
important


6
No opinion


11. How important is it to you to financially support wildlife habitat conservation
programs?


1
Not at all
important


2
Slightly
important


3
Somewhat
important


4
Fairly
important


5
Very
important


6
No opinion









PART THREE


Directions: Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the statements below by
circling the appropriate number below each statement.

12. Birds of prey such as owls and hawks are beneficial to the public.


1
Strongly
Disagree


Disagree


Neutral


13. Birds of prey are beautiful creatures.


1
Strongly
Disagree


Disagree


Neutral


Agree





4
Agree


14. Birds of prey are important for controlling rodents.


1
Strongly
Disagree


Disagree


Neutral


Agree


5
Strongly
Agree



5
Strongly
Agree



5
Strongly
Agree


15. Birds of prey make me nervous because of the threat of disease.


1
Strongly
Disagree


Disagree


Neutral


16. Birds of prey are interesting to me.


1
Strongly
Disagree


2
Disagree


3
Neutral


Agree




4
Agree


5
Strongly
Agree



5
Strongly
Agree


6
No opinion





6
No opinion





6
No opinion





6
No opinion





6
No opinion


Please continue to the next page...








PART FOUR


Directions: Please tell us a little about yourself.


17. Do you currently belong to an
environmental or conservation
organization?
O YES
O NO


18. Do you currently orwn any pets?
LI YES
L NO


19. What is your permanent (where you live most of the year) residence?


City:


State:


20. \\ ha is your gender?
21. In what year were you born?


I MAlLE


LJ FENIlLE


TOI


Enjoy the wildlife presentation.


If YES, which one(s)?


If YES. x\\hat kind"


I









Wildlife Presentation Post-assessment Questionnaire

WAIT FOR INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE BEGINNING...

PART ONE

Directions: Think about the birds in the presentation. Rate how in need you think the birds you
saw today were by circling the number that most closely matches your feelings.

The birds I saw today were in need of...


Not at Slightly Somewhat
all needed needed
needed


Fairly Very No
needed needed opinion


3. Veterinary care
1 2 3 4 5
4. Affection
1 2 3 4 5
5. Time away from
people 1 2 3 4 5

6. A companion 2 3 4


PART TWO

Directions: Please respond to the following statement by indicating the degree to which
you experienced the following emotional reactions while watching the wildlife
presentation. Please be sure to circle a response for each item.

As I viewed the birds, I felt...


7. Alarmed

8. Grieved


Not at all
1


Moderately
4


9. Sympathetic

10. Troubled


1. Aid


2. Protection


5 6

5 6

5 6

5 6


Extremely
7

7

7

7











As I viewed the birds, I felt...


11. Warm

12. Concerned

13. Distressed

14. Low-spirited

15. Intrigued

16. Compassionate

17. Upset

18. Disturbed

19. Worried

20. Moved

21. Perturbed

22. Heavy-hearted

23. Sorrowful


Not at all
1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1


Moderately


PART THREE
Directions: Please respond to the following statements by circling the number that
corresponds to your feelings about the birds you saw, other birds, and wildlife habitat.

24. As you viewed the birds, how concerned were you about their well-being?

1 2 3 4 5 6
Not at all Slightly Somewhat Fairly Very No opinion


concerned concerned concerned concerned c

25. How concerned are you for birds of prey in the wild?


1
Not at all
concerned


Slightly
concerned


Somewhat
concerned


Fairly
concerned


concerned


5
Very
concerned


6
No opinion


5 6


Extremely










26. As you viewed the birds, how concerned were you about wildlife habitat in
general?


1
Not at all
concerned


Slightly
concerned


Somewhat
concerned


Fairly
concerned


5
Very
concerned


6
No opinion


27. As you viewed the birds, how concerned were you about losing wildlife
habitat?


1
Not at all
concerned


Slightly
concerned


Somewhat
concerned


Fairly
concerned


5
Very
concerned


6
No opinion


28. Think about the birds you saw in today's presentation. How concerned are
you about the habitat conditions of birds of prey in the wild?


Not at all Slightly Somewhat
concerned concerned concerned


Fairly Very
concerned concerned


6
No opinion


29. As you viewed the birds, how concerned were you about the well-being of
birds of prey used in educational programs?


1
Not at all
concerned


Slightly
concerned


Somewhat
concerned


Fairly
concerned


5
Very
concerned


6
No opinion


30. How concerned are you about the use of wildlife in general in educational
programs?


1
Not at all
concerned


2
Slightly
concerned


3
Somewhat
concerned


4
Fairly
concerned


5
Very
concerned


6
No opinion


Please continue to the next page...









PART FOUR
Directions: Please respond to the following statements by circling the number that
corresponds to your feelings about each behavior.

31. Are you committed to performing each of the following actions now and in
the future?

a. Telling a YES NO
friend about
the
presentation

b. Telling a YES NO
friend about
conservation

c. Not YES NO
discarding
food scraps
along
roadways

d. Attending YES NO
another
wildlife-
related
presentation

e. Building or YES NO
sponsoring a
bird nesting
box

f. Donating YES NO
money to a
wildlife
habitat
conservation
organization











32. How acceptable are these behaviors to others around you?


a. Telling a
friend about
the
presentation


1
Not at all
acceptable


b. Telling a 1
friend about Not at all
conservation acceptable


c. Not
discarding
food scraps
along
roadways

d. Attending
another
wildlife-
related
presentation


1
Not at all
acceptable


1
Not at all
acceptable


e. Building or 1
sponsoring a Not at all
bird nesting acceptable
box


f. Donating
money to a
wildlife
habitat
conservation
organization


1
Not at all
acceptable


2
Slightly
acceptable



2
Slightly
acceptable

2
Slightly
acceptable


2
Slightly
acceptable


2
Slightly
acceptable



2
Slightly
acceptable


3 4 5 6
Somewhat Fairly Very No
acceptable acceptable acceptable opinion



3 4 5 6
Somewhat Fairly Very No
acceptable acceptable acceptable opinion

3 4 5 6
Somewhat Fairly Very No
acceptable acceptable acceptable opinion


3 4 5 6
Somewhat Fairly Very No
acceptable acceptable acceptable opinion


3 4 5 6
Somewhat Fairly Very No
acceptable acceptable acceptable opinion



3 4 5 6
Somewhat Fairly Very No
acceptable acceptable acceptable opinion











33. What is the likelihood that you would perform these behaviors if others around
you were aware that you performed them?


a. Tell a
friend about
the
presentation

b. Tell a
friend about
conservation

c. Not discard
food scraps
along
roadways

d. Attend
another
wildlife-
related
presentation

e. Build or
sponsor a
bird nesting
box

f. Donate
money to a
wildlife
habitat
conservation
organization


1
Not at all
likely



1
Not at all
likely

1
Not at all
likely



1
Not at all
likely


1
Not at all
likely



1
Not at all
likely


2
Slightly
likely



2
Slightly
likely

2
Slightly
likely



2
Slightly
likely


2
Slightly
likely



2
Slightly
likely


3
Somewhat
likely



3
Somewhat
likely

3
Somewhat
likely



3
Somewhat
likely


3
Somewhat
likely



3
Somewhat
likely


4
Fairly
likely



4
Fairly
likely

4
Fairly
likely



4
Fairly
likely


4
Fairly
likely



4
Fairly
likely


5
Very likely




5
Very likely



5
Very likely


6
No opinion




6
No opinion


6
No opinion


5 6
Very likely No opinion


5 6
Very likely No opinion




5 6
Very likely No opinion









PART FIVE


Directions: Please answer the following questions by either circling the number that
corresponds to your feelings or explaining your answer in writing. Your feedback is very
valuable to us!

34. The presenter's level of excitement for wildlife conservation was...


1
Very low


Low


Medium


35. The presentation held my attention.


1
Strongly
Disagree


2
Disagree


3
Neutral


4
High




4
Agree


5
Very high




5
Strongly
Agree


6
No opinion




6
No opinion


Please explain your answer.







36. Was there anything else you would have liked to have seen as part of the
presentation today?


Thank you so much for your time and input!
Please return this booklet to Nick Fuhrman and
receive a small gift for your effort.









APPENDIX E
POWERPOINT SLIDES USED WITH COMPARISON GROUP PRESENTATIONS


* Rated #1 family
friendly zoo in
America in 2004


'St






























* H 'weS WC hare' the tIunis


Release if possible is #1 goal






















M 1) l'* IlI me llcm lttdO% r
.no ,.ouplt~l- 1.-lid



* C ,e I iC l !1 C* I ij.. i li..r,


ti I











































































* I['.tmid t' f.irrmn ,
ri-sed i prlI


* Ii. IIIJjl.L
mouse traps





i* l i r lli -
! C1 u (I l'lc!llI
































* Taken from nest for a "pet"
* i.'t l..: d .J, t .in. iI.. I c.l l .. l


f ou1d afs in orpll 11.ll fig ,








ir Ibe world


* \'e canl IJ, thenmbe bunls'


* Birds serve as
ambassadors
for their species


W-WOL BALD IS
.KAFEIM5

























157n bel, ol Tampa".
I o vr, I'ar /k nt and
Theltnhi ersilv ol -lorida















































157









APPENDIX F
ITEM ANALYSIS AND RELIABILITY BY INSTRUMENT CONSTRUCT

Cronbach's alpha was calculated for three of the four parts of the pre-assessment

(excluding participant demographics) and for four of the five parts of the post-assessment

(excluding the customer satisfaction items in Part Five) to determine internal consistency. Item

discrimination was also calculated using the corrected item-total correlation statistic (D. Miller,

personal communication, May 17, 2006). Corrected item-total correlations above 0.20 indicated

satisfactory item discrimination. Each component of the pre and post-assessment is summarized

below.

Pre-assessment: Part One Previous Conservation-related Behaviors

Part one of the pre-assessment examined the environmental/conservation-related

experiences of participants three months prior to attending the birds of prey presentation.

Participants were asked whether or not they had participated in each of the following behaviors:

* Discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others
* Properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife
* Attended public wildlife presentations
* Owned or sponsored a bird house
* Donated money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental organizations)

Respondents also had the option of indicating that they did not have the opportunity to engage in

each of the aforementioned behaviors.

Pre-assessment: Part Two Attitude Toward Wildlife Habitat Conservation

Part two of the pre-assessment examined participants' attitudes toward wildlife habitat

conservation. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the level of importance they

associated with the following items:

* Wildlife habitat conservation in general
* News media coverage of wildlife habitat conservation issues
* Engaging in activities to help conserve wildlife









* Knowledge of wildlife habitat conservation for those who live in the city
* Encouraging others to participate in wildlife habitat conservation programs
* Financially supporting wildlife habitat conservation programs

Pre-assessment: Part Three Attitude Toward Birds of Prey

Part three of the pre-assessment was used to measure participants' attitude toward birds of

prey specifically. Respondents were asked about their level of agreement that birds of prey:

* Are beneficial to the public
* Are beautiful creatures
* Are important for controlling rodents
* Make the individual nervous because of disease threats
* Are interesting to the individual

Pre-assessment: Part Four Participant Demographics

Part four of the pre-assessment was used to examine demographic aspects about each

respondent. Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate:

* Whether they belonged to an environmental or conservation organization, and if so, which
one(s)
* Whether they owned any pets, and if so, what kind(s)
* Where their permanent residence (where they lived for six months of the year) was located
* Their sex
* The year they were born

Post-assessment: Part One Perception of Need

The first part of the post-assessment asked respondents to indicate how in need (from not

at all needed to very needed) the birds of prey they witnessed (whether live or pictures) were of

the following:

* Aid
* Protection
* Veterinary care
* Affection
* Time away from people
* A companion









As Batson et al. (2005) and Batson (1991) suggest, perception of need was used as a

covariate in a multiple regression model predicting commitment to engage in environmentally-

responsible behaviors (see Post-assessment Part Four).

Post-assessment: Part Two Empathy

Part two of the post-assessment was adapted from Batson's (1991) instrument for

measuring respondent empathic emotional response to either all injured birds of prey, all non-

injured birds of prey, or color pictures of the same birds of prey. The 17 adjectives previously

used by Batson (1991) were implemented in the same order and with the same 7-point response

scale. See Batson (1991) or Batson et al. (2005) for more information regarding this scale.

Post-assessment: Part Three Altruism

Part three of the post-assessment contained seven items used to measure altruistic

motivation following one of the three presentations. Batson (1991) has used a single item to

measure altruism. The seven items used in this study related to the respondents' level of concern

for the following:

* The well-being of the birds of prey they saw
* Birds of prey in the wild
* Wildlife habitat in general
* Losing wildlife habitat
* The habitat conditions of birds of prey in the wild
* The well-being of birds of prey used in educational programs
* The use of wildlife in educational programs

Post-assessment: Part Four Commitment to Engage in Conservation-related Behaviors

Item 31 in part four of the post-assessment served as the dependent variable in this study

and measured respondents' commitment to perform six conservation-related behaviors advocated

by the zoo educator during each of the presentations. These six behaviors included:

* Telling a friend about the presentation
* Telling a friend about conservation









* Not discarding food scraps along roadways
* Attending another wildlife-related presentation
* Building or sponsoring a bird nesting box
* Donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization

Post-assessment: Part Four Acceptability of Behaviors to Others

Item 32 of part four of the post-assessment measured the level of acceptability of

performing each of the six behaviors previously mentioned in the aforementioned section.

Acceptability was measured along a 5-point scale from not at all acceptable to very acceptable.

Post-assessment: Part Four Likelihood of Performing Behaviors if Others Knew

Item 33 of part four of the post-assessment examined the likelihood that respondents would

perform the same six behaviors if others around them were aware. A 5-point response scales

was used.

Post-assessment: Part Five Customer Satisfaction

Part five of the post-assessment was used to measure participant satisfaction with the zoo

educator and the wildlife presentation. Two Likert-scale questions were asked, one concerning

the level of the presenter's excitement for wildlife conservation and one concerning whether the

presentation held the respondents' attention. A final open-ended question was asked requesting

that respondents indicate anything else they would have liked to have seen as part of the

presentation.

Internal Consistency Findings

Internal consistency coefficients for each component of the pre- and post-assessment are

presented in Table F-1. For part one of the pre-assessment, the reliability was 0.64. While this

reliability is slightly lower than the 0.70 level minimum level of acceptance (Davis, 1971), the

researcher did not wish to add additional items to the instrument to increase reliability, given the

age demographic of this study. In addition, factor analysis procedures can help improve









sometimes lower levels of overall reliability by extracting the most significant factors for later

analysis in regression (D. Miller, personal communication, May 23, 2007). Item discrimination

analysis indicated that the corrected item-total correlations for the five items in this section

ranged from 0.26 to 0.52, implying satisfactory item discrimination. For part two of the pre-

assessment, the reliability was 0.88. Item discrimination analysis revealed that the corrected

item-total correlations for the six items ranged from 0.63 to 0.78, indicating satisfactory item

discrimination for this section. For part three of the pre-assessment, the reliability for these five

items was 0.81. Question 15 (Birds of prey make me nervous because of the threat of disease)

was reverse coded prior to reliability analysis. Item discrimination analysis showed that the

corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.48 to 0.69, indicating satisfactory item

discrimination for this section. Reliability and item analysis were not tested on part four of the

pre-assessment because these items elicit demographic information.

Item analysis and reliability coefficients were also calculated for the post-assessment

(Table F-l). For part one of the post-assessment, the reliability for these six items was 0.91.

Item discrimination analysis revealed that the corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.66

to 0.80, indicating satisfactory item discrimination for this section. For part two of the post-

assessment, the reliability was 0.93. Item discrimination analysis showed that the corrected

item-total correlations ranged between 0.32 and 0.79, indicating satisfactory item discrimination

for these 17 items. Considering part three of the post-assessment, the reliability was 0.83. Item

discrimination analysis revealed that the corrected item-total correlations for these seven items

ranged from 0.49 to 0.59, indicating satisfactory discrimination. Three main questions were

contained in part four of the post-assessment and each main question contained six sub-items

reflecting six environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator during the









presentations. Item discrimination and reliability coefficients were calculated for each of these

three main questions and are presented in Table F-1.

The reliability of question 31 (commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and

their habitat) in part four of the post-assessment was 0.56. Item discrimination analysis of the six

sub-items for this question revealed that all sub-items except for one (not discarding food scraps

along roadways) had corrected item-total correlations between 0.25 and 0.44. The sub-item

measuring commitment to not discard food scraps along roadways had a corrected item-total

correlation of 0.07, well below the suggested 0.20 cut off for satisfactory discrimination and

likely reducing the overall reliability of this construct. The reliability of question 32

(acceptability of behaviors to others) in part four of the post-assessment was 0.82. Item

discrimination analysis of the same six behavioral sub-items revealed that corrected item-total

correlations ranged from 0.24 to 0.71, indicating satisfactory discrimination among sub-items.

The sub-item with the lowest discrimination score (0.24) again was the one regarding not

discarding food scraps along roadways. The reliability of question 33 (likelihood to perform

behaviors if others were aware) in part four of the post-assessment was 0.89. Item

discrimination analysis of these same six sub-items showed that corrected item-total correlations

fell between 0.49 and 0.83, indicating satisfactory discrimination. However, the lowest

discrimination score (0.49) was again associated with the sub-item regarding likelihood to not

discard food scraps along roadways. Reliability and item discrimination statistics were not

calculated for the two quantitative items (zoo presenter's level of excitement for conservation

and whether presentation held audience attention) in part five of the post-assessment because of

the limited number of items.









Table F-1. Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach's alpha) for Construct Sections of the Pre- and
Post-assessments


Instrument Component
Pre-assessment: Part One
Pre-assessment: Part Two
Pre-assessment: Part Three
Post-assessment: Part One
Post-assessment: Part Two
Post-assessment: Part Three
Post-assessment: Part Four, Q31
Post-assessment: Part Four, Q32
Post-assessment: Part Four, Q33


Construct
Previous conservation-related behaviors
Attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation
Knowledge and attitudes toward birds of prey
Perceived need of birds of prey
Empathy
Altruism/Concern
Commitment to perform behavior
Acceptability of behaviors to others
Likelihood to perform behaviors if others
were aware


Table F-2. Follow-up Logistic Regression Results on Each of the Six Environmentally-
responsible Behaviors
Dependent Variable Percent Variance Explained (R-squared)
Telling a Friend About Conservation 13.1%
Donating Money to a Conservation Org. 12.8%
Attending Another Wildlife Presentation 11.5%
Building/Sponsoring a Bird House 9.6%
Not Discarding Food Scraps Along Roadways 2.6%
Telling a Friend About the Presentation 1.1%
Note. Highest four R-squared terms were summed and used in a second multiple regression
model.


Reliability
0.64
0.88
0.81
0.91
0.93
0.83
0.56
0.82
0.89









APPENDIX G
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THREE WILDLIFE PRESENTATIONS

Presentation One: Exposure to All Injured Birds of Prey

The all injured birds of prey presentations began with the researcher introducing the zoo

educator, once the pre-assessment portion of the instrument had been completed. The zoo

educator began the presentations by highlighting the benefits of the study not only for the

University of Florida and Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo, but also for the entire zoo and

environmental education field. He provided a brief history of the zoo and mentioned his

experience in working with birds of prey and passion for conservation education. He also

highlighted the benefits of using injured and non-injured birds of prey as ambassadors for habitat

conservation and encouraged the audience to pay close attention to the stories of why each bird is

in captivity and what can be done to help.

Four live, injured birds of prey were then presented one at a time. The first bird of prey

presented was an eastern screech owl (Otus asio). The zoo educator introduced the bird and

addressed it by its name, "Gizmo." Several minutes were spent discussing the bird's natural

history, including its small size, physical characteristics such as the tufts of feathers on its head,

and importance in controlling pests (such as rodents and cockroaches) in urban and suburban

areas. The educator then revealed why the bird was in captivity, explaining that its injuries were

the result of a collision with an automobile. The educator pointed out that the bird was now

blind in its right eye and had suffered wing and foot damage on its right side where it was struck.

Because of these injuries, the educator emphasized that the owl was no longer able to hunt and

survive on its own.

After explaining why the owl was in captivity, the educator described specific behaviors

that the audience could engage in to help habitat conservation efforts and reduce the chances that









other birds of prey would experience similar vehicle-related injuries. The educator advocated

that audience members not discard food scraps along roadways because food scraps attract

rodents and birds of prey eat rodents. By not discarding food scraps along roads, the educator

emphasized that birds of prey like the eastern screech owl will be more likely to hunt in locations

other than along roadways where they are often hit by automobiles. In an effort to promote

habitat conservation for birds of prey, the educator also encouraged the audience to build or

sponsor a bird nesting box where birds of prey such as eastern screech owls and American

kestrels (Falco sparverius) can nest and raise young. The educator also provided written

instructions to audience members who expressed an interest in building a nesting box.

The second bird of prey presented was a Mississippi kite (Ictinia mississippiensis). The

zoo educator again began by introducing the bird by name, "Ciana." Several minutes were spent

discussing the bird's natural history, including how kites compare to hawks, eagles, and falcons,

what kites eat, and where they live. The educator then revealed why the bird was in captivity,

explaining that the bird was a hurricane victim. After being found on the ground with most of its

feathers missing, the kite was brought to the Audubon Center for birds of prey near Orlando,

Florida. There the kite was treated and sent to Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo where it fully

recovered. However, as the zoo educator noted, the kite became imprinted onto zoo staff during

treatment. In addition, although all of the birds feathers grew back, its tail feathers grew back

improperly and because kites rely on their tails to turn and catch insects during flight, the bird

was not releasable.

After explaining why the kite was in captivity, the educator described specific behaviors

which audience members could engage in to benefit similar birds of prey and their habitat. The

educator suggested that audience members donate money to wildlife rehabilitation and habitat









conservation organizations like the Audubon Society to help their efforts in treating birds of prey

and protecting their habitat.

The third bird of prey presented as part of the all injured bird of prey presentation was a

red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). After introducing the hawk as "Callie," the zoo educator

began by describing natural history facts about the hawk, including where they are found, what

they eat, and how they compare to other hawks found in Florida. The educator then revealed

why the bird was in captivity, explaining that the bird was completely blind as a result of

colliding with a window. Obvious to the audience members, such a disability rendered the bird

non-releasable.

After explaining why the hawk was in captivity, the educator detailed specific behaviors

which audience members could participate in to help other birds of prey. Because birds of prey

follow the light from stars during their migration, the educator explained that often birds will

mistake the lights of buildings for stars and collide with building windows. The educator

advocated that the best way to reduce the likelihood that birds will collide with windows is to

turn off the lights in tall buildings at night and to affix decals on windows to alert birds to the

presence of a window. Because most buildings contain windows, the educator encouraged

audience members to tell a friend or family member about using window decals and about the

other conservation messages revealed during the presentation.

The fourth and final bird of prey presented was a great homed owl (Bubo virginianus).

After introducing the owl by name, "Klinger," the zoo educator again began by describing

natural history facts about great horned owls. The educator shared facts about the owl's eye-

sight, diet, hunting abilities, and behaviors. The educator then revealed why the bird was in

captivity, explaining that, like the eastern screech owl, it too was struck by an automobile.









However, the impact from the automobile was so severe that the owl's right wing had to be

amputated.

After explaining why the owl was in captivity, the educator described specific behaviors

the audience could engage in to help similar birds of prey and their habitat. Audience members

were again reminded of the importance of not discarding food scraps along roadways and

encouraged to place items such as apple cores and banana peals in the trash can. Because the

great horned owl was the final bird of prey in the all injured presentation, the educator ended the

presentation by encouraging two additional environmentally-responsible behaviors. He

encouraged audience members to (a) tell a friend about the presentation and (b) if possible,

attend another wildlife-related presentation. A brief (five to 10-minute) question and answer

session followed. Immediately following the question and answer period, the researcher directed

those who agreed to participate in the study to complete the post-assessment portion of their

questionnaire booklet.

Presentation Two: Exposure to All Non-injured Birds of Prey

The videotapes of the presentations revealed that the all non-injured birds of prey

presentations were nearly identical to the all injured presentations in terms of conservation

messages shared and environmentally-responsible behaviors encouraged. Like the all injured

birds of prey presentations, the all non-injured birds of prey presentations began with the

researcher introducing the zoo educator following completion of the pre-assessment portion of

questionnaire. The zoo educator again began all of the non-injured presentations by highlighting

the benefits of the study for Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo and the entire zoo/conservation education

discipline. He also provided a brief history of the zoo and mentioned his experience in working

with birds of prey, passion for conservation education, and the benefits of using injured and non-









injured birds of prey as teaching tools. He again encouraged each audience to pay particular

attention to the stories associated with each bird and what they personally can do to help.

Four live, non-injured birds of prey were then presented one at a time. The first non-

injured bird of prey presented was a barn owl (Tyto alba). The zoo educator introduced the bird

as "Norman," and spent several minutes describing natural history facts about the owls,

including where they live, how they are designed to hunt using their hearing, and why they are

important for rodent control. The educator then revealed why the owl was in captivity,

explaining that it was found as an owlet between two hay bales on a farm. The farmer who

found the baby owl raised it in captivity and as a result, the bird became imprinted onto people

and unable to hunt on its own. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service confiscated the owl

from the farmer and it was taken to the Audubon Center near Orlando, Florida. Because of its

dependency on people, the Audubon Society donated the owl to Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo for

use in educational programs.

After explaining why the owl was in captivity, the educator described specific behaviors

that the audience could do to help other birds of prey and their habitat. The educator advocated

that audience members build or sponsor a barn owl nesting box because the number of farms and

barns is steadily decreasing. Written instructions on how to build a nesting box were made

available to interested audience members. In addition, the educator encouraged individuals to

donate money to wildlife rehabilitation and conservation organizations like the Audubon Society

to help these and other non-profit organizations continue their efforts.

The second bird of prey presented was a barred owl (Strix varia). The zoo educator

introduced the bird and addressed it by its name, "Pandora." Again, several minutes were spent

describing natural history facts about the bird, including the origin of its name, importance of its









large eyes, diet, and hunting ability. The educator then revealed why the owl was in captivity,

describing that the bird was fed hotdogs as an owlet by members of a community in south

Florida and had become the community's "pet." In fact, the educator explained that the bird had

become so used to people that it could be touched. As a result of becoming imprinted and a

potential danger to the public (if approaching someone in search of food), the educator explained

that the owl would remain in captivity as a conservation ambassador for other species.

After explaining why the owl was in captivity, the educator described specific behaviors

that the audience could do to benefit birds of prey and their habitat. Although the barred owl

was not injured, the educator described how many owls are struck by automobiles due to their

binocular vision and why not discarding food scraps along roadways is important. He

encouraged everyone who has food scraps such as apple cores and banana peals to properly

discard such items in a trashcan.

The third non-injured bird presented was a black vulture (Coragyps atratus). After

introducing the bird by name, "Smeadly," the educator spent several minutes discussing the

bird's natural history. This included sharing facts about how it is designed to eat carrion, where

they are found, and their high intelligence level. The educator then revealed why the bird was in

captivity, explaining that the vulture was found as a baby on the ground in the middle of a forest

fire (vultures nest on the ground) and brought to a wildlife rehabilitation center. Because

vultures are extremely social animals, the vulture imprinted onto the rehabilitation center staff

and could not be released.

After explaining why the vulture was in captivity, the educator described specific

behaviors that audience members could engage in to help other, similar birds and their habitat.

The educator advocated that audience members donate money to wildlife rehabilitation centers









like the one that the black vulture was taken to and to habitat conservation organizations to

support the work that these non-profit organizations do. To help facilitate this process, the zoo

educator brought bumper stickers containing a picture of a black vulture and offered them for

one dollar each. The educator explained that the proceeds from the sale of the stickers would go

to the Peregrine Fund to support raptor research efforts.

The fourth and final bird of prey presented during the non-injured presentation was a

Eurasian eagle owl (Bubo bubo). As with the other birds, the educator spent several minutes

discussing the owl's natural history, including facts about the owl's eye-sight, diet, hunting

abilities, and behaviors. The educator then revealed why the bird was in captivity, explaining

that the bird was captive bred by another zoo and donated to Tampa's Lowry Park Zoo. Because

the owl was raised in captivity, the educator emphasized that the bird was used as an ambassador

for other, wild birds of prey.

After explaining why the bird was in captivity, the educator again described specific

behaviors that the audience could do to help birds of prey and their habitat. He suggested that

individuals tell a friend about conservation for birds of prey and wildlife in general, both in

Florida and worldwide. Because the Eurasian eagle owl was the final bird in the non-injured

presentation, the educator ended the presentation by encouraging two additional

environmentally-responsible behaviors. He encouraged audience members to also (a) tell a

friend about the presentation they saw and (b) attend another wildlife-related presentation offered

by a zoo or conservation organization. A brief (five to 10-minute) question and answer session

followed. Immediately following the question and answer period, the researcher directed those

who agreed to participate in the study to complete the post-assessment portion of their

questionnaire booklet.









Presentation Three (Comparison Group): Exposure to Pictures of Birds of Prey

The comparison group presentation series was nearly identical to the all injured and all

non-injured presentations. The only difference was that instead of live, injured or non-injured

birds of prey, the same zoo educator used PowerPoint slides with color photographs of the same

birds presented in the all injured and all non-injured presentations (see Appendix E for the

PowerPoint slides used). The methods employed with the slideshow groups closely resembled

those used by Schultz (2000) in testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis using pictures of injured

animals. The slideshow presentations also began with the researcher introducing the zoo

educator following completion of the pre-assessment portion of the questionnaire. As before, the

zoo educator began by highlighting the benefits of the study for the zoo and conservation

education fields and provided a brief history of the zoo. He again mentioned his experience in

working with birds of prey, passion for conservation education, and the reasons why birds of

prey are unique compared to other species. He highlighted the benefits of using birds of prey as

ambassadors for conservation and encouraged the audience to pay particular attention to the

stories associated with the bird photographs and what the public can do to help. The same

conservation messages and environmentally-responsible behaviors shared during presentations

one and two were presented to the slideshow groups.

Color photographs of three of the four injured birds of prey presented during the all injured

presentation (great horned owl, red-shouldered hawk, and Mississippi kite) were shown one at a

time during the first half of the PowerPoint presentation. Pictures of all four injured birds were

not used so as to ensure that the slideshow presentations would last about as long as the two live

animal presentations. Again, several minutes were spent discussing each of the bird's natural

history facts. The same natural history facts shared about each bird during the all injured

presentation were shared as the educator showed color photographs of each bird on a PowerPoint









slide with minimal text. For each bird, after discussing natural history facts with the audience,

the educator would describe why such birds came to the zoo and are in captivity. The same

stories of injuries shared during the all injured presentation were shared.

After presenting color photographs of the great horned owl, red-shouldered hawk, and

Mississippi kite (one PowerPoint slide per bird), discussing natural history facts, and sharing the

reasons each bird came into captivity, the educator described specific behaviors that the audience

could do to benefit birds of prey and their habitat. The same behaviors described about helping

these three birds during the all injured presentation were shared during the slideshow

presentation.

Color photographs of three of the four non-injured (imprinted) birds of prey presented

during the all non-injured presentations (barn owl, barred owl, and black vulture) were shown

one at a time during the second half of the PowerPoint presentation. Pictures of all four non-

injured birds were not used so as to ensure that the slideshow presentations would last about as

long as the injured and non-injured presentations. Again, several minutes were spent discussing

each of the bird's natural history facts. The same natural history facts shared about each bird

during the all non-injured presentations were shared as the educator showed color photographs of

each bird on a PowerPoint slide with minimal text. For each bird, after discussing natural history

facts with the audience, the educator would describe why such birds came to the zoo and are in

captivity. The same stories shared during the all non-injured presentations were shared during

this second half of the slideshow presentation.

After presenting color photographs of the barn owl, barred owl, and black vulture (one

PowerPoint slide per bird), discussing natural history facts, and sharing the reasons each bird

came into captivity, the educator again described specific behaviors that the audience could do to









benefit birds of prey and their habitat. The same behaviors described about helping these three

birds during the all non-injured presentations were shared during the slideshow presentation.

After describing these specific environmentally-responsible behaviors, the zoo educator ended

the presentation just like the all injured and all non-injured presentations by encouraging

audience members to engage in two more general behaviors. Like the previous two

presentations, these were to (a) tell a friend about the presentation they saw and (b) attend

another wildlife-related presentation offered by a zoo or conservation organization. As before, a

brief (five to 10-minute) question and answer session followed. Immediately following the

question and answer period, the researcher directed those who agreed to participate in the study

to complete the post-assessment portion of their questionnaire booklet and distributed University

of Florida pens as a token of appreciation.









LIST OF REFERENCES


Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences. (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J.
Beckman (Eds.). Action-Control: From cognition to behavior, 11-39. Heidelberg:
Springer.

Allport, G.W. (1967). Attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and
measurement (pp. 3-13). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education. (6th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-212.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior, 4, 71-81. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Batson, C.D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Batson, C.D., Batson, J.G., Griffitt, C.A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, J.R., Sprengelmeyer, P., &
Bayly, M.J. (1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(6), 922-933.

Batson, C.D., Bolen, M.H., Cross, J.A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, H.E. (1986). Where is the
altruism in the altruistic personality? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 50(1),
212-220.

Batson, C.D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can
feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656-1666.

Batson, C.D., Lishner, D.A., Cook, J., & Sawyer, S. (2005). Similarity and nurturance: Two
possible sources of empathy for strangers. Basic andApplied Social Psychology, 27(1), 15-
25.

Beck, A., Seraydarian, L., & Hunter, G.F. (1986). The use of animals in the rehabilitation of
psychiatric inpatients. Psychological Reports, 58(1), 63-66.

Brewer, C. (2001, October). Cultivating conservation literacy: Trickle-down education is not
enough. Conservation Biology, 15(5), 1203-1205.









Clouser, R.L. (2006). Issues at the rural-urban fringe: Will Florida be preparedfor 2030?
(EDIS document FE661). Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Food and Resource
Economics Department.

Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Conservation Education Committee: Conservation Messages. (2000, March). Retrieved June 28,
2005, from http://www.aza.org/ConEd/ConMessages/

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning.

Cronin-Jones, L. (2005, January). Six goals of a well developed environmental education
program. Outline presented in a classroom lecture at the University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL.

Davis, J.A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Davison, V.M., McMahon, L., Skinner, T.L., Horton, C.M., & Parks, B.J. (1993). Animals as
actors: Take 2. Annual Proceedings of the American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums, 150-155.

De Young, R. (2000). Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible
behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 509-526.

DeLuca, K.M. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetoric of environmental activism. New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.

Dierking, L.D., Burtnyk, K., Buchner, K.S., & Falk, J.H. (2002). Visitor learning in zoos and
aquariums: A literature review. Annapolis, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY:
John Wiley and Sons.

Dunlap, J., & Kellert, S.R. (1989). Informal learning at the zoo: A study of attitude and
knowledge impacts. Philadelphia, PA: Zoological Society of Philadelphia.

Falk, J.H., & Adelman, L.M. (2003). Investigating the impact of prior knowledge and interest on
aquarium visitor learning. Journal ofResearch in Science Teatliniig. 40(2), 163-176.

Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the
making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Falk, J.H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998). The effect of visitors' agendas on museum
learning. Curator, 41(2), 107-120.









Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in
attitude theory and measurement (pp. 477-492). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Francis, G., Turner, J.T., & Johnson, S.B. (1985). Domestic animal visitation as therapy with
adult home residents. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 22(3), 201-206.

Friedman, E., Katcher, A., Lynch, J., & Thomas, S. (1980). Animal companions and one-year
survival of patients discharged from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports, 95, 307-
312.

Friedman, E., Katcher, A., Thomas, S., Lynch, J., & Messent, P. (1983). Social interaction and
blood pressure: Influence of animal companions. Journal of Nervous andMental Disease,
171, 461-465.

Geisler, A.M. (2004). Companion animals in palliative care: Stories from the bedside. American
Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 21(4), 285-288.

Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1994). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities.
In B. Puka (Ed.). Moral development: A compendium, 6, 123-137.

Gippoliti, S., & Amori, G. (1998). Rodent conservation, zoos, and the importance of the common
species. Zoo Biology, 17, 263-265.

Guion, L.A., Turner, J., & Wise, D.K. (2004). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an
elder financial abuse program. Journal ofExtension, 42(3). Retrieved April 10, 2007, from
http://www.joe.org/j oe/2004j une/a6. shtml

Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis.
(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hargrove, T.M., & Jones, B.L. (2004). A qualitative case study analysis of the small farmers
outreach training and technical assistance (2501) program from 1994-2001: Implications
for African American farmers. Journal ofAgricultural Education, 45(2), 72-82.

Hatry, H.P. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.

Henderson, C. (1984). Publicity strategies and techniques for Minnesota's non-game wildlife
check-off. Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, 49,
181-189.

Hudson, S.J. (2001, April). Challenges for environmental education: Issues and ideas for the 21st
century. BioScience, 51(4), 283-288.









Hull, D.B. (2003). Observing animal behavior at the zoo: A learning laboratory. Teaching of
Psychology, 30(2), 117-119.

Hungerford, H.R., & Volk, T.L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental
education. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 21(3), 8-22.

Israel, G.D. (2005). Visual cues and response format effects in mail surveys: A research note.
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociology Society, Tampa, Florida.

Jacobson, S.K. (1999). Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, DC:
Island Press.

Kaiser, F.G., & Shimoda, T.A. (1999). Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behavior.
Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 19, 243-253.

Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social
Issues. 56(3), 491-508.

Kellert, S.R. (1980). Contemporary values of wildlife in American society. In W.W. Shaw &
E.H. Zube (Eds.), Wildlife values (pp. 31-60). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.

Kellert, S.R., & Dunlap, J. (1989). Informal learning at the zoo: A study of attitude and
knowledge impacts. Philadelphia: Zoological Society of Philadelphia.

Kim, J., & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it
(Series/Number 07-013). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Knapp, D., & Poff, R. (2001). A qualitative analysis of the immediate and short-term impact of
an environmental interpretive program. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 55-65.

Knegtering, E., Hendrickx, L., van der Windt, H.J., & Schoot-Uiterkamp, A.J.M. (2002). Effects
of species' characteristics on nongovernmental organizations' attitudes toward species
conservation policy. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 378-400.

Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic
in adult education and human resource development. (5th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Krebs, D.L. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 32,
1134-1146.

Kreger, M.D., & Mench, J.A. (1995). Visitor-animal interactions at the zoo. Anthrozoos, 8(3),
143-158.









Leeming, F.C., Dwyer, W.O., Porter, B., & Cobern, M.K. (1993). Outcome research in
environmental education: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Education, 24(4), 8-
21.

Lewis-Beck, M.S. (1980). Applied regression: An introduction. Series: Quantitative applications
in the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Main, M.B., Hostetler, M.E., & Karim, A. (2003). Evaluating private lands for conservation of
wildlife (EDIS document WEC 164). Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida,
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation.

McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to
community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A
comprehensive guide. (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Montague, J. (1995). Continuing care: Back to the garden. Hospice Health Network, 69(17), 58-
60.

Morgan, J.M. (1992). A theoretical basis for evaluating wildlife-related education programs. The
American Biology Teacher, 54(3), 153-157.

Morgan, J.M., & Gramann, J.H. (1989). Predicting effectiveness of wildlife education programs:
A study of students' attitudes and knowledge toward snakes. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17,
501-509.

Morgan, J.M., & Hodgkinson, M. (1999). The motivation and social orientation of visitors
attending a contemporary zoological park. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 227-239.

Myers, O.E., & Saunders, C.D. (2002). Animals as links toward developing caring relationships
with the natural world. In P.H. Kahn & S.R. Kellert (Eds.). Children andNature, 153-178.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Nilson, L.B. (2003). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors.
Jaffrey, NH: Anker Publishing Company.

Osborne, J.W., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers
should always test. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8(2).

Pusser, T. (2004, October). Wildlife and the road: Roadkill isn't the only result of animals on the
highways. Wildlife in North Carolina, 68(10), 26-29.

Rohlf, D.J. (1991). Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn't work and
what to do about it. Conservation Biology, 5(3), 273-282.

Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria. In B.O. Smith
(Ed.), Research in teacher education (pp. 37-72). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.









Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W., & Freeman, H.E. (2004). Evaluation. A systematic approach. (7th
ed.). Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Rusk, C.P., & Machtmes, K. (2002). Teaching youth through 4-H animal science workshops.
Journal ofExtension, 40(5). Retrieved July 5, 2005, from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/iw7. shtml

Schultz, P.W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for
environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 391-406.

Schultz, P.W. (2002). Knowledge, information, and household recycling: Examining the
knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In T. Dietz & P.C. Stern (Eds.), New tools
for environmental protection: Education, information, and voluntary measures (pp. 67-82).
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Schwartz, S. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221-279. New York: Academic Press.

Shelton, M.L., & Rogers, R.W. (1981). Fear-arousing and empathy-arousing appeals to help: The
pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11(4), 366-378.

Siegel, J.M. (1990). Stressful life events and use of physician services among the elderly: The
moderating role of pet ownership. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58, 1081-
1086.

Siegel, W.L. (2004). The role of animals in education. ReVision, 27(2), 17-26.

Stoinski, T.S., Lukas, K.E., & Maple, T.L. (1998). A survey of research in North American zoos
and aquariums. Zoo Biology, 17, 167-180.

Swanagan, J.S. (2000). Factors influencing zoo visitors' conservation attitudes and behavior. The
Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 31(4), 26-31.

Taylor, S.E. (2002). The tending instinct. New York: Henry Holt.

Thurstone, L.L. (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. Journal ofAbnormal Social
Psychology, 26, 249-269.

Thurstone, L.L. (1967). Attitudes can be measured. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude
theory and measurement (pp. 77-89). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage. (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North
Carolina Press.

Toi, M., & Batson, C.D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292.









Tunnicliffe, S.D. (1995). The content of conversations about the body parts and behaviors of
animals during elementary school visits to a zoo and the implications for teachers
organizing field trips. Journal ofElementary Science Education, 7(1), 29-46.

Vining, J. (2003). The connection to other animals and caring for nature. Human Ecology
Review, 10(2), 87-99.

Weigel, R.R., Caiola, B., & Pittman-Foy, L. (2002). 4-H animal care as therapy for at-risk youth.
Journal ofExtension, 40(5). Retrieved July 5, 2005, from
http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/iw6. shtml

Wickless, M., Brooks, D.W., Abuloum, A., Mancuso, B., Heng-Moss, T.M., & Mayo, L. (2003).
Our zoo to you. Science and Children, 41(1), 36-39.

Yerke, R., & Bums, A. (1991). Measuring the impact of animal shows on visitor attitudes.
Annual Proceedings of the American Association of Zoological Parks andAquariums,
532-539.

Yerke, R., & Bums, A. (1993). Evaluation of the educational effectiveness of an animal show
outreach program for schools. Annual Proceedings of the American Association of
Zoological Parks andAquariums, 366-368.

Zillmann, D., Knobloch, S., & Yu, H. (2001). Effects of photographs on the selective reading of
news reports. Media Psychology, 3(4), 301-324.

Zimmermann, L.K. (1996). Knowledge, affect, and the environment: 15 years of research (1979-
1993). Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 2 7(3), 41-44.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Nicholas E. Fuhrman grew up outside of Baltimore, Maryland in the town of Perry Hall.

At the age of six, his first grade class was visited by a guest speaker, Ranger Bill Trautman, who

brought in several injured birds of prey and reptiles. Watching Ranger Bill and seeing his

passion for environmental education, Nick decided that teaching others using live animals was

his dream. Over 21 years later, he still has that passion.

Nick volunteered with Ranger Bill from the age of eight until he turned 16, cleaning cages,

handling birds of prey, and observing Ranger Bill's teaching. At age 16, he was offered a

seasonal position as a Naturalist and Environmental Interpreter with the Maryland Department of

Natural Resources. Nick used injured birds of prey and reptiles as teaching tools just like Ranger

Bill did that day in his first grade class for seven summers, typically presenting nearly 150

educational presentations each summer throughout Maryland and the surrounding states. While

working for the Department of Natural Resources, Nick pursued a B.S. degree in forestry at

Virginia Tech. At age 21, he decided to resign as "Ranger Nick" and returned to Virginia Tech

to pursue a M.S. degree in forestry under Dr. Carolyn Copenheaver.

Upon finishing his M.S. degree and interacting with some of the finest teachers in the

world, Nick attended the University of Florida in pursuit of a Ph.D. in agricultural education and

communication with a minor in environmental education. He wanted to become like those

exceptional professors he interacted with at Virginia Tech. While at the University of Florida,

Nick had the privilege of working with many outstanding students as an instructor for several

undergraduate courses. For Nick, being able to work with gifted students and evaluate the

impact of using birds of prey in educational programs, like the ones he presented as a naturalist

in Maryland, has been a dream come true.





PAGE 1

1 PREDICTING COMMITMENT TO ENGAGE IN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIORS USING INJURED AND NON-IN JURED ANIMALS AS TEACHING TOOLS By NICHOLAS E. FUHRMAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Nicholas E. Fuhrman

PAGE 3

3 To my former students. They helped me di scover my true passionteachingand inspired me to always search for new knowledge. Gang, I hope this study helps!

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document would not have been possibl e without the support and guidance of many people. I would like to begin by thanking my gra duate committee. I thank Dr. Glenn Israel for his expertise in statistics and fo r our birding conversations in the hallway. I thank Dr. Linda Cronin-Jones for her environmental education wi sdom and for showing me the potential of a study with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo. I thank Dr Brian Myers for his e xpertise in teaching and learning and for always helping me keep this ofte n overwhelming task in perspective. Finally, I give my most sincere thanks to my advisor, Dr. Howard Ladewig. I made many fellow graduate students jealous by having the beyond-exceptiona l guidance and mentoring he provided me. I have never met someone with the gift of being ab le to take the most complicated of subjects and explain them in a way that a ch ild could understand. In aspiring to become a university professor myself, I look at Dr. Ladewig as a role mode l and friend. Although we spent several months apart since his retirement, I always looked forw ard to our phone conversations. During such conversations, his wife, Ms. Kathi, always made me smile with wildlife stories from their lake home in Texas and I thank her for her warm spirit. This study would not have been possible wi thout the incredible help and support of someone who has become a great friendeven though he is an Ohio Stat e graduate. Mr. Jeff Ewelt with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo was kind enough to present every one of the birds of prey presentations involved in this st udy. I have yet to meet an educ ator who has as much passion for what they do and who is as gifted as Jeff. He brought a smile to the faces of so many people during his presentations for this study and ta ught us all so much about helping wildlife. In completing this study, I spent many hours in an office with folks Ill never forget. I thank the Den Mother, Ms. Ann De Lay, for her always positive outlook and kind cards and post-it notes on our desks. I also thank Mr. Andrew Thoron (B S #1) for his great attitude,

PAGE 5

5 friendship, and for the hundreds of hilarious emails we sent back and forth to one another. We all know who has the bigger backspace bar. Finally, I thank my distant friends and fam ily. I thank my Mom (Dawn Fuhrman) for instilling in me a love of animals and for her extreme confidence in my success. Hearing how often she talked about me, I never had any doubt that she was proud of me. I thank my Dad (Mark Jerry Fuhrman) for his continuous supp ort, funny phone calls, and for having so much pride in what I do. I thank my sister, Nurse Erin, for an always funny phone call and for the many cards and gifts she sent from Hawaii addresse d to Dr. Nick Fuhrman, Ph.D. I also thank two old buddies from my days at Virginia Tech Rob Kish and Dave Pintofor their continued friendship over the years. I thank my best fr iend, Josh Deal, for being there when I needed anything and for some of the best laughs Ive ever had. A very special thanks goes to my dear friends from Wytheville, Virginia, Mr. Bob Grubb and his wife, Ms. Nora, for their friendship and always positive encouragement. Last but certainly not least, I owe a world of th anks to the love of my life. There were so many weekends when Ros and I wanted to be ou tside, enjoying the Florida sun, and opted to head to the office to work. To the both of us, it never mattered what we di d, so long as we did it together. Her love for teaching and working with students is cont agious and inspiring. Finally, our little cat Smokey also deserves some thanks for keeping my lap warm while I worked on this document.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ........10 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......12 LIST OF TERMS.................................................................................................................. .........13 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................16 Benefits of Using Live Anim als with Youth and Adults........................................................18 Linking the Theory of Planned Behavior, Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, and Zoos............20 Rationale...................................................................................................................... ...........23 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................... .24 Purpose........................................................................................................................ ...........27 Study Objectives..............................................................................................................28 Research Hypotheses.......................................................................................................29 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........29 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................32 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........32 Empathy-altruism Hypothesis a nd Research Involving Animals...........................................33 Attitudes Towards Animals....................................................................................................35 Ecologistic Attitudes Towards Animals..........................................................................36 Humanistic Attitudes Towards Animals.........................................................................37 Aesthetic Attitudes Towards Animals.............................................................................38 Attitudes Towards Animals Based on Animal Appearance............................................40 Attitudes Towards Habitat Conservation and Birds of Prey as Teaching Tools.............41 Theory of Planned Behavior, Empathy-A ltruism Hypothesis, and Birds of Prey..................41 Behavioral Intention and Actu al Behavioral Engagement.....................................................43 Attitudes, Environmentally-responsible Behavioral Intention, and Adult Learners..............44 Adult Learning Theory.......................................................................................................... .45 Benefits of Animal Interaction for Older Adults....................................................................47 Response to Interaction with Animal s and Participant Characteristics..................................48 Rationale for Testing the Empathy-altrui sm Hypothesis with Animals in Need...................49 3 METHODS........................................................................................................................ .....52 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........52

PAGE 7

7 Population of Interest......................................................................................................... .....52 Sampling and Presentation Regime........................................................................................53 Description of Retirement Communities.........................................................................53 Presentation Logistics......................................................................................................54 Data Collection................................................................................................................ .......55 Instrumentation and Measurement.........................................................................................57 Pre-assessment.................................................................................................................57 Post-assessment...............................................................................................................59 Perceived Level of Need..........................................................................................59 Empathy...................................................................................................................60 Altruism (Concern)..................................................................................................61 Behavioral Commitment..........................................................................................61 Social Norms Regarding Behaviors.........................................................................62 Participant Satisfaction.............................................................................................63 Summary of Methods and Theory...................................................................................63 Implementation of Pilot Study................................................................................................64 Pilot Study Results............................................................................................................ ......64 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ........66 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........67 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................69 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........69 Objective One.................................................................................................................. .......69 Determine the Characteristics of Particip ants Attending the Birds of Prey Outreach Presentations................................................................................................................69 Sex and Age.................................................................................................................... .69 Permanent Residence.......................................................................................................70 Environmental/Conservation Organization Membership................................................70 Pet Ownership.................................................................................................................71 Previous Conservation-relate d Behaviors by Presentation..............................................72 Previous Conservation-re lated Behaviors by Sex...........................................................74 Summary of Objective One.............................................................................................76 Explanation of Dependent a nd Independent Variables..........................................................76 Item Analysis and Reliability by Instrument Construct.........................................................77 Factor Analysis and Construct Validity..................................................................................77 Attitudes Toward Wildlife Habitat Conservation............................................................78 Attitude Toward Birds of Prey........................................................................................78 Empathy........................................................................................................................ ...78 Perception of the Level of Need......................................................................................79 Altruistic Motivation.......................................................................................................79 Objective Two.................................................................................................................. ......80 Identify the Relationship Between Sel ected Participant Ch aracteristics and Associated Levels of Empathy, Altrui sm, and Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-res ponsible Behaviors......................................................................80 Relationship Between Independent Variab les and Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-responsible Beha viors: Injured Birds of Prey..................................80

PAGE 8

8 Summary........................................................................................................................ ..83 Relationship Between Independent Variab les and Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-responsi ble Behaviors: Non-injured Birds of Prey..........................84 Summary........................................................................................................................ ..85 Relationship Between Independent Variab les and Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Pictures of the Same Birds of Prey............86 Summary........................................................................................................................ ..87 Summary of Objective Two............................................................................................88 Objective Three................................................................................................................ ......89 Build a Regression Model to Predic t Commitment to Engage in the Environmentally-responsi ble Behaviors Advocated by the Zoo Educator..................89 Summary Statistics for Major Constructs........................................................................89 Regression Assumptions.................................................................................................90 Regression Analysis........................................................................................................91 Path Model..................................................................................................................... ..92 Follow-up Logistic Regression Analysis.........................................................................92 Summary of Objective Three..........................................................................................93 Objective Four................................................................................................................. .......93 Measure the Level of Satisfaction that Participants Have with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo Birds of Prey Outreach Presentation....................................................................93 Qualitative responses.......................................................................................................94 Summary........................................................................................................................ .........94 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................111 Introduction................................................................................................................... ........111 Objectives..................................................................................................................... ........111 Research Hypotheses............................................................................................................112 Methods........................................................................................................................ ........112 Summary of Findings...........................................................................................................115 Objective One................................................................................................................115 Participant Demographics......................................................................................115 Previous Engagement in Cons ervation-related Behaviors.....................................116 Objective Two...............................................................................................................117 Summary of Major Constructs Measured..............................................................117 Factor Analysis Findings........................................................................................118 Associations Among Variables/C onstructs by Presentation Type.........................119 Objective Three.............................................................................................................120 Objective Four...............................................................................................................121 Research Hypothesis One..............................................................................................121 Research Hypothesis Two.............................................................................................122 Research Hypothesis Three...........................................................................................122 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .......123 Discussion and Implications.................................................................................................124 Objective One: Describe the characteristics of participants of the birds of prey outreach presentations................................................................................................124

PAGE 9

9 Objective Two: Identify the relationship between selected participant characteristics and their associated leve l of empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in environmenta lly-responsible behaviors.................................................125 Objective Three: Build a regression mode l to predict commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors.....................................................................128 Objective Four: Measure the level of satis faction that participants have with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo birds of prey outreach presentation.................................132 Recommendations for Research...........................................................................................132 Recommendations for Practice.............................................................................................134 APPENDIX A LETTER TO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION................................................................135 B POSTER USED TO RECRUIT PARTICIPANTS AND ADVERTISE PRESENTATION.................................................................................................................137 C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD AP PROVAL AND INFORMED CONSENT.......138 D DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT..............................................................................141 E POWERPOINT SLIDES USED WITH comparison GROUP PRESENTATIONS............153 F ITEM ANALYSIS AND RELIABILITY BY INSTRUMENT CONSTRUCT..................158 Pre-assessment: Part One Previous Conservation-related Behaviors.........................158 Pre-assessment: Part Two Attitude To ward Wildlife Habitat Conservation..............158 Pre-assessment: Part Three Attitude Toward Birds of Prey.......................................159 Pre-assessment: Part Four Participant Demographics................................................159 Post-assessment: Part One Perception of Need..........................................................159 Post-assessment: Part Two Empathy..........................................................................160 Post-assessment: Part Three Altruism........................................................................160 Post-assessment: Part Four Commitmen t to Engage in Conservation-related Behaviors...................................................................................................................160 Post-assessment: Part Four Accep tability of Behaviors to Others.............................161 Post-assessment: Part Four Likelihood of Performing Behaviors if Others Knew....161 Post-assessment: Part Five Customer Satisfaction.....................................................161 Internal Consistency Findings.......................................................................................161 G DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TH REE WILDLIFE PRESENTATIONS.......................165 Presentation One: Exposure to All Injured Birds of Prey.............................................165 Presentation Two: Exposure to Al l Non-injured Birds of Prey.....................................168 Presentation Three (Comparison Group): E xposure to Pictures of Birds of Prey.........172 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................175 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................182

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Sex of Respondents by Pr esentation Type (N = 210)........................................................96 4-2 Respondent Age by Presentation Type (N = 206).............................................................96 4-3 Respondent Permanent Residence by Presentation Type (N = 212).................................96 4-4 Respondent Membership in Environm ental or Conservation Organizations by Presentation Type (N = 213)..............................................................................................97 4-5 Respondent Membership in Environm ental or Conservation Organizations by Location of Permanent Residence (N = 212).....................................................................97 4-6 Respondent Membership in Environmenta l or Conservation Organizations by Sex (N = 210)......................................................................................................................... ........97 4-7 Respondent Pet Ownership by Presentation Type (N = 213)............................................98 4-8 Respondent Engagement in Discussing W ildlife Habitat Conservation-related Issues with Others by Presentation Type (N = 210).....................................................................98 4-9 Respondent Engagement in Properly Disposing of Tras h that Could Harm Wildlife by Presentation Type (N = 212).........................................................................................98 4-10 Respondent Engagement in Attending P ublic Wildlife Presentations by Presentation Type (N = 211)................................................................................................................. .99 4-11 Respondent Engagement in Owning or Sponsoring a Bird House by Presentation Type (N = 211)................................................................................................................. .99 4-12 Respondent Engagement in Donating Mone y to a Wildlife Habitat Conservation or Environmental Organization(s) by Presentation Type (N = 212)......................................99 4-13 Respondent Engagement in Discussing W ildlife Habitat Conservation-related Issues with Others by Sex (N = 207)..........................................................................................100 4-14 Respondent Engagement in Properly Disposing of Tras h that Could Harm Wildlife by Sex (N = 209)..............................................................................................................100 4-15 Respondent Engagement in Attending P ublic Wildlife Presentations by Sex (N = 209)........................................................................................................................... .......100 4-16 Respondent Engagement in Owning or Sponsoring a Bird House by Sex (N = 208).....101 4-17 Respondent Engagement in Donating Mone y to a Wildlife Habitat Conservation or Environmental Organizati on(s) by Sex (N = 209)...........................................................101

PAGE 11

11 4-18 Factor Loadings for Attitude Toward Wildlife Habitat Conservation (Pre-assessment, Part Two) (N = 213).........................................................................................................101 4-19 Factor Loadings for Attitude Toward Bird s of Prey (Pre-assessment, Part Three) (N = 213)......................................................................................................................... ......102 4-20 Factor Loadings for Empathy (Post-assessment, Part Two) (N = 213)...........................102 4-21 Factor Loadings for the Level of Need Associated with the Birds of Prey in the Educational Presentations (Post-a ssessment, Part One) (N = 213).................................103 4-22 Factor Loadings for Altruism (Concern) (Post-assessment, Part Three) (N = 213)........103 4-23 Correlations Between Variables for th e Injured Presentation Only (N = 213)................104 4-24 Geometric Scoring for the Dependent Variable: Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-responsibl e Behaviors (N = 213).........................................................105 4-25 Correlations Between Variables for the Non-injured Presentation Only (N = 213)........106 4-26 Correlations Between Variables fo r the Pictures Group Only (N = 213)........................107 4-27 Summary Statistics of Summated Scale Sc ores for Major Instrument Constructs by Presentation Type (N = 213)............................................................................................108 4-28 Multiple Regression Analysis to Pr edict Commitment Score for Performing Conservation-related Behaviors (N = 213)......................................................................109 4-29 Participant Satisfaction with Zoo Educator and Pres entation by Presentation (N = 210)........................................................................................................................... .......109 F-1 Reliability Coefficients (Cronbachs alpha ) for Construct Sections of the Preand Post-assessments..............................................................................................................164 F-2 Follow-up Logistic Regression Result s on Each of the Six Environmentallyresponsible Behaviors......................................................................................................164

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Theoretical Model Linking the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Empathyaltruism Hypothesis...........................................................................................................31 3-1 Summary of Construc ts Measured in Study......................................................................68 4-1 Path Model Showing Direct Effects of Significant Independent Variables on Commitment to Engage in Envir onmentally-responsible Behaviors...............................110

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF TERMS Altruism: The generation of concern for animals with similar needs as the one(s) being used for educational purposes. Empathy: An other-oriented fee ling of concern produced by taking the perspective of an animal believed to be in need (Batson, 1991; Schultz, 2000). Environmentally-res ponsible behavior: A behavior performed in th e best interest of the environment (habitat) where educational animal s and those flora and fauna associated with those animals are found. Injured bird of prey: A bird of prey with a visible, permanent injury or bird of prey that exhibits behaviors that indicate a perm anent injury, including a dama ged eye, blindness, or missing and/or amputated appendages. Non-injured (imprinted) bird of prey: A bird of prey with no visibl e injuries and that has been born and/or raised in captivity. Perception of another in need: When a particip ant recognizes (a func tion of attention being given to the object in questio n) a negative discrepancy between the educational animals current and potential states on one or more dimensions of we ll-being. Dimensions of wellbeing could include being free from unpleasant states (physical pai n, anxiety, and stress) and experiencing pleasant states such as physical pleasure, satisfaction, and security (Batson, 1991).

PAGE 14

14 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy PREDICTING COMMITMENT TO ENGAGE IN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIORS USING INJURED AND NON-IN JURED ANIMALS AS TEACHING TOOLS By Nicholas E. Fuhrman August, 2007 Chair: Howard Ladewig Major: Agricultural Edu cation and Communication The purpose of my study was to determine if and how different types of birds of prey presentations influence the empathy, altruism, and behavioral intentions of adults living in retirement communities. My study examined the applicability of the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) in explai ning participant commitment to engage in environmentallyresponsible behaviors following exposure to one of three presentations: (a) an educational presentation involving injured bird s of prey, (b) a presentation with non-injured birds of prey, and (c) a slideshow presentation involving pictures of the same birds of prey. The same educator presented each of the scripted presentations. This quasi-experimental study involving 213 participants was the first of its kind to test the relevance of the empathy-altruism hypothesis with live injured and noninjured animals. Regression analysis revealed that regardless of the type of presentation used, individuals who discussed wildlife habitat conservation i ssues with others, experienced feelings of compassion (empathy) from a wildlife presentatio n, and believed the behaviors advocated during the presentation were acceptable to others were more likely to be committed to engaging in the behaviors to help wildlif e and their habitat. When live bird s of prey (injured or non-injured)

PAGE 15

15 were used, compassion and dist urbed empathic emotions were common. When pictures only were used, compassion feelings were common. Ba sed on this study, it takes a live animal to generate disturbed feelings in elder citizens. However, onl y specific feelings of being empathically compassionate toward the birds of prey presented contributed to commitment to engage in helping behaviors. While the type of presentation to which part icipants were exposed did not significantly influence their likelihood to commit to performing the behaviors advocated by the educator, perhaps the type of behaviors being advocated must be consid ered. Schultz (2002) advocates that generic information about conservation is not as effective at mo tivating behaviors as targeted, specific information is. Some of the behaviors bein g advocated during the presentations and being measured in this study we re non-specific conserva tion-related practices. For example, telling a friend about conservation, something the educator advocated during each presentation, could be improved by discussing specific conservation topics related to each species of raptor.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The use of live animals in interpretive presen tations, demonstrations, and contests is a significant part of the program ming efforts of zoos, the Coope rative Extension System, and environmental educators. Given the diverse audi ence base participating in such programs, the need to address environmentally related questions issues, and problems w ith local relevance is essential (Hudson, 2001). To capture the attent ion and stimulate the imagination of this heterogeneous public, Brewer (2001) called on educat ors to determine the mo st effective ways of translating the science of conservation biology to bring about public action. The use of live animals as teaching tools seems to be one way to provide this translation. The need for proactive public action regarding habitat conser vation is more important now than ever before. Florida is said to be one of the fastest growing states in the nation and U.S. Census Bureau population projections estimate th at the states populati on will increase from about 16 million residents in 2000 to nearly 29 m illion in 2030 (Clouser, 2006). This influx of people to the state will continue to impact natural resources as more land is required for roads, developments, and other necessities. Land requirements for human habitation result in wildlife habitats that are fragmented by roads and building developments. In response to increased concern over habitat conservation on the urban-rural interface in Flor ida, Main, Hostetler, and Kari m (2003) noted several essential criteria for evaluating and prioritizing areas for wildlife. Habitat connec tivity was one of their most important factors. The creation of ro ads and developments results in a patchy, noncontiguous distribution of habitat which incr eases the likelihood of negative human-wildlife interactions.

PAGE 17

17 Habitat fragmentation can be both beneficial and detrimental to some types of wildlife such as birds of prey. As predatory species birds of prey, including owls, hawks, eagles, falcons, and vultures, benefit from the vegetativ e edge created by developments and roads and can often be seen hunting in such areas. Hunti ng along roadways is advantageous to the birds as flight paths over roads are free from obstructions normally encount ered in woodlands, such as trees. Not only is access not an issue for the bird s, but the prey the raptors hunt (such as rodents) are often attracted to the roadsi de in search of food-scraps di scarded by passing motorists. In fact, Pusser (2004) cited automobile collisions as one of the leadi ng causes for raptor treatment at wildlife rehabilitation centers. Using birds of prey as teaching t ools to convey habitat conservation messages such as those related to land fragmentation co uld be an extremely relevant way to answer Brewe rs (2001) call for public action. What more appropriate message ambassador for wildlife habitat c onservation in Florida than one directly impacted by the intense population growth in the state? The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), and the Cooper ative Extension System also recognize the need for wildlife habitat conservation. Numerous science education theorists, as well as the AZA and NAAEE, advocate that educational efforts related to the environment move participants along a continuum from being aware of environmental issues to taking the necessary action to resolve them (Cronin-Jones, 2005; Henderson, 1984; Hudson, 2001; Jacobson, 1999). In fact, conservation messages developed by th e AZA include: (a) shar ing knowledge and ideas that empower people to take conservation action a nd (b) providing animal experiences that instill a sense of wonder (Conservation Education Comm ittee: Conservation Messages, 2000). When used as ambassadors of environmental and conser vation-related messages, live animals have the

PAGE 18

18 potential to enhance the likelihood for permanen t commitment to environmentally-responsible behaviors. Benefits of Using Live Anim als with Youth and Adults Both in formal (classrooms) and non-formal (zoos) educational settings, live animals have been successful at improving attitudes and knowledge about wildlife conservation and stewardship for children and adults (Davis on, McMahon, Skinner, Horton, & Parks, 1993; Swanagan, 2000; Wickless, Brooks, Abuloum, Mancuso, Heng-Moss, & Mayo, 2003; Yerke & Burns, 1991). Morgan and Gramann (1989) and Morg an (1992) used native snakes as teaching tools in a study evaluatin g the influence of various non-formal wildlife education approaches on middle school student attitudes. Student attitudes were significantly more positive toward snakes and related subject matter when both factual in formation and direct contact opportunities with snakes were provided. More recently, Hull (2003) reported significant imp rovements in attitudes toward animals and conducting research when psychology undergraduate st udents were asked to observe animal behaviors during several zoo visits. While interaction with captive, wild anim als can improve conservation attitudes and knowledge, direct interaction with domesticated animals has also received consider able attention in the literature. In a synthe sis of research on the use of animals in education, Siegel (2004) reported that animals such as dogs and cats used in formal education can significantly improve elementary and high school stude nt attitudes toward working w ith others, subject matter, and learning in general. An animal sciences wo rkshop for youth was found to create a positive learning environment, teach scien tific principles of animal scie nce, and educate youth on careers in agriculture through hands-on activities with hors es, beef cattle, pi gs, sheep, goats, and chickens (Rusk & Machtmes, 2002). Miniature horse s, cattle, llamas, goats, and rabbits used in

PAGE 19

19 a 4-H animal care program with delinquent girls provided ther apeutic value by serving as a teacher, listener, comforter, distracter, and friend (Weigel, Caiola, & Pittman-Foy, 2002). Interaction with domesticated animals has al so been found to benefit elder adults. Specifically, interaction with dom esticated animals may help cont ribute to healing physiological disorders and prolong human life. Friedman, Katc her, Lynch, and Thomas (1980) found that the companionship of a pet was a significant predicto r of ones successful recovery from a heart attack. Companionship with domesticated animal s such as dogs can also significantly reduce ones blood pressure (Friedman, Katcher, Thomas, Lynch, & Messent, 1983). For adults in acute care settings such as nursing homes and hospitals, animal visits have helped reduce depression levels (Francis, Tu rner, & Johnson, 1985) and resident animals (e.g., caged birds) have helped reduce psychiatric symptoms in elderly adult patients (Beck, Seraydarian, & Hunter, 1986). Considering pet ownership and elderly health, Siegel (1990) found that when sex, age, race, education, in come, employment status, social network involvement, and chronic health problems were controlled for, older ad ults who owned pets reported fewer physician contacts than those w ithout pets. Financially speaking, medication costs dropped from $3.80 per patient per day to $1.18 per patient per day in nursing homes that contained domesticated pet-t ype animals (Montague, 1995). More recently, Geisler (2004) reported that companion animals can improve th e quality of life for those in hospice care by providing a means for conversation, acting as a nonthreatening visitor, a nd allowing patients to serve as caregiver rather than the recipient of care. Although much research exists on the benefits that domesticated, traditionally pet anim als, bring to elder adults, would visiting this audience with captive, wild animals such as bird s of prey inspire engagement in conservation behaviors?

PAGE 20

20 Linking the Theory of Planned Behavior, Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis, and Zoos Tampas Lowry Park Zoo in central Florid a attempts to promote environmentally responsible behaviors by using live animals to convey species protection information. Like all AZA-accredited institutions, the zoo promotes w ildlife conservation action through both on-site and outreach educational programs. Zoo educator s, including those at Lowry Park, often use injured and imprinted (non-injured) animals in presentations designed to increase awareness about wildlife habitat conserva tion, negative human interactions with wildlife, and discarding trash that could be harmful to wildlife. Along with awareness, these non-formal educators use animals to promote conservation behaviors such as building habitat components (e.g., nest boxes) and donating funds to pr otect/conserve habitats. According to the theory of pl anned behavior (Ajzen, 1985), the intent to retain trash that could be harmful to wildlife, build a nest box, or donate f unds will not result solely from exposure to broad information about environm ental health or attitudes supporting habitat conservation. Rather, an individu als intent to behave in a manne r benefiting birds of prey and their habitat, such as by donating funds to c onservation organizations, is a function of an individuals: (a) attitudes about donating funds, (b) perceptions of social norms about donating money, and (c) perceived ability to donate funds. The theory of planned behavior suggests that an individuals behavioral belief s and associated attitudes toward a target behavior influence their intention to act. However, if zoo visitors identify with an in jured or imprinted bird of prey used in an educational presentation, would this be enough to motivate affective emotions and encourage environmentally-responsible behaviors? The empathy-altruism hypothe sis (Batson, 1991) is a model representing the affective component of the theory of planned behavior and offers potential in predicting participant behavior following exposure to injured or impr inted animals (Figure 1-1). According to the

PAGE 21

21 empathy-altruism hypothesis, taking the perspe ctive of a human being harmed generates empathy that evokes altruistic motivationthe motiv ation to help directed toward increasing the welfare of another rather than oneself. Based on over two decades of em pirical evidence, this other-oriented emotional response congruent with the perceived welfare of another person has been found to evoke helping behavior (Bat son, 1991; Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002; Batson, Lishner, Cook, & Sawyer, 2005; Krebs, 1975). While the empathy-altruism model has been us ed extensively to explain the behavior of individuals with regards to help ing humans in need, little resear ch exists testing the models relevance in explaining the behavior of individuals with regards to helping animals in need. However, empathy has been measured with a wide range of human s ubjects, including a young woman with AIDS, a homeless man, a convicted murderer, and a he roin addict (see Batson et al., 2005 for a review). Shelton and Rogers (1981) were among the firs t to apply the empathy-altruism model with animals in need. Participants were exposed to films showing unpleasant scenes of industrial whaling and films showing a pro-environmental acti on organization saving wh ales from whalers. The authors predicted that exposure to scenes of bodily injury inflicted on whales would strengthen intentions to help prot ect the species. Results indicated that the films in fact elicited empathy, which led to strengthened intentions to help save whales (Shelton & Rogers, 1981). More recently, Schultz (2000) asked participants to view color images of injured animals and measured associated levels of empathy and altr uism. Injured animals were those being harmed by nature (p. 398) and included a seal caught in a fishing net, an eagle on a smoky factory smokestack, an otter in an oil spi ll, a bear in a trash pile, and a bird with a plastic bag around its neck. Schultz (2000) reported that when asked to take the pers pective of an injured animal,

PAGE 22

22 individuals were significantly more empathic and altruistic than individu als who were asked to be objective. As such, if partic ipants identify with an injured raptor used in a presentation and generate empathy, Schultz (2000) suggests that this would be enough to generate biospheric concern for other similarly injured animals (a ltruism) and would lead to environmentallyresponsible helping behavior. Batson et al. (2005) examined nurturance as a possible source of empathy felt for both humans and animals. Nurturance tendencies are comm only associated with things in need of special protection (i.e., most vulne rable) and were described as i nvolving a desire to care for and protect the otherand a clear recognition of the distinctivene ss, even possible dissimilarity, of self and other (Batson et al., 2005, p. 20). The study compared levels of empathy that college students felt for four different subjects: a 20-year-old college stud ent, a 3-year-old child, a 5-year-old dog, and a 4-month-old puppy, all bei ng assisted with rehabilitation exercises following a severely broken leg. Each subject was described in an article read by participants as being, badly hurt and struggling. Given the as sumptions associated with nurturance mentioned previously, the authors predicted that nurturan ce tendencies, and thus empathic concern, would be less for the college student (a person similar to the subjects being measured and not in need of special protection) and stronger for the child, dog, and puppy. In fact, resu lts indicated that the child, dog, and puppy (dissimilar subj ects likely to evoke nurturant concern) evoked significantly more empathy than the college student (s imilar subject) (Batson et al., 2005). The findings mentioned previous ly suggest that, for example, an injured bird of prey (perceived to have greater need than an uninjured raptor) would evoke higher empathic responses due to its vulnerability and need for sp ecial protection than an uninjured raptor. In turn, empathy felt toward an injured raptor woul d be expected to produ ce altruistic motivation

PAGE 23

23 and, according to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, that motivation should lead to increased helping (depending on the behavioral options av ailable) (C.D. Batson, personal communication, April 27, 2006). Considering the environmentally-responsible beha viors most often promoted by zoos and other environmental edu cators using birds of prey in educational programs, the most likely helping behaviors might include: (a) disc ussing conservation with others, (b) motivating oneself and encouraging others to not discard food scraps along roadways (a reason for raptorvehicle collisions), (c) buildi ng or sponsoring a bird nesting box, and (d) donating funds to conservation organizations (such as raptor-rehabilitation clinics). Rationale Few authors have speculated on the applicab ility of the empathyaltruism model in explaining attitudes toward animals in need. However, zoos often use injured, non-releasable animals as teaching tools in their efforts to educat e the public. Birds of prey are often used in the outreach educational presentations of smaller zoos and environm ental education organizations (due to easier housing, handling, and transport abili ties during off-site visits when compared to larger mammals). The reason for the increased us e of birds of prey in conservation education programs is due to their involvement in au tomobile accidents. For example, of the approximately 10,000 birds treated at the Carolina Raptor Center since 1980, 37% were involved in collisions with automobiles (Pusser, 2004). In addition, all birds of pr ey species are federally protected by the United States Fi sh and Wildlife Service. However, limited research exists on the use of raptors as teaching tools in promo ting environmentally responsible behavior. Lowlevel behavior change was found by Yerke and Bu rns (1993) who reported that when injured and imprinted birds of prey were used as teaching tool s with fifth grade students, more than half of the students reported talking with their families about saving wildlife after interacting with the birds. In addition, when injure d and imprinted raptors were used in a zoo program, participants

PAGE 24

24 had significantly more positive attitudes toward conservation following the presentation (Yerke & Burns, 1991). Given evidence that birds of pr ey with different characteristics (injured, noninjured, and variability among species type) have the potential to improve attitudes and influence pro-environmental behaviors, an examination of th e effect of individual raptor characteristics on the likelihood of participant engagement in en vironmentally-responsible behaviors is needed. In the Shelton and Rogers (1981), Schultz (2000) and Batson et al. (2005) studies, no real, live, injured animals were used. Instead, par ticipants in these studi es were given written instructions to empathize with animals described as being injured and in need. Aside from these studies, no research exists examining the influe nce of live, injured or non-injured animals on empathy, altruism, and participant intent to en gage in environmentally-responsible behaviors (C.D. Batson, personal communication, April 27, 2006). Testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis with such animals could provide info rmation that would significantly enhance the ability of zoos, aquariums, and other non-form al educators to increase the likelihood that participants of their educational interventions wo uld engage in behaviors that benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat. Specific ally, if one type of animal (injured or non-injured) is more influential at encouraging participants to e ngage in behaviors that benef it wildlife over a nother, perhaps conservation messages could be adjusted to in crease the likelihood of pa rticipant engagement in pro-environmental behaviors when the option to use either an injure d or non-injured animal does not exist. Statement of the Problem While live animals are often described as havi ng the potential to influence engagement in environmentally-responsible behaviors among participants of educa tional programs, little empirical evidence can be found linking the tw o (Dierking, Burtnyk, Buchner, & Falk, 2002). Kreger and Mench (1995) cited em pirical research as being the key to designing appropriate zoo

PAGE 25

25 visitor-animal inte ractions and advocated th at more studies be conducted on whether visitors actually engage in the behaviors advocated by educators following exposure to zoo exhibits, animal shows, and animal contact areas. In her review of 15 years of research, Zimmermann (1996) cited methodological and sta tistical problems as a concer n in environmental educationrelated research and called for more rigorous e xperimental manipulations to measure knowledge and affect. Although studies involving animals as interpretive tools in zoos and aquariums have investigated public perceptions of animals, little research exists specifically investigating how visitor experiences at AZA institutions have influenced conservation behavior after their visit (Dierking et al., 2002). In a survey of research in North American zoos and aquariums, the percentage of AZA institutions conducting research had increas ed from 70% to 88% between 1986 and 1996. However, a lack of incentives to pub lish such research in peer-reviewed journals may be one reason that zoos and aquariums ar e not viewed as places of valid scientific investigation (Stoinski, Lukas, & Maple, 1998). Although research on the use of live animals as teaching tool s has been criticized for lacking rigor and not focusing on participant behavi or change, some suggest that the reality of the educational situation must be considered. In a multi-site study by D unlap and Kellert (1989), most incoming zoo visitors cited the aesthetic, emo tional, and entertainment appeal of zoos when asked about their perceptions of what zoos offe r the public. While visito rs to zoos and other free-choice learning settings come with a desire to satisfy their curi osity and seek out fun, relaxation, and intellectual stimula tion, rarely do they desire to b ecome an expert on a subject or affect more active behavior s (Falk & Dierking, 2000). With regards to specific visitor demogr aphics, Hudson (2001) noted the need for environmental educators to respond to the growin g number of older adu lts participating in

PAGE 26

26 conservation-related programs. Guion, Turner, and Wise (2004) suggested that more research be conducted to determine the most effective teachi ng methods to use with elder individuals who participate in Extension programs. Most zoo program activities that use live animals involve education staff presenting conservation-related me ssages to this typically non-captive audience for less than half-an-hour. What outcomes then can be realistically expected to result from such one-shot, limited time exposures to a zoo educator and several animals given the entertainment (and non-educational) appeal of zoos? Hargrove and Jones (2004) found that Extens ion participants believed a single exposure activity was not enough to inspir e participant involvement, le arning, and action following the activity. Hatry (1999) notes that measuring participant impact from single exposure activities can be difficult, given the potenti al influence of other, more ex tended activities on participant knowledge, attitude, and behavioral engagement. Thus, are zoo e ducators expecting too much of participants? Rossi, Lipsey, a nd Freeman (2004) suggest that su ch questions can be answered with consideration of the relationship betw een program activities and intended outcomes (program impact theory). They advocate that a programs impact theory can provide a starting point for assessing what outcomes are reasonable to expect, given the nature of a program. Others report that participation in interpretive programs has little or no effect on environmentally responsible behavior (Knapp & Poff, 2001; Leeming, Dwyer, Port er, & Cobern, 1993). Perhaps the behaviors that are being measured are not realistic to expect, gi ven the nature of the educational intervention. What is it about those programs that do result in positive behavior change that makes them so effective? An examin ation of the characteristics of the tools used to inspire environmentally-responsible behavior s in zoo education programs is needed. With such knowledge, zoo, Extension, and environmen tal educators who use injured and/or non-

PAGE 27

27 injured animals as teaching tools will be bett er able to develop in terpretive act ivities and programs with a greater likelihood of inspiri ng realistic pro-environmental behaviors. Purpose The purpose of this study was to: (a) describe key traits of elderly audiences participating in zoo outreach presentations and (b) determine if and how different types of raptor presentations influence the empathy, altruism, and behavioral in tentions of elder adults living in retirement communities. Given the prevalence of both injured and non-injured birds of prey in educational programs presented by zoos and environmenta l organizations, this research provides conservation educators with information on whether an animals physical ch aracteristics have an influence on inspiring engagement in proenvironmental behaviors among participants. Specifically, this study examined the applicabil ity of the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) in explaining participant intent to enga ge in environmentallyresponsible behaviors following exposure to one of three presentations: Presentation One: A 40-45 minute zoo presentation where four injured birds of prey were used as teaching tools/ambassadors of conservation-related messages. Presentation Two: A 40-45 minute zoo presentation where four non-injured (imprinted) birds of prey were used as teaching tools/am bassadors of the identical conservation-related messages as mentioned previously. Presentation Three (Comparison Group): A 4045 minute PowerPoint presentation where color photographs of the same injured birds of prey and the same non-injured birds of prey mentioned previously were used during the discussion of the same conservation-related messages as used in presentations one and two. All zoo outreach presentations took place at retirement communities in the Clearwater, Florida and Tampa, Florida area. The dependent variable in this st udy was the behavioral intention of participants to commit to engage in pro-envi ronmental practices advocated by the zoo educator. Specifically, these behaviors included: Telling a friend about the wildlife presentation

PAGE 28

28 Telling a friend about conservation in general Not discarding food scraps along roadways Attending another wildlife-related presentation Building or sponsoring a bird nesting box Donating money to a wildlife ha bitat conservation organization These six behaviors were listed in this order with the assumption that the amount of effort required to engage in the behaviors increased as one moved down the list. As such, Guttmantype scoring was used to code the behaviors. Higher scores indicated a greater degree of commitment to performing more effort-intense conservation behaviors an d as such, a greater commitment to wildlife conservation. Along with the physical status (injured or non-injured) of the educational animal, additional independent variables included: Conservation-related behaviors of the partic ipant three months prior to attending the presentation Participant attitudes toward wildlife habitat c onservation prior to atte nding the presentation Participant knowledge regard ing birds of prey prior to attending the presentation Participant attitudes toward birds of prey prior to attending the presentation Participant level of empathic emotional response to the presentation Participant level of altruistic motivation following the presentation Whether the participant belongs to an e nvironmental or conservation organization Whether the participant owns any pets Participant permanent residence Participant sex Participant age Study Objectives The following four objectives guided this study: 1. To determine the characteristics of participan ts of the birds of prey outreach presentation. 2. To identify the relationship between selected pa rticipant characteristics and their associated level of empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors following exposure to (a) all injured bi rds of prey, (b) all noninjured birds of prey, or (c) pictures of the same birds of prey and identical conservation messages. 3. To build a regression model to predict commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors based on a participant s characteristics prior to atte nding the wildlife presentation,

PAGE 29

29 their empathic emotional response to the pr esentation, and their al truistic motivation following the presentation. 4. To measure the level of satisfaction participants have with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo birds of prey outreach presentation. Research Hypotheses Using the aforementioned literature on the empathy-altruism hypothe sis as a guide, the following research hypotheses were developed: 1. Injured birds of prey will evoke higher leve ls of empathy, altruism, and commitment among participants to engage in e nvironmentally-responsible behavi ors than will non-injured birds of prey and color photographs of both injured and non-injured birds of prey. 2. Higher empathy levels will lead to highe r levels of altruistic motivation. 3. Higher levels of empathy and altruistic motivat ion will result in a stronger commitment to help and engage in the pro-environmenta l practices advocated by the zoo educator. Limitations While this research is specific to the pr ogrammatic and educational goals of Tampas Lowry Park Zoo, Morgan and Hodgkinson (1999) advocate the need for conducting site-specific research, despite the apparent lack of generali zability. Although retirement communities were randomly assigned to receive one of the three pr esentations (as Ary et al., 2002 recommend), one limitation of this study includes the use of a conve nience sample to attain retirement community participation. Additional limitations aside from those associated with sampling error include those associated with measurement error. A pane l of experts was used to ensure face and content validity of the survey instrument and principal co mponent factor analysis procedures were used to ensure construct validity, re liability, and test for dimensiona lity of the data (data reduction technique), thus minimizing the influence of meas urement error. Methods associated with the tailored design method (Dillman, 2000) were used to adjust for the potential for measurement error associated with instrument design and la yout. The group administration of the survey

PAGE 30

30 instrument used to measure participant emoti onal and behavioral inte ntion responses to the educational presentations controlled for issues regarding nonresponse error.

PAGE 31

31 Figure 1-1. Theoretical Model Linking the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Empathyaltruism Hypothesis Empathy A ltruism Commitment to Help Previous Experiences A ttitudes Demographic Characteristics Bird in Need Social Norms

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction In Chapter 1, the benefits of using live anim als as teaching tools were reviewed, including the potential for live animals to influence the kno wledge, attitudes, and qu ality of life of youth and adults. However, a lack of rigorously m easured empirical evidence on the ability of live animals to promote environmentally responsible be havioral action was noted as a deficiency in the zoo and environmental education research. The empathy-altruism hypothesis was introduced as a theoretical model of potential utility in understanding the relationship between the characteristics of animals used as teaching tool s and the likelihood of program participants to engage in environmentally responsible behaviors. Because of the releva nce of both injured and non-injured (imprinted) animalsparticularly bird s of preyin the educat ional efforts of zoos, environmental educators, and the Cooperative Extension Service, rati onale was provided for testing the empathy-altruism hypot hesis with animals in need. No research currently exists testing the applicability of the empathy-altruism hypothesis with live animals. Finally, Chapter 1 questioned the reality of current behavior ch ange expectations following the single exposure program activities that are common in zoo and envi ronmental education outreach settings. This chapter will introduce the empathy-altruism hypothes is in the context of zoo education research, compare the empathy-altruism hypothesis with ot her behavior change theories in zoo and environmental education, and provide rationale for testing this model with animals in need. In addition, this chapter will summar ize available literature on the relationship between participant characteristics and the likelihood of engagement in environmentally-responsible behaviors.

PAGE 33

33 Empathy-altruism Hypothesis a nd Research Involving Animals The empathy-altruism model hypothesizes that feeling empathy for a person in need evokes altruistic motivation to help that pe rson (Batson, 1991). The magnitude of empathic emotion felt for another in need is a function of the magnitude of the perceived need associated with the one in need of help a nd the strength of the perceivers attachment to the one in need. Batson (1991) describes perceived need as i nvolving recognition of a negative discrepancy between the others current and pot ential states on one or more di mensions of well-being (being free from unpleasant states and experiencing pleasa nt states) (p. 75). The ability of a person to perceive another in need is influenced by ones prior experiences in similar situations and by feelings of attachment (Batson, 1991). Perception of need is influenced by feelings of attachment toward another subject. With regards to live animals, Batson (1991) noted the ab ility of interpersonal relationships to elicit feelings of attachment, including relationships with pets. In a synthesis of research, Siegel (2004) noted the ability of pet animals to enha nce communication between students and teachers and in improving student attitudes toward lear ning. Weigel, Caiola, and Pittman-Foy (2002) found that domesticated animals such as miniatur e horses, llamas, goats, cattle, and rabbits had therapeutic value for at-risk youth. Specifically, these animal s aided in teaching youth about self-awareness, were listeners wh en youth wanted to verbalize thei r problems, and served as an unconditional, uncompromising friend (Weigel, Caiola, & Pittman-Foy, 2002). Although numerous studies have been conducte d testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis with people in need, little research exists testi ng the models relevance in explaining the behavior of individuals with regards to helping animals in need. In fact, nearly every investigation of the link between empathy and pro-soci al behavior has invol ved people helping other people (Batson et al., 2005; Shelton & Rogers, 1981). Shelton and Rogers (1981) were the first to propose an

PAGE 34

34 extension of the theory to pred icting motivation to engage in behaviors to protect endangered animal species threatened with extinction. Th eir experiments involved undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology courses (an audience often used for such studies due to convenience sampling) exposed to one of four 19-minute videotapes. One videotape contained gory scenes of whales being hunted, killed, a nd processed (high noxiousness manipulation); one contained industrial whalers engaged in the hun ting, killing, and processing whales with gory scenes omitted (low noxiousness manipulation); one showed scenes of a Greenpeace (a proenvironmental action organizati on) crew saving whales from whalers (high response efficacy manipulation); and one showed neutral scenes of the same Greenpeace crew at sea (low response efficacy manipulation). Empathy was manipulated by either instructing participants to watch a videotape about whales (low-emp athy manipulation) or by instruc ting participants to imagine how the whale feels, sympathi ze with the whales, and trade places with the whale while viewing the video (high-em pathy manipulation). Results of a post-experiment questionnaire measur ing the intentions of participants to help save whales and support Greenpeace indicated that videotapes showing gory scenes of industrial whaling and films showing Greenpeace successfu lly saving whales strengthened participant feelings of empathy and influenced intentions to help save whales (Shelton & Rogers, 1981). Given such results, these authors were among the first to suggest that appeals for empathy can elicit others to help even when the potential beneficiaries symbolize/re present the many others exposed to the same danger. Such a finding poten tially explains why educational programs that use live animals as ambassadors for the protection and conservation of similar, wild species are successful at influencing the em otions of their participants.

PAGE 35

35 Attitudes Towards Animals An explicit definition of attit ude is a minimal prerequisite to the development of valid and reliable procedures to measure such a con cept (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Thurstone (1931) views an attitude as a one dimens ional concept that refers to the amount of affect for or against a psychological object (p. 261). Al lport (1967) defines an attitude as a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, ex erting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individuals response to all object s and situations with which it is related (p. 8). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) describe an attitude as having th ree basic components: (1) it is learned, (2) it predisposes action, and (3) such actions are consistently favorab le or unfavorable toward an object. Combining the aforementi oned definitions and considering an attitude as a measure of intensity of a predisposition to act in certain ways under certain circumstances, attitudes are also evaluative. They are an eval uation of an attribute and are a function of beliefs linking the attribute to other characteris tics and evaluations of those ch aracteristics (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Thurstone (1967) argues that an attitude is a complex a ffair which cannot be wholly described by any single nume rical index (p. 77). In regards to attit udes towards animals sp ecifically, Kellert (1 980) echoes Thurstones (1967) thoughts, suggesting that attitudes prim arily describe only basic perceptions, not behaviors, and that rarely will all of ones actions be explained by one attitude. Kellert (1980) developed a typology of attitudes that Americans have towards an imals which is relevant to research on the use of animals as ambassadors of conservation messages and this study. His typology suggests that Americans have 10 major at titudes regarding wild and domestic animals. These attitude types include naturalistic, ecologis tic, humanistic, moralistic, scientistic, aesthetic, utilitarian, dominionistic, negativistic, and neutralistic. Several of these attitudes are directly applicable to research on the reactions of particip ants of programs which use injured and non-

PAGE 36

36 injured animals as tools to encourage environm entally-responsible behaviors. Specifically, the ecologistic, humanistic, and aesthet ic attitude types are most relevant to the emotional reactions and behavioral intentions of pa rticipants following exposure to raptor presentations where all injured or all non-injured birds are used as teaching tools. Ecologistic Attitudes Towards Animals Based on Kellerts work, the ecologistic attitude towards animals focuses on the interrelationships that wildlife species in particularas apposed to domestic animalshave within an ecosystem. Those with an ecologistic attitude exhibit concern for the dependencies between animals and their natural habitats. In additi on, an ecologistic attit ude towards wildlife focuses on the behaviors of large numbers of an imal species, instead of focusing on individual animals. In this way, wildlife is valued for its ability to help humans understand how broader natural systems function. Based on Kellerts 1978 national sample of over 3,000 respondents, individuals classified as zoo en thusiasts had low ecologistic s cale scores when compared to other respondents. Overall, an estimated seven-percent of the 1978 American population was strongly ecologistically-orien ted (Kellert, 1980). In the context of this study, the ecologistic atti tudes of participants at tending birds of prey presentations were measured prior to viewing th e presentations using que stions that examined participant attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation and wildlife habitat conservation programs (Appendix D). Although an individual who is strongly ecologistically oriented is concerned more for broader groups of animal sp ecies than individual animals, as Shelton and Rogers (1981) reported, an indivi dual animal can effectively repr esent general groups of animal species and influence ecologistic at titudes and behavioral intentions In this way, a single great horned owl ( Bubo virginianus ) used as a teaching tool in a presentation could serve as an

PAGE 37

37 ambassador for other great horned owls, owls in general, and the broader family of raptors through representation and influe nce ecologistic attitudes. Humanistic Attitudes Towards Animals Contrary to the broader focus on groups of animal species associated with ecologistic attitudes, the humanistic attit ude towards animals emphasizes f eelings of strong affection and attachment to individual animals such as pets (Kellert, 1980). Indi viduals who are strongly oriented toward the humanistic attitude express the same feelings and emotions toward animals that are typically expressed toward other people. Individual animals are valued most as basic sources of affection and companionship. For in dividuals with strong humanistic tendencies, animals may be viewed as human substitutes. According to Kellert (1980), considerable empathy for animal emotion and thought typical ly accompanies the humanistic perspective and, as a consequence, anthropomorphic tendencies ca n result (p. 34). In addition, the humanistic attitude toward wildlife typica lly involves strong affection fo r animals that are large and aesthetically appeali ng. Based on Kellerts 1978 national sa mple, an estimated 35% of the American population was strongly oriented toward the humanistic attitude type. Specifically, individuals who belonged to envi ronmental protection organizations and those who visited zoos scored very high on the humanis tic attitude scale. Females were the most humanistically oriented, males were the least humanistically-orien ted, and individuals over 76 years of age were the least humanistically-ori ented (Kellert, 1980). In the context of this study, although birds of prey were not portrayed as domesticated pets during zoo outreach presentations, humanistic at titudes toward birds of prey were expressed by presentation participants. Give n the link between humanistic att itudes towards animals (Kellert, 1980) and empathic emotional respons es to animals in need presented in Chapter 1 (Batson et al., 2005; Schultz, 2000; Shelton & Rogers, 1981), particip ants with more empathy for birds of prey

PAGE 38

38 would likely have stronger humanistic attitude s towards birds of prey. Given the findings previously presented and this hypothetical li nk, participants who indicated belonging to conservation organizations would be more likel y to experience stronger empathic emotions toward animals as teaching tools in general. If females are more humanistically-oriented, female participants of zoo outreach pr esentations would also be more likely to experience stronger empathic emotions towards animals than males and thus more likely to e ngage in behaviors to help animals in need. In fact, Batson (1991) repo rted that females are more likely to experience stronger empathic emotions, more likely to feel stronger altruistic tendencies, and thus be more likely to engage in helping behaviors when compared to males. If humanistic attitudes towards animals are related to empathic emotional responses to animals used as teaching tools, large, aesthetic ally appealing animals us ed as teaching tools in zoo outreach presentations will be more likely to result in stronger levels of empathy than smaller, less attractive animals. As such, one might expect a presentati on containing a large, great horned owl (aesth etically appealing) to elicit st ronger empathic responses than a presentation containing an e qually large, black vulture ( Coragyps atratus ) (potentially less appealing). In the context of the empathy-altr uism hypothesis, if the great horned owl and black vulture were both injured, the th eory suggests that the great ho rned owl would elicit stronger empathic emotions, more altruism, and thus a gr eater likelihood of helpi ng behavior than would the black vulture (Batson, 1991; Batson et al., 2005). Aesthetic Attitudes Towards Animals Given the relevance of addressi ng the visual appeal of the li ving teaching tools used by zoos, environmental educators, a nd Cooperative Extension, Kellerts aesthetic attitude type must also be considered. According to Kellert (1980 ), aesthetic attitudes to wards animals are those which emphasize the attractiveness or symbolic significance of animals. However, Kellert

PAGE 39

39 (1980) suggests that a major concern of indivi duals with strong aesth etic attitudes towards animals revolves around the appeal of the animal as emblematic of particular meanings (p. 34). As such, if symbolic characteristics of animals ar e significant in influenc ing aesthetic attitudes, perhaps the physical condition/characteristics of an animal would influence aesthetic attitudes. Following his 1978 national study, Kellert (1980) reported that an estimated 15% of the American population was strongly oriented toward s the aesthetic attitude type. Unfortunately, useful scales were not developed to quantitative ly measure the aesthetic attitudes of the general public. Considering ones aesthetic attitudes towards animals used as teaching tools may provide insight into their emotional reaction to a pres entation and perhaps thei r resulting behavioral intentions. For example, if the physical cond ition of a bird of prey permanently injured following a collision with a build ing were viewed as emblematic of habitat fragmentation for human development, participants may be more likely to feel compelled to support habitat conservation efforts. Similarly, because the bird s of prey used in outreach presentations with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo are in captivity as a resu lt of human actions (injur ed or illegally raised in captivity), participan ts may be more likely to engage in behaviors which counter those of others. According to Kaiser and Shimoda (1999), empathy toward such birds of prey may be the result of feelings of guilt for ones own and/or ot hers ecological behaviors. If people feel guilty for what they do (e.g., discarding food scraps al ong roadways) or fail to do (e.g., not picking up litter), they are likely to feel morally respons ible for the environment (Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999). If then the self-ascript ion of responsibility (asso ciated with moral resp onsibility) predicts a considerable portion of a pers ons ecological behavior (Kai ser & Shimoda, 1999; Schwartz,

PAGE 40

40 1977), participants of the raptor presentation that feel guilty after viewing an injured or imprinted bird and hearing the accompanying story would be more likely to exhibit ecological behavior. Attitudes Towards Animals Ba sed on Animal Appearance The appearance of animals used in educationa l programs influences participant attitudes and learning experiences (Ke llert & Dunlap, 1989; Knegterin g, Hendrickx, van der Windt, & Schoot-Uiterkamp, 2002; Tunnicliffe, 1995). In their assessment of non-governmental organization attitudes toward sp ecies conservation, Knegtering et al. (2002) suggested that the charismatic appearance of butte rflies influenced the level of conservation importance placed upon insects when compared to other taxa. Tunni cliffe (1995) examined the conversations of elementary school students and accompanying adu lts when viewing animal exhibits in zoos. Exhibit viewers commented often on the appearance of the animals, including their size and overall body shape (Tunnicliffe, 1995). Often thes e aesthetically appeali ng animals are referred to as charismatic megafauna (Rohlf, 1991) and their attracti veness has been found to invoke feelings of personal attachme nt and empathy (Siegel, 2004). An examination of the literature related to the appearance of educational animals was necessary because of the documented relationship between the attractiveness of an animal and feelings of attachment in t hose interacting with the animal According to Batson (1991), cognitive processes such as attractiveness can cont ribute to feelings of attachment. Attachments are typically based on personal contact and relations hips with animals such as pets can instill feelings of attachment (Batson, 1991). The level of empathic emotion one feels toward a subject in need is said to be positively related to one s feelings of attachme nt (Batson, 1991; Siegel, 2004).

PAGE 41

41 Attitudes Towards Habitat Conservation a nd Birds of Prey as Teaching Tools A limited number of studies exist on the eff ectiveness of outreach programs that use animals to convey environmental messages (Dierking et al., 2002; Swanagan, 2000). Specifically, very few studies exis t pertaining to the impact of bird of prey presentations on educational participants. Yerke and Burns (1991) examined the impact of a flying birds of prey presentation on the attitudes a nd knowledge of zoo visitors. Although there was no significant difference in the percentage of correct answers to factual questions on birds of prey before and after the show, participants had more positive attitudes toward conser vation immediately after the presentation. In addition, visi tors participating in the presen tation had more positive attitudes toward the importance of personally acting to protect wildlife. In a related study, Yerke and Burns (1993) eval uated the effectiveness of a zoo outreach program that used trained birds of prey in 30-mi nute assembly presentations at schools. Results indicated that fifth grade student s participating in the raptor pr ogram had more positive attitudes toward conservation than they had prior to particip ation. More than half of the students reported talking with their families about saving wildlife after seeing the presentation. Aside from these studies, limited knowledge exists pertaining to th e effectiveness of usi ng birds of prey as teaching tools to inspire participant engagement in environmentally-responsible behaviors. Theory of Planned Behavior, Empathy-Altr uism Hypothesis, and Birds of Prey The logic behind educational outreach programs presented by zoos such as Tampas Lowry Park Zoo can be related to the theoretical unde rpinnings of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and the empathy-al truism hypothesis (Batson, 1991). Using birds of prey as an example, often zoo educators strive to convince progr am participants that they have the ability to positively influence raptor conservation efforts at the local (e.g., not discarding food scraps along local roadways) and global (e.g., donating funds to international conservation organizations)

PAGE 42

42 levels. Zoo educators also stri ve to provide participants with the tools necessary to inspire engagement in conservation-related behaviors. When birds of prey ar e the animal ambassadors for conservation, a simple tool to inspire en gagement in conservati on practices could be providing participants with instru ctions for building owl nest boxe s. According to the empathyaltruism hypothesis, using an injured bird of prey in an educational pres entation would increase the likelihood of participant engagement in behavior s to help other birds of prey and their habitat because of the birds vulnerability and need for special protection (B atson, 1991; Batson et al., 2005). The theory suggests that empathy felt to ward an injured bird of prey would produce altruistic motivation which should increase the likelihood of engagement in helping behaviors (C.D. Batson, personal communi cation, April 27, 2006). The birds of prey outreach presentation at Tampas Lowry Park Zoo currently provides participants with information a nd reminders about the consequen ces of engaging in particular behaviors like discarding food scraps along road ways and the ease with which the action can be corrected (e.g., leaving a small pl astic bag in an automobile to collect food scraps, then properly discarding the bag). According to the theory of pl anned behavior, to genera te intention to act in favor of birds of prey and their habitat, zoo educ ators should discuss the number of visitors who have reported not discarding food scraps or who have built owl nest boxes after participating in the program. Because the theory also suggests that participant attit ude toward the target behavior influences their intention to act, if participants identify with an injured raptor used in an outreach presentation, Batson (1991), Batson et al. (2005), and Shelton and Rogers (1981) suggest that this would be e nough to generate empathy. Schu ltz (2000) suggests that this establishment of empathy would be enough to mo tivate positive environmental attitudes. The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) and Swanagan (2000) suggest that these positive

PAGE 43

43 attitudes toward a target behavi or influence ones intention to engage in behaviors to benefit birds of prey and their habitat. Behavioral Intention and Ac tual Behavioral Engagement Considering the aforementioned discussion of at titudes, Fishbein (1967) reported that the relationship between attitude and behavioral inte ntion is stable and strongly positive. Although such correlations vary consid erably depending on the type of behavioral intention options presented, the correlation between attitude and the sum of behavioral intentions tends to be high (Fishbein, 1967). Fishbein (1967) suggests that behavioral inte ntions are determinants or consequents of ones attitude. Based on the theo ries of reasoned acti on and planned behavior (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), consider ing participant intentions to engage in behaviors that benefit birds of prey should provide good estimates of participant attitudes toward birds of prey and habitat conservation. The single best predictor of an individuals actual behavior is a measure of his/her intention to perform that behavi or (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Fis hbein and Ajzen (1975) suggest that the relationship between beha vioral intention and the actual performance of that behavior should be high. In fact, if one wants to know whet her or not an individual will perform a given behavior, the simplest and probably most efficient thing that one can do is to ask that individual whether he intends to perform that behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, p. 369). The size of the relationship between a behavioral intention and an actual behavi or can depend on the specificity of the behavioral intention being considered (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In addition, although ones attitude may initially be re lated to a specific beha vioral intention, this association may or may not persist, depending on how specific and often the reinforcement associated with the behavioral inte ntion is provided (Fishbein, 1967).

PAGE 44

44 While zoo outreach presentations often expos e participants to a variety of emotionimpacting stories and living examples of the c onsequences of human ac tions on birds of prey, they also provide participants with specific knowledge regarding the conservation and habitat status of the animals used as teaching tools. As part of the knowle dge-deficit model, Schultz (2002) advocates that knowledge alone does not nece ssarily influence behavior but that a lack of knowledge can be a barrier to behavioral engage ment. Specifically, Schu ltz (2002) infers that knowledge that is specific and targeted to an audience or topic of concern can be one helpful component in promoting pro-environmental behavi or but that generic, non-content/situationspecific knowledge is not helpful. By providing lo cally relevant, species-specific information to program participants, as apposed to generic info rmation regarding birds of prey, zoo educators increase the likelihood that particip ants will engage in behaviors to help conserve birds of prey and their habitat (Schultz, 2002). Attitudes, Environmentally-responsible Be havioral Intention, and Adult Learners Hudson (2001) advocated that environmental ed ucators respond to the growing number of older adult visitors part icipating in their programs. However, no suggestions were offered as to how this might be done. With an increase in the number of older a dults participating in conservation-related programs at zoos and aquariums, this study meas ured the environmentally -oriented behavioral intentions of older adults following exposure to birds of prey used as ambassadors of conservation messages. The population for this st udy included elder adults residing in retirement communities located around the Tampa and Clearwate r, Florida areas. With a focus on the emotional reactions and behavioral intentions of senior adult participan ts following exposure to birds of prey used as teaching t ools in this study, some discussion of adult learning theory and its relation to zoo outreach educat ion techniques is necessary.

PAGE 45

45 Adult Learning Theory Adults learn differently than children and adu lt learning theory suggest s six principles that should be considered when eval uating educational act ivities with the adult learner in mind (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1998). First, th e adult learner must know the purpose for learning what they are being taught. Outreach presentations that use live animals to convey environmental messages to adults should explicit ly state why the audien ce is being asked to remember and act on the messages being conveyed. Second, adults take control of how they learn and are self-directed lear ners. When using live animals as teaching tools with adult audiences, the conservation educator must ther efore promote a learning environment where the participants informational and emotional need s are considered. For example, an injured animals specific physical condition may intrigue the adult learner to want to know more about the health of the animal and adu lt learning theory suggests that the educator cater to the concerns of the learner before moving further. Third, what is to be learned by the adult is impacted by prior learning experiences. As such, the conser vation educator who uses live animals as teaching tools must consider the learners previous expe riences and encounters with similar educational programs and even the actual animals themselves For example, experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) suggests that a previous encounter (positive or negative) with the same kind of animal used in an educational presentation co uld significantly influen ce the learning experience for the participant. In situations where the pr evious encounter was a negative one (e.g., with a stereotypical animal such as a snake), the abil ity of the zoo educator to effectively relate environmental/conservation messages to the an imal being presented would be hindered. Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998) suggest three other principles of adult learning theory that could potentially influence the abili ty of the zoo educator to effectively convey conservation-related messages to the adult learner and thus promote engagement in behaviors to

PAGE 46

46 benefit birds of prey and their habitat. The f ourth principle relates to the previous example concerning prior encounters with educational animals and involves the fact that adult learners need to be ready to learn. The use of educa tional animals with commonly associated negative stereotypes may prevent the adult participating in an educational activity from being ready to learn. Because of this, injured and non-injured bi rds of prey were the only kind of animals used as teaching tools with adults in this study. The fifth and sixth principles re late directly to the educati onal techniques and philosophies typically associated with non-fo rmal environmental educators, zoo educators, and Extension professionals. The fifth principle states that adults learn best when information is presented in a real-life setting (the problem-so lving approach to instruction) and the sixth principle suggests that for adults to be motivated to learn, th e new knowledge presented must help them solve problems they perceive are important. This imp lies that the information presented and perhaps the educational animals used to help convey conservation-related messages must be relevant to the life of the adult learner. Kreger and Me nch (1995) made several recommendations regarding the use of common, native species in educational programs. When conveying messages related to the protection of a rare species, they s uggest using a related common species because participants are more likely to care about and express fewer nega tive stereotypes toward a locally relevant animal (Kreger & Mench, 1995). Gi ppoliti and Amori (1998) argue that a greater emphasis on more common species in educational programs would allow participants to receive a broader view of the animal world (not being dominated by large, exotic animals as currently emphasized in zoos) and biodiversity. The majority of the birds of prey used as teaching tools in this study were native to Florid a and/or the United States. Details concerning the specific species of birds used in the outreach pr esentations are presented in Chapter 3.

PAGE 47

47 With regards to the learning of older adul ts specifically, Merriam, Caffarella, and Baumgartner (2007) suggest that educators should provide older a dults with advice on useful resources to consult after the e ducational experience has ended. In an attempt to increase the likelihood of engagement in behaviors advocated by the zoo educator to help birds of prey and their habitat, the zoo educator in this study provided all particip ants with written information on how to build an owl nesting box as a way to enha nce habitat for birds of prey. Because program participants were reminded that they have the capacity to improve conditions for raptors and other wildlife and were provided with the to ols to do so, Banduras (1977, 1994) self-efficacy theory would predict that partic ipants who believe they have the capacity to improve wildlife conditions will be more likely to act in this way. Benefits of Animal Interaction for Older Adults A significant body of research exis ts on the benefits of animal interaction for older adults. For elder citizens, interaction with domesticat ed animals can aid in the recovery process following a heart attack (Friedma n et al., 1980), reduce blood pr essure (Friedman et al., 1983), lower depression levels for those in nursing homes (Francis et al., 1985), reduce medical care costs (Montague, 1995), and improve overall quality of life (Geisler, 2004). However, little research exists on the impact of wildlife interactions with older adults. Shore (2002) as cited in Vining (2003) notes that caring fo r an individual domesticated animal does not translate into proper caring for a wild species. Myers and Saun ders (as cited in Kahn & Kellert, 2002) suggest that caring about an individual an imal may lead to caring about that animals needs, well-being, and ultimately broader environmental caring. Vi ning (2003) advocates that more research be conducted to determine whether there is a link be tween caring for individual animals, caring for populations, and caring for entire ecosystems.

PAGE 48

48 There is a lack of research on the connec tion between human-animal relationships and ones interest in environmental protection (V ining, 2003). Vining (2003) suggests that if a relationship does exist between empathy for individua l animals, their species, and their habitat, an understanding of this may be crucial to en couraging resource conservation and environmental protection. Given the current lack of informati on regarding the impact of zoo outreach education efforts on participant intentions to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors to benefit animals and their habitat (Dierking et al., 2002; Swanagan, 2000), the link between empathy generated for animals and intent to engage in pro-environmental behaviors must be explored. With evidence that a positive link already exists be tween older adults and animal interaction, this study examined the emotional responses and behavi oral intentions of elder adults living in retirement communities. Response to Interaction with Anim als and Participant Characteristics Knowledge of the relationship between sex a nd emotional response to animals is lacking and somewhat unclear. In fact, Vining (2003) notes that little attention has been given to the concept that men and women may r eact to animals in different wa ys. Considering feelings of empathy, Batson (1991) suggests that females are more likely to respond empathically to animals in need and exhibit helping be haviors than are males, althoug h most research on empathic response has examined only female participants. Kellert (1980) reported that females are more likely to exhibit emotional attachment to animals. With regards to injured animals, males and individuals over 76 years of age we re least emotionally impacted by knowledge of the welfare of animals (Kellert, 1980). However, Shelton and Rogers (1981) found no effect of sex on participant emotions and empathic response to inju red whales. Other studies that have examined empathic response to descriptions of injured animals (e.g., Batson et al., 2005) sampled females only. Taylor (2002) found that women responded to stressful situations by tending or comforting

PAGE 49

49 others whereas men isolated themselves from ot hers. Gilligan and Attanucci (1994) reported a similar finding in that women tended to have a morality of caring and men had a morality of justice. If witnessing an injured bird of prey is classified as a stre ssful situation, perhaps females will be more likely to generate empathy and intend to engage in behaviors beneficial to birds of prey and their hab itat than will males. Rationale for Testing the Empathy-altrui sm Hypothesis with Animals in Need According to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, feeling empathy for a person in need evokes altruistic motivation to help that pe rson (Batson, 1991). Here, the more empathic emotion one feels for a subject in need, the more altruistic motivation to have that need reduced will result. However, according to the empat hy-altruism hypothesis, feeling empathy for a subject in need is said to evoke motivation to help where any be nefits to oneself are unintended consequences and not the ultimate goal of helping. In fact, all motivation to help that is evoked by empathy is altruisticdone to increase the welfare of the one in need (Batson, 1991). Although previous research suggested that the degree of empathy felt fo r a subject in need was positively related to the degree of similarity one had with that subject, more recent research suggests otherwise. In fact, Ba tson et al. (2005) reported that th e less similar a subject in need (an injured dog and puppy) is to the one with the ability to help, the more likely it is that the individual with the ability to help will feel empathy and help. Others such as Schultz (2000) have asked participants to view color images of injured animal s and then measured associated levels of empathy and altruism. When asked to take the perspective of an injured animal, individuals were significantly more empathic and altruistic than individu als who were asked to be objective (Schultz, 2000). As suc h, if participants identify with an injured bird of prey used in a zoo outreach presentation and generate empa thy, Schultz (2000) and Batson et al. (2005) suggest that this would be e nough to generate biospheric concer n for other similarly injured

PAGE 50

50 raptors (altruism) and would lead to an intent to engage in beha viors that would help birds of prey and their habitat. However, in both th e Schultz (2000) and Batson et al. (2005) studies, no real, live, injured animals were used. Aside from these two studies and an earlier study involving industrial whaling (She lton & Rogers, 1981), no other res earch exists examining the influence of injured animals on empathy, altruism and engagement in helping behaviors (C.D. Batson, personal communication, April 27, 2006). In fact, no research exists examining the influence of live animals on empathy, altruism, and inten tions to help. Given the limited amount of research available concerning this phenomenon, further verificati on of the applicability of the empathy-altruism model with live animals in need is warranted. Some might question the parsimoniousness of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Batson himself notes the rather simplistic nature of this model: As presented [in the model], empathy evokes no motivation to help directed toward the egoistic goals of gaining rewards, avoiding puni shments, or reducing av ersive arousal. It is easy to imagine a weaker form of the em pathy-altruism hypothesis, in which empathic emotion evokes both egoistic and altr uistic motivation (Batson, 1991, p. 87). He provides strategic just ification for ignoring egoistic expl anations, noting that if empirical evidence supports the more parsimonious form of the model, t hen we have no need for the more complicated procedures and more sensitive measures required to test the weak form [that involving egoistic explanati ons] (Batson, 1991, p. 88). However, he does offer a brief disclaimer regarding egoistic motives: To claim that empathic emotion evokes al truistic motivation and only altruistic motivation, as the strong form [that without eg oistic explanations] of the empathy-altruism hypothesis does, is not to claim that the empath ically aroused individu al is experiencing only altruistic motivation. He or she may al so be experiencing egoistic motives arising from sources other than empathy. These egoi stic motives and the altruistic motive are assumed to be distinct, but to the extent that the goals of these motives are compatible, their magnitudes should sum (Batson, 1991, p. 88).

PAGE 51

51 Given the implications suggested by Batson (1991) of empirically testin g the empathy-altruism hypothesis without consideration of egoistic motiv es of engagement in helping behavior, this study tested the model that ignores egoist ic explanations of helping behavior.

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Introduction Chapters 1 and 2 highlighted some of the me thodological limitations cited in evaluative studies of zoo and environm ental education programs that use live animals to convey conservation-related messages. From a methodol ogical standpoint, one of the overarching goals of this study was to improve the rigor with which measurements of participant affect and behavioral intention are conducte d, analyzed, and reported in the literature. In addition, the practical significance of research results has been highlighted through the reporting of variance explained terms (R-squared). An emphasis on the practical significance of research results helps ensure that the findings of this study are usable to interested stakeholders (e.g., Tampas Lowry Park Zoo education staff). In this chapter, issues regarding the population of interest, sampling and types of presentations administered, measurem ent (validity, reliability, and sensitivity), and data analysis methods are discussed. Population of Interest The literature has previously cited the im portance of examining the currently older population of individuals part icipating in zoo and envir onmental education outreach presentations (Hudson, 2001). In response, this study examined the emotional and behavioralintention responses of older adul ts participating in outreach pr esentations conducted by Tampas Lowry Park Zoo. Specifically, the population of in terest for this study in cluded elder individuals residing in retirement communities around the Tampa, Florida area. Because the purpose of this study was to determine if and how different bird of prey presentations influence the behavioral intentions of this population, sampling had to en sure that participants had the ability and opportunity to engage in the behaviors advocated by the zoo educator. The retirement

PAGE 53

53 communities in the convenience sample were co mprised of older adults who were physically able to leave the community grounds as neede d. Senior centers and nursing homes were not selected for sampling because these facilities traditionally house adults with limited physical abilities who may not be able to participate in the environm entally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator. Sampling and Presentation Regime A quasi-experimental research design was used (Ary et al., 2002). A convenience sample of retirement communities located around the Tampa/ Clearwater, Florida area was obtained. An on-line database of retirement communities in this area was consulted and used to select retirement communities to participate in the stud y. A total of 53 retirement communities were contacted and seven communities agr eed to participate in the study. Description of Retirement Communities The seven retirement communities that participated in this study were located within 40 miles of Tampas Lowry Park Zoo. Five of the communities were located in Clearwater, Florida and two were located in Tampa, Florida. The communities located in the Clearwater area included Glen Ellen Mobile Home Park, Sunny Grove Mobile Home Park, Embassy Mobile Home Park, Shady Lane Oaks Retirement Village and Island in the Sun Clearwater Retirement Community. Each of these communities contained between 50 and 150 homes. The majority of residents in these communities lived there be tween November and May each year. The two communities located in the Tampa area included John Knox Village Retirement Community and Regency Cove Mobile Home Park. Most of th e residents of John Knox Village resided there throughout the year and lived in apartment-styl e homes. Regency Cove Mobile Home Park contained approximately 180 homes and the majo rity of residents lived in the community between November and May each year.

PAGE 54

54 Once a community was selected, the researcher called the President of the Homeowners Association for that community, explained th e purpose of the study, and asked for voluntary participation. Often the President would be re quired to present the idea to the Homeowners Association Board for voting prior to agreeing to participate. To facilitate this process, the researcher would send the Homeowners Associati on President a letter (Appendix A) by fax or postal mail explaining the purpose of the study and briefly summarizing the methods to be implemented. Once a retirement community agreed to par ticipate, members of the community were recruited to attend the educational presentation using two techniques. First, the retirement community newsletter was used as a venue to alert community members of the upcoming presentation and visit from the zoo. Second, the researcher emailed the President of the Homeowners Association a colo r poster (Appendix B) which c ould be posted throughout the community to advertise the presen tation and recruit participants. The size of each retirement community that agre ed to participate varied from 30 homes to over 200 homes. An estimated 30,000 adults age 55 and over resided in the Tampa/Clearwater, Florida area between November and April in 2005 (Tampa Tourism Bureau, personal communication, May 30, 2007). As such, using a confidence interval of +/6, according to Cochrans (1977) sample size formula, a sample size of 264 people was needed. Presentation Logistics Each retirement community that agreed to participate in the study was randomly assigned to receive one of three indoor educational pres entations. Of the seven communities sampled, two communities participated in the pilot study a nd received the all inju red birds of prey presentation. Five communities pa rticipated in the data collecti on as part of the main study. Two communities received the non-injured birds of prey presentation, two communities received

PAGE 55

55 the slideshow presentation, and one community received the all inju red birds of prey presentation. Most presentations occurred in the club house of each retirement community. Each presentation was conducted by the same zoo educator. This indivi dual holds a degree in Environmental Interpretation from a major land-grant universit y, has more than 10 years of experience using birds of prey as teaching tools in zoo-related educational presentations, and has been featured on local and national televisi on programs promoting zoo education. Each presentation was between 40 and 50 minutes in length and was scripted, conveying the same conservation-related messages to each audience. To ensure minimal educator variability between presentations and to document/account for the behavior of the live injured and noninjured birds of prey, all presentations were videotaped. For communities receiving the slideshow presentation, once all instruments were re turned to the research er and data collection was over, the researcher and the zoo educator to gether presented a live Eurasian eagle owl and free-flew the owl over the audience in appreciation for their attend ance. The specific content of each of the three presentations is deta iled in Appendix G. Data Collection Data collection involved the gr oup administration of a self-adm inistered questionnaire. As such, procedures outlined by Dillman (2000) were followed to reduce the potential for measurement error. Prior to the start of each presentation, the research er explained the purpose of the study and the fact that participation was completely voluntary. As Dillman (2000) suggests, a nearly identical introduction was pr ovided at each community presentation and the facilitator expressed his appreci ation for each individuals attendance and for taking the time to participate in the study. The researcher then explained the informed consent process of the University-approved study and provided each par ticipant with two copi es of the informed consent document, one for their records and one to be returned to the researcher once signed

PAGE 56

56 (Appendix C). The data collecti on instrument, printed in 8.5 x 11.0 booklet format, was then distributed (Appendix D). Participants were informed of the steps to completing the questionnaire and asked to complete only the pr e-assessment portion of th e questionnaire (parts one through four). Although Dillman (2000) suggests that the fa cilitator remind participants that the questionnaire is not a test with right and wrong answers, the researcher found that the participants in this study s eemed to respond well to humorous remarks to keep their eyes on their own paper and to not chea t. These comments seemed to al low participants to feel like they were back in school, and perhaps helped en sure that they take completing the questionnaire seriously. The use of visual cues such as the st op sign graphic and arrows to indicate where to write a response were also used to help reduce the potential for measurement error (Dillman, 2000; Israel, 2005). Once all participants completed the pre-asse ssment, the researcher introduced the zoo educator and participants watched the birds of prey presentation. Immediately following the presentation, the researcher asked participants to turn the page in their booklets and complete the post-assessment portion of the que stionnaire. As participants completed the post-assessment and returned them, they received a small gift for their efforts. Participants who handed in a completed questionnaire received a University of Florida pen. To ensure that all parts of each questionnaire were completed, the researcher again used humor and a back in school analogy with participants. Before awar ding a pen to each participant, the researcher quickly flipped through that participants booklet an d said, let me make sure you got all of the answers correct. While participants found this hum orous, this technique allowed the researcher to quickly glance over the instrument to ensure that all parts were completed. If a section of the instrument was

PAGE 57

57 left blank, the researcher brought th is to the participants attention. In nearly all instances, the participant apologized and comp leted the appropriate section( s). Data collection began on March 15, 2007 and ended on April 23, 2007. Instrumentation and Measurement A panel of eight experts comprised of univers ity faculty and graduate students from the Department of Agricultural Education and Co mmunication and the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida and zoo education specialists from Tampas Lowry Park Zoo, evaluated the instrument for face and conten t validity. Construct validity and internal consistency were measured using principal comp onents factor analysis (Crocker & Algina, 1986) with a Promax oblique rotation to aid interp retation when needed. Although Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1995) suggest that an orthogonal ro tation should be app lied if the subscale scores are to be used in regression, given the high ly associated nature of the items within each of the instrument constructs (e.g., the 17 items used to measure empathy), an oblique rotation was more appropriate from a confirmatory sense (D. Miller, Professor of Educational Psychology, personal communication, June 1, 2007). Factor scores were used in a regression analysis to meet objectives two and three of this study. Reli ability within each of th e constructs (internal consistency) was measured using Cronbachs alpha during the pilo t phase of the study. The preand post-assessment instruments were distributed to participants as one 8.5 x 11 booklet (Appendix D). As Dillman (2000) and Israel (2005) suggest, steps were taken to enhance the face validity of the instrument, incl uding the placement of a clear title, graphic representing the topic of the que stionnaire, and logos from the study sponsors on the front cover. Pre-assessment The pre-assessment portion of the instrume nt (Appendix D) was used to determine respondents prior conservation-rela ted behaviors, entrylevel attitudes toward wildlife habitat

PAGE 58

58 conservation, entry-level att itudes toward birds of prey specifically, and demographic characteristics. Part one of the pre-asse ssment included five items measuring respondent conservation-related behaviors th ree months prior to attending the educat ional presentation. Response options for each item included yes (code d as 1), no (coded as 0) and did not have the opportunity to (coded as 2). Part two of the pre-assessment included six items measuring respondent attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation. Response options fo r each item ranged from not at all important (coded as 1) to very important (coded as 5) with a no opinion option (coded as 6). The continuous scale of these response options followed Dillmans (2000) conventions for wording in differentiating between options along a 6-poi nt continuum. No opinion responses were omitted from scoring. Summated scale scores we re created to summarize participant attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation with highe r scores implying a more positive attitude. No opinion responses were examined separately using frequencies. Part three of the pre-assessment included five items measuring respondent attitudes regarding birds of prey specifically. Respons e options for each item ranged from strongly disagree (coded as 1) to strongly agree (code d as 5) and included a middle neutral option (coded as 3). Summated scale sc ores were created here to ex amine overall level of agreement with positive statements concerni ng birds of prey. Higher scores implied greater agreement. Part four of the pre-assessment included five items intended to assess respondent demographic information. Individuals were asked to indicate whether they currently belonged to an environmental or conservation organization (yes or no, y es coded as 1 and no coded as 0) and if yes, which one(s). They were as ked to indicate whether they currently owned any pets (yes or no, yes coded as 1 and no coded as 0) and if yes, what kind. For both of

PAGE 59

59 these items, the suggestions proposed by Dillman (2000) and Israel (2005) were implemented, including the use of visual cues such as arrows and open boxes for respondents to write in. Respondents were also asked about their location of permanent re sidence (city and state), their sex (coded as 1 = male, 2 = female), and the year they were born. Israel (2005) suggests that four connected, open boxes be used to reduce th e likelihood of measurement error in asking for respondent age and the pre-assessment implemente d this technique. Th e same pre-assessment instrument was given to a ll three presentation groups. Post-assessment The post-assessment portion of the instrume nt (Appendix D) was used to measure participants perceptions of need associated with the birds of pr ey in the presentation and test each of the components of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Specifically, the post-assessment measured empathic emotional re sponse to the presentation, altrui stic motivation following the presentation, and the environmentally-responsible behavioral intentions of participants. In addition, to meet objective four of the study, pa rt five of the post-assessment examined the satisfaction of participants of each of the presentations. Perceived Level of Need Part one of the post-assessment measured the le vel of need associated with the birds of prey presented in each presentation. Batson (1991) suggests that perception of need be measured prior to measuring empathy, then developed as an index, and used as a covariate in a regression model. Perception of need was measured by as king respondents to indicate how in need the birds of prey were of specific actions, including aid, protection, veterinary care, affection, time away from people, and companionship. Birds that were perceived to be in need of aid were assumed to be worthy of physical, non-medical re lated attention from humans (such as a zoo official). Birds perceived to be in need of protection were assumed to be worthy of human-

PAGE 60

60 related efforts to keep the animal from bei ng negatively impacted by other humans or their actions (including habitat loss). Birds perceived to be in need of veter inary care were assumed to be worthy of medical related attention from a veterinarian. Birds percei ved to be in need of affection were assumed to be worthy of emoti onal attention from humans. Birds perceived to be in need of time away from people were as sumed to be exhibiting be haviors of distress in front of humans and worthy of alone time. Finally, birds perceived to be in need of companionship were assumed to be worthy of time with other birds of prey. As a concept, perceived level of need was defined using Batsons (1991) definition which has since been applied to descriptions of both humans and animals in need. This definition assumes that the particip ant recognizes (a function of attent ion being given to the subject in question) a negative discrepancy between the subj ects current and potentia l states on one or more dimensions of well-being. Dimensions of well-being could include being free from unpleasant states (physical pain, anxiety, and stress) and experien cing pleasant states such as physical pleasure, satisfaction, and security (Batson, 1991). Perceived level of need was measured according to the procedures previously used to test the empathy-altruism hypothesis following exposur e to descriptions of subjects (humans and animals) in need. Respondents indicated their response along a continuum of need as Batson (1991) suggests, from not at all needed (coded as 1) to very needed (coded as 5), with a no opinion response option (coded as 6). Again, Dillmans (2000) conventions for wording for continuous 6-point respons e options were followed. Empathy Part two of the post-assessment measured empathic emotional response to each presentation. To measure empathy, conventions suggested by Batson (1991) and Batson et al., 2005 were followed. This included using the 17 ad jectives employed in previous studies to

PAGE 61

61 measure empathy and the response scale sugges ted by Batson (1991). Respondents indicated their level of empathy felt while viewing the bird s of prey along a 7-point continuum from not at all (coded as 1) to extremely (coded as 7) with a moderately middle response option (coded as 4). Summated scale sc ores were created to summarize overall participant levels of empathy following each presentation. Higher scor es implied stronger feelings of empathy. Altruism (Concern) Part three of the post-assessment measured the altruistic motiva tion of respondents and utilized the suggestions of Batson (1991) for a ssessing altruism. Specifically, feelings of concern toward the birds of prey viewed during th e presentation, other birds of prey in the wild, and wildlife habitat were examined using seven items. Each item asked respondents to indicate their level of concern along a 6point continuum from not at a ll concerned (coded as 1) to very concerned (coded as 5) with a no opi nion response option (coded as 6). Dillmans (2000) suggestions for response option wording al ong a 6-point continuum were again applied. Summated scale scores were crea ted with higher scores signifying stronger feelings of altruism. Behavioral Commitment Part four of the post-assessment measured the environmentally-responsible behavioral intentions of respondents. Three main questions were asked, each with six sub-items to consider associated with each main question. The firs t question in this section asked respondents to indicate whether or not they were committed to performing six different environmentallyresponsible behaviors now and in the future. These six behaviors were the same actions advocated by the zoo educator during the all injured, all non-injured, and slideshow group presentations. These behaviors included (a) te lling a friend about the presentation, (b) telling a friend about conservation, (c) not discarding food scraps along roadways, (d) attending another wildlife-related presen tation, (e) building or sponsoring a bird nesting box, and (f) donating

PAGE 62

62 money to a wildlife habitat conservation organi zation. Respondents indicated whether or not they were committed to performing each action by responding yes or no. Responses were geometrically scored and coded so that it woul d be obvious which of the six behaviors (if any) respondents indicated being committe d to performing. For example, a response of yes to the first item was coded 1, a response of yes to the second item was coded 2, a response of yes to the third item was coded 4, and so on, with each response of yes doubling the score given for a previous yes. Summated scale scores were again created and higher scores indicated greater commitment to engage in the behaviors advocated during the pres entation. This item served as the dependent variable in the study. Social Norms Regarding Behaviors The second question in part four of the postassessment measured the acceptability of the same six behaviors to others. This item addresse d the influence of social norms that the theory of planned behavior (Ajze n, 1985) suggests can determine likelihood of action. The six behaviors were listed in the same order and re spondents were asked to indicate their level of acceptability along a 6-point continuum from not at all acceptable (cod ed as 1) to very acceptable (coded as 5) with a no opinion re sponse option (coded as 6). Dillmans (2000) suggestions for response option wording along a 6point continuum were u tilized. Excluding the no opinion response option, a summated scale sc ore was created for this item. Respondents were given an acceptability to others score for the six behaviors collectively. Higher summated scale scores signified greater acceptability of the behaviors. Finally, the third question in pa rt four of the post-assessment measured the likelihood that respondents would perform those same six behavior s if others around them were aware that they engaged in such activities. The six behavior s were again listed in the same order and respondents were asked to indica te the likelihood that they woul d perform the behaviors along a

PAGE 63

63 6-point continuum from not at all likely (coded as 1) to very likely (coded as 5) with a no opinion response option (coded as 6). Dillm ans (2000) suggestions for response option wording along a 6-point continuum were again utilized. Excluding the no opinion response option, a summated scale score was created for this item. Each respondent was given a likelihood to perform score for the six behavi ors collectively. Higher summated scale scores signified a greater likelihood to perform the behaviors collectively. Participant Satisfaction Part five of the post-assessment measured re spondents level of satis faction with the zoo educators performance and the overall educational pres entation, meeting objective four of this study. Three items were included in this section. The first item asked respondents to rate the zoo educators level of excitement for wildlife conservation along a continuum from very low (coded as 1) to very high (coded as 5) with a no opinion response option (coded as 6). A second item asked respondents to indicate how well the presentati on held their attention with response options ranging from strongly disagree (coded as 1) to strong ly agree (coded as 5) with a no opinion option (coded as 6). For th is item, respondents were given the opportunity to explain their answer in writing. Finally, the third item asked respondents to indicate whether there was anything else they would have liked to have seen as part of the presentation. Qualitative responses to this item were su mmarized and provided to the zoo educator. Summary of Methods and Theory The empathy-altruism hypothesis was tested by assigning each retirement community to either a presentation involving all injured birds of prey, a presentation in volving all non-injured birds of prey, or a presentation involving pictures of birds of pr ey. Figure 3-1 summarizes the theoretical underpinning s of the empathy-altruism hypothesis and theory of planned behavior and illustrates the presentation regime of the study.

PAGE 64

64 Implementation of Pilot Study A pilot study was implemented with two retireme nt communities prior to the official data collection period to determine initial estimates of instrument validity, reliability, and sensitivity. Two presentations with all injured birds of prey were selected for th e pilot study as the all injured presentations were expected to e licit the strongest emo tional responses among participants. Data from the two all injure d presentations were entered into SPSS Version 14.0 for Windows. Internal consistency of each of the parts of the preand post-assessment was examined using Cronbachs alpha and item discri mination procedures (corrected item-total correlation) were used to assess the sensitivit y of items. Items with a corrected item-total correlation less than 0.20 were revised or deleted so long as Cronbachs al pha would increase if that item was deleted. Adjustments to instrumentation items were ma de prior to the data collection period using the results of the pilot study. In addition, the p ilot study allowed the rese archer to examine the consistency with which the zoo educator deliver ed educational messages to the two presentation groups through the use of videotaping. Because th e same educator facilitated all presentations, any variability in delivery styles noted from the video recordings was addressed with the educator and adjustments were made prior to data collection. The researcher visually examined the video recordings for unusual bird behaviors and took detailed notes of the zoo educators messages. Pilot Study Results A total of 33 people participated in the two all injured birds of prey presentations. Internal consistency and item discrimination were examined within each of the parts of the preand postassessments using the responses from these individua ls. The internal consistency of part one of the pre-assessment was 0.53. Item discrimination st atistics revealed that one item related to

PAGE 65

65 littering had a corrected item-tot al correlation of .020 and this item was deleted. The internal consistency of part two of the pre-assessment wa s 0.84. Item discrimination statistics revealed that all six items in this section had corrected item-total correlations ranging from 0.42 to 0.71, therefore no items were deleted. The internal cons istency of part three of the pre-assessment was 0.81. Item discrimination statistics showed that a ll five items in this se ction had corrected itemtotal correlations ranging from 0.42 to 0.81, th erefore no items were deleted. Internal consistency and item discrimination statistics were not calculated for part four (participant demographics) of the pre-assessment. The internal consistency of part one of the post-assessment (perceived need of birds) was 0.94. Item discrimination statistics showed that a ll six items in this sect ion had corrected itemtotal correlations between 0.76 and 0.91, theref ore no items were deleted. The internal consistency of part two of the post-assessment (empathy) was 0.92. Item discrimination results indicated that these 17 items had corrected item-total correlations ranging from 0.41 to 0.80, therefore no items were deleted. The internal co nsistency of part three of the post-assessment (altruism) was 0.73. Item discrimination statistics revealed that these seven items had corrected item-total correlations ranging from 0.20 to 0.55 and no items were deleted. The internal consistency and item discriminati on statistics were checked for each of the three main questions in part four of the post-assessment (behaviora l intentions), with each main question having six sub-items concerning specific conservation-related behaviors advocated by the zoo educator. Question 31 of the postassessment (commitment to perform six environmentally-responsible behaviors), to be used as the dependent variable in the study, had an internal consistency of 0.83. Item discrimination statistics indicated that the six components of this item had corrected item-total correlati ons between 0.40 and 0.71, therefore no adjustments

PAGE 66

66 were made. Question 32 of the post-assessment (accep tability of the six be haviors to others) had an internal consistency of 0.90. Item discri mination statistics ranged from 0.28 to 0.87 and no items were deleted. Finally, question 33 of the post-assessment (likelihoo d to perform the six behaviors if others were awar e) had an internal consistenc y of 0.93. Item discrimination statistics were between 0.58 and 0.84, therefore no items were deleted. Because only three customer satisfaction related questions comprise d part five of the post-assessment, internal consistency and item discrimination we re not checked. Data Analysis SPSS Version 14.0 for Windows was used to anal yze the data. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, standard deviati ons, and cross-tabulations were calculated to summarize the characteristics of the participants of the birds of prey out reach presentations and meet objective one of this study. To meet object ives two and three, a correlation matrix was developed prior to implementing multiple regres sion analysis to investigate the potential for collinearity among the independent variables and to verify a ssociation between independent variables and the dependent vari able (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). According to Davis (1971), independent variables and the dependent variable should be moderately to highly correlated, but moderate to high correlations among independent variables indicate multicollinearity. If certain independent variables were not moderately to highly correlated with the dependent variable, these variables were not included in the regression model. Prio r to building regr ession models, additional assumptions associated with multiple regression were tested and verified, following the procedures suggested by Osborne and Wa ters (2002). The normality assumption was verified by visually inspecting data plots for skew, kurtosis, and the presence of outliers. The homoscedasticity (homogeneity in variances) assu mption was verified using Levenes test.

PAGE 67

67 Principal component factor analysis (Crock er & Algina, 1986) w ith a Promax oblique rotation to aid interpretation was used as a data reduction technique prior to regression analysis. Factor scores for each of the multi-item constructs were then used as variables/coefficients in multiple regression equations. Finally, to meet objective four, descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and standard deviations, were used to summarize the level of satisfaction that participants had with the zoo educator a nd educational presentation for each of the three presentations. Summary This chapter described the sampling and statisti cal methods used to meet the objectives of this study. The all injured birds of prey, al l non-injured birds of prey, and slideshow group presentations were described in detail. Develo pment of the instrumentation used in this study was discussed, including question items and re sponse scales utilized to measure empathy, altruism, and the behavioral inte ntion of participants following th e three presentations. The preassessment and post-assessment portions of the ques tionnaire were described in detail and group administration techniques were revealed to e xplain how the questionnaire was implemented. Methods used to implement the pilot study were di scussed and the results of the pilot study were presented to justify revisions to the instrument ation. Finally, data anal ysis procedures were described, including the use of factor analysis in measuring emotional responses and multiple regression techniques to predict likelihood of engagement in the environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educ ator following each presentation.

PAGE 68

68 Figure 3-1. Summary of Cons tructs Measured in Study. Note. Items in parentheses represent components of the data collection instrument (Appendix D) measuring that construct Pre-assessment Presentations Post-assessment Presentation 1: All injured birds in live presentation Presentation 2: All non-injured birds in live presentation Presentation 3: Slide show w/ pictures of same birds and matching messages as above Participant personal characteristics ( Part 4 ) Participant conservationrelated experiences (Part 1) Attitude toward wildlife habitat conservation (Part 2) Attitude toward birds of prey (Part 3) Bird viewed as being in need (Part 1) Empathic emotion (Part 2) Altruistic motivation (Part 3) Behavioral intention: Social norms regarding behavior Commitment to perform behavior (Part 4)

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Introduction This chapter presents the results of the data analysis procedures described in Chapter 3. Results are presented by research objective and/ or research hypothesis. It was the general purpose of this study to determine if and how diff erent wildlife presentations influence empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in behavior s to help wildlife and their habitat. Three wildlife presentations were compared: those contai ning all injured birds of prey, those containing all non-injured birds of prey, and those where co lor photographs of birds of prey were used to convey identical conservation messages. Objective One Determine the Characteristics of Participan ts Attending the Birds of Prey Outreach Presentations Of the 231 questionnaires received from partic ipants of the three presentations, 213 were usable and 18 were due to item nonresponse. A to tal of 63 people participat ed in the all injured birds of prey presentation, 78 people participat ed in the all non-inju red presentations, and 72 people participated in the pictures group presentations. Sex and Age Table 4-1 summarizes the sex of the participants by presenta tion group. The majority of participants in the injured, noninjured, and pictures group pres entations were female. The injured presentation had the grea test proportion of female res pondents (70.5%). A significant difference did not occur between gr oups (Chi-square = 0.327, df = 2, p = 0.849). Table 4-2 presents data on the age breakdown of participants in the three presentations. The oldest respondent was born in 1909 and particip ated in one of the noninjured presentations. Nine respondents in the non-injured presentati on, including the individual born in 1909, were

PAGE 70

70 more than 90 years old. Only one respondent in the injured presentation and one respondent in the pictures group were more than 90 years old. Considering a ll presentations, respondents in the all injured presentation had the highest mean age, although the mean ages for all presentation groups were in the low to middle 70s. The rang e for the all injured presentation was 35 years, the range for the non-injured pr esentation was 43 years, and the range for the slideshow presentation group was 34 years. Permanent Residence Fourteen states and five Ca nadian provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan) were represented by participants of this study (Table 4-3). Permanent residence was defined as the location where the respondent lives for more than six months of the year. Although Canada and Florid a were classified sepa rately, the remaining 13 U.S. states were categorized by region. The ma jority of respondents ( 60.8%) across the three presentations were from Florida. Canadian residents represented over 12% of the sample. Considering each presentation group individually, th e majority of respondents in the all injured (73.0%) and the all non-injured (80.5%) presentations resided in Florida for most of the year. Almost one-third of the pictures group was from Florida, while near ly one quarter of the pictures group was from Canada. No significant differe nces were found between presentation groups and regions where participants were from (Chi-square = 7.29, df = 6, p = 0.343). Environmental/Conservation Organization Membership The majority of respondents (88.7%) did not belong to an environmental or conservation organization (Table 4-4). Although twice as ma ny respondents in the non-injured presentation indicated belonging to an environmental or c onservation organization, no significant difference was found between presentations (Chi-square = 2.134, df = 2, p = 0.344). Four respondents indicated belonging to more than one environmen tal or conservation orga nization. Organizations

PAGE 71

71 in which respondents belonged included: A udubon, Big Cat Rescue, the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, the Pere grine Falcon Foundation, Si erra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, and a variety of zoos. No signi ficant difference was found between presentation groups (Chi-square = 2.134, df = 2, p 0.344). Members of environmental or conservation or ganizations were compared by location of residence (Table 4-5). Fifteen of the 129 res pondents (11.6%) with pe rmanent residences in Florida indicated belonging to an environmental or conservati on organization. Two of the 26 respondents (7.7%) with permanent residences in Canada indicated belonging to an environmental or conservation organization. Considering regions, proportionally more respondents from the Midwest we re members of environmental or conservation organizations when compared to the other regions. Members of environmental or conservation organizations were also compared by sex (Table 4-6). Of the male respondents ( n = 68), 10.3% were members of environmental or conservation organizations. Of the female respondents ( n = 142), 12.0% were members of environmental or conservation organizations. No significant difference was found between respondent sex and membership in environmen tal/conservation organizations (Chi-square = 0.128, df = 1, p = 0.721). Pet Ownership Table 4-7 summarizes the pet ow nership of respondents. Lo oking across presentations, 47 of the 213 respondents reported owni ng pets. Regardless of the presentation they were exposed to, those who owned pets owned a cat, dog, bird, fi sh, or a combination thereof. Of those who owned a pet(s), 53.2% ( n = 25) owned a cat, 36.2% ( n = 17) owned a dog, 4.3% ( n = 2) owned a bird, and 6.4% ( n = 3) owned a fish. No significant di fference was found between number of pet owners across presentations (Chi-square = 5.024, df = 2, p = 0.081).

PAGE 72

72 Previous Conservation-related Behaviors by Presentation Respondents were asked about their engagement in five conservati on-related behaviors during a three month period prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. These behaviors included discussing wildlife habita t conservation-related issues w ith others, properly disposing of trash that could harm wild life, attending public w ildlife presentations, owning or sponsoring a bird house, and donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental organization(s). Table 4-8 summarizes responde nts who indicated discussing wildlife habitat conservation-related issu es with others. Nearly half of the respondents (4 7.1%) in all three presentations indicated that they had not discussed wildlife hab itat conservation-related issues with others in the three months prior to attending th e presentation. However, about 44% of the participants in the non-injured presentations indicated that they had discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others three months prior to a ttending the presentation. There were no significant differences in those who i ndicated discussing wildlife habitat conservationrelated issues with others and the type of pr esentation they participat ed in (Chi-square = 4.874, df = 4, p = 0.300). Table 4-9 summarizes respondents who indicate d that in the three months prior to attending the educational presentation they properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife. The majority of respondents (90.1%) indicated that they have pr operly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife in the three months prior to the e ducational presentation. When compared to participants of the non-injured and pictures group presentations, a greater proportion of participants of the all injure d birds of prey presentation ( 98.4% compared to 87.2% and 86.1%) indicated that they had properly di sposed of trash that could harm wildlife. No respondents from the all injured presentation indica ted not properly disposing of tras h that could harm wildlife in the three months before the presentation. Th ere were no significant differences between

PAGE 73

73 respondents who indicated properly di sposing of trash that could ha rm wildlife and the type of presentation they participated in (Chi-square = 7.687, df = 4, p = 0.104). Table 4-10 presents a summary of responde nts attendance at other public wildlife presentations in the three months prior to the zoo outreach presentation conducted for this study. Comparing across presentation types, the majo rity of respondents (62.6%) indicated not attending public wildlif e presentations. However, a grea ter proportion of respondents of the pictures group (26.4% versus 14.8% and 12.8%) indicated that they have attended other public wildlife presentations in the three months prior to the zoos visit to their community. There were no significant differences in respondents engage ment in attending public wildlife presentations and the type of presentation they attended (Chi-square = 5.392, df = 4, p = 0.249). Table 4-11 summarizes the propor tion of respondents who indicated that they owned or sponsored a bird house in the th ree months prior to the zoo presentation. The majority of respondents (64.0%) across the three presentation s indicated that they had not owned or sponsored a bird house in the thr ee months prior to the zoo presentation. However, almost twice as many respondents in the non-injured and pictures group presentations indi cated that they have owned or sponsored a bird house when compared to injured presentati on participants who indicated owning or sponsoring a bird house. About one-third of the respondents of the three presentations collectively indica ted owning or sponsoring a bird house in the thre e months prior to the zoos visit to their community. No significant differences were found between presentation types (Chi -square = 5.458, df = 4, p = 0.243). Table 4-12 presents the proportion of respondent s indicating that they donated money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental orga nization in the three mont hs prior to attending the zoo presentation. Examining across presentations, the vast ma jority of respondents indicated

PAGE 74

74 not donating money to such organizations. Th e proportion of respondents indicating that they did donate money to a wildlife habitat conservati on or environmental orga nization was twice as large for the non-injured presentation when co mpared to the injured or pictures group presentations. No significant differences we re found between partic ipants of the three presentation types on this vari able (Chi-square = 4.405, df = 4, p = 0.354). Previous Conservation-related Behaviors by Sex Table 4-13 summarizes respondent engagement in discussing wildlife habitat conservationrelated issues with others, sorted by sex. Th e proportion of males (39.7%) and females (37.4%) indicating that they had discusse d wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others in the three months prior to the zoos vi sit was similar. The proportion of females indicating that they had not discussed such issues with others ( 48.2%) was slightly higher than the proportion of males (44.1%). Nearly half of all respondents reported no t discussing wildlife habitat conservation-related issu es with others. No significant differences were found between sexes and their engagement in this be havior (Chi-square = 0.323, df = 2, p = 0.851). Table 4-14 reports the proportion of males and females who indicated that they properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife in the three months prio r to the educational presentation. The vast majority of males ( 92.6%) and females (88.7%) i ndicated that they had properly disposed of trash that could harm wild life prior to attending the zoos presentation. No significant differences were found between respondent sex and their engagement in this behavior (Chi-square = 1.005, df = 2, p = 0.605). The proportion of males and females attending public wildlife presen tations three months prior to the zoos presentation is presented in Table 4-15. The major ity of respondents (62.2%) indicated not attending public wi ldlife presentations. Comparing between males and females, a higher proportion of females indicated not atte nding public wildlife presentations prior to

PAGE 75

75 attending the educational presen tation for this study. A highe r proportion of male respondents indicated having attended public wild life presentations in the three m onths before the zoos visit. About one-fifth of males and females did not have the opportunity to attend public wildlife presentations in the three months prior to the zoo presentation. No significant differences were found between respondent engagement in attendi ng public wildlife presentations and sex (Chisquare = 1.263, df = 2, p = 0.532). Table 4-16 presents the proportions of ma les and females who indicated owning or sponsoring a bird house prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. The majority of males (61.8%) and females (65.0%) reported not owning or sponsoring a bird hous e prior to the zoos presentation. However, about one-third of th e respondents indicated that they had owned or sponsored a bird house. Compari ng by sex, a slightly higher propor tion of females indicated that they had not owned or sponsored a bird house in th e three months prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. No significant differences we re found between respondents engagement in this behavior and sex (Chi-square = 0.316, df = 2, p = 0.854). The proportions of males and females w ho donated money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental or ganization in the three months before the zoo presentation are reported in Table 4-17. The majority of male (75.0%) and female (70.9 %) respondents indicated that they had not donated money to a habitat co nservation or environmen tal organization three months before the birds of prey presentation. However, the proportion of females indicating that they had donated money was almost twice as la rge as the proportion of males who indicated donating money. No significant differences were found between engagement in this behavior and the sex of the respondent (Chi-square = 3.133, df = 2, p = 0.209).

PAGE 76

76 Summary of Objective One Sixty-three respondents participated in the all injured birds of prey presentation, 78 respondents participated in the non-injured birds of prey presentation, and 72 respondents participated in the slideshow presentation. Most respondents across pr esentation types were female. The mean age was 73.3. Most responden ts were from Florida. The majority of respondents did not belong to a conservation/environmental orga nization and did not own any pets. Although most respondents in dicated that they properly dispos ed of trash that could harm wildlife in the three months pr ior to the birds of prey pres entation, most had not discussed wildlife habitat conservation-rela ted issues with others, attend ed a public wildlife presentation, owned or sponsored a bird house, or donate d money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization during th at time period. Explanation of Dependent and Independent Variables The dependent variable in this study was level of commitment to engage in six environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator to benefit wildlife and their habitat. These six beha viors included the following: a. Telling a friend about the presentation b. Telling a friend about conservation in general c. Not discarding food scraps along roadways d. Attending another wildlife-related presentation e. Building or sponsoring a bird nesting box f. Donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization Along with the injury status (injured or non-in jured) of the educational animal, additional independent variables in this qua si-experimental study examined prio r to experiencing one of the three presentations were as follows: a. Conservation-related behaviors of the part icipant three months prior to attending the presentation, including wh ether participants had: i. Discussed wildlife habitat conserva tion-related issues with others

PAGE 77

77 ii. Properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife iii. Attended public wild life presentations iv. Owned or sponsored a bird house v. Donated money to a wildlife habitat cons ervation or environmental organization b. Participant attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation c. Participant attitudes toward birds of prey d. Membership in an environmental or conservation organization e. Pet ownership f. Permanent (at least six m onths of the year) residence g. Sex h. Age Independent variables examined after experiencing one of the three presentations included: i. Empathic response to the presentation j. Altruistic concern following the presentation Item Analysis and Reliability by Instrument Construct Appendix F presents item analysis and reli ability (Cronbachs alpha) results for each section of the pre and post-assessment. The majo r constructs measured in each section of the pre and post-assessment are described in detail in this appendix. Factor Analysis and Construct Validity During each of the presentations, respondents were asked a series of questions related to their attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation and birds of prey, perceptions of the level of need of birds of prey, empathy towards birds of prey, and their altruistic motivation. Principal component factor analysis was used to examine th e reliability of each of these constructs and to ensure validity of the constructs being measured. When rotati on was necessary to aid in the

PAGE 78

78 interpretation of the extracted hypothetical variables, Promax rotation was used because this oblique rotation technique is advised when the researcher believes the individual items comprising a broader variable should be highly related (Kim & Mueller, 1978). Attitudes Toward Wildlife Habitat Conservation Table 4-18 presents results of a principal component factor analysis on the six items representing respondent attitude s toward wildlife habitat cons ervation before experiencing the birds of prey presentation. Together, the six ite ms accounted for about 63% of the variability in respondent attitudes toward wild life habitat conservation with onl y one factor extracted. The factor structure accounted for almost 74% of the variance in the item reflecting level of importance to encourage others to participate in wildlife habitat conservation programs. Attitude Toward Birds of Prey Table 4-19 summarizes results of a principal co mponent factor analysis on the five items representing respondent attitude toward birds of prey prior to experiencing the birds of prey presentation. Prior to running f actor analysis, the item asking re spondents to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, birds of pr ey make me nervous because of the threat of disease (item 15) was recoded. Collectively, th e five items accounted for nearly 58% of the variability in respondent attitudes toward birds of prey before experiencing the birds of prey presentation. Only one factor was extracted. The factor st ructure accounted for 71% of the variance in the item that birds of prey are beautiful creatures. Empathy A principal component factor analysis was conducted on the 17 items comprising the empathy construct and the results are presented in Table 4-20. Two factors were extracted and Promax rotation was used to better interpret the data. The first factor was comprised of 13 items and accounted for nearly 49% of the variance in empathy. The second factor was comprised of

PAGE 79

79 four items and accounted for an additional 16% of the variance in empathy. The four items contributing to the second factor included the terms compassionate, moved, intrigued, and warm, four of the 17 adjectives used by Batson ( 1991) to measure empathy. Given the items comprising this factor, Factor 2 was termed compassion. The remaining thirteen items associated with Factor 1 were considered colle ctively and termed disturbed. Examining the communalities (similar to an R-square term for each item), this term was selected because the two factors together accounted for over 81% of the variance in the term disturbed (communality of 0.812). The item reflecting disturbed feelings toward the birds of prey viewed accounted for the most variance within the two factors. Toge ther, the two factors explained over 65% of the variability in empa thy. A weak to moderate positive association existed between the two factors ( r = 0.26) (Davis, 1971). Given the ad jectives use collectively in measuring empathic emotional responses to stimu li, one might expect these two factors to be strongly associated. Perception of the Level of Need Table 4-21 presents results of a principal component factor analysis on the six items representing each respondents perception of the le vel of need associated with the birds of prey in the educational presentation. Collectively, the items accounted for nearly 69% of the variance in respondents perception of the le vel of need associated with the birds of prey viewed in each of the three presentations. One factor was ex tracted. Examining the communalities, the factor structure accounted for over 75% of the variance in th e level of need associated with the birds of prey in the educational presentations. Altruistic Motivation Table 4-22 presents results of a principal co mponent factor analysis of the seven items representing the altruistic motivation (concern) that respondents felt fo llowing exposure to each

PAGE 80

80 of the presentations. Two factors were extracted and Promax rotation was used to better interpret the data. The first factor was comprised of five items and accounted for nearly 50% of the variance in altruistic concern. These four items included those related to concern for wildlife habitat in general and the loss of wildlife habitat. As suc h, Factor 1 was termed Habitat Concern. The second factor wa s comprised of three items and accounted for over 22% of the remaining variability in altruistic concern. These three items relate d to concern for birds of prey and wildlife in general used which are used in educational programs. As such, Factor 2 was termed Program Animal Concern. Together, these two factors accounte d for over 72% of the variance in altruistic concern. A moderate posit ive association existed between the two factors ( r = 0.33) (Davis, 1971). Given this correlation between similar f actors, Promax rotation was acceptable (Kim & Mueller, 1978). Objective Two Identify the Relationship Be tween Selected Participant Ch aracteristics and Associated Levels of Empathy, Altruism, and Commi tment to Engage in Environmentallyresponsible Behaviors Prior to building a regression model to pr edict respondent commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat (dep endent variable), the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variab le was examined for each of the presentation groups. Relationship Between Independent Variables and Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Injured Birds of Prey Sixty-three individuals particip ated in the presentation usi ng injured birds of prey. A correlation matrix of the independent variab les and commitment to engage in the six environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator (dependent variable) following exposure to the injured birds of prey is presented in Table 4-23. Prior to running a

PAGE 81

81 correlation analysis, commitment to engaging in six environmentally-responsible behaviors was geometrically scored. A response of yes to telling a friend a bout the presentation was given a score of 1. A response of yes to telling a frie nd about conservation was given a score of 2. A response of yes to not discarding food scraps along roadways was given a score of 4. A response of yes to attending a nother wildlife-related presentati on was scored 8. A response of yes to building or sponsoring a bird nesting box was scored 16, and a response of yes to donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation or ganization was given a sc ore of 32. All no responses were given a score of 0. Table 4-24 presents a scoring summ ary, including number and percentage of how respondents scored. By summing these scores for each participant based on his/her responses, the researcher could identify which of the six behaviors the in dividual indicated being committed to performing now and in the future following exposure to the injured birds of prey pr esentation. The possible range of scores was zero to 63. The summated score for commitment to engage in the six behaviors, the summated score for acceptability of the behaviors to others, and the summated score for the likelihood to perform the behaviors if others knew were used in the correlation matrix. Factor scores for attitude toward habi tat conservation, attitude toward birds of prey, empathy, and altruism were also used in the correlation analysis. An examination of Table 4-23 reveals several statistically significant moderate to strong associations between independe nt variables and respondent co mmitment to engage in the environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator. A significant moderate positive association existed between respondents w ho previously discussed habitat conservationrelated issues with others and th eir altruistic concern for wildlife habitat following exposure to all injured birds of prey ( r = 0.36). A significant moderate positive association also was found

PAGE 82

82 between those who previously discussed habitat conservation and their commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors after witnessing live, injured birds of prey ( r = 0.29). For respondents who had previously attended public wildlife presentations, a moderate positive association was found with their altruistic concern for wildlife habitat ( r = 0.27). However, a significant moderate negative a ssociation was found between t hose who previously attended public wildlife presentations and their likelihood to perform one or more of the six conservationrelated behaviors ( r = -0.28). A negative association between previous at tendance at wildlife presentations and likelihood to perform the behavior s could be explained in seve ral ways. As Schultz (2002) suggests with regards to knowledge-deficit theor y, perhaps the general conservation information often presented during zoo and environmenta l education programs, including the zoos presentation in this study, is not targeted, species specific information and participants feel as though their capacity to save the world with ge neric behaviors is less. As Knowles et al. (1998) suggest with regard to ad ult learning theory, a dult learners are imp acted by their prior experiences with knowledge being presented. A negative experience w ith a previous public wildlife presentation resulting from feelings of helplessness and lack of pictures due to too much information/environmental issues to solve might explain the negative a ssociation found in this study (Kaplan, 2000). For respondents who i ndicated that they donated money to conservation/environmental organizations prior to attending the zoo presentation, as might be expected, a moderate positive association was found between their membership in conservation or environmental organizations ( r = 0.36). Participants of the all inju red birds of prey presentati on who believed wildlife habitat conservation was important were mo re likely to have a positive at titude toward birds of prey ( r =

PAGE 83

83 0.32). However, a significant negative associa tion was found between respondents attitude toward birds of prey and their age ( r = -0.28). A significant negativ e association was also found between respondent age and their fe elings of empathic compassion for the injured birds they saw ( r = -0.29). As Kellert (1980) re ported, compared to other age gr oups, individuals over 76 years of age were the least humanistically orientedexpressing the least empathic affection toward individual animals. Given the mean age of participants of this study ( M = 73.3), this age demographic may be less likely to experience feeli ngs of empathic affection toward the birds of prey they witnessed. A significant moderate association was also found between those who believed wildlife habitat conservation was importa nt and their altruistic concern for wildlife habitat ( r = 0.42). Those who believed wildlife habita t conservation was important were more likely to commit to performing one or more of the six behaviors discussed during the presentation ( r = 0.27). Summary The correlation matrix in Table 4-23 provides support for the empathy-altruism hypothesis. As the theory suggests, a positive association was found between feelings of being disturbed (empathic emotion) by the injured birds of prey and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat ( r = 0.36). A strong positive association was also found between empathic feelings of being disturbed and altruistic concern for other animals used in educational programs ( r = 0.53). Empathic feelings of compassion to ward the injured birds of prey were also positively associated with altruistic concern for wildlife habitat ( r = 0.41). However, no significant relationship was found between empathic compassion for the injured bi rds of prey and altruistic concern for other animals used in educational programs. Just as Batson (1991) predicts, those with empathic compassion for the injured birds of prey were more likely to commit to performing the six behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat ( r = 0.47). As the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen,

PAGE 84

84 1985) predicts, this study also found that for pa rticipants of the all injured birds of prey presentation, the acceptability of the six behaviors was significan tly positively associated with their commitment to perform them ( r = 0.30) and their likelihood to perform the behaviors was significantly positively associated with their commitment to perform them ( r = 0.40). Relationship Between Independent Variables and Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Non-injured Birds of Prey Seventy-eight respondents pa rticipated in the all non-injured birds of prey presentation. Table 4-25 presents a correlation matrix portr aying the relationship between independent variables and commitment to engage in one or more of the six environmentally-responsible behaviors for these respondents. As with the all injured pres entation, a significant relationship was found between respondents who previously discussed wildlife habitat conservation issues with others and their commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat ( r = 0.23). However, unlike respondents of the all injured raptor pres entation, a significant negative association was found between participants of the non-injured presentation who previously attended public wildlife presenta tions and their level of commitme nt to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat ( r = -0.25). As Kaplan (2000) a nd Knowles et al. (1998) suggest, perhaps previous experience with public wildlife presentations a nd the information shared during them left those who attended these presentations feeling overwhelmed by too much information and less committed to performing the six behavi ors advocated during the presentation. As expected, a significant positive association was found between those who donated money to conservation/environmental organi zations prior to the zoos pr esentation and membership in conservation or environmental organizations ( r = 0.34). Correlation analyses revealed several different sets of associati ons for the non-injured presentation than were found in the all injured bi rds of prey presentation. For example, while a

PAGE 85

85 positive association was found between those w ho believed wildlife habitat conservation was important and their commitment to helping wi ldlife and their habitat following the injured presentation, no such relationship was f ound following the non-in jured presentation ( r = 0.16). Although no significant relationship was found between a positive attitude toward birds of prey and compassion for the birds of prey witnessed during the all injured pr esentation, a significant positive relationship was found between attitude towards birds of prey and feelings of compassion for participants of the non-injured presentation ( r = 0.34). In addition, while pet ownership for the injured presentation group me mbers was not significantly associated with empathic feelings of being disturbed by the bi rds of prey, pet owners hip was significantly positively associated with feelings of being disturbed by the non-injured birds of prey ( r = 0.40). This may have been because individuals at th e all injured birds of prey presentation were restricted to the type of pet they could have while living in the retirement community. One of the all non-injured presentation groups was not restricted in terms of pet ownership. Summary The emotional responses of pa rticipants of the non-injured presentation supported the theoretical underpinnings of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Empathic feelings of compassion were significantly positively associated with altruistic concern for wildlife habitat ( r = 0.39). Those empathic feelings of compassion were al so significantly associated with likelihood to perform behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat ( r = 0.29) and were significantly positively associated with respondent commitment to engage in one or more of the six conservation-related behaviors advocated by the zoo educator ( r = 0.36). As the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests, altruistic concern for wildlife habitat and altruistic concern for program animals were significantly associated with commitment to e ngage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat ( r = 0.26 and 0.28, respectively). Just as the th eory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985)

PAGE 86

86 suggests, this study found that th e acceptability of the six conservation-related behaviors to others was significantly associated with the likelihood that respondent s would perform these behaviors ( r = 0.45). This was also found with the injured birds of prey group. A significant negative association was found be tween the sex of the respondent and their commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat ( r = -0.27). Considering respondent age, a significant negative correlation was also found between the age of the respondent and their commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat ( r = 0.26). Relationship Between Independent Variables and Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-responsible Behaviors: Pictures of the Same Birds of Prey Seventy-two respondents participat ed in the presentation involving pictures of birds of prey. Table 4-26 presents a correlation matrix of the relationship between the independent variables in the study and respondent commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. A significant negative associa tion was found between respondents who previously attended public wildlife presenta tions and their commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat following expos ure to non-injured birds of prey ( r = -0.25). No significant relationship was found fo r participants following exposure to all injured birds of prey or following exposure to pictures of the same birds of prey. A significant positive association was found between respondents who believed wild life habitat conservatio n was important and their level of compassion toward the pictures of the birds of prey ( r = 0.45). No significant association was found between wild life habitat conservation attit udes and compassion toward the birds of prey viewed for pa rticipants of the injured or non-injured presentations.

PAGE 87

87 Summary Results of the presentations i nvolving pictures of birds of prey somewhat contradicted what the empathy-altruism hypot hesis would predict. No si gnificant association was found between positive attitudes toward birds of prey and compassion (empathy) toward the birds of prey viewed by participants of the all inju red presentation. However, a strong positive association was found between attit udes toward birds of prey and compassion toward the birds of prey viewed for participants of the slideshow presentation ( r = 0.57). While studies testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis have found that a po sitive association exists between empathic emotion and altruistic concern following exposure to pictures of injured animals, this study found no significant association betw een feeling disturbed (empathy) and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat. As the empathy-altruism hypot hesis suggests, significant positive associations were found between compassion (empathy), altruist ic concern, and commitment to engaging in helping behaviors ( r = 0.33 and 0.41, respectively). As the th eory of planned behavior suggests, a strong significant relationship was found between the acceptability of the conservation-related behaviors to others and the lik elihood of performing those beha viors for participants of the slideshow presentations ( r = 0.76). Positive associations were also found between the acceptability of the behaviors to others and commitment to performing such behaviors ( r = 0.40). While participants of the slideshow presenta tion did not see any live birds of prey, one unique association was found that was not found fo r respondents who experi enced all injured or all non-injured, live birds of prey. A significant positive association was found between compassion (empathy) felt for the birds of prey witnessed (via pictures only) and altruistic concern for animals used in educational programs for participants of the slideshow presentation ( r = 0.29). However, no significan t relationship was found between compassion and altruistic

PAGE 88

88 concern for animals in educational programs follo wing exposure to all inju red or all non-injured birds of prey. Summary of Objective Two For the injured birds of prey presentati on, a significant association was found between respondents who previously discu ssed habitat conservation-related issues with others and both their altruistic concern for wildlife habitat a nd their commitment to engage in environmentallyresponsible behaviors. A significant negative association betw een age and feelings of empathic compassion was found, supporting the earlier findi ngs of Kellert (1980). A strong positive association was found between feeli ngs of empathic compassion toward injured birds of prey and altruistic concern for wildlif e habitat, supporting the empat hy-altruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991). Individuals with empathic compassion for the injured birds of prey were more likely to commit to performing behaviors to benefit wild life and their habitat. For the non-injured presentation, a positive association was agai n found between individuals who previously discussed wildlife habitat cons ervation with others and commitment to engage in proenvironmental behaviors. The empathy-altr uism hypothesis was supported with those who experienced the non-injured pres entation. Empathic feelings of compassion were positively associated with altruistic concern for wildlife ha bitat. Empathic feelings of compassion were also associated with commitment to engage in be haviors to benefit wildlife and their habitat. Finally, for slideshow participants, results so mewhat contradicted wh at previous studies examining the empathy-altruism hypothesis with pi ctures of injured animals have found. No significant relationship was found between feeling empathically disturbed by the presentations message and altruistic concern for wildlife hab itat. However, positive associations were found

PAGE 89

89 between empathic compassion, altruistic concer n, and commitment to engage in helping behaviors for slideshow participants. Objective Three Build a Regression Model to Predict Commi tment to Engage in the Environmentallyresponsible Behaviors Advocat ed by the Zoo Educator Prior to running regression anal ysis, descriptive statistics were used to summarize and compare participant attitudes between the three pr esentation types. After examining the attitudes of participants, factor analysis procedures allowed the re searcher to determine which items comprising each construct measured on the instrume nt best described that construct and which related to commitment to engage in environmenta lly-responsible behaviors. Factor scores were then used as variables in the regression equation. Summary Statistics for Major Constructs Table 4-27 reports summated scale scores fo r each construct measured and compares participants by construct and pr esentation type. Higher summated scale scores imply stronger feelings/attitudes or intentions to engage in an environmen tally-responsible behavior. No opinion response options (origina lly coded as 6) were excl uded from this analysis. Regardless of the type of pr esentation participants experi enced, individuals believed wildlife habitat conservation was fairly important. In addition, participants of each of the three presentations had a moderately positive attit ude towards birds of prey (Table 4-27). In the post-assessment, particip ants of the injured and non-inju red presentations felt that the birds of prey were less in need than participants of the slideshow presentationmore needy than the live birds of prey. Similarly, participan ts of the slideshow pres entation indicated feeling moderately empathetic overall for the birds of prey whereas participants of the injured and non-

PAGE 90

90 injured presentations indicated feel ing lower levels of empathy (Tab le 4-27). Altruistic feelings were similar between presentation groups with part icipants feeling somewhat to fairly concerned. Considering the dependent variable (com mitment to engage in environmentallyresponsible behaviors) and the constructs meas uring the influence of social norms, commitment scores were slightly lower for participants of th e injured birds of prey presentation than for the non-injured and slideshow presen tations (Table 4-27). Regardless of presentation type, individuals believed the behaviors advocated by the zoo educator were fairly acceptable to others and were fairly likely to perform the behaviors if others were aware that they performed them. Regression Assumptions The assumptions associated with regressi on, including homogeneity in variance and normality, were also verified pr ior to running regression analysis Lewis-Beck (1980) suggests that the researcher check for multicollinearity by taking each independent variable and regressing it on the other independent variables and the depe ndent variable, one at a time, and examining the resulting R-square value each time. For exam ple, independent variable A would serve as the dependent variable against independent variables B, C, and D, then independent variable B would serve as the dependent variab le against independent variables A, C, and D and so on. The larger the R-square value, th e greater the risk of mu lticollinearity (Agresti & Finlay, 1997). R-square values above 0.40 were considered indicativ e of multicollinearity between the variable in question and the others. Su ch variables were consid ered in the context of the behavioral theories mentione d earlier and eliminated from th e model if not essential. In checking for multicollinearity in this study using the suggestions of Lewis-Beck (1980), four independent variables were identified as co ntributing to multicollinearity. These variables included the factor score for importance of wild life habitat conservation (R-square = 0.44), the factor score for disturbed (empat hy) (R-square = 0.44), the factor sc ore for altruistic concern for

PAGE 91

91 wildlife habitat (R-square = 0.52), and the summated scale score fo r likelihood to engage in the six behaviors advocated by the zoo educator (R -square = 0.42). The va riables were removed from the model. Regression Analysis Considering the levels of association between independent variables and commitment to engage in the six environmenta lly-responsible behavior s (dependent variable ) collectively across presentations and the multicollinearity results prev iously stated, three inde pendent variables were selected for regression analysis. These indepe ndent variables included (1) whether or not a participant previously discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others, (2) the level of acceptability of performing those six beha viors to others, and (3) the level of compassion felt toward the birds of prey viewed. Table 4-28 reports the regression model. Collectively, the three variables explained 16.2% of the variability in commitment scores for performing the six environmen tally-responsible behaviors advoc ated by the zoo educator. Participants who previously discussed wildlife habitat conservation with others, believed the behaviors being advocated were acceptable to others, and felt compassion (empathy) for the birds of prey they saw were more likely to be committed to performing the conservation-related behaviors advocated by the zoo e ducator, regardless of the presen tation they received. Unlike what Batson et al. (2005) and Schultz (2000) f ound with regards to written descriptions of injured animals, there was no presentation effect found in this study. The all injured presentation was coded 01, the all non-injure d presentation was coded 001, and the slideshow presentation was coded 0001. The researcher chose not to code the presentation type as 1, 2, or 3 because of the inherent variability between these three code s and the potential that such variability might influence a potential true presenta tion effect. A second set of codes were used to represent each presentation and to further test the potential of a true presentation effect. This time the all

PAGE 92

92 injured presentation was coded 001, the all noninjured presentation was coded 010, and the slideshow presentation was coded 100. Again, no significant presentation effect was found. Finally, analysis of covariance was used a nd no significant presentation effect was found. Path Model A path model was constructed using standardiz ed beta coefficients from the regression analyses as path coefficients representing the explanatory power of each independent variable on commitment to engage in behaviors to help wild life and their habitat (d ependent variable). Figure 4-1 depicts the model. The path model shows that the largest in fluence on commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors to aid wi ldlife and their habitat was the participants feelings of compassion for the birds of prey they witnessed. The variable with the next highest explanatory power on commitment to engage in pro-environmental behaviors was whether the individual discussed wildlif e habitat conservation-rela ted issues with others. Follow-up Logistic Regression Analysis The dependent variable, a summated geometric score for commitment to engage in the six behaviors advocated by the zoo educ ator, was recoded so that each behavior could be used as a dichotomous dependent variable. The researcher wanted to test if one specific behavior was more important to respondents than others. Give n the lower reliability of the commitment item, the potential for measurement error was at 44%. Although the current multiple regression model (see Table 4-28) accounts for 16.2% of the variabili ty in the 56% reliability, a further check was made given the potential for measurement error. Using each dichotomous variable as a separate dependent variable, logistic regression was run using the variables that correlated significan tly with each individual behavior. Table F-2 reports the variance explained terns for each individual behavior examined as a separate

PAGE 93

93 dependent variable. The only sign ificant independent variables in the logistic regression models were empathic compassion (already in the multiple regression model) and likelihood to engage in the behavior. The logistic regression results suggest that the general model is adequate in accounting for the variability in commitment to engage in the six behaviors when examined collectively. In fact, running another multiple regression model with the four most important behaviors included in predicting commitment to e ngage resulted in 14.8% of the variability being explained, compared to the 16.2% of the variabil ity being explained in the model using all six behaviors as the dependent variable. The mode l reported in Table 4-28 seems to be the more efficient model in predicting commitment to enga ge in recommended behaviors. Summary of Objective Three Regression analysis revealed that individuals who previous ly discussed wildlife habitat conservation-related issues with others, felt compassion for the birds of prey they saw, and believed the behaviors advocated by the zoo educator were acceptabl e to others were more likely to be committed to performing those behaviors. Objective Four Measure the Level of Satisfaction that Partic ipants Have with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo Birds of Prey Outreach Presentation Table 4-29 summarizes the satisfaction of partic ipants with the zoo educators enthusiasm for wildlife conservation and the presentations abili ty to hold participant attention following the three presentations. Participants of the all injure d birds of prey presenta tion rated the presenters level of excitement for wildlife conservation high er than did participants of the non-injured and pictures group presentations. Examining acros s presentation groups, re spondents believed the presenters level of excitement for wildlife conservation was very high. The mean rating associated with the degree to which the presentation held the participants attention was lowest

PAGE 94

94 for participants of the slideshow presentation. Regardless of presentation type, respondents strongly agreed that the presen tation held their attention. Qualitative responses In examining the written responses concerni ng additional items participants would have liked to have seen as part of th e zoo presentation, very few partic ipants of the all injured or all non-injured birds of prey presenta tions answered this question. T hose who participated in the all injured or all non-injured presentations and incl uded a response to this question most often wanted to see a bald eagle. For those respondent s who did not directly an swer this question, this space was used to write positive comments such as wonderful job and outstanding presentation. However, the majority of the participants of the pictures group slideshow presentation did answer this que stion and would have liked to ha ve seen a real bird. Many respondents indicated the type of bird, such as a live hawk or a real owl. Several participants of the slideshow pr esentation requested to see a vi deo of birds flying or hear birds calling. Summary This chapter presented the findings of the study. Item analysis, reliability (internal consistency), and construct validity (factor analys is) results were presente d. Correlation analysis results supported the empathyaltruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) for the three presentation groups. However, whether a participant experienced a presentation with all injured birds of prey, all non-injured birds of prey, or pictures of the same birds of prey di d not significantly influence their commitment to performing environmentally-responsible behavior s. Multiple regression analys is revealed that individuals who previously discussed wildlife habitat c onservation-related issues with others, felt compassion for the birds of prey they saw, and believed the behaviors advocated by the zoo

PAGE 95

95 educator were acceptable to others were mo re likely to be committed to performing those behaviors. Findings presented in this chapter will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. Conclusions, recommendations, and imp lications will also be presented.

PAGE 96

96 Table 4-1. Sex of Respondents by Presentation Type (N = 210) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Total f % f % f % f % Male 18 29.5 26 33.8 24 33.3 68 32.4 Female 43 70.5 51 66.2 48 66.7 142 67.6 Total 61 100 77 100 72 100 210 100 Note. Three respondents did not in dicate whether they were male or female. Chi-square = 0.327, df = 2, p = 0.849 Table 4-2. Respondent Age by Presentation Type (N = 206) Age Presentation M (yrs) SD Range (yrs) n Injured 74.7 8.38 35 60 Non-injured 73.8 11.14 43 76 Pictures 71.4 7.68 34 70 Total 206 Note. Seven respondents did not indi cate the year they were born. Table 4-3. Respondent Permanent Reside nce by Presentation Type (N = 212) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Total Region or Country f % f % f % f % Florida 46 73.0 62 80.5 21 29.2 129 60.8 Northeast 4 6.4 9 11.7 20 27.9 33 15.6 Midwest 9 14.4 1 1.3 14 19.5 24 11.3 Canada 4 6.3 5 6.5 17 23.6 26 12.3 Total 63 100 77 100 72 100 212 100 Note. One respondent did not indicate a perman ent residence. Chi-square = 7.29, df = 6, p = 0.343. Northeast = Maine, Maryland, Massachuse tts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. Midwest = Illi nois, Indiana, Michigan, Nort h Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota

PAGE 97

97 Table 4-4. Respondent Membership in Envi ronmental or Conservation Organizations by Presentation Type (N = 213) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Total Belongs to Organization(s) f % f % f % f % No 57 90.5 66 84.6 66 91.7 189 88.7 Yes 6 9.5 12 15.4 6 8.3 24 11.3 Total 63 100 78 100 72 100 213 100 Note. Three respondents in the non-injured pres entation indicated that they belong to an organization but did not indi cate the specific organization. Chi-square = 2.134, df = 2, p = 0.344 Table 4-5. Respondent Membership in Envi ronmental or Conservation Organizations by Location of Permanent Residence (N = 212) Membership in Organization Region or Country No Yes Total Florida 114 15 129 Northeast 32 1 33 Midwest 18 6 24 Canada 24 2 26 Total 188 24 212 Note. One respondent did not indicate a permanen t residence. Northeast = Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsyl vania, Rhode Island. Midwest = Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota Table 4-6. Respondent Membership in Environmental or Conser vation Organizations by Sex (N = 210) Membership in Organization Sex No Yes Total f % f % f % Male 61 32.8 7 29.2 68 32.4 Female 125 67.2 17 70.8 142 67.6 Total 186 100 24 100 210 100 Note. Three respondents did not in dicate whether they were male or female. Chi-square = 0.128, df = 1, p = 0.721

PAGE 98

98 Table 4-7. Respondent Pet Ownership by Presentation Type (N = 213) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Total Pet Ownership f % f % f % f % No 55 87.3 56 71.8 55 76.4 166 77.9 Yes 8 12.7 22 28.2 17 23.6 47 22.1 Total 63 100 78 100 72 100 213 100 Chi-square = 5.024, df = 2, p = 0.081 Table 4-8. Respondent Engagement in Discussing Wildlife Habita t Conservation-related Issues with Others by Presentation Type (N = 210) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f % No 32 51.6 30 38.5 37 52.9 99 47.1 Yes 20 32.3 34 43.6 26 37.1 80 38.1 Did not have the opportunity to 10 16.1 14 17.9 7 10.0 31 14.8 Total 62 100 78 100 70 100 210 100 Note. Three respondents did not reply to th is item. Chi-square = 4.874, df = 4, p = 0.300 Table 4-9. Respondent Engagement in Properly Disposing of Tr ash that Could Harm Wildlife by Presentation Type (N = 212) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f % No 0 0.0 8 10.3 7 9.7 15 7.1 Yes 61 98.4 68 87.2 62 86.1 191 90.1 Did not have the opportunity to 1 1.6 2 2.6 3 4.2 6 2.8 Total 62 100 78 100 72 100 212 100 Note. One respondent did not reply to th is item. Chi-square = 7.687, df = 4, p = 0.104

PAGE 99

99 Table 4-10. Respondent Engagement in Attendin g Public Wildlife Presentations by Presentation Type (N = 211) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f % No 40 65.6 51 65.4 41 56.9 132 62.6 Yes 9 14.8 10 12.8 19 26.4 38 18.0 Did not have the opportunity to 12 19.7 17 21.8 12 16.7 41 19.4 Total 61 100 78 100 72 100 211 100 Note. Two respondents did not reply to th is item. Chi-square = 5.392, df = 4, p = 0.249 Table 4-11. Respondent Engageme nt in Owning or Sponsoring a Bird House by Presentation Type (N = 211) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f % No 46 73.0 46 59.0 43 61.4 135 64.0 Yes 11 17.5 27 34.6 21 30.0 59 28.0 Did not have the opportunity to 6 9.5 5 6.4 6 8.6 17 8.1 Total 63 100 78 100 70 100 211 100 Note. Two respondents did not reply to th is item. Chi-square = 5.458, df = 4, p = 0.243 Table 4-12. Respondent Engageme nt in Donating Money to a W ildlife Habitat Conservation or Environmental Organization(s) by Presentation Type (N = 212) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % f % No 48 76.2 53 67.9 53 74.6 154 72.6 Yes 8 12.7 19 24.4 10 14.1 37 17.5 Did not have the opportunity to 7 11.1 6 7.7 8 11.3 21 9.9 Total 63 100 78 100 71 100 212 100 Note. One respondent did not reply to th is item. Chi-square = 4.405, df = 4, p = 0.354

PAGE 100

100 Table 4-13. Respondent Engagement in Discussing Wildlife Habita t Conservation-related Issues with Others by Sex (N = 207) Sex Male Female Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % No 30 44.1 67 48.2 97 46.9 Yes 27 39.7 52 37.4 79 38.2 Did not have the opportunity to 11 16.2 20 14.4 31 15.0 Total 68 100 139 100 207 100 Note. Six respondents did not reply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 0.323, df = 2, p = 0.851 Table 4-14. Respondent Engagement in Properly Disposing of Tr ash that Could Harm Wildlife by Sex (N = 209) Sex Male Female Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % No 4 5.9 11 7.8 15 7.2 Yes 63 92.6 125 88.7 188 90.0 Did not have the opportunity to 1 1.5 5 3.5 6 2.9 Total 68 100 141 100 209 100 Note. Four respondents did not re ply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 1.005, df = 2, p = 0.605 Table 4-15. Respondent Engagement in Attendin g Public Wildlife Presentations by Sex (N = 209) Sex Male Female Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % No 39 57.4 91 64.5 130 62.2 Yes 15 22.1 23 16.3 38 18.2 Did not have the opportunity to 14 20.6 27 19.1 41 19.6 Total 68 100 141 100 209 100 Note. Four respondents did not re ply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 1.263, df = 2, p = 0.532

PAGE 101

101 Table 4-16. Respondent Engageme nt in Owning or Sponsoring a Bird House by Sex (N = 208) Sex Male Female Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % No 42 61.8 91 65.0 133 63.9 Yes 21 30.9 38 27.1 59 28.4 Did not have the opportunity to 5 7.4 11 7.9 16 7.7 Total 68 100 140 100 208 100 Note. Five respondents did not re ply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 0.316, df = 2, p = 0.854 Table 4-17. Respondent Engageme nt in Donating Money to a W ildlife Habitat Conservation or Environmental Organization( s) by Sex (N = 209) Sex Male Female Total Engagement in Behavior f % f % f % No 51 75.0 100 70.9 151 72.2 Yes 8 11.8 29 20.6 37 17.7 Did not have the opportunity to 9 13.2 12 8.5 21 10.0 Total 68 100 141 100 209 100 Note. Four respondents did not re ply to this item and indicate their sex. Chi-square = 3.133, df = 2, p = 0.209 Table 4-18. Factor Loadings for Attitude Toward Wildlife Habita t Conservation (Preassessment, Part Two) (N = 213) Factor Variable Communality Encourage Participation 0.860 0.739 Importance of Conservation 0.817 0.667 Engage in Activities to Help 0.802 0.643 Financially Support Programs 0.777 0.603 Media Coverage 0.759 0.576 Conservation in Cities 0.739 0.546 Eigenvalue 3.775 Percent of Variance Explained 62.912

PAGE 102

102 Table 4-19. Factor Loadings for Attitude Toward Birds of Prey (Pre-assessment, Part Three) (N = 213) Factor Variable Communality Beautiful Creatures 0.843 0.710 Beneficial to Public 0.814 0.662 Important Rodent Control 0.771 0.595 Interesting Animals 0.707 0.500 Nervous Over Diseases 0.640 0.410 Eigenvalue 2.878 Percent of Variance Explained 57.554 Table 4-20. Factor Loadings for Empathy (Post-assessment, Part Two) (N = 213) Factors Variable Disturbed (F1) Compassion (F2) Communality Disturbed 0.883 -0.179 0.812 Worried 0.868 -0.102 0.764 Troubled 0.854 -0.141 0.749 Sorrowful 0.848 -0.087 0.727 Upset 0.831 -0.217 0.738 Grieved 0.820 -0.134 0.691 Distressed 0.792 -0.067 0.631 Perturbed 0.779 -0.114 0.620 Heavy-hearted 0.771 0.019 0.594 Low-spirited 0.711 -0.220 0.554 Alarmed 0.678 -0.241 0.518 Concerned 0.671 0.295 0.537 Sympathetic 0.635 0.147 0.425 Compassionate 0.302 0.831 0.782 Moved 0.294 0.779 0.694 Intrigued 0.242 0.777 0.662 Warm 0.316 0.694 0.581 Eigenvalues 8.226 3.589 Percent of Variance Explained 48.994 16.173 Cumulative Percent of Variance Explained 48.994 65.167 Correlation Between Factors 0.26

PAGE 103

103 Table 4-21. Factor Loadings for the Level of N eed Associated with the Birds of Prey in the Educational Presentations (Post-a ssessment, Part One) (N = 213) Factor Variable Communality Vet Care 0.867 0.752 Protection 0.849 0.720 Aid 0.847 0.717 Time Away 0.827 0.685 Affection 0.822 0.675 Companion 0.757 0.574 Eigenvalue 4.123 Percent of Variance Explained 68.711 Table 4-22. Factor Loadings for Altruism (Con cern) (Post-assessment, Part Three) (N = 213) Factors Variable Habitat Concern (F1) Program Animal Concern (F2) Communality Habitat Concern 0.826 -0.329 0.790 Losing Habitat 0.807 -0.420 0.828 Wild Birds of Prey 0.759 -0.123 0.591 Wild Bird Habitat 0.758 -0.378 0.718 Well-being of Birds 0.648 0.366 0.553 Wildlife in Education 0.503 0.713 0.762 Birds of Prey in Education 0.565 0.700 0.809 Eigenvalues 3.475 1.576 Percent of Variance Explained 49.641 22.511 Cumulative Percent of Variance Explained 49.641 72.152 Correlation Between Factors 0.33

PAGE 104

104Table 4-23. Correlations Between Variables fo r the Injured Presentation Only (N = 213) Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 -.090 .099 .041 .146 .280* .158 .124 .190 -.023 .038 -.081 .225 .360* -.047 -.017 .102 .294* 2 -.051 .056 .049 -.096 -.133 .042 .049 -.085 -.005 .108 -.126 .170 .152 -.121 -.132 -.040 3 --.059 -.162 -.002 .091 -.137 -.162 -.132 .001 .258 .035 .266* .186 -.177 .283* -.128 4 --.175 .196 -.046 -.007 -.175 .023 .310* .157 -.165 .034 .147 .259 .235 -.038 5 -.082 .008 .363* .284* .038 -.188 .093 .160 .179 -.070 .042 -.094 .190 6 -.320* .075 -.116 .089 .092 .232 .109 .416* .119 .270 .270* .271* 7 -.181 -.211 -.117 .283* .009 .221 .221 -.175 .090 .019 .035 8 --.124 .269* .104 -.129 -.164 -.134 -.299* -.049 -.187 .077 9 -.251 .353* -.021 .252 .087 -.116 .055 -.029 .047 10 --.198 -.237 -.062 .045 -.151 .212 .037 .006 11 -.170 .287* .041 .282* .157 .169 -.037 12 -.203 .361* .529* .086 .137 .202 13 -.413* .237 .169 .336* .470* 14 -.421* .328* .275* .241 15 -.001 .156 -.003 16 -.402* .299* 17 -.402* 18 -Note. *p<.05 Variable Number Variable Variable Number Variable 1 (pre) Previously discussed conservation 10 (pre) Sex 2 (pre) Previously disposed of trash 11 (pre) Age 3 (pre) Previously attended presentations 12 (post) Disturbed (Empathy 1) 4 (pre) Previously owned bird house 13 (post) Compassion (Empathy 2) 5 (pre) Previously donated money 14 (post) Habitat concern (Altruism 1) 6 (pre) Habitat conservation attitude 15 (post) Animal concern (Altruism 2) 7 (pre) Bird of prey attitude 16 (post) Behavior acceptability 8 (pre) Member of conservation org. 17 (post) Likelihood to perform 9 (pre) Owns pets 18 (post) Commitment to perform (DV)

PAGE 105

105 Table 4-24. Geometric Scoring for the Depende nt Variable: Commitment to Engage in Environmentally-responsibl e Behaviors (N = 213) Behavior How Scored No. Scoring % Tell a friend about the presentation 1 208 97.7 Tell a friend about conservation 2 202 94.8 Not discard food scraps along roadways 4 195 91.5 Attend another wildlife-re lated presentation 8 200 93.9 Build or sponsor a bird nesting box 16 113 53.1 Donate money to a habitat conservation org. 32 147 69.0

PAGE 106

106Table 4-25. Correlations Between Variables for the Non-injure d Presentation Only (N = 213) Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 -.028 .050 .121 .043 -.008 .281* .055 -.091 .027 -.029 .111 .215 .210 .116 -.095 .059 .234* 2 --.082 .037 .128 .036 .190 .057 .155 -.031 -.182 .049 .259* .139 -.170 .009 .194 -.023 3 --.037 .050 -.095 -.004 .049 -.070 .112 -.005 -.177 -.057 -.137 -.151 -.059 -.033 .245* 4 -.089 .294* .127 .063 -.037 -.108 .046 -.004 .068 .071 .111 .064 .288* .157 5 -.302* .121 .337* .109 .154 .227* .184 .260* .254* .017 .060 .275* .077 6 -.309* .211 .206 .254* .101 .138 .064 .535* .265* .349* .539* .164 7 -.221 .092 -.001 .276* .035 .344* .369* .098 .293* .348* .008 8 -.128 .231* .033 .055 .226* .228* -.023 -.086 .148 -.001 9 -.129 .026 .396* .032 .157 .129 .128 .239* -.038 10 -.258* .230* -.118 .054 -.137 .083 .171 .265* 11 --.036 .376* .013 .246* .077 .046 .264* 12 -.348* .253* .391* -.087 .148 .273* 13 -.386* .065 .039 .288* .359* 14 -.291* .303* .383* .259* 15 -.042 .141 .284* 16 -.452* -.011 17 -.114 18 -Note. *p<.05 Variable Number Variable Variable Number Variable 1 (pre) Previously discussed conservation 10 (pre) Sex 2 (pre) Previously disposed of trash 11 (pre) Age 3 (pre) Previously attended presentations 12 (post) Disturbed (Empathy 1) 4 (pre) Previously owned bird house 13 (post) Compassion (Empathy 2) 5 (pre) Previously donated money 14 (post) Habitat concern (Altruism 1) 6 (pre) Habitat conservation attitude 15 (post) Animal concern (Altruism 2) 7 (pre) Bird of prey attitude 16 (post) Behavior acceptability 8 (pre) Member of conservation org. 17 (post) Likelihood to perform 9 (pre) Owns pets 18 (post) Commitment to perform (DV)

PAGE 107

107Table 4-26. Correlations Betw een Variables for the Pictures Group Only (N = 213) Var. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 --.024 .157 .023 .190 .184 .252* .187 .074 -.068 -.112 -.053 .261* .325* .000 .180 .066 .229 2 -.149 .158 .164 -.117 .414* -.024 .034 -.114 -.047 -.200 -.020 -.048 -.070 -.043 -.094 .103 3 --.119 .322* .156 .184 -.067 -.110 -.178 -.019 .040 .007 .108 .158 .035 .084 .020 4 --.093 -.146 -.019 .022 -.208 .013 .131 -.093 -.044 -.010 .009 -.021 -.013 .196 5 -.007 .084 .605* -.037 .118 .149 -.072 -.044 .084 -.155 .087 .118 .207 6 -.281* .014 .277* -.063 .124 .231 .454* .489* .177 .303* .396* .172 7 --.014 .179 .340* .339* .007 .574* .376* .057 .291* .322* .224 8 --.168 .000 .198 -.026 -.025 .092 -.128 .186 .153 .171 9 --.023 -.064 .203 .401* .180 .291* -.007 .038 .060 10 -.005 -.198 -.152 -.114 -.154 -.121 -.102 -.102 11 --.142 .423* -.074 -.014 -.230 -.039 -.029 12 -.335* .205 .261* .124 -.032 .215 13 -.610* .288* .487* .450* .330* 14 -.303* .413* .419* .407* 15 --.041 -.007 .019 16 -.757* .396* 17 -.461* 18 -Note. *p<.05 Variable Number Variable Variable Number Variable 1 (pre) Previously discussed conservation 10 (pre) Sex 2 (pre) Previously disposed of trash 11 (pre) Age 3 (pre) Previously attended presentations 12 (post) Disturbed (Empathy 1) 4 (pre) Previously owned bird house 13 (post) Compassion (Empathy 2) 5 (pre) Previously donated money 14 (post) Habitat concern (Altruism 1) 6 (pre) Habitat conservation attitude 15 (post) Animal concern (Altruism 2) 7 (pre) Bird of prey attitude 16 (post) Behavior acceptability 8 (pre) Member of conservation org. 17 (post) Likelihood to perform 9 (pre) Owns pets 18 (post) Commitment to perform (DV)

PAGE 108

108 Table 4-27. Summary Statistics of Summated Scale Scores for Major Instrument Constructs by Presentation Type (N = 213) Presentation Type Instrument Construct Statistics Injured Non-injured Slideshow Minimum 7.00 14.00 15.00 Maximum 30.00 30.00 30.00 Mean 24.60 26.43 26.27 SD 4.98 3.84 3.80 Importance of wildlife habitat conservation (max. possible score = 30.00) n 60 74 70 Minimum 17.00 15.00 15.00 Maximum 25.00 25.00 25.00 Mean 21.45 22.54 21.89 SD 2.38 2.56 2.39 Attitude towards birds of prey (max. possible score = 25.00) n 58 69 63 Minimum 6.00 6.00 6.00 Maximum 30.00 30.00 30.00 Mean 17.57 15.71 22.50 SD 9.64 8.13 7.54 Perception of birds in need (max. possible score = 30.00) n 60 77 66 Minimum 17.00 17.00 18.00 Maximum 99.00 98.00 116.00 Mean 44.98 45.13 63.51 SD 16.32 17.18 20.90 Empathy (max. possible score = 119.00) n 55 78 65 Minimum 9.00 11.00 15.00 Maximum 35.00 35.00 35.00 Mean 24.27 25.68 27.37 SD 6.38 5.76 5.61 Altruism (max. possible score = 35.00) n 59 77 70 Minimum 4.00 5.00 5.00 Maximum 63.00 63.00 63.00 Mean 40.47 47.78 46.67 SD 21.38 19.15 19.88 Commitment to perform behaviors (max. possible score = 63.00) n 60 72 70 Minimum 16.00 13.00 10.00 Maximum 30.00 30.00 30.00 Mean 25.13 25.56 23.40 SD 4.60 5.11 5.42 Acceptability of behaviors to others (max. possible score = 30.00) n 54 71 63 Minimum 6.00 10.00 6.00 Maximum 30.00 30.00 30.00 Mean 23.00 26.20 24.03 SD 7.42 4.89 6.51 Likelihood to perform if others were aware (max. possible score = 30.00) n 56 74 63 Note. Higher summated scale scores imply stronger feelings/intentions for that construct.

PAGE 109

109 Table 4-28. Multiple Regression Analysis to Predict Commitment Score for Performing Conservation-related Behaviors (N = 213) Variable B SE t p Constant 30.045 7.241 4.149 < 0.001 Previously Discussed Wildlife Habitat Conservation with Others 8.379 2.950 0.204 2.840 0.005 Acceptability of Behaviors to Others 0.496 0.285 0.126 1.737 0.084 Compassion for the Birds They Saw 5.423 1.538 0.259 3.525 0.001 R-squared 0.162 Standard Error of the Estimate 18.559 Table 4-29. Participant Satisfact ion with Zoo Educator and Pr esentation by Presentation (N = 210) Presentation Injured Non-injured Pictures Overall Item M SD M SD M SD M SD The presenters level of excitement for wildlife conservation wasa 4.92 0.3314.86 0.4484.82 0.457 4.86 0.421 The presentation held my attention. b 4.89 0.4514.92 0.2684.79 0.411 4.87 0.381 Note. a Rating Scale was 1 = Very Low to 5 = Very High. b Rating Scale was 1 = Strongly Di sagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.

PAGE 110

110 Figure 4-1. Path Model Showing Di rect Effects of Significant Independent Variable s on Commitment to Engage in Environmentallyresponsible Behaviors Commitment to Engage in Environmentallyresponsible Behaviors Discussing Wildlife Habitat Conservationrelated Issues with Others Acceptability of the Behaviors to Others Feeling Compassion for the Birds of Prey Witnessed 0.204 0.126 0.259

PAGE 111

111 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine if and how different types of birds of prey presentations influence the empathy, altruism, and be havioral intentions of elder adults living in retirement communities. Specifically, this st udy examined the applicability of the empathyaltruism hypothesis (Batson, 1991) in explaining participant commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors following e xposure to one of three presentations: (a) a presentation involving birds of pr ey with visible injuries, (b) a presentation with non-injured birds of prey, and (c) a slideshow presentation involving pictures of the same birds of prey. This study was the first of its kind to test th e relevance of the empathy-altruism hypothesis with live injured and non-in jured animals (C.D. Batson, pe rsonal communication, April 27, 2006). The dependent variable in this study wa s commitment to engage in six conservationrelated behaviors to benefit wildlife and their habitat that were advocated by the zoo educator during each of the three presen tations. These behaviors incl uded (1) telling a friend about the birds of prey presentation, (2) telling a friend about conservation, (3) not discarding food scraps along roadways, (4) attending another wildlife-rela ted presentation, (5) building or sponsoring a bird nesting box, and (6) donating money to a wild life habitat conservation organization. These six behaviors were selected because they ar e often encouraged during zoo and conservation education programs throughout the country (Dierk ing et al., 2002), including the programs of Tampas Lowry Park Zoo. Objectives 1. Determine the characteristics of participants of the birds of prey outreach presentations. 2. Identify the relationship between selected participant characteris tics and their associated level of empathy, altruism, and commitment to enga ge in environmentallyresponsible behaviors

PAGE 112

112 following exposure to (a) all injured birds of pr ey, (b) all non-injured birds of prey, or (c) pictures of the same birds of prey and identical conservation messages. 3. Build a regression model to predict commitment to engage in envir onmentally-responsible behaviors based on a participant s characteristics prior to atte nding the wildlife presentation, their empathic emotional response to the pr esentation, and their al truistic motivation following the presentation. 4. Measure the level of satisfaction that particip ants have with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo birds of prey outreach presentation. Research Hypotheses The following research hypotheses were develo ped based on available literature on the empathy-altruism hypothesis and rese arch on behavioral intentions. 1. Injured birds of prey will evoke higher leve ls of empathy, altruism, and commitment among participants to engage in e nvironmentally-responsible behavi ors than will non-injured birds of prey and color photographs of both injured and non-injured birds of prey. 2. Higher empathy levels will lead to highe r levels of altruistic motivation. 3. Higher levels of empathy and altruistic motivat ion will result in a stronger commitment to help and engage in the pro-environmenta l practices advocated by the zoo educator. Methods This study used a quasi-experimental design to examine elder adults living in retirement communities around the Tampa/Clearwater, Florida area. Because the dependent variable was commitment to engage in the conservation-rela ted behaviors advocated by the zoo educator, sampling had to ensure that this population had the ability and opportunity to engage in these behaviors. As such, retirement communities that agreed to participate were comprised of older adults who were physically able to leave their commun ity grounds as needed. A listing of all retirement communities ar ound the Tampa/Clearwater, Florida area was obtained. The sampling goal was to obtain a samp le of nine retirement communities. Once retirement communities agreed to participate, th ey were randomly assigned one of the three

PAGE 113

113 presentations. Accordingly, this convenience sample consisted of three communities for each presentation. Data collection involved the gr oup administration of a self-adm inistered questionnaire. As such, procedures outlined by Dillman (2000) were followed to reduce the potential for measurement error. The data collection instrume nt consisted of a preand post-assessment, both contained in a single booklet. Participants comp leted the pre-assessment pr ior to viewing one of the three presentations, viewed the presentation, and then completed the post-assessment. Four live birds of prey were included in bot h the injured and non-injured presentations. The all injured birds of prey pres entation consisted of an eastern screech owl, a Mississippi kite, a red-shouldered hawk, and a grea t horned owl. The all non-injur ed birds of prey presentation consisted of a barn owl, a barred owl, a bl ack vulture, and a Eurasian eagle owl. The slideshow presentation contai ned color photographs of the same birds of prey used in the all injured and all non-injured presentations. Pictures of three of the injured birds and three of the non-injured birds were presented during th e PowerPoint presentation. The three injured birds of prey presented during the first half of the slideshow were the great horned owl, redshouldered hawk, and Mississippi k ite. The three non-inju red birds of prey presented during the second half of the slideshow were the barn owl, barred owl, and black vulture. The same zoo educator facilitated each highl y scripted educational presentation. Every presentation was videotaped so th at consistency in the delivery style of the educator and in the educational messages presented could be verified. Videotapes also enabled the researcher to examine the potential influence of the behaviors of the live birds of prey on respondent levels of empathy and altruism follo wing each presentation.

PAGE 114

114 The data collection instrument used in this study was researcher de veloped. A panel of experts critically evaluated the in strument to enhance face and content validity prior to a pilot study. Construct validity and reliability were measured using principal component factor analysis with a Promax oblique rotation to aid interpretation when needed. The pre-assessment of the inst rument examined the prior conservation-related behaviors, attitudes toward wildlife habita t conservation, attitudes toward bi rds of prey specifically, and demographics of participants of each presentation. Reliability within each of the constructs was measured using Cronbachs alpha during the pilot study. Demographi cs included whether participants were members of conservation/e nvironmental organizations (and if yes, which organizations), whether they owned pets (and if yes, what kind), their loca tion (city and state) of permanent residence, sex, and age. The post-assessment examined the major theore tical components of the empathy-altruism hypothesis and theory of planned behavior. Specif ically, the post-assessment measured empathic emotional response to the presen tation, altruistic motivation fo llowing the presentation, and the commitment of participants of each of the three presentations to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. In addition, the post-assessment examined the satisfaction of participants of each of the presentations. The data collection instrument was broken in to parts and each part measured a major attitudinal or behavior al construct associated with the empathy-altruism hypothesis and the theory of planned behavior. Descriptive st atistics were used to summarize and compare participant attitudes between the three presentation types. Summated scale scores were used to summarize participant attitude s. Higher summated scale scores implied stronger feelings/intentions associated with that construct. After examining the attitudes of participants,

PAGE 115

115 factor analysis procedures allowed the resear cher to determine which items comprising each construct best described that construct and which related to commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors. To examine relationships am ong the variables and develop a regression model and path diagram, a correlation matrix was developed prior to implementing multiple regression analysis to investigate the potential fo r collinearity among the independent variables and to verify association between independent variables and the dependent va riable. Principal component factor analysis with a Promax oblique rotation was used as a data reduction technique prior to regression analysis. Factor scores were used in multiple regression. Finally, descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and sta ndard deviations were used to summarize the level of satisfaction that participants had with the zoo e ducator and educational presentation. Summary of Findings Objective One Participant Demographics The first objective sought to describe the character istics of participants of the birds of prey outreach presentations. A total of 213 usable questionnaires were obtained. Sixty-three respondents participated in the a ll injured birds of prey presen tation, 78 respondents participated in the non-injured birds of prey presentations, and 72 respondents participated in the slideshow presentations. The majority of respondents across presentation types were female. The mean age of respondents across presentati on groups was 73 years. The highest mean age was in the all injured presentation group. The oldest respondent was born in 1909 and participated in one of the non-inju red presentations. To check for bias in using the mean as an accurate descriptor of the sample age, the median and mode age were also examined. The median age was 72 and the mode was 65 (occurring 14 times).

PAGE 116

116 Fourteen U.S. states and five Canadian provinces (New Br unswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan) were represented by pa rticipants of this study. The majority of respondents reported that their perman ent residence was in Florida. The majority of respondents did not bel ong to a conservation or environmental organization. About one-tenth of male and female respondents were members of conservation/environmental organizations. Considering pet ownership among participants the majority of respondents did not own pets. This may have been a function of th e restrictions sometimes placed on retirement community members regarding pe t ownership. Those who indicat ed owning pets owned a cat, dog, bird, fish, or a combination thereof. Previous Engagement in Conservation-related Behaviors Respondents were also classifi ed according to their engage ment in five conservationrelated behaviors during the three months prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. About one-third indicated that they had discus sed wildlife habitat conservation with others. Most respondents indicated that they had properly disposed of tr ash that could harm wildlife but had not attended a public wildlife presentation in th e three months prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. Similar to the pet ownership is sue, responses to this item may have been a function of the retirement communitys rules. When asked about owning or sponsoring a bird h ouse in the three months prior to the zoos visit, two-thirds of the responde nts indicated that they had not engaged in this behavior. Onethird of the respondents indicated that they had not donated money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental organization during the three months prior to the birds of prey presentation. Perhaps the lack of opportunity to donate money or sponsor a bird house may have been due to the limited budgets of the respondents. Chi-square was used to test for differences

PAGE 117

117 among participants for each of these conser vation-related behavior s and no significant differences were found. Objective Two The second objective sought to identify the relationship between se lected participant characteristics and their associat ed level of empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors following e xposure to the three pres entations. Prior to measuring the association between independent va riables and commitment to engage in the six behaviors advocated by the zoo e ducator, principal component fact or analysis was employed. Summary of Major Constructs Measured Before running factor analysis, each of the ma jor constructs (indicated as parts on the instrument) was summarized using descriptive statis tics. Higher summated scale scores implied stronger feelings or in tentions to engage in an envir onmentally-responsible behavior. Regardless of the type of pr esentation participants experi enced, individuals believed wildlife habitat conservation was fairly important. In addition, participants of each of the three presentations had a moderately positiv e attitude towards birds of prey. In the post-assessment, particip ants of the injured and non-inju red presentations felt that the birds of prey were less in need than participants of the slideshow presentation. Similarly, participants of the slideshow pr esentation indicated feeling modera tely empathetic overall for the birds of prey whereas participan ts of the injured and non-injured presentations indicated feeling lower levels of empathy. Altr uistic feelings were similar between presentation groups with participants feeling somewh at to fairly concerned. Considering the dependent variable (com mitment to engage in environmentallyresponsible behaviors) and the constructs meas uring the influence of social norms, commitment scores were slightly lower for participants of th e injured birds of prey presentation than for the

PAGE 118

118 non-injured and slideshow presenta tions. Regardless of presenta tion type, indivi duals believed the behaviors advocated by the zoo educator were fairly acceptable to others and were fairly likely to perform the behaviors if others were aware that they performed them. Factor Analysis Findings Factor analysis procedures were used to ex amine the influence of individual items on the broader construct being measured. All respondents regardless of pr esentation type were included in this factor analysis. Factor analysis wa s conducted on the six items representing respondent attitudes toward wildlife habita t conservation before experiencing the birds of prey presentation. A single factor was extracted and it was termed encourage participation in conservation. Factor analysis on the five items representing res pondent attitude toward bi rds of prey prior to experiencing the educational presentation also resulted in one factor being extracted, termed beautiful and beneficial creatures. The 17 adjectives that Batson (1991) recommen ds using to measure empathy were factor analyzed. Two factors were extracted and Promax rotation was used to better interpret the data. The first factor was termed disturbed. Th e second factor was termed compassion based on the items comprising the factor. The six items representing each respondents perception of the level of need associated with the birds of prey in the educational presen tations were factor analyzed. One factor was extracted and entitled human care. The seven items representing the altruistic motivation (concern) that respondents felt following exposure to each of the presentations were factor analyzed. Two factors were extracted and Promax rotation was used to better interpret the data. The first factor was termed habitat concern. The second factor wa s termed program animal concern.

PAGE 119

119 Associations Among Variables/Cons tructs by Presentation Type Considering the injured birds of prey presentation, severa l statistically significant moderate to strong associations were found between the independent variables and respondents commitment to engage in the environmenta lly-responsible behavior s advocated by the zoo educator. Significant moderate associations were found between respondents who previously discussed habitat conservation-relate d issues with others and their altruistic concern for wildlife habitat and commitment to engage in environm entally-responsible behaviors. However, a significant negative association wa s found between respondents att itude toward birds of prey and their age and between age and feelings of empathic compassion for the injured birds they saw. Thus, the empathy-altruism hypot hesis may not hold for elder citizens. The correlation analyses developed as part of this study provide partial support for the applicability of the empathy-a ltruism hypothesis with live, inju red animals. As the theory suggests, a positive association was found betw een feelings of being disturbed (empathic emotion) by the injured birds of prey and altrui stic concern for wildlife habitat. A strong positive association was also found between empathic feelings of being disturbed and altruistic concern for other animals used in educational programs. Empathic feelings of compassion toward the injured birds of prey were also pos itively associated with altruistic concern for wildlife habitat, supporting the empathy-altrui sm hypothesis. Individuals with empathic compassion for the injured birds of prey were more likely to commit to performing the six behaviors to help w ildlife and their habitat. The emotional responses of participants of the non-injured presentation supported the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Empathic feelin gs of compassion were significantly positively associated with altruistic concern for wildlife habi tat and were also significantly associated with likelihood to perform behaviors to help wildlife and th eir habitat and commitment to engage in

PAGE 120

120 conservation-related behaviors. As the theory of planned behavior (A jzen, 1985) suggests, the acceptability of the conservation-related behaviors to others was significantly associated with the likelihood that responden ts would perform these behaviors. Finally, for the slideshow presentation, a significant pos itive association was found between respondents who believed wildlife habitat conservation was important and their level of empathic compassion toward the pictures of the birds of prey. No significant association was found between wildlife habitat conservation attitu des and compassion toward the birds of prey viewed for participants of the inju red or non-injured presentations. Considering the empathy-altruism hypothesi s, results of the s lideshow presentation somewhat contradicted what theory would predic t. While studies testing the empathy-altruism hypothesis have found that a positive association exis ts between empathic emotion and altruistic concern following exposure to pictures of in jured animals (Schultz, 2000), this study found no significant association between f eeling disturbed (empathy) and al truistic concern for wildlife habitat. As the empathy-altruism hypothesis s uggests, significant posi tive associations were found between compassion (empathy), altruistic concern, and commitment to engaging in helping behaviors for the picture group part icipants. Given these findings, slideshow presentations seem to be more effective at ge nerating empathic compassi on in participants who already have a positive attitude toward birds of prey. Slideshow presentations do not seem to be as effective as presentations usi ng live injured and non-injured birds of prey at elic iting disturbed empathic feelings to generate altrui stic concern for wildlife habitat. Objective Three This objective sought to build a regression model to predic t commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors based on a pa rticipants characteristic s prior to attending the presentation, their empathic emotional respon se to the presentation, and their altruistic

PAGE 121

121 motivation following the presentation. Analysis revealed that if the participant previously discussed habitat conservation issu es with others, felt empathic co mpassion for the birds of prey they witnessed, and believed the behaviors advocat ed during the presentation were acceptable to others they would be more li kely to have higher predicted commitment scores. The most influential variable was respondent feelings of compassion for the birds of prey witnessed. The effect of participating in a presentation w ith all injured birds of prey, all non-injured birds of prey, or pictures of th e same birds of prey did not sign ificantly contribute to predicting ones commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. Further examination of the dependent variable revealed that in addi tion to having low reliabi lity, the behaviors were not discriminating; over 90% of participants indi cated a commitment to four of the six behaviors following each of the presentati ons. Although the variables in th e regression equation accounted for 16% of the variability in commitment scores, this low variance explained may be due more to measurement error. As such, the dependent vari able is not a good measure for this sample. Objective Four This objective sought to determine the level of satisfaction that participants had with the presentations. Regardless of presentation type respondents believed the presenters level of excitement for wildlife conservation was very hi gh. Respondents also strongly agreed that the presentation held their attention, regardless of pr esentation type. Most re spondents indicated that they would have also liked to ha ve seen a bald eagle as part of the birds of prey presentation. Participants of the slideshow presentation indicated wanting to see a live bird of prey. Research Hypothesis One This hypothesis posited that injured birds of prey would evoke higher levels of empathy, altruism, and commitment among participants to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors than would non-injured birds of prey and color phot ographs of birds of prey.

PAGE 122

122 Although the empathy-altruism hypothesis woul d support this predic tion, this study found no significant presentation effect on respondent levels of empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. Research Hypothesis Two This hypothesis predicted that higher empathy levels would lead to higher levels of altruistic motivation, as the empathy-altrui sm hypothesis suggests. This study found that respondents who felt empathically disturbed from the injured and non-injured birds of prey presentations were more likely to have altruistic concern for animals in educational programs. Participants of the slideshow presentation who felt compassionate (empathy) toward the photographs they witnessed were more likely to have altruistic concern for educational program animals than were participants of the injured and non-injured pres entations. Based on the results of this study, evidence exists to conclude that higher empathy le vels lead to higher levels of altruism. Research Hypothesis Three This hypothesis predicted that higher levels of empathy and altruistic motivation would result in a stronger commitment to help a nd engage in the pro-e nvironmental practices advocated by the zoo educator. This study found that higher levels of empathy, specifically feelings associated with being empathically compassionate, significan tly contributed to a stronger commitment to engage in the pro-e nvironmental practices advocated by the zoo educator. However, although higher levels of em pathy led to increased altruistic feelings, increased altruistic feelings did not result in a greater likelihood to help. Instead, only feelings of being empathically compassionate contributed to the likelihood to help. Thus, the empathyaltruism hypothesis was only partiall y supported, perhaps in part due to measurement error in the dependent variable.

PAGE 123

123 Conclusions 1. Participants in this study were mainly female s in their early to middle 70s with permanent residences in Florida. Most did not belong to a conservatio n or environmental organization and did not own pets. In the three months prio r to the birds of prey presentations, about onethird had discussed wildlife habitat conservati on with others and owne d or sponsored a bird house. Over this time period, most participants properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife, had not attended a public wildlife presentation, and had not donated money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental organization. 2. With this demographic and birds of prey, em pathy can be defined in two ways: feeling disturbed by the birds and thei r associated stories, or fee ling compassion for the birds and their stories. Altruism can also be defined in two ways: feeling concer n over wildlife habitat, or feeling concern for the animals in educational programs. a. With live, injured birds of prey, a significan t positive association exists between feeling empathically disturbed and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat. b. With live, non-injured birds of prey, a signi ficant positive association exists between empathic feelings of compassion and altr uistic concern for wildlife habitat. c. With pictures of the same birds of pre y, no significant association was found between feeling empathically disturbed and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat. 3. Regardless of the injury status of live birds of prey or the vicari ous exposure provided by pictures of the same birds, elder individuals who discuss wildlife habi tat conservation issues with others, experience feelings of compassion from a wildlife presentation, and believe the behaviors advocated during the presentation are a cceptable to others are more likely to be committed to engaging in the advocated behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat. 4. Elder individuals tend to be very satisfied with a wildlife presenta tion facilitated by an educator with a very high level of excitement for conservation and a presentation that holds their attention, regard less of whether live (injured or noninjured) birds of prey or only color pictures of birds of prey are presented. 5. Injured birds of prey did not evoke significan tly higher levels of empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in environmentally-re sponsible behaviors when compared to noninjured birds of prey and color photographs of birds of prey. 6. As the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests, highe r levels of empathy led to higher levels of altruism. However, it depends on the type of empathy and altruism being examined. When live birds of prey are used, compassion and disturbed empathic emotions seem common. When pictures only are used, compassion feelings are common. Based on the results of this study, it takes a live animal to generate disturbed feelings in elder citizens. 7. Although higher levels of empathy led to increased altruistic feelings, increased altruistic feelings did not result in a gr eater likelihood to help. Only specific feelings of being

PAGE 124

124 empathically compassionate toward the birds of prey presented and discussed contributed to commitment to engage in helping behaviors. Discussion and Implications Objective One: Describe the char acteristics of participants of the birds of prey outreach presentations Although this study evaluated off-site, zoo outreach presentations at retirement communities throughout the Tampa/Clear water, Florida area, the par ticipants in this study were somewhat representative of thos e who visit zoos and aquaria. Just as Hudson (2001) predicted, there is a greater influx of older visitors in settings such as z oos, aquaria, and museums. Falk, Moussouri, and Coulson (1998) repo rted that 20% of museum vis itors were 55 years of age and over. More recently, Falk and Adelman (2003) repor ted that over one-third of aquarium visitors were over 50 years of age and, similar to the findings of this study, nearly 80% were not members of environmental organizati ons. Nearly two-thirds of the vi sitors were from U.S. states other than the state where the a quarium was located and 7% were from countries other than the United States. In both studies, more female s visited these environments than males. The majority of participants in this study did not own pets. However, in speaking with many participants in conversation after each presen tation, it became apparent that several of the retirement communities (three out of nine communities) visited as part of this study did not allow residents to have pets. Perhaps participants woul d have liked to own a pe t(s) but were not given the option of indicating such on the instrument. Given the work of Siegel (2004), individuals who own domestic pets may have different belie fs regarding environmental issues than non pet owners. Including a qualitative response option on the questionnair e for those who did not own pets to describe why may have provided more detailed information regarding pet ownership. Two-thirds of the participants in this study al so did not own or sponsor a bird house in the three months prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. One of the retirement

PAGE 125

125 communities visited as part of this study did not permit residents to have a bird house on their property. As such, several respondents indicat ed this on their questionnaire. Including a response option related to the rule s of the retirement community may have reduced this potential for measurement error. Regardless of sex, the majority of part icipants indicated not donating money to environmental or conservation organizations prior to attending the birds of prey presentation. However, several questionnaires contained short e xplanations beside this item detailing potential reasons for the lack of donations to orga nizations. Most respondents who included an explanation indicated that they would like to donate funds to environmental or conservation organizations but simply were not financially able. Including a res ponse option on the data collection instrument such as not financially ab le to donate would have provided more detailed information on participants environmental/cons ervation organization donation habits. Objective Two: Identify the relationship betw een selected participant characteristics and their associated level of empathy, al truism, and commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors In some earlier research on the link between empathy, altruism, and engagement in helping behaviors (Batson, Bolen, Cross, & Neuringer-Benefiel, 1986; Ba tson et al., 1989; Toi & Batson, 1982), principal component factor analysis results were reported concerning the dimensions of empathy. Each adjective loaded on two factors: a personal distress emotion (consisting of the adjectives alarmed, grieved, troub led, distressed, upset, disturbed, worried, and perturbed) and an empathy emotion (consisting of the adjectives symp athetic, moved, compa ssionate, warm, softhearted, and tender). Such results are similar to the principal components factor analysis results of this study, where a disturbed empathy dimension and a compassion empathy dimension were found. In the aforementioned works and other mo re recent studies (Batson et al., 2005, Schultz, 2000), empathy has been measured following respondent exposure to descriptions of a subject in

PAGE 126

126 need. The results of this study verify that the two empathy dimensions found over two decades ago using written descriptions of fictional subj ects are also emotions that respondents feel following exposure to live birds of prey. While empathic emotional response to subjects in need has typically been measured using multiple items, altruism has been measured us ing a single item (see Batson, 1991 for a review). The item typically asks respondents to indicate how much they found themselves caring about the welfare of the subject in ques tion along a nine-point scale from not at all to very much. For obvious reasons, factor analysis was not possible with a single item and therefore altruism, within the context of testing the empathy-altruism hypothe sis, has been regarded as one dimensional. However, in this study, altruism was measured using seven items and principal components factor analysis revealed two dimensi ons of altruism in the context of conservation education: concern for wildlife habitat or concern for animals in educational programs No significant relationships were found between participant sex and empathy, altruism, or commitment to engage in the environmenta lly-responsible behavior s advocated by the zoo educator, regardless of the type of presentati on experienced. However, Batson (1991), Batson et al. (2005), and Kellert (1980) s uggest that females are more likely to exhibit nurturance tendencies, anthropomorphism, humanistic attitu des toward animals, empathy, altruism, and engage in helping behaviors when compared to ma les. Two-thirds of the participants in this study were females. While the results of this st udy contradict what prev ious research has found regarding sex, perhaps the older age of the female s examined here should be considered as other studies have examined a younger demographic. For those viewing only pictures of birds of pr ey, regardless of sex, di sturbed (Batson refers to as distressed) empathic emotions were not el icited. However, the photographs of the birds of

PAGE 127

127 prey used in this study were cl ose-up pictures of the birds and not graphic photographs of injured birds of prey. Previous studies testing the empathyaltruism hypothesis with animals in need have used pictures of animals being harmed by humans (Schultz, 2002; Shelton & Rogers, 1981). For example, Shelton and Rogers (1981) exposed participan ts to 19-minute videotapes containing gory scenes of whales being hunted /killed and videos of Greenpeace successfully saving whales and found that intentions to help save whales and support Greenpeace were strengthened after view ing the videos. Others have f ound that viewing shocking photographs can help with information retention (Zillm ann, Knobloch, & Yu, 2001). With regards to environmentally related issues, DeLuca (1999) su ggested that disturbing photographs portraying habitat destruction and wildlife injury can provid e a broader perspective on the ramifications of human actions, help others consider the conseque nces of their actions, and inspire public action. Perhaps if more graphic photographs of injured bird s of prey were used in this study, participants may have indicated feeling empathically distur bed and have been more likely to engage in behaviors to reduce su ch feelings and help birds of prey. Schultz (2000) asked participan ts to view color images of injured animals and found that when asked to take the perspective of an inju red animal, individuals were significantly more empathic and altruistic than indi viduals who were asked to be obj ective. However, in this study, no significant association was f ound between feeling disturbed (e mpathy) and altruistic concern for wildlife habitat. This is particularly surprising since Batson (1991) suggests empathic emotions should be stronger for females (due to nurturance, see Bats on et al., 2005) and 66.7% of the slideshow group was female. Although Ke llert (1980) found that females were more humanistically oriented (exhibi ting feelings of strong affecti on and attachment to individual animals such as pets), this study found no signi ficant relationship between sex and empathy and

PAGE 128

128 altruism. With regards to Kellerts ecologistic attitude type (evident in individuals with a concern for the dependencies between animals and th eir natural habitats), regardless of the type of presentation one participated in, most participants in this study indicated ecologisticallyrelated behaviors. These partic ipants discussed wildlife habitat conservation issues with others, owned or sponsored a bird house, and properly dis posed of trash that could harm wildlife in the three months prior to attending th e birds of prey presentation. Participants of the slideshow presentation ha d a greater number of si gnificant relationships with the variables of empathic compassion, habitat concern, accepta bility of the behaviors being advocated to others, and likeli hood that they would perform such behaviors when compared to participants of the injured or noninjured presentations. One potential explanation for this is that the live birds of prey distracted participants, t hus preventing them from retaining the information being presented regarding environmentally-responsi ble behaviors that would help birds of prey. Given the body of literature suggesting that live animals can promote engagement among zoo participants (see Dierking et al ., 2002 for a synthesis), the engage ment of participants in this study directed toward the live bird s of prey may have diverted th eir attention away from the zoo educator and his environmental messages, potentially explaining th e difference in responses for the slideshow participants. Objective Three: Build a regression model to predict commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors The results of this study suggest that the type of wildlife presentation doe s not significantly influence the level of commitment that el der individuals have toward engaging in environmentally-responsible behaviors. Acco rding to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, empathic emotion is followed by altruistic motiv ation to help and it is this motivation that inspires behavioral engagement. However, in this study, altruistic mo tivation was not found to

PAGE 129

129 be a precursor to commitment to engage in help ing behaviors. For participants who previously discussed wildlife habitat conserva tion issues with others and felt the behaviors being advocated were acceptable to others, empathic compassion was the only significant variable of the empathy-altruism hypothesis that contributed to increased behavioral commitment. The fact that participants who believed the behaviors were acceptable to others were more likely to be committed to performing them agrees with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) which suggests that societal norms play an im portant role in influenc ing intent to engage in a behavior. Based on the work of De Y oung (2000), perhaps those who discussed habitat conservation issues with others and believe th e behaviors are acceptable to others are more committed to performing such behaviors because they get satisfaction knowing they are doing something that benefits what othe rs value as well (her e, wildlife habitat). Hungerford and Volks (1990) findings suggest that indi viduals who discuss habitat cons ervation-related issues with others may be more likely to commit to engaging in pro-environmental behaviors because they have knowledge of habitat conservation and with such knowledge, may feel more empowered to act. Still others like De Young (2000) and Ka plan (2000) might suggest openly discussing habitat conservation and ensuring a behavior is acceptable leads to commitment because of egoistic, personal feelings of satisfaction from doing their part to help species in need. The empathy-altruism model has been tested extensively on undergraduate, female college students who read a paragraph description of a subject in need and i ndicate their level of empathy, altruism, and intention to engage in beha viors to help the one in need. Before now, the model has not been verified with (a) live subjects (animals) in need or (b) older adults. One potential reason for the lack of a presentation e ffect on participant emo tional response to the birds of prey could be the low variability on the dependent vari ablethe commitment score for

PAGE 130

130 engaging in environmentally-responsible behaviors. An examination of Table 4-24 reveals that only the last 2 behaviors (commitment to build or sponsor a bird nesting box and commitment to donate money to a habitat conservation organiza tion) discriminated hi gh from low commitment scores. Perhaps these two behavior s attracted fewer participants be cause of the degree of effort required to perform them compared to the other four behaviors. While the empathy-altruism hypothesis suggests th at the injured birds of prey would evoke stronger feelings of empathy and altruism and result in a greater commitment to help than would non-injured birds of prey or pict ures of the birds of prey, perh aps the type of environmentallyresponsible behaviors being advoc ated must be considered. Schultz (2002) advocates that generic information about conserva tion is not as effective at mo tivating behaviors as targeted, specific information is. Some of the behaviors being advocated during the presentations and being measured in this study were non-specific conservation-related pract ices. For example, telling a friend about conservation, somethi ng the zoo educator advocated during each presentation, could be improved by discussing specific conservation topics related to each species of raptor. In line with the suggestions of Schultz (2002) the theories of reas oned action and planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) suggest that the size of the relationship between a behavioral intention and an actual behavi or can depend on the specificity of the behavioral intention being considered. As such, if more specif ic conservation-related behaviors were advocated by the zoo edu cator and included on the post-assessment questionnaire, perhaps the likeli hood that participants would actu ally engage in the practices would be greater.

PAGE 131

131 Although the behaviors being advocated by th e zoo educator in this study were nonspecific, some could be considered community-b ased types of environm ental actions (e.g., not discarding food scraps along roadways). Accordi ng to community-based social marketing theory (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999), as with the theory of planned be havior (Ajzen, 1985), societal norms influence the likelihood that an individual will engage in a behavior. Specifically, social marketing theory suggests that the likelihood that someone will engage in a behavior can be increased by asking that individu al to commit to performing a beha vior which benefits a broader organization of people (community). Given that commitment to engage in the behaviors being advocated by the zoo educator was the dependent variable in this st udy, advocating (and asking about on the questionnaire) specific behaviors that woul d benefit the particip ants own retirement community may have provide d different results. The potential influence of the characteristic s and teaching style of the zoo educator who presented the wildlife presentations in this study were not examined but may have contributed to the resulting commitment level of participants of the live animal and s lideshow presentations. Interpretation theory (Tilden, 1957) suggests that the specific behaviors of an educator can influence learner outcomes following exposure to a single educational intervention much like those presented in this study. Educators who can personally relate to their audience, reveal information about themselves and their topic, and provoke participants to engage in positive actions are more likely to have a lasting im pression (Tilden, 1957). The zoo educator who facilitated the wildlife pr esentations in this study related to hi s audience with personal stories and humorous anecdotes, and revealed information a bout himself and his topic by sharing facts about his experience and commitment to conservation. Ot her educational theorists also suggest that the

PAGE 132

132 characteristics and teaching style of the educat or can make a significant difference on learner outcomes (Nilson, 2003; Rosenshine & Furst, 1971). According to adult learning theory (Knowle s et al., 1998), relating the behavior being advocated to something the participant believ es will help resolve an issue of personal significance will enhance the likelihood of learning. If the personal relevance of the behaviors being advocated by the zoo educator were empha sized with regards to this older population, perhaps their commitment to engage in the behaviors would have been even stronger. Objective Four: Measure the leve l of satisfaction that part icipants have with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo birds of prey outreach presentation Kellert (1980) reported that approximately 15% of the American population was strongly oriented toward the aesthetic attitude type. Ae sthetic attitudes towards animals are those which emphasize the attractiveness or symbolic significance of animals. Perhaps participants in this study wished to see a bald eagle because of th e birds symbolic sign ificance as representing patriotism and the United States. Furthermore, the non-injured presenta tion group experienced a presentation in which three of the four birds we re owls. As Kellert ( 1980) suggests, the cultural and symbolic significance associated with owls as being wise may need to be considered as a possible explanation for the differences in found with the non-injured pr esentation group that were not found with the all injured or slideshow presentation groups. Recommendations for Research 1. Generic, non-specific environmentally-responsible behaviors were advo cated during wildlife presentations in this study. Further research is needed to examine the influence of targeted, species specific information dir ected at the objects (live animals or pictures) being used as teaching tools (e.g., donate five-dollars to the Audubon Center for Birds of Prey in Maitland, Florida to help their rehabilita tion and conservation efforts [specific] versus donate money to a wildlife habitat conserva tion organization [general]). 2. Seven items were used to measure altruism in this study and two types of altruism were found. Previous research testing the empathyaltruism hypothesis has used a single item to

PAGE 133

133 measure altruism. Using more than one item to measure altruism is recommended as this will test whether the kinds of altruism found in this study are relevant with other subjects. 3. Verification of the regression m odel developed as part of this study is needed. Testing the model and presentation regime used in this study with younger audien ces, as Batson has done in examining the empathy-altruism hypothesi s with college stude nts, could provide information that could be compared to Batsons existing research more directly. Testing the model using path analysis would also provide greater detail on potenti al causal influences and indirect effects leading to commitment to engage in pro-environmental behaviors. 4. Unique differences were found in the non-injured group that were not found in the all injured or slideshow groups. The non-injured group expe rienced a presentation where the majority of birds were owls. An examination of the potential cultural and sy mbolic influences of specific species type (e.g., owls vs. vulture s) and anthropomorphic tendencies on empathy, altruism, and commitment to engage in helping behaviors is needed. 5. The ethnicity of participants wa s not measured in this study. Given the cultural and symbolic significance of certain birds of prey species, an examination of the potential relationship between the ethnicity of zoo pr ogram participants and their em otional response to birds of prey presentations is needed. 6. Because live birds of prey were equally effec tive at influencing commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors as a slid eshow presentation of pictures of birds of prey, additional research is need ed to evaluate outreach presen tations that use a combination of live animals and technology (a dditional pictures, movie-clip s, sound-bites) in the same presentation. 7. The slideshow presentations used in this study contained non-graphi c, close-up photographs of birds of prey. Given the effects of view ing graphic images on emotions and behavioral intentions, more research is n eeded on the influence of using gr aphic pictures of injured birds of prey on zoo program partic ipant emotions and environm entally-related behavioral intentions. Information regard ing the appropriateness of vari ous graphic images with zoo audiences (which may include children) is also needed. 8. Participants of the slideshow presentations had different behavioral commitment-related responses than did participants of the injured and non-injured birds of prey presentations. More research is needed to determine if usi ng live animals in educat ional programs distracts audience attention away from the message s being presented by the educator. 9. Given the effectiveness of both live animals a nd color photographs of animals at inspiring commitment to engage in environmentally-resp onsible behaviors, additional research is needed to examine the influence of the edu cators characteristics and teaching style on participant commitment to engage in the behaviors he or she advocates. 10. This study assessed participant commitment to engage in environmentally-responsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator. Follow-up longitudi nal research is needed to examine actual participant engagement in such behavi ors at various time intervals following exposure to live birds of prey and/or pictures of birds of prey.

PAGE 134

134 Recommendations for Practice 1. This study found that when elder adults participate in wildlife presentations that create feelings of empathic compassi on, those participants are more likely to have commitment to engage in the behaviors advocat ed during the presentation. Rega rdless of whether a live bird of prey or a picture of a bird of prey is used in the presentati on, the educator should strive to share conservation-relate d stories and messages that insti ll a sense of compassion for the animals. The American Zoo and Aquari um Association also emphasized this recommendation. 2. Educators using live birds of prey or pictures of birds of prey as teac hing tools should share information about the social accep tability of the conservation -related behaviors they share with their audiences. With regards to outreach education in communities, this recommendation is supported by community-based social marketing theory (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999). 3. When using a live bird of prey (injured or non-in jured) is not compatible with the educational situation/setting (such as indoors at a senior center or retireme nt community), the results of this study suggest using a color s lideshow of pictures of the bird s of prey with audiences of elder adults. This teaching method was found to be equally effective at eliciting empathy and inspiring commitment to engage in conservatio n-related behaviors as live, injured and noninjured birds of prey were. 4. If using a live bird of prey is permissible, th e results of this study s uggest that live birds of prey be used in conjunction with a slideshow presentation of pictures of birds of prey. Participants often commented on th eir desire to see the birds fly as part of the presentation. Including a brief movie-clip of raptors flying as part of a slideshow presentation may add additional educational value to live raptor presentations conducte d where birds are not allowed to free-fly. In addition, the use of technology as part of a slideshow presentation may allow the educator to interject sound-bites of bird calls typically unable to be heard by participants of a live birds of prey presentation only (a mu lti-sensory learning opportunity). 5. When live birds of prey are able to be used in educational outreach presentations with the public, educators should emphasize the presence of live animals in their advertising efforts. The results of this study suggested that live birds of prey can be used as a marketing strategy to encourage voluntary participation in educational presentations that visit communities.

PAGE 135

135 APPENDIX A LETTER TO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION January 22, 2007 Glen Ellen Mobile Home Park, Homeowners Association 2882 Gulf to Bay Blvd Clearwater, Florida 33759 Dear Homeowners Association President: My name is Nick Fuhrman and I am a gr aduate student pursuing a Ph.D. in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communi cation at the University of Florida. The purpose of this letter is to ask for your communitys participation in a FREE educational wildlife presentation given by Tampas Lowry Park Zoo. As part of my research toward a doctorate I am working with Tampas Lowry Park Zoo to determine if and how different types of wildlife presentations influence the emotions and behavioral intentions of adults 55-years old and over. As such, I am asking retirement communities to participate in one of three different wildlife presentations. One of the presentatio ns will involve an outreach educator with the zoo (Mr. Jeff Ewelt) using four live, injured birds of prey (owls, hawks, eagles, falcons, vultures) as teaching tools in a 30-45 minute presentat ion. One of the presentations will involve Mr. Ewelt using four live, non-injured birds of prey in a 30-45 minute presentation. Finally, one of the presentations will involve Mr. Ewelt presenting a 30-45 mi nute slide show of pictures of birds of prey. Before and after each presentation, participants will be asked to voluntarily complete a short questionnaire. Fo r my dissertation research, I will compare the responses on the questionnai res between the three wildlif e presentations. Again, your retirement community would onl y be asked to participate in one of these free presentations. Thank you so much for your consideration. If you have any questions at all, please feel free to call my cell phone at (352) 226-1199 or Mr. Ewelt at (813) 935-8552 ext. 273. My email address at the University of Florid a is nifuhrma@ufl.edu. Tampas Lowry Park Zoo and I look forward to hopefully visiting with you and your group soon! 305 Rolfs Hall PO Box 110540 Gainesville, FL 32611-0540 Telephone: (352) 392-0502 Fax: (352) 392-9585 Department of Agricultural Education and Communication

PAGE 136

136 Sincerely, Nicholas E. Fuhrman, M.S. Ph.D. Candidate Department of Agricultural Education and Communication University of Florida The Foundation for The Gator Nation An Equal Opportunity Employer

PAGE 137

137 APPENDIX B POSTER USED TO RECRUIT PARTICIP ANTS AND ADVERTISE PRESENTATION Come Participate in a FREE Wildlife Presentation Coming to Shady Lane Oaks Tampas Lowry Park Zoo will visit the Club House on Tuesday, April 10th, 2007 at 7:00pm Come learn about owls, hawks, falcons, eagles, and vultures in an interactive presentation. Plus, a LIVE animal or two might also make an appearance. The visit will be part of a research study sponsored by the University of Florida. Participants will be asked to complete a short survey after the presentation. Everyone completing the surv ey will receive a gift for their time.

PAGE 138

138 APPENDIX C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD AP PROVAL AND INFORMED CONSENT

PAGE 139

139

PAGE 140

140

PAGE 141

141 APPENDIX D DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT ID #

PAGE 142

142 Wildlife Presentation Pre-assessment Questionnaire Thank you for participating in this study examini ng if and how different wildlife presentations influence the emotions and future actions of adults. Your input is valuable! START HERE PART ONE Directions: Please respond to the following stat ements regarding your environmental behaviors during the past three months. In the past three months, I have 1. Discussed wildlife habitat conservationrelated issues with others YES NO Did not have the opportunity to 2. Properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife YES NO Did not have the opportunity to 3. Attended public wildlife presentations YES NO Did not have the opportunity to 4. Owned or sponsored a bird house YES NO Did not have the opportunity to 5. Donated money to a wildlife habitat conservation or environmental organization(s) YES NO Did not have the opportunity to Please continue to the next page

PAGE 143

143 PART TWO Directions: Please respond to the following stat ements by circling the number that corresponds to your feelings about wildlife habita t conservation. 6. How important is wildlife habitat conservation to you? 1 Not at all important 2 Slightly important 3 Somewhat important 4 Fairly important 5 Very important 6 No opinion 7. How important is it to you that th e news media cover wildlife habitat conservation issues? 1 Not at all important 2 Slightly important 3 Somewhat important 4 Fairly important 5 Very important 6 No opinion 8. How important is it for you to engage in activities that help conserve wildlife habitat? 1 Not at all important 2 Slightly important 3 Somewhat important 4 Fairly important 5 Very important 6 No opinion 9. How important do you believe wildlife habitat conservation is for people who live in the city? 1 Not at all important 2 Slightly important 3 Somewhat important 4 Fairly important 5 Very important 6 No opinion 10. How important is it to you to encourage others to participate in wildlife habitat conservation programs? 1 Not at all important 2 Slightly important 3 Somewhat important 4 Fairly important 5 Very important 6 No opinion 11. How important is it to you to financia lly support wildlife habitat conservation programs? 1 Not at all important 2 Slightly important 3 Somewhat important 4 Fairly important 5 Very important 6 No opinion

PAGE 144

144 PART THREE Directions: Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the statements below by circling the appropriate numb er below each statement. 12. Birds of prey such as owls and ha wks are beneficial to the public. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree 6 No opinion 13. Birds of prey are beautiful creatures. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree 6 No opinion 14. Birds of prey are important for controlling rodents. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree 6 No opinion 15. Birds of prey make me nervous b ecause of the threat of disease. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree 6 No opinion 16. Birds of prey are interesting to me. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree 6 No opinion Please continue to the next page

PAGE 145

145 PART FOUR Directions: Please tell us a little about yourself. 17. Do you currently belong to an environmental or conservation organization? YES NO 18. Do you currently own any pets? YES NO 19. What is your permanent (where you live most of the year) residence? City: _________________________ State: __________________________ 20. What is your gender? MALE FEMALE 21. In what year were you born? Enjoy the wildlife presentation. If YES, which one(s)? If YES, what kind?

PAGE 146

146 Wildlife Presentation Pos t-assessment Questionnaire WAIT FOR INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE BEGINNING PART ONE Directions: Think about the birds in the presentation. Rate how in need you think the birds you saw today were by circling the number that most closely matches your feelings. The birds I saw today were in need of Not at all needed Slightly needed Somewhat needed Fairly needed Very needed No opinion 1. Aid 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Protection 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Veterinary care 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Affection 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Time away from people 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. A companion 1 2 3 4 5 6 PART TWO Directions: Please respond to the following statem ent by indicating the degree to which you experienced the following emotional reactions while watching the wildlife presentation. Please be sure to circle a response for each item. As I viewed the birds, I felt Not at all Moderately Extremely 7. Alarmed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Grieved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Sympathetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. Troubled 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 147

147 As I viewed the birds, I felt Not at all Moderately Extremely 11. Warm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Concerned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Distressed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Low-spirited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Intrigued 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Compassionate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Upset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. Disturbed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Worried 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. Moved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Perturbed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. Heavy-hearted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. Sorrowful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PART THREE Directions: Please respond to the following stat ements by circling the number that corresponds to your feelings a bout the birds you saw, other bi rds, and wildlife habitat. 24. As you viewed the birds, how con cerned were you about their well-being? 1 Not at all concerned 2 Slightly concerned 3 Somewhat concerned 4 Fairly concerned 5 Very concerned 6 No opinion 25. How concerned are you for bi rds of prey in the wild? 1 Not at all concerned 2 Slightly concerned 3 Somewhat concerned 4 Fairly concerned 5 Very concerned 6 No opinion

PAGE 148

148 26. As you viewed the birds, how concern ed were you about wildlife habitat in general? 1 Not at all concerned 2 Slightly concerned 3 Somewhat concerned 4 Fairly concerned 5 Very concerned 6 No opinion 27. As you viewed the birds, how con cerned were you about losing wildlife habitat? 1 Not at all concerned 2 Slightly concerned 3 Somewhat concerned 4 Fairly concerned 5 Very concerned 6 No opinion 28. Think about the birds you saw in tod ays presentation. How concerned are you about the habitat conditions of birds of prey in the wild? 1 Not at all concerned 2 Slightly concerned 3 Somewhat concerned 4 Fairly concerned 5 Very concerned 6 No opinion 29. As you viewed the birds, how concern ed were you about the well-being of birds of prey used in educational programs? 1 Not at all concerned 2 Slightly concerned 3 Somewhat concerned 4 Fairly concerned 5 Very concerned 6 No opinion 30. How concerned are you about the use of wildlife in general in educational programs? 1 Not at all concerned 2 Slightly concerned 3 Somewhat concerned 4 Fairly concerned 5 Very concerned 6 No opinion Please continue to the next page

PAGE 149

149 PART FOUR Directions: Please respond to the following stat ements by circling the number that corresponds to your feelings about each behavior. 31. Are you committed to performing each of the following actions now and in the future? a. Telling a friend about the presentation YES NO b. Telling a friend about conservation YES NO c. Not discarding food scraps along roadways YES NO d. Attending another wildliferelated presentation YES NO e. Building or sponsoring a bird nesting box YES NO f. Donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization YES NO

PAGE 150

150 32. How acceptable are these behaviors to others around you? a. Telling a friend about the presentation 1 Not at all acceptable 2 Slightly acceptable 3 Somewhat acceptable 4 Fairly acceptable 5 Very acceptable 6 No opinion b. Telling a friend about conservation 1 Not at all acceptable 2 Slightly acceptable 3 Somewhat acceptable 4 Fairly acceptable 5 Very acceptable 6 No opinion c. Not discarding food scraps along roadways 1 Not at all acceptable 2 Slightly acceptable 3 Somewhat acceptable 4 Fairly acceptable 5 Very acceptable 6 No opinion d. Attending another wildliferelated presentation 1 Not at all acceptable 2 Slightly acceptable 3 Somewhat acceptable 4 Fairly acceptable 5 Very acceptable 6 No opinion e. Building or sponsoring a bird nesting box 1 Not at all acceptable 2 Slightly acceptable 3 Somewhat acceptable 4 Fairly acceptable 5 Very acceptable 6 No opinion f. Donating money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization 1 Not at all acceptable 2 Slightly acceptable 3 Somewhat acceptable 4 Fairly acceptable 5 Very acceptable 6 No opinion

PAGE 151

151 33. What is the likelihood that you would perform these behaviors if others around you were aware that you performed them? a. Tell a friend about the presentation 1 Not at all likely 2 Slightly likely 3 Somewhat likely 4 Fairly likely 5 Very likely 6 No opinion b. Tell a friend about conservation 1 Not at all likely 2 Slightly likely 3 Somewhat likely 4 Fairly likely 5 Very likely 6 No opinion c. Not discard food scraps along roadways 1 Not at all likely 2 Slightly likely 3 Somewhat likely 4 Fairly likely 5 Very likely 6 No opinion d. Attend another wildliferelated presentation 1 Not at all likely 2 Slightly likely 3 Somewhat likely 4 Fairly likely 5 Very likely 6 No opinion e. Build or sponsor a bird nesting box 1 Not at all likely 2 Slightly likely 3 Somewhat likely 4 Fairly likely 5 Very likely 6 No opinion f. Donate money to a wildlife habitat conservation organization 1 Not at all likely 2 Slightly likely 3 Somewhat likely 4 Fairly likely 5 Very likely 6 No opinion

PAGE 152

152 PART FIVE Directions: Please answer the following questions by either circling the number that corresponds to your feelings or explaining your answer in writi ng. Your feedback is very valuable to us! 34. The presenters level of excitement for wildlife conservation was 1 Very low 2 Low 3 Medium 4 High 5 Very high 6 No opinion 35. The presentation held my attention. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree 6 No opinion Please explain your answer. 36. Was there anything else you would have liked to have seen as part of the presentation today? Thank you so much for your time and input! Please return this booklet to Nick Fuhrman and receive a small gift for your effort.

PAGE 153

153 APPENDIX E POWERPOINT SLIDES USED WITH COMPARISON GROUP PRESENTATIONS

PAGE 154

154

PAGE 155

155

PAGE 156

156

PAGE 157

157

PAGE 158

158 APPENDIX F ITEM ANALYSIS AND RELIABILITY BY INSTRUMENT CONSTRUCT Cronbachs alpha was calculated for three of the four parts of the pre-assessment (excluding participant demographics) and for four of the five parts of the post-assessment (excluding the customer satisfaction items in Part Five) to determine internal consistency. Item discrimination was also calculated using the corr ected item-total correlation statistic (D. Miller, personal communication, May 17, 2006). Corrected item-total correl ations above 0.20 indicated satisfactory item discrimination. Each component of the pre and post-assessment is summarized below. Pre-assessment: Part One Previous Conservation-related Behaviors Part one of the pre-assessment examin ed the environmental/conservation-related experiences of participants thr ee months prior to a ttending the birds of prey presentation. Participants were asked whether or not they had participated in each of the following behaviors: Discussed wildlife habitat conserva tion-related issues with others Properly disposed of trash that could harm wildlife Attended public wild life presentations Owned or sponsored a bird house Donated money to a wildlife habitat conser vation or environmental organization(s) Respondents also had the option of indicating that th ey did not have the opportunity to engage in each of the aforementioned behaviors. Pre-assessment: Part Two Attitude To ward Wildlife Habitat Conservation Part two of the pre-assessment examined pa rticipants attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation. Specifically, participants were asked to indicate the level of importance they associated with the following items: Wildlife habitat conservation in general News media coverage of wildlif e habitat conservation issues Engaging in activities to help conserve wildlife

PAGE 159

159 Knowledge of wildlife hab itat conservation for those who live in the city Encouraging others to participate in wildlife habitat conservation programs Financially supporting wildlife habitat conservation programs Pre-assessment: Part Three Attitude Toward Birds of Prey Part three of the pre-assessment was used to m easure participants attitude toward birds of prey specifically. Respondents were asked about their level of agreement that birds of prey: Are beneficial to the public Are beautiful creatures Are important for controlling rodents Make the individual nervous because of disease threats Are interesting to the individual Pre-assessment: Part Four Participant Demographics Part four of the pre-assessment was used to examine demographic aspects about each respondent. Specifically, responde nts were asked to indicate: Whether they belonged to an environmental or conservation organiza tion, and if so, which one(s) Whether they owned any pets, and if so, what kind(s) Where their permanent residence (where they liv ed for six months of the year) was located Their sex The year they were born Post-assessment: Part One Perception of Need The first part of the post-assessment asked re spondents to indicate how in need (from not at all needed to very needed) the birds of prey they witnessed (whether liv e or pictures) were of the following: Aid Protection Veterinary care Affection Time away from people A companion

PAGE 160

160 As Batson et al. (2005) and Batson (1991) s uggest, perception of need was used as a covariate in a multiple regression model predicti ng commitment to engage in environmentallyresponsible behaviors (see Po st-assessment Part Four). Post-assessment: Part Two Empathy Part two of the post-assessment was adap ted from Batsons (1991) instrument for measuring respondent empathic emotional response to either all injured birds of prey, all noninjured birds of prey, or color pictures of the sa me birds of prey. The 17 adjectives previously used by Batson (1991) were implemented in the sa me order and with the same 7-point response scale. See Batson (1991) or Batson et al. (2005) for more information regarding this scale. Post-assessment: Part Three Altruism Part three of the post-assessment contained seven items used to measure altruistic motivation following one of the three presentation s. Batson (1991) has used a single item to measure altruism. The seven items used in this study related to the respon dents level of concern for the following: The well-being of the birds of prey they saw Birds of prey in the wild Wildlife habitat in general Losing wildlife habitat The habitat conditions of birds of prey in the wild The well-being of birds of prey used in educational programs The use of wildlife in educational programs Post-assessment: Part Four Commitment to Engage in Co nservation-related Behaviors Item 31 in part four of the post-assessment se rved as the dependent variable in this study and measured respondents commitment to perfor m six conservation-relate d behaviors advocated by the zoo educator during each of the pres entations. These six behaviors included: Telling a friend about the presentation Telling a friend about conservation

PAGE 161

161 Not discarding food scraps along roadways Attending another wildlife-related presentation Building or sponsoring a bird nesting box Donating money to a wildlife ha bitat conservation organization Post-assessment: Part Four Accepta bility of Behaviors to Others Item 32 of part four of the post-assessme nt measured the leve l of acceptability of performing each of the six behaviors previously mentioned in the aforementioned section. Acceptability was measured along a 5-point scale from not at all acceptable to very acceptable. Post-assessment: Part Four Likelihood of Performing Behavior s if Others Knew Item 33 of part four of the post-assessment examined the likelihood that respondents would perform the same six behaviors if others around them were aware. A 5-point response scales was used. Post-assessment: Part Five Customer Satisfaction Part five of the post-assessment was used to measure participant satisfaction with the zoo educator and the wildlife presentation. Two Li kert-scale questions we re asked, one concerning the level of the presenters excitement for wild life conservation and one concerning whether the presentation held the respondent s attention. A final open-ende d question was asked requesting that respondents indicate anythi ng else they would have liked to have seen as part of the presentation. Internal Consistency Findings Internal consistency coefficients for each co mponent of the preand post-assessment are presented in Table F-1. For part one of the pr e-assessment, the reliability was 0.64. While this reliability is slightly lower th an the 0.70 level minimum level of acceptance (Davis, 1971), the researcher did not wish to add a dditional items to the instrument to increase reliability, given the age demographic of this study. In addition, fa ctor analysis procedures can help improve

PAGE 162

162 sometimes lower levels of overall reliability by extracting the most significant factors for later analysis in regression (D. Miller, personal communication, May 23, 2007). Item discrimination analysis indicated that the corrected item-total correlations for the five items in this section ranged from 0.26 to 0.52, implying satisfactory item discrimination. For part two of the preassessment, the reliability was 0.88. Item discri mination analysis reveal ed that the corrected item-total correlations for the six items range d from 0.63 to 0.78, indicating satisfactory item discrimination for this section. Fo r part three of the pre-assessment, the reliability for these five items was 0.81. Question 15 (Birds of prey make me nervous because of the threat of disease) was reverse coded prior to reliability analysis. Item discrimination analysis showed that the corrected item-total correlations ranged fr om 0.48 to 0.69, indicati ng satisfactory item discrimination for this section. Re liability and item analysis were not tested on part four of the pre-assessment because these items elicit demographic information. Item analysis and reliability coefficients were also calculated for the post-assessment (Table F-1). For part one of the post-assessme nt, the reliability for these six items was 0.91. Item discrimination analysis revealed that the corrected item-total co rrelations ranged from 0.66 to 0.80, indicating satisfactory item discrimination for this secti on. For part two of the postassessment, the reliability was 0.93. Item discri mination analysis showed that the corrected item-total correlations ranged be tween 0.32 and 0.79, indicating satisfactory item discrimination for these 17 items. Considering part three of th e post-assessment, the reliability was 0.83. Item discrimination analysis revealed that the correc ted item-total correlations for these seven items ranged from 0.49 to 0.59, indicating satisfactory discrimination. Three main questions were contained in part four of the post-assessment and each main question contained six sub-items reflecting six environmentally-re sponsible behaviors advocated by the zoo educator during the

PAGE 163

163 presentations. Item discriminati on and reliability coefficients were calculated for each of these three main questions and are presented in Table F-1. The reliability of question 31 (commitment to engage in behaviors to help wildlife and their habitat) in part four of the post-assessment was 0.56. Item discrimination analysis of the six sub-items for this question reveal ed that all sub-items except for one (not discarding food scraps along roadways) had corrected item-total co rrelations between 0.25 and 0.44. The sub-item measuring commitment to not discard food scra ps along roadways had a corrected item-total correlation of 0.07, well below the suggested 0.20 cut off for satisfactory discrimination and likely reducing the overall reliability of this construct. The relia bility of question 32 (acceptability of behaviors to others) in pa rt four of the post-assessment was 0.82. Item discrimination analysis of the same six behavioral sub-items revealed that corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.24 to 0.71, indicating satisfactory disc rimination among sub-items. The sub-item with the lowest discrimination score (0.24) again was the one regarding not discarding food scraps along roadways. The relia bility of question 33 (likelihood to perform behaviors if others were awar e) in part four of the pos t-assessment was 0.89. Item discrimination analysis of these same six sub-it ems showed that corrected item-total correlations fell between 0.49 and 0.83, indicating satisfactor y discrimination. However, the lowest discrimination score (0.49) was again associated with the sub-item regarding likelihood to not discard food scraps along road ways. Reliability and item disc rimination statistics were not calculated for the two quantitative items (zoo pres enters level of excitement for conservation and whether presentation held audience attention) in part five of the post-assessment because of the limited number of items.

PAGE 164

164 Table F-1. Reliability Coefficien ts (Cronbachs alpha) for Constr uct Sections of the Preand Post-assessments Instrument Component Construct Reliability Pre-assessment: Part One Previous conservation-related behaviors 0.64 Pre-assessment: Part Two Attitudes toward wildlife habitat conservation 0.88 Pre-assessment: Part Three Knowledge a nd attitudes toward birds of prey 0.81 Post-assessment: Part One Percei ved need of birds of prey 0.91 Post-assessment: Part Two Empathy 0.93 Post-assessment: Part Three Altruism/Concern 0.83 Post-assessment: Part Four, Q31 Co mmitment to perform behavior 0.56 Post-assessment: Part Four, Q32 Acceptability of behaviors to others 0.82 Post-assessment: Part Four, Q33 Likeli hood to perform behaviors if others were aware 0.89 Table F-2. Follow-up Logistic Regression Results on Each of the Six Environmentallyresponsible Behaviors Dependent Variable Percent Va riance Explained (R-squared) Telling a Friend About Conservation 13.1% Donating Money to a Conservation Org. 12.8% Attending Another Wildlife Presentation 11.5% Building/Sponsoring a Bird House 9.6% Not Discarding Food Scraps Along Roadways 2.6% Telling a Friend About the Presentation 1.1% Note. Highest four R-squared terms were summ ed and used in a second multiple regression model.

PAGE 165

165 APPENDIX G DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TH REE WILDLIFE PRESENTATIONS Presentation One: Exposure to All Injured Birds of Prey The all injured birds of prey presentations be gan with the researcher introducing the zoo educator, once the pre-assessment portion of th e instrument had been completed. The zoo educator began the presentations by highlighting the benefits of the study not only for the University of Florida and Tampas Lowry Pa rk Zoo, but also for the entire zoo and environmental education field. He provided a brief history of the zoo and mentioned his experience in working with birds of prey and passion for conservation education. He also highlighted the benefits of using injured and noninjured birds of prey as ambassadors for habitat conservation and encouraged the audience to pay clos e attention to the stories of why each bird is in captivity and what can be done to help. Four live, injured birds of prey were then pres ented one at a time. Th e first bird of prey presented was an eastern screech owl ( Otus asio ). The zoo educator in troduced the bird and addressed it by its name, Gizmo. Several minut es were spent discussi ng the birds natural history, including its small size, phy sical characteristics such as the tufts of feathers on its head, and importance in controlling pests (such as ro dents and cockroaches) in urban and suburban areas. The educator then revealed why the bird was in captivity, expl aining that its injuries were the result of a collision with an automobile. The educator pointed out that the bird was now blind in its right eye and had su ffered wing and foot damage on its right side where it was struck. Because of these injuries, the educator emphasi zed that the owl was no longer able to hunt and survive on its own. After explaining why the owl wa s in captivity, the educator de scribed specific behaviors that the audience could engage in to help habitat conservation e fforts and reduce the chances that

PAGE 166

166 other birds of prey would experience similar vehi cle-related injuries. The educator advocated that audience members not discard food scraps along roadways because food scraps attract rodents and birds of prey eat ro dents. By not discarding food sc raps along roads, the educator emphasized that birds of prey like the eastern scre ech owl will be more likely to hunt in locations other than along roadways where they are often h it by automobiles. In an effort to promote habitat conservation for birds of prey, the educator also encouraged the audience to build or sponsor a bird nesting box where birds of prey such as eastern screech owls and American kestrels ( Falco sparverius ) can nest and raise young. The educator also provided written instructions to audience memb ers who expressed an interest in building a nesting box. The second bird of prey presen ted was a Mississippi kite ( Ictinia mississippiensis ). The zoo educator again began by introducing the bird by name, Ciana. Several minutes were spent discussing the birds natural hist ory, including how kites compare to hawks, eagles, and falcons, what kites eat, and where they live. The educat or then revealed why the bird was in captivity, explaining that the bird was a hu rricane victim. After being f ound on the ground with most of its feathers missing, the kite was brought to the Audubon Center for birds of prey near Orlando, Florida. There the kite was treated and se nt to Tampas Lowry Pa rk Zoo where it fully recovered. However, as the zoo educator noted, the kite became imprinted onto zoo staff during treatment. In addition, although all of the birds fe athers grew back, its ta il feathers grew back improperly and because kites rely on their tails to turn and catc h insects during flight, the bird was not releasable. After explaining why the kite was in captivity, the educator described specific behaviors which audience members could engage in to benefit similar birds of prey a nd their habitat. The educator suggested that audience members donate money to wildlife reha bilitation and habitat

PAGE 167

167 conservation organizations like the Audubon Society to help their efforts in treating birds of prey and protecting their habitat. The third bird of prey presented as part of the all injured bird of prey presentation was a red-shouldered hawk ( Buteo lineatus ). After introducing the hawk as Callie, the zoo educator began by describing natural hist ory facts about the hawk, incl uding where they are found, what they eat, and how they compare to other hawks found in Florida. The educator then revealed why the bird was in captivity, explaining that th e bird was completely blind as a result of colliding with a window. Obvious to the audience members, such a disability rendered the bird non-releasable. After explaining why the hawk was in captivit y, the educator detailed specific behaviors which audience members could participate in to help other birds of prey. Because birds of prey follow the light from stars during their migration, the educator explained that often birds will mistake the lights of buildings for stars and collide with building wi ndows. The educator advocated that the best way to reduce the like lihood that birds will collide with windows is to turn off the lights in tall buildi ngs at night and to affix decals on windows to alert birds to the presence of a window. Because most buildings contain windows, the educator encouraged audience members to tell a friend or family me mber about using window decals and about the other conservation messages rev ealed during the presentation. The fourth and final bird of prey presented was a gr eat horned owl ( Bubo virginianus ). After introducing the owl by na me, Klinger, the zoo educator again began by describing natural history facts about great horned owls. The educator shared facts about the owls eyesight, diet, hunting abilities, and behaviors. The educator then revealed why the bird was in captivity, explaining that, like the eastern screec h owl, it too was struck by an automobile.

PAGE 168

168 However, the impact from the automobile was so severe that the owl s right wing had to be amputated. After explaining why the owl wa s in captivity, the educator de scribed specific behaviors the audience could engage in to help similar bi rds of prey and their ha bitat. Audience members were again reminded of the importance of not discarding food scraps along roadways and encouraged to place items such as apple cores and banana peals in the trash can. Because the great horned owl was the final bird of prey in the all injured presentation, the educator ended the presentation by encouraging two additional environmentally-responsible behaviors. He encouraged audience members to (a) tell a frie nd about the presentation and (b) if possible, attend another wildlife-related pr esentation. A brief (five to 10-minute) question and answer session followed. Immediately following the question and answer period, the researcher directed those who agreed to participate in the study to complete the post-assessment portion of their questionnaire booklet. Presentation Two: Exposure to All Non-injured Birds of Prey The videotapes of the presentations reveal ed that the all non-injured birds of prey presentations were nearly identical to the all injured presentations in terms of conservation messages shared and environmentally-responsible behaviors encouraged. Like the all injured birds of prey presentations, th e all non-injured bird s of prey presentations began with the researcher introducing the zoo educator followi ng completion of the pre-assessment portion of questionnaire. The zoo educator again began all of the non-inju red presentations by highlighting the benefits of the study for Tampas Lowry Park Zoo and the entire zoo/conservation education discipline. He also provided a brief history of the zoo and mentioned his experience in working with birds of prey, passion for conservation educ ation, and the benefits of using injured and non-

PAGE 169

169 injured birds of prey as teaching tools. He again encouraged each audience to pay particular attention to the stories associated with each bird and what they personally can do to help. Four live, non-injured birds of prey were then presented one at a time. The first noninjured bird of prey presented was a barn owl ( Tyto alba ). The zoo educator introduced the bird as Norman, and spent several minutes desc ribing natural history facts about the owls, including where they live, how they are designe d to hunt using their h earing, and why they are important for rodent control. The educator then revealed why the owl was in captivity, explaining that it was found as an owlet betw een two hay bales on a farm. The farmer who found the baby owl raised it in captivity and as a result, the bird became imprinted onto people and unable to hunt on its own. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service confiscated the owl from the farmer and it was taken to the Audubon Ce nter near Orlando, Florida. Because of its dependency on people, the Audubon Society donated the owl to Tampas Lowry Park Zoo for use in educational programs. After explaining why the owl wa s in captivity, the educator de scribed specific behaviors that the audience could do to help other birds of prey and their habitat. The educator advocated that audience members build or sponsor a barn owl nesting box because the number of farms and barns is steadily decreasing. Written instruct ions on how to build a nesting box were made available to interested audience members. In addition, the educat or encouraged individuals to donate money to wildlife rehab ilitation and conservation organi zations like the Audubon Society to help these and other non-profit or ganizations continue their efforts. The second bird of prey pr esented was a barred owl ( Strix varia ). The zoo educator introduced the bird and addressed it by its name, Pandora. Again, several minutes were spent describing natural history facts about the bird, in cluding the origin of its name, importance of its

PAGE 170

170 large eyes, diet, and hunting abilit y. The educator then revealed why the owl was in captivity, describing that the bird was fed hotdogs as an owlet by members of a community in south Florida and had become the communitys pet. In fact, the educator expl ained that the bird had become so used to people that it could be t ouched. As a result of becoming imprinted and a potential danger to the public (i f approaching someone in search of food), the educator explained that the owl would remain in captivity as a conservation ambassador for other species. After explaining why the owl wa s in captivity, the educator de scribed specific behaviors that the audience could do to benefit birds of prey and their habitat. Although the barred owl was not injured, the educator de scribed how many owls are struck by automobiles due to their binocular vision and why not discarding food scraps along roadways is important. He encouraged everyone who has food scraps such as apple cores and banana peals to properly discard such items in a trashcan. The third non-injured bird pr esented was a black vulture ( Coragyps atratus ). After introducing the bird by name, Smeadly, the ed ucator spent several minutes discussing the birds natural history. This in cluded sharing facts about how it is designed to eat carrion, where they are found, and their high intell igence level. The educator then revealed why the bird was in captivity, explaining that the vultu re was found as a baby on the ground in the middle of a forest fire (vultures nest on the ground) and brought to a wildlife rehabilita tion center. Because vultures are extremely social animals, the vulture imprinted onto the reha bilitation center staff and could not be released. After explaining why the vulture was in captivity, the educator described specific behaviors that audience members coul d engage in to help other, similar birds and their habitat. The educator advocated that audi ence members donate money to wildlife rehabilitation centers

PAGE 171

171 like the one that the black vulture was taken to and to habitat conser vation organizations to support the work that these non-prof it organizations do. To help facilitate this process, the zoo educator brought bumper stickers containing a pi cture of a black vulture and offered them for one dollar each. The educator explained that th e proceeds from the sale of the stickers would go to the Peregrine Fund to support ra ptor research efforts. The fourth and final bird of prey presen ted during the non-injured presentation was a Eurasian eagle owl ( Bubo bubo ). As with the other birds, th e educator spent several minutes discussing the owls natural hist ory, including facts about the owls eye-sight, diet, hunting abilities, and behaviors. The educator then re vealed why the bird wa s in captivity, explaining that the bird was captive bred by another zoo and donated to Tampas Lowry Park Zoo. Because the owl was raised in captivity, the educator emphas ized that the bird was used as an ambassador for other, wild birds of prey. After explaining why the bird was in captiv ity, the educator again described specific behaviors that the audience could do to help birds of prey and their habitat. He suggested that individuals tell a friend about cons ervation for birds of prey and wildlife in general, both in Florida and worldwide. Because the Eurasian ea gle owl was the final bird in the non-injured presentation, the educator ended the presentation by encouraging two additional environmentally-responsible behaviors. He enco uraged audience members to also (a) tell a friend about the presentation they saw and (b) a ttend another wildlife-rela ted presentation offered by a zoo or conservation organiza tion. A brief (five to 10-minut e) question and answer session followed. Immediately following the question and answer period, the resear cher directed those who agreed to participate in the study to complete the post-assessment portion of their questionnaire booklet.

PAGE 172

172 Presentation Three (Comparison Group): Ex posure to Pictures of Birds of Prey The comparison group presentation series was ne arly identical to th e all injured and all non-injured presentations. The onl y difference was that instead of live, injured or non-injured birds of prey, the same zoo educator used PowerP oint slides with color photographs of the same birds presented in the all inju red and all non-injured presenta tions (see Appendix E for the PowerPoint slides used). The methods employe d with the slideshow groups closely resembled those used by Schultz (2000) in testing the empa thy-altruism hypothesis usi ng pictures of injured animals. The slideshow presentations also be gan with the researcher introducing the zoo educator following completion of the pre-assessmen t portion of the questionnaire. As before, the zoo educator began by highlighting the benef its of the study for the zoo and conservation education fields and provided a brief history of the zoo. He again mentioned his experience in working with birds of prey, passion for conser vation education, and the reasons why birds of prey are unique compared to other species. He high lighted the benefits of using birds of prey as ambassadors for conservation and encouraged the a udience to pay particul ar attention to the stories associated with the bird photographs and what the pub lic can do to help. The same conservation messages and environmentally-respons ible behaviors shared during presentations one and two were presented to the slideshow groups. Color photographs of three of the four injured birds of prey presente d during the all injured presentation (great horned owl, red-shouldered hawk, and Mississi ppi kite) were shown one at a time during the first half of the PowerPoint presen tation. Pictures of all four injured birds were not used so as to ensure that the slideshow presentations would la st about as long as the two live animal presentations. Again, several minutes we re spent discussing each of the birds natural history facts. The same natura l history facts shared about ea ch bird during the all injured presentation were shared as the educator showed color photographs of each bird on a PowerPoint

PAGE 173

173 slide with minimal text. For each bird, after discussing natural hi story facts with the audience, the educator would describe why such birds cam e to the zoo and are in captivity. The same stories of injuries shared during the all injured presenta tion were shared. After presenting color photographs of the gr eat horned owl, redshouldered hawk, and Mississippi kite (one PowerPoint slide per bird), discussing natura l history facts, and sharing the reasons each bird came into captivity, the educator described specific behavi ors that the audience could do to benefit birds of prey and their habita t. The same behaviors described about helping these three birds during the all injured pres entation were shared during the slideshow presentation. Color photographs of three of the four non-in jured (imprinted) bird s of prey presented during the all non-injured presentations (barn ow l, barred owl, and black vulture) were shown one at a time during the second ha lf of the PowerPoint presenta tion. Pictures of all four noninjured birds were not used so as to ensure that the slideshow presentati ons would last about as long as the injured and non-injured presentations Again, several minutes were spent discussing each of the birds natural history facts. The same natural histor y facts shared about each bird during the all non-injured presentati ons were shared as the educator showed color photographs of each bird on a PowerPoint slide with minimal text For each bird, after di scussing natural history facts with the audience, the educator would desc ribe why such birds came to the zoo and are in captivity. The same stories shared during the al l non-injured presentation s were shared during this second half of th e slideshow presentation. After presenting color photographs of the barn owl, barred owl, and black vulture (one PowerPoint slide per bird), discussing natural hi story facts, and sharing the reasons each bird came into captivity, the educator ag ain described specific behaviors that the audience could do to

PAGE 174

174 benefit birds of prey and their habitat. The same behaviors de scribed about helping these three birds during the all non-injured presentations we re shared during the slideshow presentation. After describing these specific environmentally-r esponsible behaviors, th e zoo educator ended the presentation just like the all injured and all non-injured presen tations by encouraging audience members to engage in two more ge neral behaviors. Like the previous two presentations, these were to (a) tell a friend about the presentation they saw and (b) attend another wildlife-related presentati on offered by a zoo or conserva tion organization. As before, a brief (five to 10-minute) question and answer session followed. Immediately following the question and answer period, the rese archer directed those who agr eed to participate in the study to complete the post-assessment portion of their questionnaire booklet and distributed University of Florida pens as a token of appreciation.

PAGE 175

175 LIST OF REFERENCES Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A th eory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckman (Eds.). Action-Control: From cognition to behavior 11-39. Heidelberg: Springer. Allport, G.W. (1967). Attitudes. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 3-13). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 191-212. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior, 4 71-81. New York, NY: Academic Press. Batson, C.D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Batson, C.D., Batson, J.G., Griffitt, C.A., Barrien tos, S., Brandt, J.R., Sprengelmeyer, P., & Bayly, M.J. (1989). Negativestate relief and the empa thy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (6), 922-933. Batson, C.D., Bolen, M.H., Cross, J.A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, H.E. (1986). Where is the altruism in the altruistic personality? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (1), 212-220. Batson, C.D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 1656-1666. Batson, C.D., Lishner, D.A., Cook, J., & Sawyer S. (2005). Similarity and nurturance: Two possible sources of empathy for strangers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27 (1), 1525. Beck, A., Seraydarian, L., & Hunter, G.F. (1986). The use of animals in the rehabilitation of psychiatric inpatients. Psychological Reports, 58 (1), 63-66. Brewer, C. (2001, October). Cultivating conserva tion literacy: Trickle-down education is not enough. Conservation Biology, 15 (5), 1203-1205.

PAGE 176

176 Clouser, R.L. (2006). Issues at the rural-urban fringe: Will Florida be prepared for 2030? (EDIS document FE661). Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling techniques New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Conservation Education Committ ee: Conservation Messages. ( 2000, March). Retrieved June 28, 2005, from http://www.aza.org/ConEd/ConMessages/ Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning. Cronin-Jones, L. (2005, January). Six goals of a well developed environmental education program. Outline presented in a classroom lecture at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Davis, J.A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Davison, V.M., McMahon, L., Skinner, T.L., Horton, C.M., & Parks, B.J. (1993). Animals as actors: Take 2. Annual Proceedings of the American A ssociation of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 150-155. De Young, R. (2000). Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 509-526. DeLuca, K.M. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetor ic of environm ental activism New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Dierking, L.D., Burtnyk, K., Buchner, K.S., & Falk, J.H. (2002). Visitor learning in zoos and aquariums: A literature review. Annapolis, MD: Institut e for Learning Innovation. Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Dunlap, J., & Kellert, S.R. (1989). Informal learning at the zoo: A study of attitude and knowledge impacts Philadelphia, PA: Zoological Society of Philadelphia. Falk, J.H., & Adelman, L.M. (2003). Investigating the impact of prior know ledge and interest on aquarium visitor learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (2), 163-176. Falk, J.H., & Dierking, L.D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Falk, J.H., Moussouri, T., & Coulson, D. (1998) The effect of visito rs agendas on museum learning. Curator, 41 (2), 107-120.

PAGE 177

177 Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the predic tion of behavior. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 477-492). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research Reading, MA: Addison-We sley Publishing Company. Francis, G., Turner, J.T., & Johnson, S.B. (1985). Domestic animal visitation as therapy with adult home residents. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 22 (3), 201-206. Friedman, E., Katcher, A., Lynch, J., & Thomas S. (1980). Animal companions and one-year survival of patients discharged from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports, 95 307312. Friedman, E., Katcher, A., Thomas, S., Lynch, J ., & Messent, P. (1983). So cial interaction and blood pressure: Influence of animal companions. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171 461-465. Geisler, A.M. (2004). Companion animals in palliative care: Stories from the bedside. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 21 (4), 285-288. Gilligan, C., & Attanucci, J. (1994). Two moral orie ntations: Gender differenc es and similarities. In B. Puka (Ed.). Moral development: A compendium 6 123-137. Gippoliti, S., & Amori, G. (1998). Rodent cons ervation, zoos, and the importance of the common species. Zoo Biology, 17 263-265. Guion, L.A., Turner, J., & Wise, D.K. (2004). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an elder financial abuse program. Journal of Extension, 42 (3). Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/a6.shtml Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Ta tham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hargrove, T.M., & Jones, B.L. (2004). A qualitativ e case study analysis of the small farmers outreach training and technical assistance (2501) program from 1994-2001: Implications for African American farmers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45 (2), 72-82. Hatry, H.P. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Henderson, C. (1984). Publicity strategies and techniques for Minnesotas non-game wildlife check-off. Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, 49 181-189. Hudson, S.J. (2001, April). Challenges for environm ental education: Issues and ideas for the 21st century. BioScience, 51 (4), 283-288.

PAGE 178

178 Hull, D.B. (2003). Observing animal behavi or at the zoo: A learning laboratory. Teaching of Psychology, 30 (2), 117-119. Hungerford, H.R., & Volk, T.L. (1990). Changi ng learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environm ental Education, 21 (3), 8-22. Israel, G.D. (2005). Visual cues and response format effects in mail surveys: A research note. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of th e Rural Sociology Society, Tampa, Florida Jacobson, S.K. (1999). Communication skills for c onservation professionals Washington, DC: Island Press. Kaiser, F.G., & Shimoda, T.A. (1999). Responsibili ty as a predictor of ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19 243-253. Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and e nvironmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 56 (3), 491-508. Kellert, S.R. (1980). Contemporary values of wild life in American society. In W.W. Shaw & E.H. Zube (Eds.), Wildlife values (pp. 31-60). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona. Kellert, S.R., & Dunlap, J. (1989). Informal learning at the zoo: A study of attitude and knowledge impacts. Philadelphia: Zool ogical Society of Philadelphia. Kim, J., & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis : What it is and how to do it (Series/Number 07-013). Newbury Pa rk, CA: Sage Publications. Knapp, D., & Poff, R. (2001). A qualitative analys is of the immediate and short-term impact of an environmental interpretive program. Environmental Education Research, 7 (1), 55-65. Knegtering, E., Hendrickx, L., van der Windt, H. J., & Schoot-Uiterkamp, A.J.M. (2002). Effects of species characteristics on nongovernmental organizations attit udes toward species conservation policy. Environment and Behavior, 34 (3), 378-400. Knowles, M.S., Holton, E.F., & Swanson, R.A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company. Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experien ce as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Krebs, D.L. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 1134-1146. Kreger, M.D., & Mench, J.A. (1995). Vis itor-animal interac tions at the zoo. Anthrozoos, 8 (3), 143-158.

PAGE 179

179 Leeming, F.C., Dwyer, W.O., Porter, B., & C obern, M.K. (1993). Ou tcome research in environmental education: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Education, 24 (4), 821. Lewis-Beck, M.S. (1980). Applied regression: An introduction. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Newbur y Park, CA: Sage Publications. Main, M.B., Hostetler, M. E., & Karim, A. (2003). Evaluating private lands for conservation of wildlife (EDIS document WEC 164). Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation. McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behav ior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., & Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Montague, J. (1995). Continuing care: Back to the garden. Hospice Health Network, 69 (17), 5860. Morgan, J.M. (1992). A theoretical basis for ev aluating wildlife-relate d education programs. The American Biology Teacher, 54 (3), 153-157. Morgan, J.M., & Gramann, J.H. (1989). Predicting effectiveness of wildlife education programs: A study of students attitudes and knowledge toward snakes. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17 501-509. Morgan, J.M., & Hodgkinson, M. (1999). The motiva tion and social orientation of visitors attending a contemporary zoological park. Environment and Behavior, 31 (2), 227-239. Myers, O.E., & Saunders, C.D. (2002). Animals as links toward developi ng caring relationships with the natural world. In P.H. Kahn & S.R. Kellert (Eds.). Children and Nature, 153-178. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nilson, L.B. (2003). Teaching at its best: A research-bas ed resource for college instructors Jaffrey, NH: Anker Publishing Company. Osborne, J.W., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assump tions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 8 (2). Pusser, T. (2004, October). Wildlife and the road: Roadkill isnt th e only result of animals on the highways. Wildlife in North Carolina, 68 (10), 26-29. Rohlf, D.J. (1991). Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesnt work and what to do about it. Conservation Biology, 5 (3), 273-282. Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1971). Research on teacher performance criteria. In B.O. Smith (Ed.), Research in teacher education (pp. 37-72). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

PAGE 180

180 Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W., & Freeman, H.E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. (7th ed.). Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications. Rusk, C.P., & Machtmes, K. (2002). Teaching youth through 4-H animal science workshops. Journal of Extension, 40 (5). Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/iw7.shtml Schultz, P.W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: Th e effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 391-406. Schultz, P.W. (2002). Knowledge, informati on, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change In T. Dietz & P.C. Stern (Eds.), New tools for environmental protection: Educati on, information, and voluntary measures (pp. 67-82). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Schwartz, S. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10 221-279. New York: Academic Press. Shelton, M.L., & Rogers, R.W. ( 1981). Fear-arousing and empathyarousing appeals to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11 (4), 366-378. Siegel, J.M. (1990). Stressful life events and us e of physician services among the elderly: The moderating role of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 10811086. Siegel, W.L. (2004). The role of animals in education. ReVision, 27 (2), 17-26. Stoinski, T.S., Lukas, K.E., & Maple, T.L. (1998). A survey of research in North American zoos and aquariums. Zoo Biology, 17 167-180. Swanagan, J.S. (2000). Factors influencing zoo visitors conservation attitudes and behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31 (4), 26-31. Taylor, S.E. (2002). The tending instinct New York: Henry Holt. Thurstone, L.L. (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 26 249-269. Thurstone, L.L. (1967). Attitudes can be measured. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement (pp. 77-89). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Tilden, F. (1957). Interpreting our heritage (3rd ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Toi, M., & Batson, C.D. (1982). More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 281-292.

PAGE 181

181 Tunnicliffe, S.D. (1995). The content of convers ations about the body parts and behaviors of animals during elementary school visits to a zoo and the implications for teachers organizing field trips. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 7 (1), 29-46. Vining, J. (2003). The connection to ot her animals and caring for nature. Human Ecology Review, 10 (2), 87-99. Weigel, R.R., Caiola, B., & Pittman-Foy, L. (2002) 4-H animal care as therapy for at-risk youth. Journal of Extension, 40 (5). Retrieved July 5, 2005, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2002october/iw6.shtml Wickless, M., Brooks, D.W., Abuloum, A., Manc uso, B., Heng-Moss, T.M., & Mayo, L. (2003). Our zoo to you. Science and Children, 41 (1), 36-39. Yerke, R., & Burns, A. (1991). Measuring the imp act of animal shows on visitor attitudes. Annual Proceedings of the American Associ ation of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 532-539. Yerke, R., & Burns, A. (1993). Evaluation of the educational effectiveness of an animal show outreach program for schools. Annual Proceedings of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, 366-368. Zillmann, D., Knobloch, S., & Yu, H. (2001). Effect s of photographs on the selective reading of news reports. Media Psychology, 3 (4), 301-324. Zimmermann, L.K. (1996). Knowledge, affect, and the environment: 15 year s of research (19791993). Journal of Environmental Education, 27 (3), 41-44.

PAGE 182

182 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Nicholas E. Fuhrman grew up outside of Baltimor e, Maryland in the town of Perry Hall. At the age of six, his first grade class was visi ted by a guest speaker, Rang er Bill Trautman, who brought in several injured birds of prey and reptiles. Watc hing Ranger Bill and seeing his passion for environmental education, Nick decide d that teaching others using live animals was his dream. Over 21 years later, he still has that passion. Nick volunteered with Ranger Bill from the age of eight until he turned 16, cleaning cages, handling birds of prey, and observing Ranger Bi lls teaching. At age 16, he was offered a seasonal position as a Naturalist and Environmental Interpreter w ith the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Nick used injured birds of pr ey and reptiles as teaching tools just like Ranger Bill did that day in his first grade class for seven summers, typically presenting nearly 150 educational presentations each summer throughout Maryland and the surrounding states. While working for the Department of Natural Resources, Nick pursued a B.S. degree in forestry at Virginia Tech. At age 21, he decided to resign as Ranger Nick and returned to Virginia Tech to pursue a M.S. degree in forestry under Dr. Carolyn Copenheaver. Upon finishing his M.S. degree a nd interacting with some of the finest teachers in the world, Nick attended the University of Florida in pursuit of a Ph.D. in ag ricultural education and communication with a minor in environmental ed ucation. He wanted to become like those exceptional professors he interacted with at Virgin ia Tech. While at the University of Florida, Nick had the privilege of working with many outst anding students as an instructor for several undergraduate courses. For Nic k, being able to work with gi fted students and evaluate the impact of using birds of prey in educational pr ograms, like the ones he pr esented as a naturalist in Maryland, has been a dream come true.