IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi16/244777.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analyse Der Nachfragereaktionen Auf Den Dioxinskandal: Sind Die Medien Oder Letztendlich Konsumgewohnheiten Entscheidend?

Author

Listed:
  • Rieger, Jörg
  • Weible, Daniela

Abstract

Im Dezember 2010 wurden in Deutschland erhöhte Dioxingehalte u. a. im Futter für Geflügel festgestellt. Der Dioxinskandal hatte eine intensive Medienberichterstattung und einen Rückgang der Fleischnachfrage zur Folge. Da die genauen Gründe für die Verbraucherreaktionen während Lebensmittelskandalen noch unzureichend erforscht sind, untersucht diese Studie die Nachfrageveränderungen für verschiedene Verbrauchertypen während des Dioxinskandals 2010/11 für Geflügelfleisch in Deutschland. Ziel ist es, vor allem den Einfluss von Medienberichterstattung, Konsumgewohnheiten und verhaltenswissenschaftlichen Faktoren auf die Kaufentscheidungen der Haushalte zu betrachten. Auf Basis des GfK-Haushaltspanels werden potenzielle Nachfrageveränderungen bei Geflügelfleisch während des Dioxinskandals im Jahr 2011 in Deutschland analysiert. Zur Quantifizierung des Medieneinflusses wird ein Index gebildet, der die bedeutendsten Nachrichtenmedien in Deutschland einbezieht und die kumulative sowie abnehmende Informationswirkung modelliert. Um Unterschiede in der Risikowahrnehmung und dem Vertrauen der Verbraucher adäquat zu berücksichtigen, werden verschiedene Verbrauchergruppen mithilfe von Faktor-und Clusteranalysen, über Befragungsdaten des GfK-Haushaltspanels identifiziert. Zudem werden die gruppenspezifischen Nachfrageanalysen mit einem „Correlated Random Effect“ Tobit Modell durchgeführt, welches die Komplexität der Panelstruktur einschließlich der unbeobachteten Heterogenität entsprechend berücksichtigt. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, dass sich die Verbrauchergruppen in Bezug auf Risikowahrnehmung, Vertrauen und Mediennutzung unterscheiden. Die Medienberichterstattung hat für alle Verbrauchergruppen einen signifikanten negativen Effekt, wobei dieser zwischen den Gruppen variiert. Langfristige Konsumgewohnheiten der Verbrauchergruppen haben einen starken positiven Effekt auf die Geflügelfleischnachfrage. Dieses Ergebnis impliziert, dass das starke Gewohnheitsverhalten den negativen Einfluss der Medien während des Dioxinskandals reduziert hat.

Suggested Citation

  • Rieger, Jörg & Weible, Daniela, 2016. "Analyse Der Nachfragereaktionen Auf Den Dioxinskandal: Sind Die Medien Oder Letztendlich Konsumgewohnheiten Entscheidend?," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244777, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi16:244777
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.244777
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/244777/files/Rieger.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.244777?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. 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.
    2. Nicholas E. Piggott & Thomas L. Marsh, 2004. "Does Food Safety Information Impact U.S. Meat Demand?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 154-174.
    3. Rieger, Jorg & Kuhlgatz, Christian, 2015. "Analyzing Consumer Demand During a Food Scandal: The Case of Dioxin Contaminated Feed in Germany and the Media," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212292, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. 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.
    5. Mark E. Smith & Eileen O. van Ravenswaay & Stanley R. Thompson, 1988. "Sales Loss Determination in Food Contamination Incidents: An Application to Milk Bans in Hawaii," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(3), pages 513-520.
    6. Mario Mazzocchi, 2006. "No News Is Good News: Stochastic Parameters versus Media Coverage Indices in Demand Models after Food Scares," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(3), pages 727-741.
    7. Chamberlain, Gary, 1984. "Panel data," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 22, pages 1247-1318, Elsevier.
    8. Mundlak, Yair, 1978. "On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 69-85, January.
    9. Herbert A. Simon & Massimo Egidi & Ricardo Viale & Robin Marris, 1992. "Economics, Bounded Rationality and the Cognitive Revolution," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 409.
    10. Jun Yang & Ellen Goddard, 2011. "Canadian Consumer Responses to BSE with Heterogeneous Risk Perceptions and Risk Attitudes," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59(4), pages 493-518, December.
    11. Deborah J. Brown & Lee F. Schrader, 1990. "Cholesterol Information and Shell Egg Consumption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 548-555.
    12. Thomas L. Cox & Michael K. Wohlgenant, 1986. "Prices and Quality Effects in Cross-Sectional Demand Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(4), pages 908-919.
    13. Bocker, Andreas & Hanf, Claus-Hennig, 2000. "Confidence lost and -- partially -- regained: consumer response to food scares," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 471-485, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Rieger, Jörg & Kuhlgatz, Christian & Anders, Sven, 2016. "Food scandals, media attention and habit persistence among desensitised meat consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 82-92.
    2. Rieger, Jorg & Kuhlgatz, Christian, 2015. "Analyzing Consumer Demand During a Food Scandal: The Case of Dioxin Contaminated Feed in Germany and the Media," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212292, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Taylor, Mykel & Klaiber, H. Allen & Kuchler, Fred, 2016. "Changes in U.S. consumer response to food safety recalls in the shadow of a BSE scare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 56-64.
    4. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Radwan, Amr & Gil, Jose Maria & Ben Kaabia, Monia & Serra, Teresa, 2008. "Modeling The Impact Of Food Safety Information On Meat Demand In Spain," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6672, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum G. & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2016. "Fear and trust: How risk perceptions of avian influenza affect Chinese consumers’ demand for chicken," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-104.
    7. Islam Hassouneh & Teresa Serra & José M. Gil, 2010. "Price transmission in the Spanish bovine sector: the BSE effect," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(1), pages 33-42, January.
    8. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2019. "Heterogeneous Consumer Reactions to Health News," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(2), pages 579-599.
    11. Radwan, Amr & Gil, Jose Maria & Ben Kaabia, Monia & Serra, Teresa, 2009. "Food Safety Information And Meat Demand In Spain," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51540, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Beatty, Timothy & Katare, Bhagyashree, 2016. "What Drives Media Reporting of Food Safety Events? Evidence From U.S. Meat Recalls," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 239243, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2008. "The effect of information about health hazards on demand for frequently purchased commodities," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 310-318.
    14. Hassouneh, Islam & Radwan, Amr & Serra, Teresa & Gil, José M., 2012. "Food scare crises and developing countries: The impact of avian influenza on vertical price transmission in the Egyptian poultry sector," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 264-274.
    15. Aye Chan Myae & Ellen Goddard, 2020. "Household behavior with respect to meat consumption in the presence of BSE and CWD," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 315-341, September.
    16. Luigi Cembalo & Daniela Caso & Valentina Carfora & Francesco Caracciolo & Alessia Lombardi & Gianni Cicia, 2019. "The “Land of Fires” Toxic Waste Scandal and Its Effect on Consumer Food Choices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
    17. Yadavalli, Anita & Jones, Keithly, 2014. "Does media influence consumer demand? The case of lean finely textured beef in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 219-227.
    18. Beach, Robert H. & Zhen, Chen, 2008. "Consumer Purchasing Behavior in Response to Media Coverage of Avian Influenza," 2008 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2008, Dallas, Texas 6750, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Mario Mazzocchi & Davide Delle Monache & Alexandra Lobb, 2006. "A structural time series approach to modelling multiple and resurgent meat scares in Italy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(14), pages 1677-1688.
    20. Hyun No Kim & Ik-Chang Choi, 2018. "The Economic Impact of Government Policy on Market Prices of Low-Fat Pork in South Korea: A Quasi-Experimental Hedonic Price Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.

    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:gewi16:244777. 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/gewisea.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.