首页> 外文学位 >The power of food labels: Marketing environmental impacts and animal welfare on meat labels as gains versus nonlosses and the influence on attitudes and voting intentions.
【24h】

The power of food labels: Marketing environmental impacts and animal welfare on meat labels as gains versus nonlosses and the influence on attitudes and voting intentions.

机译:食品标签的力量:营销环境影响和肉类标签上的动物福利,包括收益与不损失以及对态度和投票意图的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Consumers receive information about how their food is (or is not) produced on a regular basis through the labels they see in the grocery store. Production labeling claims like eco-friendly, cage-free, and no hormones offer information about the product they are on and about the conventionally produced products that do not carry these claims. The theories of loss aversion and regulatory focus suggest that messages, such as food production claims, can be framed as gains or nonlosses and have different persuasive effects, but the theories contradict each other. This study used an experimental design with a convenience sample of 660 college students to examine how consumers' attitudes toward food products are affected by gain- and nonloss-framed production labeling claims about animal welfare and environmental impact and whether this on-package marketing can also affect intent to support an animal welfare ballot initiative.;The results did not reveal different attitudinal effects between gain- and nonloss-framed production claims as predicted by loss aversion and regulatory focus theories; however, the presence of the production claims did significantly reduce positive The results did not reveal different attitudinal effects between gain- and nonloss-framed production claims as predicted by loss aversion and regulatory focus theories; however, the presence of the production claims did significantly reduce positive attitudes toward the product without claims. Exposure to the production claims increased positive attitudes toward the product they were on, but these attitudes did not translate into intentions to support the animal welfare ballot initiative. Over 75% of the sample indicated they intended to support the policy regardless of the treatment.;This study attempted to frame nonlosses and gains equivalently, but qualitatively. The results suggest that in the absence of numbers or quantifiable information, the biases of loss aversion, framing effects, and regulatory focus fit effect are minimized. Regardless of how production claims were framed, it is clear that they are a source of information affecting consumers' attitudes towards conventional agriculture products and perhaps even the production system. Agricultural communicators should not underestimate the effects that food marketing and advertising can have on consumers' attitudes toward conventional agriculture and its products, and consider these effects in addition to messages put forth by activist groups and mass media.
机译:消费者会通过在杂货店看到的标签定期接收有关如何(或不)生产食物的信息。诸如生态友好型,无笼式,无激素之类的生产标签声明提供了有关所用产品以及不带有这些声明的常规生产产品的信息。损失规避和监管焦点理论认为,诸如粮食生产要求之类的信息可以被描述为收益或非损失,并具有不同的说服力,但这些理论相互矛盾。这项研究使用了一个实验设计,并以660名大学生为样本,研究了消费者对食品的态度如何受到有关动物福利和环境影响的有损和无损生产标签声明的影响,以及这种包装上的营销是否也可以结果并未显示损失规避理论和监管焦点理论所预测的有收益框架和无损失框架的生产索赔在态度上的不同影响。然而,生产诉求的存在确实大大减少了积极的影响。结果并未显示出如损失规避理论和监管焦点理论所预测的,在有框架和无损失框架的生产诉求之间的不同态度作用。但是,生产要求的存在确实大大降低了对没有要求的产品的积极态度。暴露于生产要求中会增加对所使用产品的积极态度,但这些态度并未转化为支持动物福利投票倡议的意图。超过75%的样本表明他们打算不管采取何种治疗措施都支持该政策。该研究试图以等价的方式从质量上衡量无损和收益。结果表明,在没有数字或可量化信息的情况下,损失规避,框架效应和监管焦点拟合效应的偏差被最小化。无论如何构建生产要求,很显然,它们都是影响消费者对常规农产品甚至生产系统态度的信息源。农业宣传人员不应低估食品营销和广告对消费者对常规农业及其产品的态度所产生的影响,并应考虑到维权团体和大众传媒所传达的信息之外的这些影响。

著录项

  • 作者

    Abrams, Katherine M.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Florida.;

  • 授予单位 University of Florida.;
  • 学科 Business Administration Marketing.;Agriculture General.;Psychology Clinical.;Speech Communication.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 162 p.
  • 总页数 162
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号