[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlofdr/212993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perception and Trust Interaction in Response to Food Safety Events across Products and the Implications for Agribusiness Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Shepherd, Jonathan D.
  • Saghaian, Sayed H.
Abstract
Food safety events can create devastating economics losses for agribusiness firms. The objective of this study is to identify the factors that influence potential purchasing decisions for fresh produce and meat products. The SPARTA model, based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, is used to determine the impact of probable factors that influence consumers’ purchasing decisions. The data for this research was obtained from two surveys: fresh produce and meat products. The results suggest a food safety event in fresh produce markets affect purchasing decisions more than the same event in meat markets. Results also suggest information consumers receive about food safety events from casual conversations with family members, friends, and colleagues can influence purchasing decisions. Agribusiness firms can use these results to form strategic responses to food safety events.

Suggested Citation

  • Shepherd, Jonathan D. & Saghaian, Sayed H., 2015. "Risk Perception and Trust Interaction in Response to Food Safety Events across Products and the Implications for Agribusiness Firms," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-21, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlofdr:212993
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.212993
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212993/files/7-105R.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.212993?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grebitus, Carola & Colson, Gregory & Menapace, Luisa, 2012. "A Comparison of Hypothetical Survey Rankings with Consumer Shopping Behavior," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 35-47, February.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & Keith H. Coble, 2005. "Risk Perceptions, Risk Preference, and Acceptance of Risky Food," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 393-405.
    3. Joost M.E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2000. "Assessing the Construct Validity of Risk Attitude," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(10), pages 1337-1348, October.
    4. Ekanem, Enefiok P. & Mafuyai-Ekanem, Mary & Tegegne, Fisseha & Singh, Surendra P., 2008. "Trust in Food-Safety Information Sources: Examining Differences in Respondents’ Opinions from a Three-State Survey," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 39(1), pages 1-5, March.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Grebitus, Carola & Colson, Gregory & Menapace, Luisa, . "A comparison of hypothetical survey rankings with consumer shopping behavior and product knowledge," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(1), pages 1-13.
    7. Baker, Gregory A., 1998. "Strategic Implications Of Consumer Food Safety Preferences," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 1(4), pages 1-13.
    8. Melkonyan, Tigran A., 2011. "The Effect of Communicating Ambiguous Risk Information on Choice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cuffaro, Nadia & Di Giacinto, Marina, 2015. "Credence goods, consumers’ trust in regulation and high quality exports," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 4(2), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Evans, Keith S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Lando, Amy. M. & Liu, Sherry T., 2020. "Risk perceptions and food-handling practices in the home," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    4. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2009. "Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 625-644, September.
    5. Jason R.V. Franken & Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2014. "Measuring the effect of risk attitude on marketing behavior," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 525-535, September.
    6. Paulius Neciunskas & Laura Tomaseviciute & Dovile Kazlauske & Justina Gineikiene & Ruta Kazlauskaite, 2017. "Uniqueness Perception And Willingness To Buy Protected Geographical Origin Versus Doppelgaenger Brands," Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Faculty of Economics, Vilnius University, vol. 8(2).
    7. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    8. Devaki Rau & Thorvald Haerem, 2010. "Applying an organizational learning perspective to new technology deployment by technological gatekeepers: A theoretical model and key issues for future research," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 287-297, July.
    9. Banterle, Alessandro & Cavaliere, Alessia & Ricci, Elena Claire, 2012. "Food labelled Information: An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Preferences," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144960, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Elisa Giampietri & Giuseppe Bugin & Samuele Trestini, 2021. "On the association between risk attitude and fruit and vegetable consumption: insights from university students in Italy," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    12. Jürg Hari & Elisabeth Pirsch & Heike Rawitzer, 2018. "Women are scaredy-cats and men are conquerors?," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(2), pages 128-139, June.
    13. repec:vul:omefvu:v:9:y:2017:i:2:id:232 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Giovanna Sacchi & Vincenzina Caputo & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2015. "Alternative Labeling Programs and Purchasing Behavior toward Organic Foods: The Case of the Participatory Guarantee Systems in Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-20, June.
    15. Balcombe, Kelvin & Bradley, Dylan & Fraser, Iain & Hussein, Mohamud, 2016. "Consumer preferences regarding country of origin for multiple meat products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 49-62.
    16. Banterle, Alessandro & Cavaliere, Alessia & Ricci, Elena Claire, 2013. "Food Labelled Information: An Empirical Analysis," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 3(2), pages 1-15, January.
    17. Karin Hakelius & Helena Hansson, 2016. "Measuring Changes in Farmers’ Attitudes to Agricultural Cooperatives: Evidence from Swedish Agriculture 1993–2013," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 531-546, November.
    18. Heikkila, Jaakko & Pouta, Eija & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Makela, Johanna, 2010. "Consumer Intentions Of Buying Poultry Meat Under Perceived Biological, Chemical Or Technological Risk In Finland," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116403, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Iancu Ramona Maria, 2014. "Consumers’ Perception and Behavior Towards Ecosanogene Products Made by Goat Milk," Management of Sustainable Development, Sciendo, vol. 6(2), pages 87-92, December.
    20. He, Ke & Ye, Lihong & Li, Fanlue & Chang, Huayi & Wang, Anbang & Luo, Sixuan & Zhang, Junbiao, 2022. "Using cognition and risk to explain the intention-behavior gap on bioenergy production: Based on machine learning logistic regression method," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    21. Otieno, D., 2018. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Fair Trade Attributes of Goat Meat in Kenya," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277156, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:jlofdr:212993. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fdrssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.