IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlofdr/27552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Message Framing on Organic Food Purchase Likelihood

Author

Listed:
  • Gifford, Katie
  • Bernard, John C.

Abstract

A consumer survey and Tobit analysis were used to determine the effect of message framing and other factors on self-reported organic food purchase likelihood. Negative framing, which emphasizes the possible negative consequences of conventional agricultural techniques, led to a “"boomerang effect”" that resulted in lowered purchase likelihood of organic food by consumers with high trust in food safety. Consumers with significantly higher purchase likelihood had high perceived risk from pesticides and high prior knowledge about organic methods. African Americans and those with less than a high school education had lower purchase likelihood.

Suggested Citation

  • Gifford, Katie & Bernard, John C., 2004. "The Impact of Message Framing on Organic Food Purchase Likelihood," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 35(03), November.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlofdr:27552
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/27552
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clee, Mona A & Wicklund, Robert A, 1980. " Consumer Behavior and Psychological Reactance," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 389-405, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Gifford, Katie & Bernard, John C., 2004. "Packaging Of Organic And Conventional Products - A Comparison," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 35(01), March.
    4. Conner, David S. & Christy, Ralph D., 2002. "Consumer Preferences For Organic Standards: Guiding Demand-Expansion Strategies For Organic Food," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 33(01), March.
    5. Paul E. McNamara & Gay Y. Miller, 2002. "Pigs, People, and Pathogens: A Social Welfare Framework for the Analysis of Animal Antibiotic Use Policy," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1293-1300.
    6. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    7. Berger, Paul D & Smith, Gerald E, 1998. "The Impact of Prospect Theory Based Framing Tactics on Advertising Effectiveness," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 593-609, October.
    8. E. DuPuis, 2000. "Not in my body: BGH and the rise of organic milk," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 17(3), pages 285-295, 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. Gumirakiza, Jean Dominique & Curtis, Kynda R. & Bosworth, Ryan C., 2014. "Who Attends Farmers’ Markets and Why? Understanding Consumers and their Motivations," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA), vol. 17(2).
    2. Schott, Lenna & Bernard, John, 2015. "Comparing Consumer's WIllingness to Pay for Conventional, Non-Certified Organic and Organic Milk from Small and Large Farms," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), November.
    3. Li, Jinghan & Zepeda, Lydia & Gould, Brian W., 2007. "The Demand for Organic Food in the U.S.: An Empirical Assessment," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 38(3), November.
    4. Kim, Man-Keun & Curtis, Kynda R. & Yeager, Irvin, 2014. "An Assessment of Market Strategies for Small-Scale Produce Growers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA), vol. 17(3).
    5. Disdier, Anne-Célia & Marette, Stéphan, 2012. "How do consumers in developed countries value the environment and workers’ social rights in developing countries?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-11.
    6. Durham, Catherine A., 2007. "The Impact of Environmental and Health Motivations on the Organic Share of Produce Purchases," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(2), October.
    7. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    8. Costa, Cristina Amaro da & Santos, José Lima, 2016. "Estimating the demand curve for sustainable use of pesticides from contingent-valuation data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 121-128.
    9. Irandoust, Manuchehr, 3. "Modelling Consumers' Demand For Organic Food Products: The Swedish Experience," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 4(3).
    10. John M. Clements, 2016. "The Influence of Religiously and Scientifically Framed Messages on Agreement with Water Use Restrictions," Social Sciences, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 5(4), pages 1-15, November.
    11. Curtis, Kynda R. & Gumirakiza, J. Dominique & Bosworth, Ryan C., 2014. "Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Multi-Labeled Produce at Farmers' Markets," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 45(1), March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing;

    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:ags:jlofdr:27552. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fdrssea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.