MATEI, Daniela (author), BRUMĂ, Ioan Sebastian (author), TANASĂ, Lucian (author), and Senior Researcher, Ph.D., Romanian Academy -Iaşi Branch, Gh. Zane"Institute of Economic and Social Research
Researcher, Ph.D., Romanian Academy -Iaşi Branch, Gh. Zane"Institute of Economic and Social Research
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2016
Published:
Romania: Apollonia University of Iasi, Communication Sciences Faculty
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 164 Document Number: D08309
Lamm, Alexa J. (author), Lundy, Lisa K. (author), Warner, Laura (author), and Lamm, Kevan W. (author)
Format:
Conference paper
Publication Date:
2016-02
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 162 Document Number: D08132
Notes:
Research paper presented in the Agricultural Communications Section, Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists (SAAS), in San Antonio,Texas, February 7-8,2016. 24 pages.
This study examined an organizations’ crisis communication strategy (i.e., crisis response strategy and technical translation strategy) on social media and publics’ cognitive and affective responses. Twenty crisis communication messages posted by Foster Farms regarding a salmonella outbreak and 349 public responses were analyzed. The results showed that a technical translation strategy generated more public acceptances of message and more positive emotions than a crisis response strategy. A crisis response strategy generated more public rejections of message and more negative emotions than a technical translation strategy.
Ronteltap, Amber (author), Reinders, Machiel, J. (author), Van Dijk, Suzanne M. (author), Heijting, Sanne (author), Van der Lans, Ivo A. (author), and Lotz, Lambertus A. P. (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2016-08
Published:
Springer
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 7 Document Number: D10266
30 pages., Via online journal., New agrifood technologies are often difficult to grasp for the public, which may lead to resistance or even rejection. Insight into which technology features determine public acceptability of the technology could offer guidelines for responsible technology development. This paper systematically assesses the relative importance of specific technology features for consumer response in the agrifood domain in two consecutive studies. Prominent technology features were selected from expert judgment and literature. The effects of these features on consumer evaluation were tested in a consumer study (n = 745). Fictitious technologies were used to avoid any uncontrollable contextual influences that existing new technologies may evoke. Results show that technologies that were seen as more natural and newer were perceived less risky, more beneficial, and were evaluated more positively. Technologies applied to food were judged to be more beneficial, but also more risky than those applied to non-food. Technologies used in the production process were perceived to be less risky and evaluated more positively than those used in the product. Technologies owned by the market leader were perceived to be more beneficial, and evaluated more positively than those that were freely available. In a next study (n = 440), effects of the technology features on consumer response were tested for existing new agrifood technologies. This study replicated the results for perceived naturalness, perceived newness, and place in the production process where the technology is applied. However, in contrast to the first study, we did not find an effect of application area (food versus non-food) and technology ownership.
