‘Beauty Bias’ for Wildlife Among the Public and Researchers Could Jeopardize Conservation

A wide body of research shows that traditionally charismatic species receive more attention and conservation funding, which could be a problem for the most endangered animals.

When it comes to wildlife and plant conservation, “pretty privilege” is pervasive. 

Data shows that people put the bulk of their donation dollars toward supporting the animal kingdom’s most charismatic species, like elephants and tigers. While protecting these animals is crucial, less visually appealing critters like dull-colored rodents or drab lizards often get just a tiny fraction of the already limited funding for global conservation—even if they are among the most threatened. 

It turns out this type of bias can also permeate the research world: A new study finds that avian researchers are devoting the bulk of their time and resources to aesthetically pleasing and conveniently located birds. 

Humanity’s affinity for conventionally beautiful species can hinder conservation efforts for some of the most endangered forms of life. With this in mind, a movement has emerged in recent years to help give the uncharismatic and under-resourced plants and animals of the world a chance to shine. 

Bird Bias: With more than 11,000 different species, birds are some of the most diverse groups of vertebrates on Earth. Many avian species exhibit a range of ostentatious characteristics, from the flashy feathers of a peacock to the iridescent colors of a ruby-throated hummingbird. These eye-catching features are part of the reason that recreational birding has skyrocketed in recent years, generating a multibillion-dollar industry in the U.S., which I wrote about in December. 

Avian species have also long captivated researchers, including Charles Darwin, who conceptualized the theory of evolution while watching finches on the Galapagos Islands. But are all birds getting equal interest from the research community, which pledges to provide unbiased information for the public? A study published in April says the answer is no, finding that pretty privilege prevails even for birds and scientists.

To test this, a team of researchers analyzed the focal species of more than 27,000 North American songbird research publications published from 1965 to 2020. Beauty is a difficult metric to assess scientifically (as the saying goes, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”), so the study’s authors created a ranking system that zeroed in on several characteristics, such as color, lightness, iridescence and body mass. 

Their analysis revealed birds that scored in the top 10 percent of aesthetic appeal were studied three times as much as those in the bottom 10 percent. Convenience was also a factor in research, as most of the species studies focused on were close to universities. 

In a nutshell: “It’s birds that are fancy, familiar and accessible” that get most of the attention in research, co-author Annie Lindsay, a researcher at the Powdermill Nature Reserve in Pennsylvania, told me. 

The highest-scoring birds were the Bohemian waxwing, adorned with a tuft of angular feathers on its head, and the tree swallow. The lowest on the list were the chimney swift and black swift, both dark and somewhat nondescript. Even if a proclivity toward flashy and conveniently located birds is subconscious, these biases can have harmful impacts on a less charismatic species’ long-term survival, Lindsay said. 

“If we aren’t studying them, we don’t really know what their status might be, so we don’t understand their natural history or ecology,” she said. “We can’t really conserve something if we don’t know anything about it.” 

Zooming Out: Beauty bias is ubiquitous in the conservation world, extending far beyond research preferences. A study published in February found that of the roughly $1.9 billion allocated to conservation projects that researchers assessed over 25 years, more than 80 percent was applied to vertebrates. 

The vast majority of that money went to birds and mammals, leaving amphibians with less than 3 percent of funding, despite being the most endangered class of animals. Fungi and algae received even less financial support. Narrowing it down even further, the analysis revealed that the vast majority of conservation projects’ focus was on large-bodied mammals like elephants and rhinos. 

“Our first conclusion is that funding for species conservation research remains extremely limited,” study author Benoit Guénard, a researcher at the University of Hong Kong, said in a press release. For perspective, the 25 years of conservation funding from 37 governments and non-governmental organizations was less than 1 percent of the annual budget of the U.S. military. 

A slew of other studies have documented similar trends in charismatic species funding. One study put this bias trend to the test experimentally by giving subjects a hypothetical pot of $6,400 to donate to conservation causes for particular species. But in some of the scenarios, the researchers intentionally manipulated photos to make less charismatic animals look more visually appealing—think fluffier, bigger eyes and no sharp teeth. They found that the median donation amount given to unedited images was about $640 less than for edited images. 

Some conservation groups have successfully used this “cuteness factor” by highlighting charismatic animals in their communications as a way to raise money for all sorts of work. However, in the nonprofit world, donations are often restricted, meaning that they are set aside for a specific purpose—or in this case, a particular species. 

In recent years, people have launched efforts to help raise more money for uncharismatic or overlooked species. In the United Kingdom, comedian and science communicator Simon Watt launched the Ugly Animal Preservation Society over a decade ago as a way to bring attention to species that may not be deemed beautiful, such as the proboscis monkey or the blobfish. 

Some organizations or businesses have worked to redefine “cuteness.” For example, the Oregon Zoo launched a campaign dubbed “the cuteness is coming” in 2019, which featured a toothy Pacific lamprey alongside traditionally appealing animals like red pandas. But it won’t be easy to shift the narrative around what the public perceives as drab or unappealing species, experts say. 

“Our traditional view of what is threatened often does not align with species genuinely at threat, leaving many smaller, or ‘less charismatic’ species neglected,” Alice Hughes, a researcher at the University of Hong Kong and co-author on the February study, said in a release. “We urgently need to reframe this perspective and better allocate funding across taxa if we want any hope of redressing widespread population declines and the continued loss of biodiversity.”

Cover photo:  Aye ayes are the world's largest nocturnal primates. Credit: Rob Cousins/Bristol Zoo via Getty Images