IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aajs14/180069.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumers’ Online Deliberation about Food-Related Risks and Benefits: The Case of Red Meat

Author

Listed:
  • Verbeke, Wim
  • Rutsaert, Pieter
  • Barnett, Julie
  • Gaspar, Rui
  • Marcu, Afrodita
  • Pieniak, Zuzanna
  • Seibt, Beate
  • Fletcher, Dave
  • Lima, Luisa

Abstract

Successfully engaging consumers in a dialogue may provide opportunities for better tailored and more effective communication about food-related risks and benefits. Using an online deliberation concept and software, VIZZATATM, we explored the validity of a behavioural measure of deliberation in an online environment in the context of consumers’ perceptions and information seeking about the risks and benefits of red meat. Participants from Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom (n=150) participated in an asynchronous interaction with the research team about the information provided. Online deliberation was operationalized as an individual metric based on the number of questions asked in relation to the information, the number of comments left, the number of glossary terms accessed, and the time spent on deliberative activity. This operationalization provided a coherent measure of deliberation which was positively correlated with information recall about the risks and benefits of red meat. Participants who perceived the information about red meat risks and benefits as too complex engaged less with the information.

Suggested Citation

  • Verbeke, Wim & Rutsaert, Pieter & Barnett, Julie & Gaspar, Rui & Marcu, Afrodita & Pieniak, Zuzanna & Seibt, Beate & Fletcher, Dave & Lima, Luisa, 2014. "Consumers’ Online Deliberation about Food-Related Risks and Benefits: The Case of Red Meat," 2014 AAEA/EAAE/CAES Joint Symposium: Social Networks, Social Media and the Economics of Food, May 29-30, 2014, Montreal, Canada 180069, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aajs14:180069
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.180069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/180069/files/FullPaper%20Verbeke%20et%20al%20Montreal%20May2014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.180069?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. Van Wezemael, Lynn & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Chryssochoidis, George & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 167-176.
    2. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    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. Yu Zeng & Xing Xu, 2022. "The Construction and Optimization of an AI Education Evaluation Indicator Based on Intelligent Algorithms," International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI), IGI Global, vol. 16(1), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Tingqiang Chen & Lei Wang & Jining Wang & Qi Yang, 2017. "A Network Diffusion Model of Food Safety Scare Behavior considering Information Transparency," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-16, December.
    3. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Zhanguo Zhu & Qinyuan Shen & Zhifeng Gao, 2022. "Consumer choices in agricultural markets with multitier collective labels and private brands," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(4), pages 905-922, October.
    5. Gava, Oriana & Galli, Francesca & Bartolini, Fabio & Brunori, Gianluca, 2014. "Sustainability of local versus global bread supply chains: a literature review," 2014 Third Congress, June 25-27, 2014, Alghero, Italy 173096, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    6. Stavroula Malla & K. K. Klein & Taryn Presseau, 2020. "Have health claims affected demand for fats and meats in Canada?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 271-287, September.
    7. Muunda, Emmanuel & Mtimet, Nadhem & Schneider, Franziska & Wanyoike, Francis & Dominguez-Salas, Paula & Alonso, Silvia, 2021. "Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Gruère, Guillaume P., 2012. "Implications of nanotechnology growth in food and agriculture in OECD countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 191-198.
    10. Ivana Radic & Maurizio Canavari, 2014. "Viennese consumers? preferences and willingness to pay for raspberries from Arilje, Serbia," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 16(3), pages 27-42.
    11. Bailey, Alison P. & Garforth, Chris, 2014. "An industry viewpoint on the role of farm assurance in delivering food safety to the consumer: The case of the dairy sector of England and Wales," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 14-24.
    12. Ueland, Øydis & Langsrud, Solveig & Veflen, Nina, 2023. "Food risk communication to consumers: The scare of antibiotic resistant bacteria in chicken," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 14(02), June.
    13. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    14. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2017. "Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for food safety labels in an emerging market: The case of fresh produce in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-34.
    15. Ying Zhu & Xiaowei Wen & May Chu & Gongliang Zhang & Xuefan Liu, 2021. "Consumers’ Food Safety Risk Communication on Social Media Following the Suan Tang Zi Accident: An Extended Protection Motivation Theory Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2012. "Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 661-670.
    17. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    18. Edi Defrancesco & Maria Angela Perito & Irene Bozzolan & Leonardo Cei & Gianluca Stefani, 2017. "Testing Consumers’ Preferences for Environmental Attributes of Pasta. Insights from an ABR Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-13, September.
    19. Wang, Emily Y. & Wei, Hongli & Caswell, Julie A., 2016. "The impact of mandatory trans fat labeling on product mix and consumer choice: A longitudinal analysis of the U.S. Market for margarine and spreads," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 63-81.
    20. Baba, Yasmina & Kallas, Zein & Gil, Jose M. & Realini, Carolina, 2015. "Impact of hedonic evaluation on consumers’ preferences for beef enriched with Omega 3: A Generalized Multinomial Logit Model approach," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211191, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:aajs14:180069. 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/aaeaaea.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.