18 pages., via online journal, As food products marketed as “gluten-free” become increasingly popular, many consumers start to exclude sources of gluten (e.g., wheat, barley, and rye) from their diets for both medical and non-medical purposes. The grain industry is facing a growing challenge to (re)boost consumers’ confidence in the healthiness and safety of its commodities. Using 561 participants recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk workers’ panel, this study implemented a 2 (pretzels vs. potato chips) * 2 (positive- vs. negative- frame) * 2 (wheat image vs. no wheat image) experiment to examine the effects of gluten-free labels on consumers’ perceived healthiness and safety of wheat, perceived benefits of labeled products, and their evaluation of the shown labels. Results showed that consumers evaluate the gluten-free labels most positively when they appear on products that could have contained gluten. For products that are naturally gluten-free, adding a gluten-free label only decreased consumers’ confidence in such labels. The presence of gluten-free labels increased consumers’ perceived benefits of the labeled products when they do not contain any misleading information (e.g., image of a wheat head). However, some gluten-free labels could have negative impacts on consumers’ perceptions of the healthiness and safety of wheat. Overall, food producers and marketers might have undervalued consumers’ literacy and overestimated their susceptibility to marketing strategies. We discussed the implications for food marketers, regulators, and communicators.
Mike, Moses R. (author), Rampold, Shelli D. (author), Telg, Ricky W. (author), Lindsey, Angela B. (author), and Association for Communication Excellence (ACE)
University of Florida
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2020-02
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 131 Document Number: D11303
15 pages., via online journal, Crisis communication plays a significant role for the different audiences for which it is designed. Hurricanes and other disasters have resulted in major economic damage and disruption of social norms for extended periods of time in communities across the globe. In such circumstances, the Cooperative Extension Service is often called to take an active role in preparation, response, and recovery. As part of the local emergency management team, local Extension offices are positioned to provide a research base, relevant information, and faculty. As such, citizens often look to Extension faculty members for emergency resources and expertise. However, standard communication methods can be significantly affected in disaster situations. Further, difficulty to fully anticipate such effects can limit Extension’s ability to communicate with targeted audiences and deliver important information. This descriptive study was conducted to examine Florida Extension offices’ and Extension faculty members’ communication efforts and effectiveness during the 2017 hurricane season. The primary methods used by respondents to communicate with subject matter clientele were email, face to face, and phone; the primary method used to communicate with the public was the internet/web. Respondents felt clientele and the public were only moderately aware of Extension’s efforts during the hurricane season. Future research is needed to investigate Extension faculty members’ choice of communication channels, as well as the ability of these channels to convey information to clientele and the public. Future research should also examine the communication channels and information sources used and preferred by clientele and the public during disasters. Such results should be compared to the findings of this study to inform future practice for communication in disasters.
