IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i4p951-967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating Risks and Benefits from Fish Consumption: Impact on Belgian Consumers' Perception and Intention to Eat Fish

Author

Listed:
  • Wim Verbeke
  • Filiep Vanhonacker
  • Lynn J. Frewer
  • Isabelle Sioen
  • Stefaan De Henauw
  • John Van Camp

Abstract

Communicating about the health effects of fish and seafood may potentially result in a conflict situation: increasing intake is desirable because of health and nutritional benefits, but higher consumption may also lead to an increased intake of potentially harmful environmental contaminants. In order to anticipate the communication challenge this conflict may pose, the research presented here aimed to assess the impact of risk/benefit communication on Belgian consumers' fish consumption behavior and fish attribute perception. Data were collected in June 2005 from a sample of 381 women, aged between 20 and 50 years. An experimental design consisting of four message conditions (benefit‐only; risk‐only; benefit‐risk; and risk‐benefit) combined with three information sources (fish and food industry; consumer organization; government) was used. Exposure to the benefit‐only message resulted in an increase from a self‐reported fish consumption frequency of 4.2 times per month to an intended fish consumption frequency of 5.1 times per month (+21%), while fish attribute perceptions only marginally improved. The risk‐only message resulted in a strong negative perceptual change in the range of two points on a seven‐point scale. This translated into an 8% decrease of behavioral intention (from eating fish 4.5 times per month to an intention of eating fish 4.1 times per month). Balanced messages referring to both risks and benefits yielded no significant change in behavioral intention, despite a significant worsening of fish attribute perception. The presentation order of benefits and risks in the balanced message showed a tendency to affect both behavioral intention and attribute perception, with the first message component being most influential. Information source did not yield any significant impact either on behavioral intention or on attribute perceptions, independent of the message content. The results from this study provide valuable insights for future risk/benefit and balanced communication about seafood.

Suggested Citation

  • Wim Verbeke & Filiep Vanhonacker & Lynn J. Frewer & Isabelle Sioen & Stefaan De Henauw & John Van Camp, 2008. "Communicating Risks and Benefits from Fish Consumption: Impact on Belgian Consumers' Perception and Intention to Eat Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 951-967, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:951-967
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01075.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01075.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01075.x?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. E. Van Kleef & J. R. Houghton & A. Krystallis & U. Pfenning & G. Rowe & H. Van Dijk & I. A. Van der Lans & L. J. Frewer, 2007. "Consumer Evaluations of Food Risk Management Quality in Europe," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1565-1580, December.
    2. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    3. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1997. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Communication About Food Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 759-770, December.
    4. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    5. Barbara A. Knuth & Nancy A. Connelly & Judy Sheeshka & Jacqueline Patterson, 2003. "Weighing Health Benefit and Health Risk Information when Consuming Sport‐Caught Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1185-1197, December.
    6. Cynthia G. Jardine, 2003. "Development of a Public Participation and Communication Protocol for Establishing Fish Consumption Advisories," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 461-471, June.
    7. Joanna Burger & Karen F. Gaines & Michael Gochfeld, 2001. "Ethnic Differences in Risk from Mercury among Savannah River Fishermen," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 533-544, June.
    8. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich & Claudia Roth, 2000. "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    11. Verbeke, Wim & Ward, Ronald W., 2001. "A fresh meat almost ideal demand system incorporating negative TV press and advertising impact," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 359-374, September.
    12. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    13. Helen May & Joanna Burger, 1996. "Fishing in a Polluted Estuary: Fishing Behavior, Fish Consumption, and Potential Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 459-471, August.
    14. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    15. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1325-1348, December.
    16. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    17. Hui-Shung Chang & Henry W. Kinnucan, 1991. "Advertising, Information, and Product Quality: The Case of Butter," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1195-1203.
    18. 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.
    19. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    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. Andrew Watterson & David Little & James A. Young & Kathleen Boyd & Ekram Azim & Francis Murray, 2008. "Towards Integration of Environmental and Health Impact Assessments for Wild Capture Fishing and Farmed Fish with Particular Reference to Public Health and Occupational Health Dimensions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2017. "Towards a better understanding of eating behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk," Post-Print halshs-02923251, HAL.
    3. Jeffrey K. Wickliffe & Bridget Simon‐Friedt & Jessi L. Howard & Ericka Frahm & Buffy Meyer & Mark J. Wilson & Deepa Pangeni & Edward B. Overton, 2018. "Consumption of Fish and Shrimp from Southeast Louisiana Poses No Unacceptable Lifetime Cancer Risks Attributable to High‐Priority Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1944-1961, September.
    4. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2015. "Toward a better understanding of eating-behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk [Mieux comprendre les comportements alimentaires grâce au concept de perception du risque nut," Post-Print hal-02054434, HAL.
    5. Francesco Bimbo & Rosaria Viscecchia & Biagia De Devitiis & Antonio Seccia & Rocco Roma & Annalisa De Boni, 2022. "How Do Italian Consumers Value Sustainable Certifications on Fish?—An Explorative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.
    6. Sigurdsson, Valdimar & Larsen, Nils Magne & Pálsdóttir, Rakel Gyða & Folwarczny, Michal & Menon, R.G. Vishnu & Fagerstrøm, Asle, 2022. "Increasing the effectiveness of ecological food signaling: Comparing sustainability tags with eco-labels," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1099-1110.
    7. Gülbanu Kaptan & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer, 2018. "Extrapolating understanding of food risk perceptions to emerging food safety cases," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 996-1018, August.
    8. Olga Untilov & Stéphane Ganassali, 2020. "Product‐harm science communication: The halo effect and its moderators," Post-Print hal-02957579, HAL.
    9. Olga Untilov & Stéphane Ganassali, 2020. "Product‐harm science communication: The halo effect and its moderators," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(3), pages 1002-1027, September.
    10. Uberta Ganucci Cancellieri & Giulia Amicone & Lavinia Cicero & Alessandro Milani & Oriana Mosca & Marialetizia Palomba & Simonetta Mattiucci & Marino Bonaiuto, 2023. "Can Food Safety Practices and Knowledge of Raw Fish Promote Perception of Infection Risk and Safe Consumption Behavior Intentions Related to the Zoonotic Parasite Anisakis ?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, April.
    11. Heleen van Dijk & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer, 2011. "Consumer Responses to Integrated Risk‐Benefit Information Associated with the Consumption of Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 429-439, March.

    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. E. Van Kleef & J. R. Houghton & A. Krystallis & U. Pfenning & G. Rowe & H. Van Dijk & I. A. Van der Lans & L. J. Frewer, 2007. "Consumer Evaluations of Food Risk Management Quality in Europe," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1565-1580, December.
    2. Fiona N. H. Montijn-Dorgelo & Cees J. H. Midden, 2008. "The role of negative associations and trust in risk perception of new hydrogen systems," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(5), pages 659-671, July.
    3. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Ballester, 2009. "A theory of reference-dependent behavior," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(3), pages 427-455, September.
    4. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    5. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    6. Ulrich Schmidt & Stefan Traub, 2009. "An Experimental Investigation of the Disparity Between WTA and WTP for Lotteries," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 229-262, March.
    7. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    8. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    9. Domenico Colucci & Chiara Franco & Vincenzo Valori, 2021. "Endowment effects at different time scenarios: the role of ownership and possession," Discussion Papers 2021/279, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    10. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Bodo Sturm & Joachim Weimann, 2006. "Experiments in Environmental Economics and Some Close Relatives," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(3), pages 419-457, July.
    12. Baker, Malcolm & Coval, Joshua & Stein, Jeremy C., 2007. "Corporate financing decisions when investors take the path of least resistance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 266-298, May.
    13. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424, April.
    14. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    15. Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Ott, Marion & Abele, Susanne, 2015. "Auction fever: Rising revenue in second-price auction formats," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 206-227.
    16. 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.
    17. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    18. María del Pilar García Pachón, 2016. "Instrumentos Económicos Y Financieros Para La Gestión Ambiental," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Derecho, number 853, December.
    19. Pradiptyo, Rimawan & Sahadewo, Gumilang Aryo, 2012. "A growing pain: an experimental approach to discover the most acceptable strategy for lifting fuel subsidy scheme in Indonesia," MPRA Paper 37073, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    21. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:951-967. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.