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(01).
    • 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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Branden B. Johnson, 2005. "Testing and Expanding a Model of Cognitive Processing of Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 631-650, June.
    12. Ding, Yulian & Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2013. "The influence of trust on consumer behavior: An application to recurring food risks in Canada," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 214-223.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    19. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2017. "Impact of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Belief in Rumors: The Role of Risk Perception and Communication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, November.
    20. 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.

    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.