Table 1. Results of the first series of GLMMs testing the relationships between the different potential coping behaviours and tourist pressure variables.

Hypothesis 1a: Avoidance behaviour
1) Being off the ground	Estimate	±SE	z	P	Direction
Intercept	−0.625	0.110	−5.683	<0.001
Total no. of tourists in the area	0.310	0.022	13.800	<0.001	+
No. of tourists in the nearest tourist group	0.009	0.020	0.437	0.663
TMI (Yes vs. No)	−1.605	0.063	−25.522	<0.001	−
2) Being under tree cover	Estimate	± SE	z	P
Intercept	1.836	0.146	12.528	<0.001
Total no. of tourists in the area	0.198	0.042	4.624	<0.001	+
No. of tourists in the nearest tourist group	0.020	0.036	0.555	0.579
TMI (Yes vs. No)	−1.139	0.077	−14.671	<0.001	−
3) Being further away from tourists	Estimate	±SE	t	P
Intercept	0.141	0.060	2.318	0.002
Total no. of tourists in the area	−0.103	0.006	−15.748	<0.001	−
No. of tourists in the nearest tourist group	−0.019	0.001	−14.569	<0.001	−
TMI (Yes vs. No)	−1.689	0.014	−113.206	<0.001	−
Hypothesis 2a: Social support	Estimate	±SE	z	P	Direction
Intercept	−1.079	0.280	−3.855	<0.001
Total no. of tourists in the area	−0.008	0.072	−0.112	0.911
No. of tourists in the nearest tourist group	0.007	0.018	0.382	0.702
TMI (Yes vs. No)	0.656	0.121	5.416	<0.001	+
Hypothesis 3a: Aggression	Estimate	±SE	t	P	Direction
Intercept	0.485	0.101	4.786	<0.001
Total no. of tourists in the area	0.000	0.024	0.004	0.997
No. of tourists in the nearest tourist group	−0.013	0.007	−1.761	0.078
TMI (Yes vs. No)	0.95	0.049	19.535	<0.001	+
Hypothesis 4a: Affiliative behaviour	Estimate	±SE	t	P	Direction
Intercept	1.310	0.133	9.863	<0.001
Total no. of tourists in the area	−0.079	0.028	−2.866	0.004	−
No. of tourists in the nearest tourist group	−0.016	0.008	−1.966	0.049	−
TMI (Yes vs. No)	0.543	0.055	9.846	<0.001	+
Hypothesis 5a: Displacement behaviour
1) Rates of self-scratching	Estimate	±SE	t	P	Direction
Intercept	10.146	1.943	5.221	<0.001
Total no. of tourists in the area	−0.116	0.332	−0.348	0.728
No. of tourists in the nearest tourist group	−0.050	0.097	−0.518	0.605
TMI (Yes vs. No)	4.923	0.662	7.434	<0.001	+
2) Restlessness	Estimate	±SE	t	P	Direction
Intercept	−0.334	0.090	−3.718	<0.001
Total no. of tourists in the area	−0.034	0.022	−1.569	0.117
No. of tourists in the nearest tourist group	−0.020	0.006	−3.139	0.002	−
TMI (Yes vs. No)	0.440	0.043	10.263	<0.001	+

P values in bold and italic are significant. The direction column indicates the direction of significant relationships. The full GLMM results can be found in supplementary Tables S1 and S3.