How message framing affects consumer attitudes in food crises

Article English OPEN
Mitchell, V-W. ; Bakewell, C. ; Jackson, P. R. ; Heslin, C. (2015)

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between consumer risk perceptions and behaviour when information about food risks is framed in a positive or negative way.\ud \ud Design/methodology/approach - Using food consumption scenarios in an on-line experiment consumers perceived risk and risk tolerance is examined when messages are framed in three different news-type stories.\ud \ud Findings - As anticipated, message framing emerged as a significant predictor of perceived risk and the higher an individual’s self-reported tolerance of risk, the more risk they were willing to accept.\ud \ud Research limitations/implications - The use of hypothetical scenarios and relatively small convenience sample size could be improved by further research.\ud \ud Practical implications - Through simple adjustments to wording, food crises of confidence may be reduced and the implications for communication management strategies are discussed.\ud \ud Originality/value - Originality stems from being one of the first papers to use Framing and Prospect Theory in a food crisis situation, in which both risk and framing are operationalised in different ways and the risk was not specified by the researcher. Also, unlike previous research identical numerical facts were framed in a positive, negative or neutral light by changing the wording.
  • References (21)
    21 references, page 1 of 3

    Augustine, N.R. (1995), “Managing the crisis you tried to prevent”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, No. 6, pp. 147-158.

    Breakwell, G.M. (2000), “Risk communications: Factors affecting impact”, British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 110-120.

    Brown, R. (1988), Group Processes: Dynamic Within and Between Groups, Blackwell.

    Charlebois, S. and Elliott, G. (2009), “Mining for mindsets: The conceptual anatomy of a successful crisis communication strategy in mining”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 55-71.

    Coppola, D. (2005), “'Gripped by fear': Public risk perception and the Washington, DC sniper”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 32-54 Cope, S. Fewer, L.J., Houghton, J., Rowe, G., Fischer A. R. H., de Jonge, J. (2010), “Consumer perception of best practice in food risk communication and managemepnt: Implications for risk analysis policy”, Food Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 349-357 Eldridge, J., Kitzinger, J., Philo, G., Reilly, J., Macintyre, S. and Miller, D. (1997), “The re-emergence of BSE: The impact on public beliefs and behaviour”, Newsletter of the ESRC Research Programme on Risk and Human Behaviour, Issue 3.

    Fagley, N.S. and Miller, P.M. (1997), “Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.

    71, No. 3, pp. 355-373.

    Gallagher, K. M. & Updegraff, J. A. (2012), “Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review”, Annals of behavioral medicine, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 101-116.

    Hatton C. (2013) accessed 12.12.14 Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), “Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk”, Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 263-291.

    Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O. and Slovic, P. (1988), “Social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 8, pp. 177-187.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark