Personality Aspects and Attitudes About Animal Welfare Legislation

Figures & data

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of outcomes split by demographics.

		Outcome
		Support		Keep		Pro 1		Pro 2		Pro 3		Pro 4		Contra 1		Contra 2		Contra 3		Contra 4
Demographic	(%)	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Overall	100	3.84	1.08	3.11	0.97	3.67	1.13	3.91	1.06	3.55	1.14	3.79	1.05	2.99	1.14	2.95	1.09	3.04	1.16	2.96	1.21
Gender
Male	48.2	3.70	1.14	2.99	1.00	3.61	1.16	3.77	1.09	3.42	1.16	3.68	1.08	3.11	1.14	3.06	1.10	3.16	1.18	2.98	1.21
Female	50.9	3.96	1.02	3.22	0.93	3.74	1.11	4.04	1.01	3.67	1.12	3.90	1.01	2.88	1.14	2.85	1.09	2.93	1.14	2.93	1.22
Non-binary	0.9	3.93	0.97	3.10	0.81	3.29	0.76	4.00	0.82	3.57	1.13	3.29	0.49	3.14	1.07	2.71	0.95	2.71	0.91	3.14	1.35
Ethnicity
Asian/Asian- American	3.6	3.94	1.06	3.25	0.96	3.97	0.87	4.14	0.79	3.72	0.92	3.93	0.92	3.24	0.87	3.10	0.94	2.72	0.84	2.97	1.05
Black/ African- American	11.6	3.48	1.08	2.89	0.72	3.42	1.05	3.57	1.17	3.53	1.03	3.66	0.97	3.15	1.12	3.25	0.94	3.17	1.00	3.05	1.01
Native American/ First Nation	1.2	3.83	1.05	3.07	0.66	3.40	1.17	3.70	1.16	3.80	1.14	3.70	1.06	3.00	1.15	2.90	1.10	3.30	1.25	2.60	1.35
White/ European- American	79.8	3.90	1.08	3.15	1.01	3.71	1.14	3.95	1.04	3.55	1.17	3.80	1.07	2.95	1.16	2.88	1.12	3.02	1.21	2.94	1.24
Latino/a	3.5	3.48	1.09	2.90	0.83	3.43	1.32	3.75	1.00	3.29	1.12	3.82	1.06	3.14	1.11	3.39	0.88	3.29	0.76	3.11	1.17
Residence
Urban	26.1	3.85	1.06	3.06	0.98	3.72	1.10	3.94	1.05	3.64	1.11	3.80	1.06	3.03	1.14	3.06	1.08	3.04	1.19	2.94	1.23
Suburban	48.1	3.89	1.07	3.17	0.95	3.71	1.13	3.95	1.01	3.58	1.13	3.85	1.02	2.96	1.13	2.87	1.09	2.97	1.13	2.96	1.20
Rural	25.8	3.73	1.12	3.05	1.00	3.56	1.16	3.79	1.14	3.41	1.19	3.66	1.08	3.02	1.18	2.98	1.11	3.17	1.18	2.96	1.21
Dietary identity
Veg*an/  Flexitarian	22.7	3.81	1.10	3.18	1.01	3.77	1.08	3.92	0.97	3.62	1.09	3.85	0.94	2.88	1.10	2.88	1.07	2.90	1.12	2.74	1.23
Omnivore	77.3	3.85	1.08	3.09	0.96	3.64	1.15	3.90	1.08	3.53	1.16	3.77	1.08	3.03	1.15	2.97	1.10	3.08	1.17	3.02	1.20

Note: “Support” = Support for Proposition 12, “Keep” = Support for keeping Proposition 12. “Pro 1 to 4” capture arguments in favor of, “Contra 1 to 4” capture arguments against, Proposition 12.

Table 2. Fit statistics for measurement and regression models.

	Neuroticism		Agreeableness		Conscientiousness		Extraversion		Openness
Measurement Model
df	161		158		159		160		161
χ²	552.849		505.725		653.945		636.401		550.058
RMSEA [90% CI]	0.055 [0.050, 0.060]		0.052 [0.047, 0.058]		0.062 [0.057, 0.067]		0.061 [0.056, 0.066]		0.055 [0.050, 0.060]
CFI	0.938		0.939		0.890		0.907		0.904
Regression Models	Δχ^2	p	Δχ^2	p	Δχ^2	p	Δχ^2	p	Δχ^2	p
Main Outcomes
Support for Proposition 12	1.211	0.271	0.546	0.456	1.193	0.275	0.026	0.873	10.838	< 0.001
Support for keeping Proposition 12	6.081	0.014	0.041	0.124	0.033	0.855	2.169	0.141	9.767	0.002
Arguments for Proposition 12
Will of the voters	7.085	0.008	0.139	0.709	0.350	0.554	2.378	0.123	23.196	< 0.001
Improvement of animal welfare	14.523	< 0.001	1.532	0.216	3.078	0.079	1.869	0.172	19.645	< 0.001
Restriction of corporate power	9.830	0.002	0.195	0.659	3.131	0.077	10.677	0.001	32.592	< 0.001
Helps small farmers	4.286	0.038	0.442	0.506	0.400	0.527	16.510	< 0.001	25.300	< 0.001
Arguments against Proposition 12
Increasing price	0.663	0.415	0.801	0.371	4.049	0.044	0.783	0.376	10.071	0.002
Equity to low-income consumers	0.026	0.872	0.482	0.488	1.080	0.299	0.129	0.720	1.091	0.296
One state forcing others	0.095	0.758	0.015	0.904	0.601	0.438	0.012	0.912	17.296	< 0.001
It hurts America’s farmers	0.157	0.692	4.726	0.030	2.154	0.142	5.360	0.021	14.859	< 0.001

Note: Estimates listed under Regression Models indicate the results of the chi-square tests between free and constrained models. Bolded values indicate p < 0.05.

Table 3. Associations between personality traits and attitudes about Proposition 12.

	Neuroticism		Agreeableness		Conscientiousness		Extraversion		Openness
	Withdrawal	Volatility	Compassion	Politeness	Industriousness	Orderliness	Enthusiasm	Assertiveness	Intellect	Curiosity
Main Outcomes
Support for Proposition 12	–0.050		0.186		0.017		–0.077		–0.031	0.206
99% CI	[–0.134, 0.035]		[0.105, 0.267]		[–0.137, 0.170]		[–0.163, 0.009]		[–0.124, 0.062]	[0.110, 0.303]
p	0.251		< 0.001		0.830		0.078		0.513	< 0.001
Support for keeping Proposition 12	0.240	–0.120	0.286		0.048		–0.120		–0.022	0.214
99% CI	[0.082, 0.402]	[–0.275, 0.036]	[0.203, 0.368]		[–0.036. 0.132]		[–0.217, –0.023]		[–0.121, 0.077]	[0.110, 0.319]
p	0.003	0.132	< 0.001		0.262		0.015		0.663	< 0.001
Arguments for Proposition 12
Will of the voters	0.202	–0.186	0.199		0.026		–0.098		–0.092	0.272
99% CI	[0.052, 0.351]	[–0.332, –0.040]	[0.121,0.278]		[–0.063, 0.115]		[–0.191, –0.006]		[–0.183, 0.001]	[0.179, 0.366]
p	0.008	0.012	< 0.001		0.564		0.038		0.049	< 0.001
Improvement of animal welfare	0.265	–0.300	0.246		0.053		–0.092		–0.056	0.266
99% CI	[0.116, 0.414]	[–0.445, –0.155]	[0.169, 0.323]		[–0.035, 0.142]		[–0.184, 0.001]		[–0.147, 0.036]	[0.172, 0.360]
p	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001		0.239		0.049		0.233	< 0.001
Restriction of corporate power	0.219	–0.247	0.164		0.024		0.141	–0.160	–0.139	0.307
99% CI	[0.069, 0.368]	[–0.392, –0.102]	[0.084, 0.243]		[–0.052, 0.101]		[0.041, 0.241]	[–0.257, –0.062]	[–0.230, –0.048]	[0.214, 0.400]
p	0.004	0.001	< 0.001		0.533		0.006	0.001	0.003	< 0.001
Helps small farmers	0.121	–0.198	0.0219		0.015		0.180	–0.194	–0.090	0.287
99% CI	[–0.028, 0.271]	[–0.343, –0.052]	[0.141, 0.297]		[–0.062, 0.092]		[0.080, 0.279]	[–0.291, –0.097]	[–0.181, 0.001]	[0.194, 0.381]
p	0.112	0.008	< 0.001		0.705		< 0.001	< 0.001	0.053	< 0.001
Arguments against Proposition 12
Increasing price	–0.115		–0.159		0.139	–0.137	–0.014		0.020	–0.202
99% CI	[–0.191, –0.039]		[–0.239, –0.079]		[0.001, 0.278]	[–0.280, 0.007]	[–0.089, 0.060]		[–0.072, 0.112]	[–0.298, –0.106]
p	0.003		< 0.001		0.050	0.062	0.708		0.675	< 0.001
Equity to low-income consumers	–0.120		–0.115		0.004		0.078		–0.0146
99% CI	[–0.196, –0.045]		[–0.195, –0.034]		[–0.073, 0.081]		[–0.008, 0.163]		[–0.235, –0.056]
p	0.002		0.005		0.925		0.077		0.001
One state forcing others	–0.179		–0.079		0.049		0.073		0.109	–0.222
99% CI	[–0.254, –0.105]		[–0.153, 0.010]		[–0.028, 0.126]		[–0.013, 0.158]		[0.017, 0.201]	[–0.317, –0.126]
p	< 0.001		0.087		0.210		0.095		0.020	< 0.001
It hurts America’s farmers	–0.099		–0.178	0.110	0.001		0.109	–0.106	0.091	–0.211
99% CI	[–0.175, –0.022]		[–0.300, –0.056]	[–0.018, 0.239]	[–0.076, 0.078]		[0.008, 0.209]	[–0.204, –0.008]	[–0.002, 0.183]	[–0.307, –0.116]
p	0.012		0.004	0.093	0.980		0.034	0.034	0.054	< 0.001

Note: Instances where the constrained model did not significantly differ from the free model are indicated by only one estimate across both aspects. Bolded values indicate p < 0.05. Estimates are standardized.

Figure 1. Associations between Openness aspects and attitudes toward Proposition 12.

Note: “Pro 1 to 4” capture arguments in favor of, “Contra 1 to 4” capture arguments against, Proposition 12. Separate bars for the aspects are only depicted in instances where the constrained model did significantly differ from the free model (see Table 2). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.