IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijofsd/121946.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating Ethical Arguments to Organic Consumers: A Study Across Five European Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Naspetti, Simona
  • Zanoli, Raffaele

Abstract

Additional ethical claims were tested with mock organic egg labels in five EU countries. The attitudes towards the advertising labels were assessed by multiple copy testing measures. A total of 156 individual responses were analysed. The study confirms the difficulty of conducting advertising research in a multicultural framework, and shows that additional local/ regional claims can reinforce the appeal of organic products.

Suggested Citation

  • Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2011. "Communicating Ethical Arguments to Organic Consumers: A Study Across Five European Countries," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2(3), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijofsd:121946
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.121946
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/121946/files/Naspetti-ok.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.121946?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. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    2. Buck, Ross & Anderson, Erika & Chaudhuri, Arjun & Ray, Ipshita, 2004. "Emotion and reason in persuasion: Applying the ARI model and the CASC Scale," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 647-656, June.
    3. Grunert, Suzanne C. & Juhl, Hans Jorn, 1995. "Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 39-62, March.
    4. Roger H. von Haefen & D. Matthew Massey & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(4), pages 1061-1076.
    5. Mitchell, Andrew A, 1986. "The Effect of Verbal and Visual Components of Advertisements on Brand Attitudes and Attitude toward the Advertisement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 13(1), pages 12-24, June.
    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. Fitzsimmons, Jill & Cicia, Gianni, 2018. "Different Tubers for Different Consumers: Heterogeneity in Human Values and Willingness to Pay for Social Outcomes of Potato Credence Attributes," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(4), August.

    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. Filiptseva, Anna & Filler, Günther & Odening, Martin, 2022. "Compensation Options for Quarantine Costs in Plant Production," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329595, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    2. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2015. "Using discrete choice experiments to regulate the provision of water services: do status quo choices reflect preferences?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 300-324, June.
    3. Bruno Lanz & Allan Provins, 2012. "Do status quo choices reflect preferences? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in the context of water utilities' investment planning," CEPE Working paper series 12-87, CEPE Center for Energy Policy and Economics, ETH Zurich.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-17.
    5. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Dupont, Diane & Krupnick, Alan & Zhang, Jing, 2011. "Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-226, March.
    6. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2012. "Testing benefit transfer of reef protection values between local case studies: The Great Barrier Reef in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 60-69.
    7. Sebastian Heidenreich & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan & Euan Phimister, 2018. "Decision heuristic or preference? Attribute non‐attendance in discrete choice problems," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 157-171, January.
    8. Ardeshiri, Ali & Rashidi, Taha Hossein, 2020. "Willingness to pay for fast charging station for electric vehicles with limited market penetration making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff, 2009. "The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1140-1148, February.
    10. Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2010. "Preferences for site and environmental functions when selecting forthcoming national parks," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1532-1544, May.
    11. Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2010. "Restricted versus unrestricted choice in labelled choice experiments: exploring the tradeoffs of expanding choice dimensions," Research Reports 95072, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    12. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    13. Del Barrio-García, Salvador & Kamakura, Wagner A. & Luque-Martínez, Teodoro, 2019. "A Longitudinal Cross-product Analysis of Media-budget Allocations: How Economic and Technological Disruptions Affected Media Choices Across Industries," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 1-15.
    14. Frenkel Ter Hofstede & Michel Wedel & Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, 2002. "Identifying Spatial Segments in International Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 160-177, July.
    15. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    16. Diwanji, Vaibhav S. & Cortese, Juliann, 2020. "Contrasting user generated videos versus brand generated videos in ecommerce," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    17. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    18. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    19. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    20. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2010. "Restricted versus unrestricted choice in labelled choice experiments: exploring the tradeoffs of expanding choice dimensions," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1056, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

    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:ijofsd:121946. 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/centmde.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.