http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1427-3152
Figures
Abstract
A number of studies have shown widespread public concern over housing animals in ways that restrict their ability to move freely. Dairy cows housed in tie stall barns are tethered continuously or for part of the day, but no study has assessed public support for this type of housing system. We report two experiments assessing public perceptions of tie stall housing for dairy cattle using a hypothetical referenda format. In Experiment 1, 65% of participants (n = 430) said they would support a ban on tie stalls. The probability of supporting a ban increased as the duration of time that cows were tethered increased. In Experiment 2, information about possible economic consequences was included. Relatively fewer (55%) participants (n = 372) indicated they would support a ban. Supporters of a ban were willing to pay an average dairy product price premium of 68% to see the ban enacted. Indirect measures of support indicated socially desirable responding was greater in Experiment 2 where the economic impacts of voting behavior were made explicit. In both studies, women and liberals were more likely to support a ban. The majority of participants in Experiment 1 (51%) and Experiment 2 (57%) said they had never heard or read anything about tie stalls before participating in our survey. We conclude that current knowledge of the use of tie stalls is low, but if this situation were to change there may be considerable public concern about the use of this housing method.
Citation: Robbins JA, Roberts C, Weary DM, Franks B, von Keyserlingk MAG (2019) Factors influencing public support for dairy tie stall housing in the U.S. PLoS ONE 14(5): e0216544. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216544
Editor: Juan J. Loor, University of Illinois, UNITED STATES
Received: November 23, 2018; Accepted: April 24, 2019; Published: May 7, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Robbins et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The study was supported by Hans-Sigrist-Stiftung grant 10R00546 to Dr. Marina A.G. von Keyserlingk. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1.0 Introduction
Restrictive housing systems have been the primary focus of high-profile animal welfare campaigns targeting food animal industries. In the US, ballot initiatives have resulted in 33 separate state animal welfare initiatives; the majority of which have focused on restrictive housing systems used by the swine and egg laying industries [1]. The emphasis on restrictive housing systems seems to reflect widespread public sentiment that animals lacking the opportunity to move freely and express normal, social behaviors have reduced levels of welfare [2]. In one recent survey of US citizens the ability of animals to interact socially was perceived as the most important factor for ensuring the welfare of dairy cattle [3]. Collectively there is a growing body of evidence that restrictive housing is a source of public controversy.
Tie stalls are the primary form of housing on 39% and 75% of US and Canadian dairy farms, respectively [4,5]. Unlike other common housing systems (e.g. free stalls, dry lots, compost barns, etc.), cows in tie stalls are restrained or tied in their individual stalls. Like most housing systems, tie stalls have advantages and disadvantages in terms of animal welfare. Compared to cows housed in free stalls, tie stall-housed cows tend to have lower levels of lameness [6]. However, comparing housing systems is complicated because farms using tie stalls differ in other respects that may be protective against lameness. For example, cows housed in tie stalls are also more likely to have access to exercise areas or pasture–which has been shown to reduce lameness [7]. Another study, reported tethered cows were motivated to move and thwarting this ability likely leads to frustration. However, they did not find any effect of tethering on acute or chronic physiological stress response measures [8].
Although tie stall housing has received little attention in North America, relative to other forms of restrictive farm animal housing (e.g. gestation stalls and battery cages; [9]), it has been a topic of controversy in other parts of the world. Tie stall housing was the predominant housing type in many European countries (e.g. 75% of all Swedish dairy herds [10] and 88% of Norwegian dairy cattle [11]), until a decade ago when their use declined (see [12]) as the result of moratoriums on the construction of new tie stall barns based partly on animal welfare concerns (e.g. [13,14]).
Unlike restrictive housing systems common to other species, some farms using tie stalls allow cows time outside of the stall for some part of the day (e.g. 73.1% of tie stall operations in the US reported having allowed pasture access for their lactating herd; [4]), a practice that may make tie stalls more acceptable to the public [15]. Moreover, expensive modifications can also reduce public support insofar as they result in increased costs for animal products [16].
To our knowledge, there has not yet been any research examining public perceptions of tie stall housing for dairy cattle in the US, let alone how this support may vary depending on how much outdoor access the cows are provided. In the two experiments reported here we assess support for tie stall housing by asking participants how they would vote if presented with the ballot initiative to ban this housing. Our primary aim was to assess public support for tie stalls, and how the duration of tethering affects this support. Our secondary aim was to determine if information about price increases resulting from a ban would affect how participants voted. We hypothesized that support for a ban on tie stall housing would increase with the time cows were described as being tethered, and that support would decrease with increased costs associated with implementing this ban.
2.0 Materials and methods
This research was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board (H17-02641). All participants provided written informed consent to participate.
2.1 Experiment 1
Participants for this study were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing (M-turk) service. M-turk samples have been used in a variety of studies addressing farm animal welfare issues [17–19]. They have also been shown to be more diverse [20–22] and attentive [23] than traditional subject pools. Participation was limited to US residents with an M-turk acceptance rate of at least 95%. M-turk acceptance rates refers to the percentage of tasks (e.g. surveys) a subject has taken and received payment for satisfactory participation. Duplicate IP addresses were blocked from participating. To minimize potential selection bias prospective participants were simply asked if they would be willing to, “share their opinions” and thus were not aware of the specific focus of the study until after they agreed to participate.
We selected a hypothetical referenda format as our methodology to explore these questions. This approach has been employed in other research addressing animal welfare issues due to its ecological validity. Moreover, this approach focuses on behavioral intentions (e.g. voting behavior), which better predict actual behavior than attitudes [24].
To gauge issue awareness the survey instrument began by asking participants to indicate how much they had read or thought about tie stall housing for dairy cattle using a 5-point scale (1 = None at all, 5 = A great deal). Next, participants read a brief introduction informing them that their subsequent responses “may help guide dairy industry policies and practices.” Emphasizing consequentiality in such a manner has also been shown to increase the validity of hypothetical valuation experiments [25]. Since we anticipated a low level of issue awareness, all participants read a brief description of tie stall housing before answering any further questions. The description was developed with help of dairy scientists and industry representatives with diverse views about the impacts of tie stall housing on cattle welfare. Our overarching goal was to ensure the description was intelligible, accurate and reasonably balanced.
Since we could find no published information about the average duration of time cows are typically tethered in tie stalls each day, this variable was manipulated by randomly varying its value between 1 and 24 hours. After reading the description participants were directed to the next page where they were asked how they would vote if there was a referendum banning tie stalls. The order in which the dichotomous response options (e.g. “I would vote IN FAVOR”) appeared was randomized to control for a possible primacy effect [26]. The complete description and response options thus read as follows (information in bold italics indicates content that was manipulated):
Approximately 40% of US dairy farms keep their cows in what are known as "tie stall" barns. In tie stall barns, a chain or rope is attached to a collar around the cow’s neck to prevent the cow from turning around or leaving her stall. Food and water are provided at the front of the stall. On average, cows living in tie stall barns are tied for X hour(s) each day. In the remaining time cows are able to use outdoor areas. Some people feel tie stalls are unacceptable because they restrict the cow’s ability to move freely. Others feel tie stalls make it easier to monitor cows and attend to their individual needs.
Would you vote in favor or against a referendum that banned the use of tie stalls?
a) I would vote IN FAVOR of a referendum that banned the use of tie stalls
b) I would vote AGAINST a referendum that banned the use of tie stalls
To assess any social-desirability bias in responses, participants were asked to predict the proportion of their fellow survey respondents that would vote in favor of the ban using a slider scale with visible values ranging from 1–100%. Variations on this indirect measure have been applied in previous studies [27, 28]. Socially-desirable responding occurs when people attempt to align their responses with perceived social norms, rather than how they themselves actually feel. Responses to questions that ask them to forecast how others are likely to respond are thought to more closely reflect their true beliefs because they impersonal judgments lack ego-defensive and impression management incentives [29]. To encourage more effortful consideration participants were told that all correct predictions (+/- 2%) would earn a bonus of $4.00.
The survey concluded by gathering socio-demographic information on: age, gender, income, living environment (rural vs. urban), education, children, political ideology, pet ownership and dairy consumption. All participants received $0.70 USD upon completion of the survey.
2.2 Experiment 2
Participants in Experiment 2 followed the identical protocol described for Experiment 1, with several exceptions. Most importantly, a sentence was added that mentioned a possible dairy product price increases resulting from the ban. Following previous authors [30], the value of this price premium (PRICE) was randomly varied between 1% and 100%. The duration of time that cows were described being tied was also held constant at 10 to 12 hours. This range was selected because it approximates the interval between morning and evening milkings when cows are most likely to be released from their stalls, if released at all. The complete description thus read as follows (information in bold italics indicates content that was manipulated):
Approximately 40% of US dairy farms keep their cows in what are known as "tie stall" barns. In tie stall barns, a chain or rope is attached to a collar around the cow’s neck to prevent the cow from turning around or leaving her stall. Food and water are provided at the front of the stall. On average, cows living in tie stall barns are tied for 10–12 hours each day. In the remaining time cows are able to use outdoor areas. Some people feel tie stalls are unacceptable because they restrict the cow’s ability to move freely. Others feel tie stalls make it easier to monitor cows and attend to their individual needs.
Would you vote in favor or against a referendum that banned on use of tie stalls if it resulted in a Y% increase in the price of dairy products?
a) I would vote IN FAVOR of a referendum that banned the use of tie stalls
b) I would vote AGAINST a referendum that banned the use of tie stalls
Before making their selection, participants read a brief ‘cheap talk’ script adapted from Olynk and Ortega [31] reminding them that willingness to pay is often overstated and by agreeing to pay additional costs they will necessarily have less money to purchase other things:
“Experience from previous surveys finds people often vote differently in a hypothetical referendum (such as this one) where they don’t have to pay money, than they do in a real referendum where they actually could have to pay money as a result of their vote. It is important that you make your selection like you would if you were really going to face the consequences of your vote—which is to pay more money if the proposition passes."
Inclusion of cheap talk scripts has been shown to lead to responses that more closely reflect actual consumer behavior [32].
2.3 Statistical analysis
Binary logistic regression models were fitted to test the effects of tethering duration (Experiment 1) and price premium (Experiment 2) on the probability of supporting a ban on tie stalls while controlling for key socio-demographic variables (recoded for ease interpretation as described in Table 1).
3.0 Results
3.1 Sample description
Standard demographic characteristics for both experiments (Table 2) compared favorably to US Census data. The median age of participants (36 years) was slightly less than the US average of 38. The sample was slightly male biased (i.e. fewer females than expected from the US average of 51%). Median household income was less (50,000 vs 55,000), and percentage of households with at least one child household was similar (40% vs 41%) to US averages. Almost half of participants (48%) had earned at least a Bachelor’s degree, which is higher than the US population average (31%). The regional distribution of participants was representative of the general US population where 17% live in the Northeast; 21% in the Midwest; 24% live in West and 38% living in the South [33]. The proportion of participants who reported living in a rural area (24%) was slightly greater than the national average (19%) [34]. Participants were more liberal than the general US population (50% vs 26%) [35]. The vast majority of participants (97%) reported consuming dairy products with 43% reporting they consumed them more than 7 times a week. The proportion of participants owning pets (68%) was identical to large scale survey data drawn from a probability sample [36]. Across both studies over half of all participants (54%) said they had not read or thought about tie stalls prior to taking the survey while only 2% said they had read or thought a great deal about them.
3.2 Experiment 1
Participants required on average 4.4 minutes (SD = 3.3) to complete the survey. A total of 65% of participants indicated they would support a ban on tie stalls. Participants predicted 63% of their fellow survey respondents would support the ban. As expected, participant support increased with the number of hours cows were tethered (Fig 1, p < 0.01). Liberal political orientation increased the probability of supporting the ban, and female participants tended to be more supportive of the ban (Table 3); although the regression model was significant it only explained about 6% of the variation (Table 3).
The number of hours that cows were tethered is illustrated on the x-axis using 6-h bins to simplify presentation, but all statistical models treated time as a continuous effect.
The slope (β), the SE of the slope, and the associated P-value are provided for each factor included in the model. Rows in bold (P = <0.10) indicate factors associated with support for a ban. The R2 for the full model was 0.06.
3.3 Experiment 2
Participants required on average 5.4 minutes (SD = 7.3) to complete the survey. In total, 55% of participants indicated they would support a ban on tie stalls. Support for a ban decreased to 44% when participants were asked to predict how others would vote. Participants were less likely to support a ban when this resulted in a larger expected increase in the cost of dairy products (Fig 2), with similar demographic effects to those described for Experiment 1 (Table 4). The full model explained 11% of the variation (Table 4).
Price increases are illustrated on the x-axis using bins of 25% to simplify presentation, but all statistical models treated price increase as a continuous effect.
The slope (β), the SE of the slope, and the associated P-value are provided for each factor included in the model. Rows in bold (P = <0.10) indicate factors associated with support for a ban. The R2 for the full model was 0.11.
4.0 Discussion
Previous work has shown that many US citizens (63%) are concerned about the welfare of dairy cattle [37]. Moreover a number of studies have examined public support for specific dairy management practices such as tail docking [3,38], cow-calf separation [39,40], dehorning [3,41] and provision of pasture access [3,42]. Most of these studies have found a substantial gap between public support and current industry practice. Substantial mismatches between industry practices and societal expectations can result in diminished public trust and increased support for regulatory intervention [17].
The two studies reported here are the first to address a common dairy housing system. Our results suggest many US citizens would support a ban on the use of tie stall housing. The support for this ban is consistent with earlier work showing support for a ban on gestation stall housing for pigs [43]. The latter study showed that support decreased when participants were provided information about possible increases in the price of pork; a finding consistent with the results of Experiment 2. Taken together, these findings indicate that support for ballot initiatives declines when these are thought to result in price increases. These results also illustrate how subtle differences in framing can affect responses to surveys.
It should be noted that there is little evidence that a switch from tie stalls to less restrictive forms of housing would actually increase the price of dairy products. Indeed, very few larger farms use tie stalls, and the less restrictive systems facilitate the use technologies such as milking parlors and robotic milking machines that likely reduce the cost of production [44]. We modeled increased prices here to assess the generality of our results when this does result in a price increase. A more likely result of a ban on tie stall housing is that some (generally smaller farms) would go out of business rather than invest in new housing; future work may wish to consider how respondents would respond if this was disclosed as part of the scenario.
Results of Experiment 1 showed that participant support for a proposed ban on tie stalls (65%) was similar to participant predictions of support (63%), suggesting minimal social-desirability bias. It is worth noting that these figures are similar (63.5%) to the results of the most well-known U.S. farm animal welfare reform referendum—California’s Proposition 2—which restricted intensive housing of veal calves, egg-laying hens and gestating sows. However, in Experiment 2 self-stated support for the ban was more than 10% greater than predictions about the how their peers would respond. Thus, it appears providing participants with information about possible price increases not only decreases self-stated support for a ban, but also increases socially-desirable responding whereby participants perceive themselves as more willing to pay for associated price premiums than their peers. Epley and Dunning [45] have argued that such discrepancies are due to overly optimistic beliefs about one’s own behavior, rather than overly pessimistic beliefs about the behavior of others.
In Experiment 1 there was a trend that women were more likely to support a ban on tie stalls; this is consistent with a large body of research showing women exhibit more positive attitudes towards animals [46–49]. Recent work suggests the effect of gender is mediated by differences in empathy [50]. The relationship between gender and willingness to pay is consistent with previous research showing that women are willing to pay more for higher levels of animal welfare [51,52]. This effect of gender may be especially important given that women make the majority of household food purchasing decisions [53] and vote at higher rates than men [54].
The association between political ideology and support for a ban is also consistent with previous research showing concern for farm animal welfare is positively associated with liberal ideology [55–58]. In the context of the current work, which was posed as a referendum, it is not possible to determine the extent to which this association might be driven by underlying political differences in concern for animals or well-established differences in attitudes regarding the role of government intervention. It is also possible that a third variable correlated with both politics and concern for animal welfare such as religiosity may explain these results.
Overall awareness of the practice of tie stall housing was low. Across both experiments, when participants were asked how much they had heard or read about tie-stall housing for dairy cows, most said they had never read or heard anything at all and only 2% said they had read or heard a great deal. Given that only a small proportion of the US population is directly involved in food animal production it is not surprising that many were unaware of this specific (albeit long standing) housing method. Given the very low-level of awareness of tie-stall housing most responses were likely heavily based on the written description we provided. As with all such studies, provision of alternative descriptions, and even the inclusion of images, could alter responses. Two previous studies examined the effect of images in addition to written descriptions of pregnant sow housing systems (Canada; [59]; Brazil; [60]). In both cases the more the public learnt about the gestation stall housing system the less willing they were to accept their use. When addressing attitudes towards specific farming practices attempts should also be made to assess issue awareness so it is possible to distinguish those who have more considered opinions from those who are hearing about the issue for the first time [61].
Lastly, it should be noted that in both studies the regression models, despite being significant, only explained 6% and 11% of the variation in Experiment 1 and 2, respectively. The fact that only a small amount of the variation was explained by the demographic factors studied indicates that there may be other important factors such as attitudes towards livestock farming that are worthy of investigating.
5.0 Conclusion
Many US participants were willing to support a hypothetical ban on tie stall housing for dairy cattle. Support for a ban increased when number of hours that cows were tethered, and decreased when participants were told that the ban may result in increased prices for dairy products. Many participants were unfamiliar with the tie stalls before taking the survey, but these results indicate that there would be considerable opposition should the public become more aware of this housing system.
Supporting information
S1 File. Robbins et al Factors Influencing Public Support for Dairy Tie Stall Housing in the US data EXPERIMENT 1 LaTeX Source File (TEX file).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216544.s001
(CSV)
S2 File. Robbins et al Factors Influencing Public Support for Dairy Tie Stall Housing in the US data EXPERIMENT 2 LaTeX Source File (TEX file).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216544.s002
(CSV)
S3 File. Robbins et al Factors Influencing Public Support for Dairy Tie Stall Housing in the U.S. R code.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216544.s003
(PDF)
References
- 1. Shields S, Shapiro P, Rowan A. A decade of progress toward ending the intensive confinement of farm animals in the United States. Animals. 2017;7: 40. pmid:28505141
- 2. Prickett RW, Norwood FB, Lusk JL. Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone survey of US households. Anim Welf. 2010;19: 335–347.
- 3. Widmar NO, Morgan CJ, Wolf CA, Yeager EA, Dominick SR, Croney CC. US resident perceptions of dairy cattle management practices. Agric Sci. 2017;8: 645–656.
- 4.
United States Department of Agriculture. Dairy 2014, Dairy cattle management practices in the United States, 2014 [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy14/Dairy14_dr_PartI.pdf.
- 5.
Canadian Dairy Information Centre. Dairy barns by type in Canada. 2018 [cited 15 Nov 2018]. Available from: http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=dff-fcil&s2=farm-ferme&s3=db-el.
- 6. Cook NB. Prevalence of lameness among dairy cattle in Wisconsin as a function of housing type and stall surface. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003 Nov 1;223(9):1324–8. pmid:14621222
- 7. Hernandez-Mendo O, Von Keyserlingk MA, Veira DM, Weary DM. Effects of pasture on lameness in dairy cows. Journal of dairy science. 2007 Mar 1;90(3):1209–14. pmid:17297096
- 8. Veissier I, Andanson S, Dubroeucq H, Pomiès D. The motivation of cows to walk as thwarted by tethering. Journal of animal science. 2008 Oct 1;86(10):2723–9. pmid:18539832
- 9. Croney CC, Millman ST. Board-invited review: the ethical and behavioral bases for farm animal welfare legislation. J Anim Sci. 2007;85: 556–565. pmid:17235038
- 10. Loberg J, Telezhenko E, Bergsten C, Lidfors L. Behaviour and claw health in tied dairy cows with varying access to exercise in an outdoor paddock. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2004;89: 1–16.
- 11. Sogstad Å, Fjeldaas T, Østerås O. Lameness and claw lesions of the Norwegian Red dairy cattle housed in free stalls in relation to environment, parity and stage of lactation. Acta Vet Scand. 2005;46: 203–217. pmid:16398332
- 12. Barkema HW, von Keyserlingk MAG, Kastelic JP, Lam TJGM, Luby C, Roy JP, et al. Invited review: changes in the dairy industry affecting dairy cattle health and welfare. J Dairy Sci. 2015;98: 7426–7445. pmid:26342982
- 13.
The Swiss Federal Council. Animal Welfare Ordinance [Internet]. 23 Apr 2008. Available from: https://www.blv.admin.ch/dam/blv/en/dokumente/tiere/rechts-und-vollzugsgrundlagen/animal-welfare-ordinance-tschv.pdf.download.pdf/.
- 14. Simensen E, Østerås O, Bøe KE, Kielland C, Ruud LE, Næss G. Housing system and herd size interactions in Norwegian dairy herds; associations with performance and disease incidence. Acta Vet Scand. 2010;52: 14. pmid:20158884
- 15. Beaver A, Ritter C, von Keyserlingk MAG. The dairy cattle housing dilemma: Natural behavior versus animal care. In press. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract.
- 16. Harvey D, Hubbard C. The supply chain’s role in improving animal welfare. Animals. 2013;3: 767–785. pmid:26479533
- 17. Robbins JA, Franks B, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations. Food Policy. 2016;61: 121–125.
- 18. Sato P, Hötzel MJ, von Keyserlingk MAG. American citizens’ views of an ideal pig farm. Animals. 2017;7: 64. pmid:28829381
- 19. Cardoso CS, von Keyserlingk MAG, Hötzel MJ, Robbins J, Weary DM. Hot and bothered: Public attitudes towards heat stress and outdoor access for dairy cows. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0205352. pmid:30379867
- 20. Behrend TS, Sharek DJ, Meade AW, Wiebe EN. The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behav Res Methods. 2011;43: 800–813. pmid:21437749
- 21. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6: 3–5. pmid:26162106
- 22. Berinsky AJ, Huber GA, Lenz GS. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Polit Anal. 2012;20: 351–368.
- 23. Hauser DJ, Schwarz N. Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behav Res Methods. 2016;48: 400–407. pmid:25761395
- 24. Kim MS, Hunter JE. Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: a meta-analysis of past research, part 2. Communic Res. 1993;20: 331–364.
- 25. Vossler CA, Watson SB. Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: testing the validity of stated preferences in the field. J Econ Behav Organ. 2013;86: 137–147.
- 26. Krosnick JA, Alwin DF. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opin Q. 1987;51: 201–219.
- 27. Norwood FB, Lusk JL. Social desirability bias in real, hypothetical, and inferred valuation experiments. Am J Agric Econ. 2011;93: 528–534.
- 28. Lusk JL, Norwood FB, Pruitt JR. Consumer demand for a ban on antibiotic drug use in pork production. Am J Agric Econ. 2006;88: 1015–1033.
- 29. Lusk JL, Norwood FB. An inferred valuation method. Land Econ. 2009;85: 500–514.
- 30. Tonsor GT, Wolf CA. Drivers of resident support for animal care oriented ballot initiatives. J Agric Appl Econ. 2010;42: 419–428.
- 31. Olynk NJ, Ortega DL. Consumer preferences for verified dairy cattle management practices in processed dairy products. Food Control. 2013;30: 298–305.
- 32. Tonsor GT, Shupp RS. Cheap talk scripts and online choice experiments: “Looking beyond the mean". Am J Agric Econ. 2011;93: 1015–1031.
- 33.
United States Census Bureau. New census data show differences between urban and rural populations. 8 Dec 2016 [cited 7 Nov 2018]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2016/cb16-210.html.
- 34.
United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey. 2017 [cited 7 Nov 2018]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/.
- 35.
Saad L. Conservative Lead in U.S. Ideology is Down to Single Digits. Gallup. 11 Jan 2018 [cited 5 Oct 2018]. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx.
- 36.
American Pet Products Association. 2017–2018 APPA National Pet Owners Survey Statistics: Pet Ownership & Annual Expenses. 2018 [cited 20 Nov 2018]. Available from: https://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp.
- 37. Wolf CA, Tonsor GT. Cow welfare in the U.S. dairy industry: willingness-to-pay and willingness-to-supply. J Agric Resour Econ. 2017;42: 164–179.
- 38. Weary DM, Schuppli CA, von Keyserlingk MAG. Tail docking dairy cattle: responses from an online engagement. J Anim Sci. 2011;89: 3831–3837. pmid:21666003
- 39. Ventura BA, von Keyserlingk MAG, Schuppli CA, Weary DM. Views on contentious practices in dairy farming: the case of early cow-calf separation. J Dairy Sci. 2013;96: 6105–6116. pmid:23791487
- 40. Busch G, Weary DM, Spiller A, von Keyserlingk MAG. American and German attitudes towards cow-calf separation on dairy farms. PLoS One. 2017;12: e0174013. pmid:28301604
- 41. Robbins JA, Weary DM, Schuppli CA, von Keyserlingk MAG. Stakeholder views on treating pain due to dehorning dairy calves. Anim Welf. 2015;24: 399–406.
- 42. Schuppli CA, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Access to pasture for dairy cows: responses from an online engagement. J Anim Sci. 2014;92: 5185–5192. pmid:25261215
- 43. Tonsor GT, Wolf C, Olynk N. Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates. Food Policy. 2009;34: 492–498.
- 44. Robbins JA, von Keyserlingk MAG, Fraser D, Weary DM. Invited review: farm size and animal welfare. J Anim Sci. 2016;94: 5439–5455. pmid:28046157
- 45. Epley N, Dunning D. Feeling “holier than thou”: are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79: 861–875. pmid:11138757
- 46. Eldridge JJ, Gluck JP. Gender differences in attitudes toward animal research. Ethics Behav. 1996;6: 239–256. pmid:11654977
- 47. Taylor N, Signal TD. Empathy and attitudes to animals. Anthrozoös. 2005;18: 18–27.
- 48. Herzog HA. Gender differences in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoös. 2007;20: 7–21.
- 49. Erlanger ACE, Tsytsarev SV. The relationship between empathy and personality in undergraduate students’ attitudes toward nonhuman animals. Soc Anim. 2012;20: 21–38.
- 50. Graça J, Calheiros MM, Oliveira A, Milfont TL. Why are women less likely to support animal exploitation than men? The mediating roles of social dominance orientation and empathy. Pers Individ Dif. 2018;129: 66–69.
- 51. María GA. Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livest Sci. 2006;103: 250–256.
- 52. Taylor N, Signal TD. Willingness to pay: Australian consumers and “on the farm” welfare. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2009;12: 345–359. pmid:20183486
- 53. Silverstein MJ, Sayre K. The Female Economy. Harvard Business Review. Sep 2009 [cited 7 Nov 2018]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2009/09/the-female-economy.
- 54.
Center for American Women and Politics. Gender differences in voter turnout. 2017 [cited 7 Nov 2018]. Available from: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/genderdiff.pdf.
- 55. Heleski CR, Mertig AG, Zanella AJ. Assessing attitudes toward farm animal welfare: a national survey of animal science faculty members. J Anim Sci. 2004;82: 2806–2814. pmid:15446498
- 56. Heleski CR, Mertig AG, Zanella AJ. Results of a national survey of US veterinary college faculty regarding attitudes toward farm animal welfare. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2005;226: 1538–1546. pmid:15882007
- 57. Deemer DR, Lobao LM. Public concern with farm-animal welfare: religion, politics, and human disadvantage in the food sector. Rural Sociol. 2011;76: 167–196.
- 58. McKendree MGS, Croney CC, Widmar NJO. Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare. J Anim Sci. 2014;92: 3161–3173. pmid:24962533
- 59. Ryan E, Fraser D, Weary DM. 2015. Public attitudes to housing systems for pregnant pigs. PLoS One 10:e0141878. pmid:26559417
- 60. Yunes MC, von Keyserlingk MAG, Hötzel MJ. 2018 Restricting the ability of sows to move: a source of concern for some Brazilians. Animal Welfare 27: 379–393 ISSN 0962-7286
- 61.
Bishop G. The illusion of public opinion: fact and artifact in American public opinion polls. Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers; 2004.