IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v61y2016icp121-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations

Author

Listed:
  • Robbins, J.A.
  • Franks, B.
  • Weary, D.M.
  • von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.

Abstract

Hidden-camera investigations are becoming an increasingly popular means of raising public awareness about farm animal welfare. However, livestock industries claim they are deceptive. One strategy to curtail these investigations has been the introduction of so-called ag-gag legislation, which aims to restrict the flow of information coming out of farm facilities. Psychological research suggests that this approach may be counter-productive as reducing information flow often reduces feelings of trust. We sought to extend these findings by applying them to a real-world, timely example and to determine whether the perceived intention to obstruct access to information erodes feelings of trust. Accordingly, this study tested whether simply being made aware of ag-gag laws might have a negative impact on trust in farmers. Participants (n=716) were randomly assigned to either receive information about ag-gag laws or to a Control condition. We found that most people were unaware of ag-gag laws and that learning about them lead to a decrease in trust in farmers and an increase in support for animal welfare regulations. Interestingly, we also found evidence that awareness of ag-gag laws negatively impacted perceptions of the current status of farm animal welfare as well as the perception that farmers do a good job of protecting the environment. Through this topical example, this study demonstrates that even the intention to restrict access to information can undermine trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Robbins, J.A. & Franks, B. & Weary, D.M. & von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2016. "Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 121-125.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:61:y:2016:i:c:p:121-125
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919216300045
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.02.008?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antle, John M., 1999. "Benefits and costs of food safety regulation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 605-623, December.
    2. Dutta, Sujay & Pullig, Chris, 2011. "Effectiveness of corporate responses to brand crises: The role of crisis type and response strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 1281-1287.
    3. Fisman, Raymond & Khanna, Tarun, 1999. "Is trust a historical residue? Information flows and trust levels," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 79-92, January.
    4. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    5. Sumner, Daniel A. & Matthews, William A. & Mench, Joy A. & Rosen-Molina, J. Thomas, 2010. "The Economics of Regulations on Hen Housing in California," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 429-438, August.
    6. Jiyun Kang & Gwendolyn Hustvedt, 2014. "Building Trust Between Consumers and Corporations: The Role of Consumer Perceptions of Transparency and Social Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 253-265, December.
    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. Alotaibi, Bader Alhafi & Kassem, Hazem S. & AL-Zaidi, Abdullah & Alyafrsi, Mohamad A., 2020. "Farmers’ awareness of agri-environmental legislation in Saudi Arabia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Jesse A Robbins & Caitlin Roberts & Daniel M Weary & Becca Franks & Marina A G von Keyserlingk, 2019. "Factors influencing public support for dairy tie stall housing in the U.S," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Gauly, Sarah & Müller, Andreas & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "New methods of increasing transparency: Does viewing webcam pictures change peoples' opinions towards modern pig farming?," DARE Discussion Papers 1705, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    4. Schulze, Maureen & Risius, Antje & Spiller, Achim, 2018. "Heimliche Stallaufnahmen aus gesellschaftlicher Sicht im Wechselspiel zwischen Landwirtschaft, Tierschutzorganisationen und staatlichen Kontrollmechanismen," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 67(4), December.
    5. Jiaqin Sun & Ruguo Fan & Zhou Yang, 2022. "An Evolutionary Game Analysis of Periodical Fluctuation in Food Safety Supervision," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Pirsich, Wiebke & von Hardenberg, Louisa Marie & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2017. "The Pet Food Industry: An innovative Distribution Channel for Marketing Feed Products from Welfare Friendly Production to Consumers?," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 8(3), August.
    7. Sirkka Schukat & Louisa von Plettenberg & Heinke Heise, 2020. "Animal Welfare Programs in Germany—An Empirical Study on the Attitudes of Pig Farmers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    8. von Hardenberg, Louisa & Heise, Heinke, 2018. "German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Programs and their Willingness to Participate in these Programs: An Empirical Study," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(3), June.
    9. Von Hardenberg, Louisa & Heise, Heinke, 2018. "German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare And Their Willingness To Participate In Animal Welfare Programs: An Empirical Study," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276867, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.

    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. Cambier, Fanny & Poncin, Ingrid, 2020. "Inferring brand integrity from marketing communications: The effects of brand transparency signals in a consumer empowerment context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 260-270.
    2. Ali Besharat & Kimberly A. Whitler & Saim Kashmiri, 2024. "When CEO Pay Becomes a Brand Problem," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(4), pages 941-973, April.
    3. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    4. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    5. O O Ibitayo & K D Pijawka, 1999. "Reversing NIMBY: An Assessment of State Strategies for Siting Hazardous-Waste Facilities," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 17(4), pages 379-389, August.
    6. Szilvia Molnár & László Szőllősi, 2020. "Sustainability and Quality Aspects of Different Table Egg Production Systems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    7. Krieger, Stephanie & Schiefer, Gerhard, 2006. "Quality Systems in the Agri-Food Industry - Implementation, Cost, Benefit and Strategies," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25795, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Abdelmoety, Ziad Hassan & Aboul-Dahab, Sameh & Agag, Gomaa, 2022. "A cross cultural investigation of retailers commitment to CSR and customer citizenship behaviour: The role of ethical standard and value relevance," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    9. Filipiak, Ute, 2016. "Trusting financial institutions: Out of reach, out of trust?," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 200-214.
    10. Therese A Joiner & Lynne Leveson & Kim Langfield-Smith, 2002. "Technical Language, Advice Understandability, and Perceptions of Expertise and Trustworthiness: The Case of the Financial Planner," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 27(1), pages 25-43, June.
    11. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    12. Xavier Giné & Pamela Jakiela & Dean Karlan & Jonathan Morduch, 2010. "Microfinance Games," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 60-95, July.
    13. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    14. Dutt, Dwarkeshwar, 2020. "Understanding the barriers to the diffusion of rooftop solar: A case study of Delhi (India)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    15. Dutta, Sujay & Pullig, Chris, 2015. "A commentary on reporting effect size and confidence intervals: Response to Palmer and Strelan (2014)," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1082-1085.
    16. Ying Tang & Andrea Moro & Sandro Sozzo & Zhiyong Li, 2018. "Modelling trust evolution within small business lending relationships," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 1-18, December.
    17. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    18. Avishek Bhandari & Joanna Golden & Kenton Walker & Joseph H. Zhang, 2022. "The relationship between stock repurchase completion rates, firm reputation and financial reporting quality: a commitment‐trust theory perspective," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2687-2724, June.
    19. Aoyagi, Keitaro & Sawada, Yasuyuki & Shoji, Masahiro, 2022. "Irrigation infrastructure and trust: Evidence from natural and lab-in-the-field experiments in rural communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    20. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2002. "The Perceived Risk of Terrorism," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2002:11, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 16 Jan 2004.

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:61:y:2016:i:c:p:121-125. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.