Interobserver Agreement Among Visitors at a Wolf Sanctuary

Introduction

When studying animal behavior, researchers often rely on trained professionals to collect observational data. However, with limited time and resources, leveraging untrained observers—such as visitors to wildlife sanctuaries—could be a practical alternative.

A recent study by Anckner & Jacobs (2024) explored whether untrained visitors at a wolf sanctuary could accurately observe and record wolf behaviors. Their research, published in Behavior Analysis in Practice, examined interobserver agreement (IOA) between a staff member and visitors at Wolf Hollow, a sanctuary in Massachusetts.

This study is important for behavior analysts working in zoological settings. It demonstrates the potential for visitors to contribute reliable data, which could help wildlife centers improve animal welfare and research efforts.

Interobserver Agreement (IOA) in Animal Behavior Research

Interobserver agreement (IOA) measures how consistently two or more individuals record the same behavior. It is crucial in behavior analysis because:

1. It ensures data reliability by reducing subjectivity.
2. It confirms operational definitions are clear and observable.
3. It helps researchers detect bias or observer drift over time.

While trained professionals typically collect behavioral data, some studies suggest that untrained observers may still provide useful insights—particularly for behaviors that are easy to identify. This study tested whether visitors could achieve an acceptable level of IOA (≥80%) without formal training.

Study Goals and Research Question

Anckner & Jacobs (2024) investigated the following question:

Can untrained visitors at a wolf sanctuary record up to two target behaviors with an acceptable level of IOA?

Their study aimed to determine whether visitors, using simple instructions and digital tools, could meet two agreement standards:

• IOA of at least 80% – meaning visitors and staff recorded behaviors similarly.
• Kappa coefficient of 0.6 or higher – which accounts for chance agreement between observers.

If successful, this research could support the use of citizen science in behavioral data collection at wildlife sanctuaries.

How the Study Was Conducted

Participants and Setting

The study took place at Wolf Hollow, a sanctuary that houses nine wolves in three enclosures.

• Twenty-three adult visitors participated.
• Each visitor observed wolves during a 50-minute public tour.
• Visitors used their smartphones to record behaviors via digital tally counters.

Data Collection Tools

Visitors scanned a QR code to access a tally counter on their phones.

• Some visitors recorded only one behavior, while others recorded two behaviors.
• Instructions included clear behavior definitions and images for reference.

Targeted Wolf Behaviors

Researchers selected two behaviors that were:

1. Frequently observed during visitor tours.
2. Easy to identify with a clear beginning and end.
3. Relevant to wolf communication and behavior.

The target behaviors were:

• Scent Rolling: A wolf rolls its body over a specific scent, often with side-to-side movements.
• Urinary Marking: A wolf raises a leg or squats to mark territory with urine.

Visitors continuously tracked these behaviors during the 50-minute session. There was no formal observer training, other than the instructions and images provided.

Key Findings: How Well Did Visitors Perform?

Agreement for Observing One Behavior

Visitors who recorded only one behavior had high accuracy:

• Mean IOA: 95.8% ± 2.8%
• Mean Kappa: 0.84 ± 0.17

This indicates strong agreement with the staff’s observations.

Agreement for Observing Two Behaviors

Visitors who recorded both scent rolling and urinary marking still showed good consistency:

• IOA for scent rolling: 86% ± 6.6%
• IOA for urinary marking: 93.1% ± 3.6%
• Mean Kappa for both: 0.6

Although slightly lower than single-behavior observers, their agreement was still acceptable.

Implications for Behavior Analysis in Zoological Settings

This study suggests that untrained visitors can gather behavior data with reasonable accuracy. Here’s why this matters:

1. Citizen Science Potential – Engaging visitors in data collection could expand research opportunities without requiring additional staff.
2. Resource Efficiency – Staff members can analyze data instead of spending all their time collecting it.
3. Public Engagement – Visitors can actively contribute to conservation efforts, increasing their awareness and connection with wildlife.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite positive findings, the study had some challenges:

• Limited behaviors observed – Other behaviors may be harder for visitors to track accurately.
• No long-term testing – Future research should explore if visitor accuracy holds over multiple sessions.
• Device variability – Using smartphones may introduce differences in recording precision.

Researchers should test similar methods with more animal species and behaviors to confirm the broader applicability of these findings.

Conclusion: What This Means for Behavior Analysts

This study highlights an innovative way to collect animal behavior data using untrained observers.

• Visitors at Wolf Hollow demonstrated high interobserver agreement with a staff member.
• Using simple digital tools and clear behavior definitions, visitors could reliably track targeted behaviors.
• This approach could help sanctuaries and zoos improve data collection while engaging the public in animal welfare efforts.

For behavior analysts working in wildlife settings, this research provides compelling evidence that citizen science can be a valuable tool when conditions are right.

Want to Read the Full Study?

For more details, check out the original research by Anckner & Jacobs (2024):
🔗 DOI: 10.1007/s40617-024-00959-5