IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/309985.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception and Evaluation of a Pig Fattening Pen Based on Film Material in an Online Survey Experiment with German Citizens

Author

Listed:
  • Wernsmann, Anna
  • Wildraut, Christiane
  • von Meyer-Höfer, Marie
  • Mergenthaler, Marcus

Abstract

As many parts of today’s society have only few direct connections to farming, an increasing alienation of the population from agriculture is noticed in Germany. Especially pig farming is criticised due to a discrepancy between farmers’ and citizens’ perception of animal welfare in modern livestock farming. With regard to the increasing use of the internet, social media, picture and film materials have become essential in communication about livestock production. In this context, it is important to deal with the effects of pictures and videos on citizens’ perception and evaluation. In general, the perception of videos is affected by the viewers’ characteristics. Apart from that, the perception of videos is affected by picture design and picture elements. The aim of the present study is to analyse people’s perceptions and evaluations of film material showing a pig fattening pen. For this purpose, 464 participants were randomly shown four out of sixteen videos in an online experiment. The videos varied according to housing conditions (e.g. weight of the pigs, stocking density) and recording conditions (e.g. camera angle, lighting conditions). A cluster analysis based on belief in animal mind, interest and knowledge about pig farming and meat consumption was conducted. Subsequently, the identified segments, the different housing conditions and the recording conditions of the videos were used as independent variables to perform an analysis of variance with the evaluations of the videos as dependent variable. The results show that the identified clusters significantly differ in the evaluations of the videos. Furthermore, housing conditions have a higher impact than recording conditions. The results indicate that high stocking densities lead to negative evaluations. It can be assumed that respondents do not recognise minor differences in film material. In general the videos were rated poorly. This implies for PR that improving recording conditions of the videos might not lead to a better evaluation of livestock farming than improving housing conditions. Different information requirements in different clusters should be considered in agricultural PR.

Suggested Citation

  • Wernsmann, Anna & Wildraut, Christiane & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Mergenthaler, Marcus, 2018. "Perception and Evaluation of a Pig Fattening Pen Based on Film Material in an Online Survey Experiment with German Citizens," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(4), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:309985
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.309985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/309985/files/3_Wernsmann.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.309985?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. Wim Verbeke, 2005. "Agriculture and the food industry in the information age," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 347-368, 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. Berkes, Jessica & Mergenthaler, Marcus, 2020. "Speed-Datings zwischen Menschen aus der Landwirtschaft und der Gesellschaft als neues Dialogformat: Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Untersuchung," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305601, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    3. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    4. Iris Schröter & Marcus Mergenthaler, 2019. "Neuroeconomics Meets Aquaponics: An Eye-tracking Pilot Study on Perception of Information about Aquaponics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Berkes, Jessica & Mergenthaler, Marcus, 2020. "Speed-Datings zwischen Menschen aus der Landwirtschaft und der Gesellschaft als neues Dialogformat: Eine kommunikationswissenschaftliche Untersuchung," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305601, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Rui Pedro Fonseca & Ruben Sanchez-Sabate, 2022. "Consumers’ Attitudes towards Animal Suffering: A Systematic Review on Awareness, Willingness and Dietary Change," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-23, December.

    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. Stranieri, S. & Baldi, Lucia & Manzoni, V., 2014. "Fresh-cut salad consumer and shelf life date extension: more or less information?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182942, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Pérez-Mesa, Juan Carlos & Sanchez-Fernández, Raquel & Serrano-Arcos, Mar, 2019. "Measuring the impact of crises in the horticultural sector: The case of Spain," MPRA Paper 119854, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Ramona Weinrich & Annabell Franz & Achim Spiller, 2016. "Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 18(2), pages 155-172.
    5. Kiana Moore & Heather Allen, 2013. "Continuity of Business Plans for Animal Disease Outbreaks: Using a Logic Model Approach to Protect Animal Health, Public Health, and Our Food Supply," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-18, April.
    6. Šárka Velčovská & Giacomo Del Chiappa, 2015. "The Food Quality Labels: Awareness and Willingness to Pay in the Context of the Czech Republic," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 63(2), pages 647-658.
    7. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain & Falco, Salvatore Di, 2010. "Traffic lights and food choice: A choice experiment examining the relationship between nutritional food labels and price," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 211-220, June.
    8. Erdem, Seda & McCarthy, Tony, 2016. "The effect of front-of-pack nutrition labelling formats on consumers’ food choices and decision-making: merging discrete choice experiment with an eye tracking experiment," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235864, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Wixe, Sofia & Nilsson, Pia & Naldi, Lucia & Westlund, Hans, 2017. "Disentangling Innovation in Small Food Firms: The role of External Knowledge, Support, and Collaboration," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 446, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    10. Dominic Lemken & Anke Zühlsdorf & Achim Spiller, 2021. "Improving Consumers’ Understanding and Use of Carbon Footprint Labels on Food: Proposal for a Climate Score Label," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(2), pages 23-29, August.
    11. Martina E. Reitmeier & Jutta Roosen, 2015. "Life Transitions and Brand Switching: How Changes in Social Relationships are Linked to Changes in Yogurt Brand and Grocery Chain Choice," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 475-490, December.
    12. Cavallo, Carla & Materia, Valentina C., 2018. "Insects or not Insects? Dilemmas or Attraction for Young Generations: A Case in Italy," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(3), June.
    13. Demont, Matty & Rutsaert, Pieter & Ndour, Maimouna & Verbeke, Wim & Seck, Papa Abdoulaye & Tollens, Eric, 2012. "Experimental auctions, collective induction and choice shift: Willingness-to-pay for rice quality in Senegal," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126861, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Anna K. Edenbrandt & Christian Gamborg & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2020. "Observational learning in food choices: The effect of product familiarity and closeness of peers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 482-498, June.
    15. Casati, Mirta & Stranieri, Stefanella & Rommel, Jens & Medici, Riccardo & Soregaroli, Claudio, 2022. "The impact of a carbon footprint label on food orders: A natural field experiment in a full-service restaurant," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322144, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    17. Fabio Boncinelli & Francesca Gerini & Benedetta Neri & Leonardo Casini, 2018. "Consumer willingness to pay for non‐mandatory indication of the fish catch zone," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 728-741, October.
    18. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2010. "The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5541-5549, October.
    19. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    20. Bélgica Pacheco-Blanco & Mónica Martínez-Gómez & Daniel Collado-Ruiz & Salvador F. Capuz-Rizo, 2018. "Sustainable Information in Shoe Purchase Decisions: Relevance of Data Based on Source," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.

    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:gjagec:309985. 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/iahubde.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.