Table 2 Standardised factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, and Mean (SD) response of questionnaire variables which were scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”) for each sub-group (QR code one and QR code two).

Attitude

0.93

4.79 (1.06)

4.77 (0.99)

Buying QR code labelled pork instead of traditional pork now available in supermarkets would make me feel:

Scale: very bad – very good

0.91

4.75 (1.12)

4.78 (1.04)

Scale: very displeased – very pleased

0.87

4.72 (1.17)

4.68 (1.08)

I think that buying QR code labelled pork instead of traditional pork is:

Scale: very foolish – very wise

0.86

4.86 (1.21)

4.83 (1.19)

Scale: very harmful – very beneficial

0.85

4.82 (1.19)

4.77 (1.09)

PBC

0.93

4.76 (1.21)

4.82 (1.18)

Regarding the additional information about antibiotic use of QR code labelled pork (obtained via the code):

it will be easy to find the antibiotic information

0.81

4.72 (1.50)

4.76 (1.47)

I am confident that I’ll find the antibiotic information

0.84

4.70 (1.49)

4.72 (1.48)

I will be able to find the antibiotic information without help from others

0.84

4.80 (1.61)

4.84 (1.56)

it will be easy to understand the antibiotic information (the type of drug and amount in ml)

0.92

4.62 (1.47)

4.74 (1.45)

I am confident that I’ll understand the antibiotic information (the type of drug and amount in ml)

0.90

4.64 (1.52)

4.75 (1.51)

I will be able to understand the antibiotic information without help from others

0.89

4.67 (1.52)

4.77 (1.50)

I would prefer to see a rating system or colour coding to indicate if antibiotic use is high rather than a figure in ml (e.g., similar to the traffic light rating system)

0.34

5.26 (1.41)

5.18 (1.33)

even if I don’t understand the information, I can use this label as a form of assurance that antibiotics have been used responsibly (withdrawn & safe)

0.64

4.67 (1.42)

4.81 (1.31)

Trust

0.94

4.90 (1.22)

4.91 (1.28)

I trust:

that QR code labelled pork can provide accurate and reliable information surrounding antibiotic use during production

0.92

4.92 (1.31)

4.89 (1.38)

that the information about adherence to the withdrawal period is reliable on QR code labelled pork

0.91

4.85 (1.27)

4.87 (1.33)

that QR code labelled pork will provide an assurance that antibiotics have been used on the animal responsibly

0.90

4.93 (1.33)

4.98 (1.35)

Perceptions of QR code

0.92

4.42 (1.31)

4.55 (1.31)

Based on the idea of QR code labelled pork becoming available:

I believe this QR code would be useful

0.84

4.57 (1.73)

4.76 (1.73)

I would like to see this QR code on pork products

0.86

4.52 (1.72)

4.64 (1.73)

Seeing this QR code on foods will assure me that antibiotics have been used on the animal responsibly

0.85

4.46 (1.63)

4.60 (1.64)

I would eat meat from animals which had antibiotics knowing that the animal hasn’t suffered

0.56

4.63 (1.44)

4.72 (1.43)

Buying products with this QR code will reduce my risk of consuming antibiotics

0.81

4.35 (1.55)

4.46 (1.50)

Buying products with this QR code will reduce my chances of getting AMR

0.80

4.24 (1.54)

4.32 (1.53)

Buying products with this QR code will help me not worry as much about AMR

0.81

4.18 (1.56)

4.32 (1.50)

Beliefs (quality)

0.88

4.19 (1.16)

4.21 (1.20)

QR code labelled pork will likely be tastier

0.83

4.13 (1.34)

4.17 (1.38)

QR code labelled pork will likely be easier to find

0.61

3.87 (1.37)

3.84 (1.33)

QR code labelled pork will likely be of more satisfying quality

0.88

4.26 (1.33)

4.29 (1.42)

QR code labelled pork will likely be safer to eat

0.88

4.50 (1.40)

4.48 (1.41)

Beliefs (animal welfare)

0.83

4.51 (1.32)

4.55 (1.31)

QR code labelled pork will likely be healthier

0.79

4.19 (1.44)

4.26 (1.52)

QR code labelled pork will likely have higher animal welfare standards

0.82

4.66 (1.38)

4.65 (1.36)

QR code labelled pork will likely be free from antibiotics

0.72

4.35 (1.52)

4.44 (1.47)

Beliefs (expense)

-

5.00 (1.31)

5.06 (1.31)

QR code labelled pork will likely be more expensive

0.41

Intention

0.95

4.20 (1.46)

4.29 (1.51)

If pork products with this QR code become available:

I intend to buy them

0.91

4.23 (1.48)

4.34 (1.55)

I will look for them

0.93

4.25 (1.59)

4.36 (1.65)

It will be important for me to buy them

0.92

3.98 (1.56)

4.13 (1.62)

I will buy them to find out more about animal welfare standards

0.88

4.34 (1.61)

4.32 (1.65)

Generalised trust

0.93

4.57 (1.15)

4.59 (1.19)

Most people:

are basically honest

0.92

4.51 (1.32)

4.51 (1.38)

are trustworthy

0.94

4.51 (1.27)

4.51 (1.35)

are basically good and kind

0.86

4.70 (1.22)

4.77 (1.24)

are trustful of others

0.78

4.58 (1.22)

4.56 (1.26)

Purchasing habits (extrinsic qualities)

0.75

5.60 (0.93)

5.52 (1.01)

Please rate the following based on their level of importance when purchasing pork:

Price

0.52

4.97 (1.45)

4.86 (1.49)

Quality (for example, taste/flavour/freshness)

0.73

6.08 (1.27)

5.95 (1.41)

Quantity (for example, size)

0.67

5.50 (1.09)

5.49 (1.19)

Appearance (for example, colour/texture)

0.71

5.81 (1.14)

5.77 (1.17)

Purchasing habits (animal welfare qualities)

0.88

5.00 (1.17)

5.02 (1.09)

Origin (for example, local, British, EU)

0.51

5.28 (1.46)

5.23 (1.45)

Antibiotics used

0.66

5.03 (1.60)

5.07 (1.52)

Organic (or other assurance certificate)

0.69

4.41 (1.68)

4.49 (1.65)

Animal welfare practices

0.90

5.32 (1.46)

5.33 (1.40)

Healthiness/nutritional content

0.49

5.26 (1.36)

5.33 (1.25)

Environmental friendliness

0.87

5.04 (1.43)

5.06 (1.41)

The type of packaging

0.54

4.52 (1.52)

4.61 (1.48)

Purchasing habits (marketing qualities)

0.58*

4.80 (1.24)

4.75 (1.25)

Place of purchase

0.51

5.08 (1.30)

4.96 (1.36)

The brand

0.91

4.51 (1.49)

4.53 (1.46)

Perception of AMU (personal concern)

0.65

5.04 (1.19)

5.05 (1.20)

When considering antibiotic use:

I am concerned that AMR will affect me one day

0.71

4.57 (1.71)

4.45 (1.74)

too many antibiotics from the doctor can cause AMR

0.67

5.53 (1.48)

5.59 (1.39)

if I have AMR, I will not be able to treat illness

0.50

5.02 (1.49)

5.12 (1.49)

Perception of AMU (animal welfare standards)

0.75*

5.71 (1.25)

5.67 (1.21)

it is important to me that animal welfare standards are adhered to when purchasing meat

0.85

5.65 (1.35)

5.59 (1.30)

it is important to me that the pork I buy has been produced in a way that the animal has experienced as little pain as possible

0.88

5.76 (1.32)

5.75 (1.30)

Perception of AMU (animal usage acceptance)

0.71

4.20 (1.19)

4.30 (1.06)

I would be willing to consume meat from animals treated with antibiotics

0.68

4.31 (1.43)

4.30 (1.38)

overall, the use of animal antibiotics delivers more benefits than harm

0.70

4.09 (1.42)

4.25 (1.24)

the use of antibiotics in livestock cannot be seriously harmful, otherwise usage would be banned

0.64

4.19 (1.55)

4.36 (1.42)

Perception of AMU (animal concern)

0.55

4.08 (1.11)

4.17 (1.07)

using antibiotics in livestock makes them less effective in humans

0.50

4.61 (1.52)

4.59 (1.41)

antibiotics should never be used in livestock production, even in medical need, since it is critical to maintain useful antibiotics for public health use

0.61

4.26 (1.52)

4.37 (1.45)

I consider domestic pets to be a potential source of transfer of AMR

0.55

3.35 (1.54)

3.55 (1.57)