IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/308830.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of information on social trust in farmers regarding animal welfare

Author

Listed:
  • GRoss, Sabine
  • Roosen, Jutta

Abstract

Little consumer knowledge about agriculture and livestock production as well as mounting concerns about the consequences of modern animal husbandry are pivotal aspects of the growing gap between famers and society. Literature shows that trust can play an important role in situations characterized by limited knowledge. In this paper a salient value similarity approach to social trust is adopted where social trust is placed on people that are perceived to hold similar goals. Determinants of social trust in farmers are examined and the influence of messages about livestock production is analyzed. The study is based on data from an online survey among 1,600 German participants containing an information treatment. Results confirm literature in that positive information increases, while negative information decreases social trust. We show that salient value similarity between consumers and farmers has a high positive influence on social trust in farmers, and moderates the effects of the perceived sender of the message

Suggested Citation

  • GRoss, Sabine & Roosen, Jutta, 2021. "Effects of information on social trust in farmers regarding animal welfare," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:308830
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.308830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/308830/files/ifamr2020.0034.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.308830?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. Johan F. M. Swinnen & Jill McCluskey & Nathalie Francken, 2005. "Food safety, the media, and the information market," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 32(s1), pages 175-188, January.
    2. Boehm, Justus & Kayser, Maike & Spiller, Achim, 2010. "Two Sides of the Same Coin? Analysis of the Web-Based Social Media with Regard to the Image of the Agri-Food Sector in Germany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 1(3), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    4. Tamara J. Bergstra & Henk Hogeveen & Elsbeth N. Stassen, 2017. "Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 393-405, June.
    5. Yulian Ding & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2012. "The Impact of Generalized Trust and Trust in the Food System on Choices of a Functional GM Food," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 54-66, January.
    6. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    7. 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. Qian Li & Jingjing Wang & Xiaoyang Wang & Yubin Wang, 2022. "The Impact of Training on Beef Cattle Farmers’ Installation of Biogas Digesters," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, April.
    2. Junqiao Ma & Wenfeng Zhou & Shili Guo & Xin Deng & Jiahao Song & Dingde Xu, 2022. "The influence of peer effects on farmers’ response to climate change: evidence from Sichuan Province, China," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-23, November.
    3. Ram N. Acharya & Jay Lillywhite, 2021. "The Role of Push and Pull Motivations on Satisfaction and Consumer Loyalty to Agricultural Fairs," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, September.
    4. Meike Rombach & David L. Dean & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Vera Bitsch, 2021. "The Ethically Conscious Flower Consumer: Understanding Fair Trade Cut Flower Purchase Behavior in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Alexandra Molitorisová & Ciarán Burke, 2023. "Farm to fork strategy: Animal welfare, EU trade policy, and public participation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 881-910, June.

    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. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    2. Yawson, Robert M. & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2010. "Evidence review and experts’ opinion on consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology," MPRA Paper 40807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    4. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    5. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    6. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele, 2015. "The roles of human values and generalized trust on stated preferences when food is labeled with environmental footprints: Insights from Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 84-91.
    9. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Pamela C. Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    10. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    11. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    12. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    13. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    14. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    15. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    16. Marilou Jobin & Michael Siegrist, 2020. "Support for the Deployment of Climate Engineering: A Comparison of Ten Different Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1058-1078, May.
    17. Olsen, Robert A., 2008. "Trust as risk and the foundation of investment value," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2189-2200, December.
    18. Mohr, Svenja & Höhler, Julia, 2023. "Media coverage of digitalization in agriculture - an analysis of media content," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    19. Aisha Egolf & Christina Hartmann & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1546-1559, July.
    20. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Marie‐Eve Cousin, 2006. "Implicit Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power and Mobile Phone Base Stations: Support for the Affect Heuristic," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1021-1029, August.

    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:ifaamr:308830. 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/ifamaea.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.