Misperceptions of charismatic species' conservation status: Zoo visits and virtual exposure shape perceptions of extinction risk

Biodiversity loss is accelerating globally, yet species are not equally affected, and public perceptions of extinction risk often diverge from scientific assessments. Understanding what shapes public perceptions is critical for effective conservation communication, particularly in zoos, where many people encounter exotic and endangered wildlife for the first time.

Here, we investigated how visitors perceive the conservation status of charismatic species and which factors influence these perceptions in a modern zoo in Italy. Specifically, we examined the role of demographics, zoo education, donation behaviour and prior virtual exposure in shaping perceptions of species' threat level. We also tested the ‘ virtual population bias ’ hypothesis, which predicts that greater exposure to a species' image through media (e.g. movies, social media, documentaries, advertisements)—here defined as ‘ virtual exposure ’—leads to underestimation of its extinction risk.

Ten species were selected based on the frequency with which they are photographed and reported in zoo visitors' social media posts. Using independent samples surveyed either before ( n  = 860) or after ( n  = 783) the zoo visit, we assessed the perceived conservation status, ranging from Least Concern to Critically Endangered, and quantified the ‘ extinction risk mismatch ’ as the difference between the perceived and actual IUCN Red List status. The extinction risk mismatch was categorised as ‘ underestimation ’ (perceived < actual), ‘ correct estimation ’ (perceived = actual) and ‘ overestimation ’ (perceived > actual). We then used cumulative link mixed models to examine the association between extinction risk mismatch and species‐level and visitor‐level predictors.

Post‐visit respondents and respondents with past donation behaviour were associated with a higher likelihood of overestimating species' conservation threats, whereas previous visits to zoos other than the study site were associated with a higher likelihood of underestimation. Contrary to the virtual population bias, greater virtual exposure was associated with increased overestimation, an effect that was particularly pronounced among post‐visit respondents.

Together, these findings challenge assumptions about how real and virtual exposure shape perceptions of species abundance and risk, highlighting the role of prior experiences in mediating public understanding of species threats. Zoos can leverage these insights to refine communication strategies and better align public perceptions with conservation reality.