IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/309985.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception and Evaluation of a Pig Fattening Pen Based on Film Material in an Online Survey Experiment with German Citizens

Author

Listed:
  • Wernsmann, Anna
  • Wildraut, Christiane
  • von Meyer-Höfer, Marie
  • Mergenthaler, Marcus

Abstract

As many parts of today’s society have only few direct connections to farming, an increasing alienation of the population from agriculture is noticed in Germany. Especially pig farming is criticised due to a discrepancy between farmers’ and citizens’ perception of animal welfare in modern livestock farming. With regard to the increasing use of the internet, social media, picture and film materials have become essential in communication about livestock production. In this context, it is important to deal with the effects of pictures and videos on citizens’ perception and evaluation. In general, the perception of videos is affected by the viewers’ characteristics. Apart from that, the perception of videos is affected by picture design and picture elements. The aim of the present study is to analyse people’s perceptions and evaluations of film material showing a pig fattening pen. For this purpose, 464 participants were randomly shown four out of sixteen videos in an online experiment. The videos varied according to housing conditions (e.g. weight of the pigs, stocking density) and recording conditions (e.g. camera angle, lighting conditions). A cluster analysis based on belief in animal mind, interest and knowledge about pig farming and meat consumption was conducted. Subsequently, the identified segments, the different housing conditions and the recording conditions of the videos were used as independent variables to perform an analysis of variance with the evaluations of the videos as dependent variable. The results show that the identified clusters significantly differ in the evaluations of the videos. Furthermore, housing conditions have a higher impact than recording conditions. The results indicate that high stocking densities lead to negative evaluations. It can be assumed that respondents do not recognise minor differences in film material. In general the videos were rated poorly. This implies for PR that improving recording conditions of the videos might not lead to a better evaluation of livestock farming than improving housing conditions. Different information requirements in different clusters should be considered in agricultural PR.

Suggested Citation

  • Wernsmann, Anna & Wildraut, Christiane & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Mergenthaler, Marcus, 2018. "Perception and Evaluation of a Pig Fattening Pen Based on Film Material in an Online Survey Experiment with German Citizens," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(4), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:309985
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.309985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/309985/files/3_Wernsmann.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.309985?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. Wim Verbeke, 2005. "Agriculture and the food industry in the information age," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 347-368, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Berkes, Jessica & Mergenthaler, Marcus, 2020. "Speed-Datings zwischen Menschen aus der Landwirtschaft und der Gesellschaft als neues Dialogformat: Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Untersuchung," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305601, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    3. Berkes, Jessica & Mergenthaler, Marcus, 2020. "Speed-Datings zwischen Menschen aus der Landwirtschaft und der Gesellschaft als neues Dialogformat: Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Untersuchung," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305601, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    4. Rui Pedro Fonseca & Ruben Sanchez-Sabate, 2022. "Consumers’ Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-23, December.
    5. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    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. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Šárka Velčovská & Giacomo Del Chiappa, 2015. "The Food Quality Labels: Awareness and Willingness to Pay in the Context of the Czech Republic," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 63(2), pages 647-658.
    3. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain & Falco, Salvatore Di, 2010. "Traffic lights and food choice: A choice experiment examining the relationship between nutritional food labels and price," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 211-220, June.
    4. Wixe, Sofia & Nilsson, Pia & Naldi, Lucia & Westlund, Hans, 2017. "Disentangling Innovation in Small Food Firms: The role of External Knowledge, Support, and Collaboration," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 446, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    5. Martina E. Reitmeier & Jutta Roosen, 2015. "Life Transitions and Brand Switching: How Changes in Social Relationships are Linked to Changes in Yogurt Brand and Grocery Chain Choice," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 475-490, December.
    6. Demont, Matty & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Verbeke, Wim & Seck, Papa Abdoulaye & Tollens, Eric, 2012. "Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: Willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126861, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    8. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Fabio Boncinelli & Francesca Gerini & Benedetta Neri & Leonardo Casini, 2018. "Consumer willingness to pay for non‐mandatory indication of the fish catch zone," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 728-741, October.
    10. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2010. "The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5541-5549, October.
    11. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    12. Juan Carlos Pérez-Mesa & Mª Carmen García Barranco & Mª Mar Serrano Arcos & Raquel Sánchez Fernández, 2023. "Agri-food crises and news framing of media: an application to the Spanish greenhouse sector," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2013. "Rational inattention or rational overreaction? Consumer reactions to health news," IFRO Working Paper 2013/14, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. Karijn Bonne & Wim Verbeke, 2008. "Religious values informing halal meat production and the control and delivery of halal credence quality," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(1), pages 35-47, January.
    15. Trenton G. Smith & Attila Tasnádi, 2014. "The Economics of Information, Deep Capture, and the Obesity Debate," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(2), pages 533-541.
    16. Ge, Lan & Bogaardt, Marc-Jeroen, 2015. "Bites into the Bits: Governance of Data Harvesting Initiatives in Agrifood Chains," 148th Seminar, November 30-December 1, 2015, The Hague, The Netherlands 229261, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    18. Anna Carbone & Alessandro Sorrentino, 2005. "European Policy for Food Quality and the New Cap," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, November.
    19. Fritz, Melanie & Fischer, Christian, 2007. "The Role of Trust in European Food Chains: Theory and Empirical Findings," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24.
    20. Yu-Hui Chen & Kai-Han Qiu & Kang Ernest Liu & Chun-Yuan Chiang, 2020. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay a Premium for Pure Rice Noodles? A Study of Discrete Choice Experiments in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, 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:309985. 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.