Fig 1.
Survey design and sample splits.
The order of pictures 1 and 2 (or 5 and 6) as well as pictures 3–6 (or 1–4) was randomized for each sample split.
Table 1.
Word pairs used for the evaluation of the pigs and pens (on a five-point semantic differential) and reasons for choosing the word pairs (derived from literature).
Fig 2.
Pictures of pigs and pens presented as stimuli to survey participants.
Source: Landpixel (Swen Pförtner).
Fig 3.
Combined pictures of pigs and pen settings presented as stimuli to survey participants.
Source: Landpixel (Swen Pförtner).
Table 2.
Distribution of demographics in the two sample splits (evaluation of single pig and pen pictures first (n = 489) and evaluation of combined pictures first (n = 530)) in comparison to census data from Germany.
Table 3.
Responses to the six statements measuring belief in pigs’ mind in % of participants (N = 1,019) and results of factor analysis for the six statements.
Table 4.
Mean comparison using ANOVA and post-hoc tests for the evaluation of the ʽhappyʼ and the ʽunhappyʼ pig presented separately or in the two pens (straw/slatted floor).
Table 5.
Mean comparison using ANOVA and post-hoc tests for the evaluation of the straw and slatted floor pen presented separatly or with a pig (‘happy’/’unhappy’ pig).
Table 6.
Type III tests and estimates of fixed effects in the linear mixed model on pig evaluation in the pictures.
Table 7.
Type III tests of fixed effects and estimates of fixed effects in the linear mixed model on pen evaluation in the pictures.
Table 8.
Effects of pig and pen on pig and pen evaluation (1 = positive evaluation, 5 = negative evaluation) in the combined pictures showing a pig (‘happy’ or ‘unhappy’) in a pen (straw or slatted floor) using LS Means comparison with F-test.
Table 9.
Effects of growing up on a farm, connection to agriculture and picture order on pig and pen evaluation (1 = positive evaluation, 5 = negative evaluation) in the combined pictures showing a pig in a pen using LS Means comparison with F-test.