IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/huaedp/7172.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Ostrich Or A Leopard - Communication Response Strategies To Post-Exposure On Negative Information About Health Hazards In Foods

Author

Listed:
  • Heiman, Amir
  • Lowengart, Oded

Abstract

The effect of negative information on consumer product evaluations has been studied heavily in the context purchase intentions and other preference-related measures. In this study, we examine the context (negative health hazard information on meat commodities), direction (positive and negative), and intensity (low and high) of information on consumer choice processes. We draw from the literature on Bayesian updating, choice processes and heuristics, as well as cognitive and information processing to propose a set of hypotheses and empirically test them using survey data. Our results indicate that under low intensity, information consumers tend to employ a non-compensatory type choice process with the health aspects of the product being nonsalient. In the case of high-intensity negative information, consumers employ a compensatory choice process and consider the health dimension of the product. These results are mainly attributed to variations in the allocation of consumer cognitive resources in the decision-making process as a result of the different types of information, changing it from peripheral to central, and affecting the decision strategy and choices. The results may provide insight into how to design better marketing and media strategies in response to unfavorable information about health hazards.

Suggested Citation

  • Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2006. "An Ostrich Or A Leopard - Communication Response Strategies To Post-Exposure On Negative Information About Health Hazards In Foods," Discussion Papers 7172, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Agricultural Economics and Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:huaedp:7172
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.7172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7172/files/dp060014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.7172?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. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    2. Amir Heiman & David R. Just & Bruce McWilliams & David Zilberman, 2001. "Incorporating family interactions and socioeconomic variables into family production functions: The case of demand for meats," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(4), pages 455-468.
    3. 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..
    4. Ofir, Chezy, 1988. "Pseudodiagnosticity in judgment under uncertainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 343-363, December.
    5. Sengupta, Jaideep & Johar, Gita Venkataramani, 2002. "Effects of Inconsistent Attribute Information on the Predictive Value of Product Attitudes: Toward a Resolution of Opposing Perspectives," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 29(1), pages 39-56, June.
    6. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 2000. "Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 123-156, September.
    7. Viscusi, W Kip & O'Connor, Charles J, 1984. "Adaptive Responses to Chemical Labeling: Are Workers Bayesian Decision Makers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 942-956, December.
    8. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    9. Hamparsum Bozdogan, 1987. "Model selection and Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 345-370, September.
    10. Roland Herrmann & Stanley R. Thompson & Stephanie Krischik-Bautz, 2002. "Bovine spongiform encephalopathy and generic promotion of beef: An analysis for “quality from Bavaria”," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 369-385.
    11. Coupey, Eloise, 1994. "Restructuring: Constructive Processing of Information Displays in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 83-99, June.
    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. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2011. "The effects of information about health hazards in food on consumers' choice process," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 140-147, May.
    2. Mathew B. Chylinski & John H. Roberts & Bruce G. S. Hardie, 2012. "Consumer Learning of New Binary Attribute Importance Accounting for Priors, Bias, and Order Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 549-566, July.
    3. Marek Kapera, 2022. "Learning own preferences through consumption," KAE Working Papers 2022-074, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of Economic Analysis.
    4. Herrmann, Tabea & Hübler, Olaf & Menkhoff, Lukas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Allais for the poor," Kiel Working Papers 2036, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    5. Vishal Gaur & Young-Hoon Park, 2007. "Asymmetric Consumer Learning and Inventory Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(2), pages 227-240, February.
    6. Ary José A. de Souza-Jr. & Flávio Terto, 2021. "The propensity to adaptation under the new era of climate changes," Working Papers REM 2021/0167, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    7. Yokoo, Hide-Fumi & Arimura, Toshi H. & Chattopadhyay, Mriduchhanda & Katayama, Hajime, 2023. "Subjective risk belief function in the field: Evidence from cooking fuel choices and health in India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    8. Namwoon Kim & Jin K. Han & Rajendra K. Srivastava, 2002. "A Dynamic IT Adoption Model for the SOHO Market: PC Generational Decisions with Technological Expectations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 222-240, February.
    9. Smith, V. Kerry, 1990. "Environmental Risk Perception and Valuation: Conventional versus Prospective Reference Theory," 1990 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Vancouver, Canada 270887, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    10. Patrice Cailleba & Herbert Casteran, 2010. "Do Ethical Values Work? A Quantitative Study of the Impact of Fair Trade Coffee on Consumer Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 613-624, December.
    11. Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2014. "Biased Bayesian learning with an application to the risk-free rate puzzle," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 79-97.
    12. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Yen, HsiuJu Rebecca & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Chang, Chia-Jung, 2013. "Product option framing under the influence of a promotion versus prevention focus," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 402-413.
    13. Wu, Pei-Hsun & Kao, Danny Tengti, 2011. "Goal orientation and variety seeking behavior: The role of decision task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-72, February.
    14. Shao, Wei & Lye, Ashley & Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn, 2009. "Different strokes for different folks: A method to accommodate decision -making heterogeneity," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 495-501.
    15. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    16. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    17. Moon, Sangkil & Voss, Glenn, 2009. "How do price range shoppers differ from reference price point shoppers?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 31-38, January.
    18. Tarnanidis, Theodore & Owusu-Frimpong, Nana & Nwankwo, Sonny & Omar, Maktoba, 2015. "Why we buy? Modeling consumer selection of referents," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-36.
    19. Kwon, Kyoung-Nan & Lee, Jinkook, 2009. "The effects of reference point, knowledge, and risk propensity on the evaluation of financial products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 719-725, July.
    20. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.

    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:huaedp:7172. 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/agrhuil.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.