IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/334353.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do People look at Pictures of Pigs? Analyzing Fixation Duration Depending on Pig Expression and Barn Type using Eye-Tracking

Author

Listed:
  • Gauly, Sarah
  • Busch, Gesa
  • Spiller, Achim
  • Enneking, Ulrich
  • Kunde, Susanne
  • von Meyer-Höfer, Marie

Abstract

Using eye-tracking, this study investigates fixation duration of students viewing pictures of pigs, which systematically vary in the facial expression of the pig and in the barn setting. The aim of this study is to analyze which picture elements are viewed and for how long, as well as how fixation times vary with a change of the expression of the pig and the barn type. The results show clear effects of picture composition: pig expression and pen type affect fixation durations of different areas of interest with the influence of the pig being considerably larger. Face regions are viewed longer in the “happy” pig, while floor/bedding and the eyes are viewed longer in pictures showing the “unhappy” pig which might be a hint for information search. The power of facial expressions, also for the depiction of farm animals, is a new finding of this paper, which might be of importance when selecting agricultural pictures for different purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Gauly, Sarah & Busch, Gesa & Spiller, Achim & Enneking, Ulrich & Kunde, Susanne & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie, 2020. "How do People look at Pictures of Pigs? Analyzing Fixation Duration Depending on Pig Expression and Barn Type using Eye-Tracking," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(4), December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:334353
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.334353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334353/files/838_org.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.334353?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Roosen, Jutta & Dahlhausen, Johanna Lena & Petershammer, Silke, 2016. "Acceptance of Animal Husbandry Practices: The Consumer Perspective," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244482, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Busch, Gesa & Gauly, Sarah Arianna & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "Ich sehe was, was du nicht siehst: Eine Eye Tracking Studie zur Betrachtung und Bewertung von Bildern aus der Schweinemast," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 66(2), June.
    4. Iris Schröter & Marcus Mergenthaler, 2019. "Neuroeconomics Meets Aquaponics: An Eye-tracking Pilot Study on Perception of Information about Aquaponics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schukat, Sirkka & Diekmann, Marie & Heise, Heinke, 2021. "What links neuroscience to agricultural economics? A review of neuroscientific methods literature in agricultural economic research and marketing," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(6), March.
    2. Lingling Xu & Xixi Yang & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Lu Chen & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food with Information on Animal Welfare, Lean Meat Essence Detection, and Traceability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Gauly, Sarah & Müller, Andreas & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "New methods of increasing transparency: Does viewing webcam pictures change peoples' opinions towards modern pig farming?," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260769, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    4. Heinz, Nicolai & Koessler, Ann-Kathrin, 2021. "Other-regarding preferences and pro-environmental behaviour: An interdisciplinary review of experimental studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Iris Schröter & Marcus Mergenthaler, 2019. "Neuroeconomics Meets Aquaponics: An Eye-tracking Pilot Study on Perception of Information about Aquaponics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, June.
    6. Jonas Heckenhahn & Moritz A. Drupp, 2022. "Relative Price Changes of Ecosystem Services: Evidence from Germany," CESifo Working Paper Series 9656, CESifo.
    7. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    8. Kiryluk-Dryjska, Ewa & Rani, Anshu, 2023. "Neuroeconomic Studies In Agriculture And Food Economics: A Systematic Review Of Literature," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2023(4).
    9. Simons, J. & Hartmann, M. & Klink-Lehmann, J. & Vierboom, C. & Harlen, I., 2018. "Acceptance of animal husbandry in Germany: Drivers and different ways to cope with problems," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277367, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Schulte, Hinrich D. & Armbrecht, Linda & Bürger, Rasmus & Gauly, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver & Hüttel, Silke, 2018. "Let the cows graze: An empirical investigation on the trade-off between efficiency and farm animal welfare in milk production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 375-385.
    11. Septianto, Felix & Sung, Billy & Duong, Chien & Conroy, Denise, 2023. "Are two reasons better than one? How natural and ethical appeals influence consumer preferences for clean meat," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    12. Gorton, Matthew & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Chatzopoulou, Elena & White, John & Tocco, Barbara & Hubbard, Carmen & Hallam, Fiona, 2023. "Consumers' willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    13. Sarah Hölker & Marie von Meyer-Höfer & Achim Spiller, 2019. "Animal Ethics and Eating Animals: Consumer Segmentation Based on Domain-Specific Values," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-17, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:334353. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.