medigraphic.com

2020, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Vet Mex 2020; 7 (1)

Assessment of Turkish consumer attitudes using an Animal Welfare Attitude Scale (AWAS)

Kiliç l, Bozkurt Z

Language: English/Spanish
References: 30
Page: 1-15
PDF size: 179.60 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to examine Turkish consumer attitudes towards animal welfare in terms of cognitive, affective and behavioral dimensions, using a bespoke Animal Welfare Attitude Scale (AWAS). An overall consumer attitude was also determined. The Delphi technique was used to establish an item pool to develop a questionnaire for the construction of the AWAS. This questionnaire was later used for data collection. A total of 2295 consumers were surveyed in 14 cities, in the 7 regions of Turkey. Descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability analysis, Ward’s hierarchical clustering method and One-way ANOVA were used to validate the questionnaire, and to analyze data. Results of the EFA allowed for allocation of 42 items collected under 3 dimensions (cognitive, affective and behavioral), that explained 72% of the total variance of the model. This factor structure was subsequently confirmed by a CFA performed on a different sample of 425 consumers. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient for AWAS was calculated at 0.829. These results confirmed that the developed AWAS had a valid and reliable scale. The questionnaire showed that consumers’ attitudes towards animal welfare were more negative at the behavioral dimension, than either at the cognitive or affective dimensions. Consumers in Turkey were ultimately divided into three groups according to their overall attitudes towards animal welfare as impassive, moderate or sensitive. Onethird of Turkish consumers placed in the sensitive group, thus emphasizing a potential niche for animal-friendly food marketing in Turkey.


REFERENCES

  1. Napolitano F, Serrapica M, Braghieri A. Contrasting attitudes towards animal welfare issues within the food Chain. Animals. 2013;3:551-7.

  2. van Riemsdijk L, Ingenbleek PTM, van Trijp HCM, van der Veen G. Marketing animal-friendly products: addressing the consumer social dilemma with reinforcement positioning strategies. Animals. 2017;7:2-20.

  3. Grunert KG, Bech-Larsen T, Bredahl L. Three issues in consumer quality perception and acceptance of dairy products. Int Dairy J. 2000;108:575-84.

  4. Thøgersen, J, De Barcellos MD, Perin MG, Zhou Y. Consumer buying motives and attitudes towards organic food in two emerging markets: China and Brazil. Int Market Rev. 2015;32:389-413.

  5. Te-Velde H, Aarts N, van Woerkum C. Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. J Agric Environ Ethic. 2002;15:203-19.

  6. De Backer CJS, Hudders L. Meat morals: relationship between meat consumption consumer attitudes towards human and animal welfare and moral behavior. Meat Sci. 2015;99:68-74.

  7. Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W. Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not. Poult Sci. 2009;88:2702-11.

  8. Mulder M, Zomer S. Dutch consumers’ willingness to pay for broiler welfare. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2017;20:37-154.

  9. Weinrich R, Kühlb S, Zühlsdorfc A, Spillerd A. Consumer attitudes in Germany towards different dairy housing systems and their implications for the marketing of pasture raised milk. Int Food Agrib Man Rev. 2014;174:205-22.

  10. Vargas-Bello-Pérez E, Riveros JL, Köbrich C., Álvarez-Melo PA, Lensink J. Chilean consumers’ perception about animal welfare in dairy production systems. Anim Prod Sci. 2017;571:147-51.

  11. Miranda-de la Lama GC, Estévez-Moreno LX, Sepúlveda W, Estrada-Chavero M, Rayas-Amor A, Villarroel M, et al. Mexican consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products. Meat Sci. 2017;125:106-13.

  12. Kendall H, Lobao L, Sharp J. Public concern with animal well-being: place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology. 2006;713:399-428.

  13. Queiroz MLV, Barbosa Filho JAD, Albiero D, Brasil DDF, Melo RP. Consumer perception about welfare of livestock in Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil. Rev Cienc Agron. 2014;45:379–86.

  14. Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke W, Van Poucke E, Tuyttens FAM. Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. Int Jrnl Soc Agr Food. 2007;15:91-107.

  15. Miranda-de la Lama GC, Estévez-Moreno LX, Sepélveda W, Rayas-Amor, AA, Villarroel M, María GA. Consumer attitudes towards animal welfare friendly products and willingness to pay: An exploration of Mexican market segments. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2018;3:1-13.

  16. Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W. Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: challenges and opportunities. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2014;27:153-71.

  17. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci. 1963;9:458- 67.

  18. Rosenberg MJ, Hovland CI. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In: Rosenberg MJ and Hovland CI, eds. Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1960.

  19. Zanna MP, Rempel JK. Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In: Bar-Tal D, Kruglanski W, eds. The social psychology of knowledge. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press; 1988. p. 315-34.

  20. Edwards AL. Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Irvington Publishers; 1983.

  21. Bowling A. Research methods in health. Philadelphia, Pa: Open University Press; 1997.

  22. Sekaran U. Research methods for business. New York: John Wiley High Education Press; 2003.

  23. Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Meth Psychol Res. 2003;82:23-74.

  24. Harrington D. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.

  25. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson/ Allyn & Bacon; 2007.

  26. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297-334.

  27. Maltby J, Day L, Macaskill A, Personality, individual differences and intelligence. 4th ed. New York: Pearson; 2017.

  28. Grunert KG. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Sci. 2006;74:149-60.

  29. Bozkurt Z. Legal requirements for the welfare standards of broiler and layer hens in the European Union and Turkey’s compliance. Journal of Bahri Dagdas Animal Research. 2017;6:23-35.

  30. Kılıç 􀇠, Bozkurt Z. The Relationship between farmers’ perceptions and animal welfare standards in sheep Farms. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2013;269:1329-38.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com