Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hot cognition in agricultural policy preferences in Norway?

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper tests the hypothesis that cultural and social background is far more influential to form preferences about policy than the level of fact-based knowledge a person possesses. The data for the case study stem from a web-based survey among a representative sample of the adult population in Norway. The degree of knowledge of agriculture in this paper is operationalized through questions on five key characteristics of Norwegian agriculture that frequently arise in the public discussion. The results show that the amount of fact-based knowledge of agriculture to a very little extent explains differences within the sample. The cultural background of respondents is much more suited to explain agricultural policy preferences. Knowledge, however, shifts the attention from food price issues towards the delivery of public goods. The results allow us to hint at hot cognition as a possible explanation for such findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An attempt was made where the variable was constructed on the basis of absolute knowledge. This variable did not enhance the explanatory power of the econometric regression compared to the construction of the variable using relative knowledge.

  2. The regression results according to the first approach are shown in Table 5 of the “Appendix”.

References

  • Ajzen, I., T.C. Brown, and L.H. Rosenthal. 1996. Information bias in contingent valuation: Effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(1): 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsky, A., S.A. Kaplan, and D.J. Beal. 2011. Just feelings? The role of affect in the formation of organizational fairness judgments. Journal of Management 37(1): 248–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R.M., J. Anderson, and R.J.P. Blaney. 2002. Farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15(2): 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrens, R.P., A.K. Bohara, H.C. Jenkins-Smith, C.L. Silva, and D.L. Weimer. 2004. Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national internet samples. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47(2): 331–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørkhaug, H., and C.A. Richards. 2008. Multifunctional agriculture in policy and practice? A comparative analysis of Norway and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 24(1): 98–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdein, I., M. Lodge, and C. Taber. 2006. Experiments on the automaticity of political beliefs and attitudes. Political Psychology 27(3): 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buysse, J., G. van Huylenbroeck, and L. Lauwers. 2007. Normative, positive and econometric mathematical programming as tools for incorporation of multifunctionality in agricultural policy modelling. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 120(1): 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casebeer, W.D. 2003. Moral cognition and its neural constituents. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4(10): 840–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, B.D., J. Lusk, and B.C. Briggeman. 2010. Taxpayer beliefs about farm income and preferences for farm policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32(2): 338–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Englich, B. 2008. When knowledge matters—differential effects of available knowledge in standard and basic anchoring tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology 38(5): 896–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, R.D. 2014. How do we judge policies? The Political Quarterly 85(1): 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J., A. Kole, S.M.A. van de Kroon, and C. de Lauwere. 2005. Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18(3): 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goméz-Limón, J.A., and I. Attance. 2004. Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support. Journal of Policy Modeling 26(8–9): 1045–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greer, A. 2005. Agricultural policy in Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4): 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, C., A. McVittie, and D. Moran. 2004. What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? Journal of Rural Studies 20(2): 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermans, F., I. Horlings, P.J. Beers, and H. Mommaas. 2010. The contested redefinition of a sustainable countryside: Revisiting Frouw’s rurality discourses. Sociologia Ruralis 50(1): 46–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyytia, N., and J. Kola. 2005. Citizens’ attitudes towards multifunctional agriculture. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 9(3): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, S., and M. Burton. 2003. Consumer preferences for GM food and other attributes of the food system. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47(4): 501–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallas, Z., J.A. Gómez-Limón, and M. Arriaza. 2007. Are citizens willing to pay for agricultural multifunctionality? Agricultural Economics 36(3): 405–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavine, H. 1998. On the primacy of affect in the determination of attitudes and behavior: The moderating role of affective–cognitive ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34(4): 398–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leschziner, V., and A.I. Green. 2013. Thinking about food and sex—deliberate cognition in the routine practices of a field. Sociological Theory 31(2): 116–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., and C.S. Taber. 2005. The Automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology 26(3): 455–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S., and J. Mante. 2003. Die Agrarwende im Spiegel der Bevölkerung. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 81(2): 302–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEachern, M.G., and J. Willock. 2004. Producers and consumers of organic meat: A focus on attitudes and motivations. British Food Journal 106(7): 534–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J.P., N.K. Squires, C.S. Taber, and M. Lodge. 2003. Activation of political attitudes: A psychophysiological examination of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology 24(4): 727–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro, A., and N.D. Hanley. 2001. Information, uncertainty and contingent valuation. In Valuing environmental preferences, ed. I.J. Bateman, 258–279. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2013. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2013—OECD countries and emerging economies. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Plischke, T., H. Rattinger, and C. Wagner. 2013. Hot cognition, cool consideration, or simply ignorance? Eine Untersuchung der Präferenzen unentschlossener Wähler. In Wahlen und Wähler: Analysen aus Anlaß der Bundestagswahl 2009, ed. B. Wessels, H. Schoen, and O.W. Gabriel, 337–359. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C., and M. Tilzey. 2005. Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist transition: Neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geography 29(5): 581–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redlawsk, D.P. 2002. Hot cognitions or cool considerations? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics 64(4): 1021–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. 1998. Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods: A look beyond contingent pricing. Ecological Economics 24(2–3): 213–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schokkaert, E. 1987. Preferences and demand for local public spending. Journal of Public Economics 34(2): 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selfa, T., R.A. Jussaume Jr, and M. Winter. 2008. Envisioning agricultural sustainability from field to plate: Comparing producer and consumer attitudes and practices toward ‘environmentally friendly’ food and farming in Washington State, USA. Journal of Rural Studies 24(3): 262–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A.R., P.D. Windschitl, and K. Bruchmann. 2013. Knowledge matters: Anchoring effects are moderated by knowledge level. European Journal of Social Psychology 43(1): 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somech, A., and R. Bogler. 1999. Tacit knowledge in academia: Its effects on student learning and achievement. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 133(6): 605–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sophie Russell, P., and R. Giner-Sorolla. 2013. Bodily moral disgust: What it is, how it is different from anger, and why it is an unreasoned emotion. Psychological Bulletin 139(2): 328–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storstad, O., and H. Bjørkhaug. 2003. Foundations of production and consumption of organic food in Norway: Common attitudes among producers and consumers? Agriculture and Human Values 20(2): 151–163.

  • Sydorovych, O., and A. Wossink. 2008. The meaning of agricultural sustainability: Evidence from a conjoint choice survey. Agricultural Systems 98(1): 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Variyam, J.N., J.L. Jordan, and J.E. Epperson. 1990. Preferences of citizens for agricultural policies: Evidence from a national survey. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72(2): 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vatn, A. 2009. An institutional analysis for methods for environmental appraisal. Ecological Economics 68(8–9): 2207–2215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yrjölä, T., and J. Kola. 2004. Consumer preferences regarding multifunctional agriculture. International Food and Agribusiness Management 7(1): 78–90.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been funded by the Research Council of Norway under Grant No. 216094/E40. The authors would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwegian Institute for Bioeconomy Research, Postboks 8024 Dep., 0030, Oslo, Norway

    Klaus Mittenzwei, Karen Refsgaard & Valborg Kvakkestad

  2. Agroscope, Tänikon, 8356, Ettenhausen, Switzerland

    Stefan Mann

Authors
  1. Klaus Mittenzwei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Mann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Refsgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valborg Kvakkestad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus Mittenzwei.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5 Regression results of first approach
Full size table
Table 6 Regression results of second approach
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mittenzwei, K., Mann, S., Refsgaard, K. et al. Hot cognition in agricultural policy preferences in Norway?. Agric Hum Values 33, 61–71 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9597-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9597-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation