Overrepresentation of flagship species in primate documentaries and opportunities for promoting biodiversity

Highlights

• Less than one third of known primate species appear in primate documentaries.

• Large-bodied diurnal primates are disproportionately represented in documentaries.

• Underrepresenting biodiversity in documentaries may have conservation implications.

• Filmmakers and scientists should work together for better species representation.

Abstract

Documentary films are intended to engage a broad audience and can be effective outreach tools for raising awareness of global biodiversity and conservation issues. We screened 210 films and recorded the duration that each primate species was on screen to evaluate their representation in documentaries and to assess factors potentially driving biases within these depictions. We expected that flagship species would be overrepresented such that: 1) apes would be more frequently included in documentaries than other primate taxa, 2) Critically Endangered and Endangered species would be more frequently included in documentaries than those of less concern, and 3) large-bodied primates would have more on-screen time than smaller-bodied primates. Due to factors affecting the accessibility of species, we hypothesized that: 4) species of Least Concern would be overrepresented, and 5) diurnal and cathemeral primates would be overrepresented compared to nocturnal primates. We found that documentary films portray only a fraction of primate biodiversity. Only a third of primate species are portrayed in documentaries, and these tend to be large flagship species and easily filmed species. African apes were overrepresented compared to other primate taxa. Endangered and Least Concern species were overrepresented, whereas Vulnerable and Near Threatened species were underrepresented. Larger-bodied species and non-nocturnal primates were featured in more films and had longer on-screen times than smaller or nocturnal primates. Our findings suggest that audiences may benefit from the collaboration of filmmakers and scientists, which would likely result in greater species representation and more comprehensive coverage of relevant conservation issues.

Introduction

Earth is currently experiencing a rapid loss of biodiversity, largely due to human activities (Ceballos et al., 2015). The profound consequences of human actions highlight the importance of human perception of wildlife and biodiversity. Such perception is in part the result of popular media portrayals of animals (e.g. Ross et al., 2008). We therefore endeavored to review the impacts that media portrayals have on popular perception of animals and empirically evaluate in particular the relative representation of primates in the documentary genre.¹ Documentaries may be especially important for influencing how the public thinks of primates, because people outside of primate-habitat countries may see living primates only in captivity and on screen or via visual media outlets. Zoos, museums, and documentaries are especially important educational tools for people without convenient access to wild primates (Durham, 1993). Indeed, primate documentaries are frequently used by college instructors for teaching students about primate ecology, behavior, and biology (Riley Koenig et al., 2018). Even when zoos are easily accessible, zoo collections are biased toward animals that are amenable to captivity. For species such as mountain gorillas (Gorilla beringei), which are altogether absent from zoos and have limited opportunities for people to view in the wild, documentary films represent the only means that most people will ever have to see a living mountain gorilla. Thus, documentaries are an important resource both for educating people about primates that are rare or not amenable to captivity, and for inspiring conservation action on their behalf.

Research has shown that seeing primates on documentary and non-documentary television can impact the way people think about primates. For example, after viewing television depictions of non-human primates, people misperceive primate abundance. Schroepfer et al. (2011) found that participants were less likely to identify chimpanzees as endangered after viewing commercials in which chimpanzees were portrayed in anthropomorphic situations compared to participants who watched a chimpanzee conservation commercial or control footage of wild chimpanzees. Similarly, Ross et al. (2008) found that survey respondents were less accurate at identifying chimpanzees as endangered than they were at identifying gorillas and orangutans as endangered. When respondents were asked to explain why they thought chimpanzees were not endangered, nearly a third of them cited the frequency of chimpanzees in popular media and as pets. These findings are consistent with the observation that over several years a viewer might see more individuals of a certain species (e.g. chimpanzees) on television than currently exist in the wild (Bousé, 2000). David Attenborough made a similar observation about the mismatch between what exists in the wild and what people see on television, “I may go into a forest and spend a month taking fleeting shots of monkeys or birds, which I then join together. As a result, people seeing the film are likely to imagine that the forest is pullulating with creatures, whereas in fact they are extremely difficult to find.” (Attenborough, 1961, p. 98).

Despite the mismatch between television and the real world, audiences generally accept wildlife documentaries at face value, believing they are genuine representations of wildlife behavior in representative habitats (Morrow et al., 2017). This sets wildlife documentaries apart from other genres such as dramas and comedies, for which people have long understood that television representations diverge substantially from reality (Bourdieu, 2001). Moreover, laypersons often see television programming that presents wild animals in anthropogenic situations as culturally questionable, but wildlife documentaries are typically viewed as culturally acceptable, even scholarly – especially if produced by respected institutions like the BBC (Chris, 2006). This acceptance has some desirable outcomes, such as when observers trust and retain accurate information about a species' conservation status, behavior, or biology. However, the typical wildlife film is produced by a for-profit company, intended for a broad audience, and is not made to deliver a specific message or conservation imperative (Bousé, 2000). The motivation to create entertaining films to increase profits often results in the misrepresentation of primate ecology and behavior (Morrow et al., 2017). As such, the acceptance of these films may also lead to negative consequences. For example, the documentary People of the Forest: The Chimps of Gombe (1989) depicts an endangered primate as living in a pristine habitat free from the influence of humans and separated from anthropogenic impacts. Naïve audiences of wildlife documentary may inaccurately believe that the endangered chimpanzee is common with a healthy population size and access to habitat sufficient to sustain the wild population. This misperception is problematic considering that people's willingness to pay for conservation efforts is influenced by the knowledge that a species is endangered (Tisdell et al., 2007).

Given the potential impact of wildlife representation on audience perceptions and conservation behaviors – especially the impact of representation in documentaries – it is important to analyze the content and messages being provided by primate documentary films, and the related impacts on audience perceptions. A central reason this is important can be seen in Weston and colleagues' observation regarding the analogous representation of anthropologists in fiction films, “If these films shape and are shaped by popular understandings of anthropology, we should be more cognizant of that and join the discussion” (Weston et al., 2015, p. 323). The same sentiment applies to primate documentaries. The aforementioned research (e.g. Ross et al., 2008; Schroepfer et al., 2011) suggests these films impact public opinion of the primates studied by anthropologists, biologists, ecologists, and primatologists, so as experts we should be aware of these impacts and participate in shaping the conversation to ensure appropriate representation of primates.

An important step toward understanding the complex and interrelated issues of audience perception and documentary content is to examine the representation of primate diversity in documentary films. Findings from related research suggest that some primate species might be featured more prominently than other species. Clucas et al. (2008) looked at US conservation and nature magazines such as Nature Conservancy and Wildlife Conservation. The magazine covers featured mammals and birds more frequently than other taxa. Featured animals tended to be charismatic flagship species. Flagship species are species used in marketing by conservation organizations because of the species' appeal to a target audience, and such species are typically large-bodied (Leader-Williams and Dublin, 2000; Verissimo et al., 2011). Featured mammals were typically endangered, whereas featured birds were of little conservation concern (Clucas et al., 2008). Flagship species are most often discussed in the context of conservation, but it is reasonable to expect that the principles identified for selection of flagship species might also explain which primates are represented in documentaries.

Inequality in the representation of primate species was also expected due to issues of accessibility and ease of filming. Some primate species are difficult even for primatologists to find and study. For instance, Nekaris et al. (2008) refer to the low encounter rates with five slow loris species as an explanation for a lagging scientific understanding of these species. Difficult-to-find species seem likely to be less represented in documentaries than prominent, easily located species, such as urban populations of macaques. In addition, newly recognized species are less likely to have been included in documentaries than species that have been known for decades. For instance, we found no documentaries with appearances of lesula (Cercopithecus lomamiensis), a species formally identified only six years ago (Hart et al., 2012).

To evaluate the relative representation of primate taxa in documentaries, we developed hypotheses based on flagship species and accessibility for filming. Our expectation that flagship species would be overrepresented suggests that: 1) apes would be more frequently included in documentaries than other primate taxa, 2) conservation status would play a role in representation such that disproportionate on-screen time would be provided for species classified as Critically Endangered (due to the appeal of rarity to audiences), and 3) large-bodied primates would have more on-screen time than smaller-bodied primates. Furthermore, due to factors affecting the accessibility of species, such as the relative ease of locating and filming some species, we hypothesized that: 4) species of Least Concern would be overrepresented, and 5) diurnal and cathemeral primates will have more on-screen time than nocturnal primates. By “overrepresented,” we mean that a species or taxon received more on-screen time than would be expected assuming that all species or taxa are either equal or represented proportionately based on the number of species in the taxon. Documentaries have been shown to increase audience affinity for the animals they feature, and heighten viewers' concern for the survival of those species (Barbas et al., 2009), so underrepresentation of certain taxa may put them at a disadvantage because the general public may be less concerned when unfamiliar primates face conservation threats. This study has the potential to identify any biases and gaps in primate representation. In doing so, we hope to encourage scientists to engage with the film industry to enhance the accuracy and potential impact of documentaries as conservation outreach tools.