IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i9p7383-d1136124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Food Safety Practices and Knowledge of Raw Fish Promote Perception of Infection Risk and Safe Consumption Behavior Intentions Related to the Zoonotic Parasite Anisakis ?

Author

Listed:
  • Uberta Ganucci Cancellieri

    (Department of Social and Educational Sciences of the Mediterranean Area, University for Foreigners “Dante Alighieri” of Reggio Calabria, 89125 Reggio Calabria, Italy)

  • Giulia Amicone

    (Department of Psychology of Development and Socialization Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Lavinia Cicero

    (Faculty of Psychology, e-Campus Telematic University, 22060 Novedrate, Italy)

  • Alessandro Milani

    (Department of Psychology of Development and Socialization Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Oriana Mosca

    (Department of Education, Psychology, Philosophy, University of Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy)

  • Marialetizia Palomba

    (Department of Ecological and Biological Sciences, Tuscia University, 01100 Viterbo, Italy)

  • Simonetta Mattiucci

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, University Hospital “Policlinico Umberto I”, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Marino Bonaiuto

    (Department of Psychology of Development and Socialization Processes, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
    CIRPA–Interuniversity Research Centre in Environmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

The study of the zoonotic parasites of the genus Anisakis and human anisakiasis is an increasingly hot topic in evolutionary biology and epidemiological studies carried out on natural and accidental (human) hosts, given the risk of this parasite to human health. However, the assessment of social-psychological factors relevant to Anisakis ’ risky consumption of human behavior is still an understudied topic. Given the centrality of the topic, highlighted by its presence in Goals 2 (subgoal 2.1, achieve food security and improve safe nutrition) and 3 (health and well-being) of the 2030 Agenda, it appears necessary to deepen our social-psychological knowledge regarding this specific topic. There is plenty of psychological research focused on antecedents of fish and seafood consumption; however, parasite risk is not often specifically examined. This research is aimed at increasing the safety of consumers’ seafood products by examining their psychological aspects, such as knowledge, perception, awareness, and concern about Anisakis . Past and future behavior intentions were also investigated. Analyses were carried out on a sample of 251 subjects, and a path analysis model was used to explain possible relations assumed among the variables. The results of the study showed that habits related to raw fish consumption and self-perceived health were, respectively, positively, and negatively correlated with a higher perceived risk of contracting anisakiasis. This perceived risk in turn correlates positively with a greater willingness to pay for Anisakis -free fish. Similarly, prior knowledge of the disease was found to be associated with prior avoidance of fish consumption, which in turn was found to be positively correlated with a greater willingness to pay for Anisakis -free fish.

Suggested Citation

  • Uberta Ganucci Cancellieri & Giulia Amicone & Lavinia Cicero & Alessandro Milani & Oriana Mosca & Marialetizia Palomba & Simonetta Mattiucci & Marino Bonaiuto, 2023. "Can Food Safety Practices and Knowledge of Raw Fish Promote Perception of Infection Risk and Safe Consumption Behavior Intentions Related to the Zoonotic Parasite Anisakis ?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7383-:d:1136124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7383/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/9/7383/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. Michael Hanemann, 1989. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 71(4), pages 1057-1061.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bard & Ann Fisher, 1999. "Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 461-471, June.
    4. Hughner, Rene Shaw & Maher, Jill Kurp & Childs, Nancy M. & Nganje, William E., 2009. "Fish: Friend or foe? Food policy and subpopulation warnings for consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 185-197, April.
    5. Wim Verbeke & Filiep Vanhonacker & Lynn J. Frewer & Isabelle Sioen & Stefaan De Henauw & John Van Camp, 2008. "Communicating Risks and Benefits from Fish Consumption: Impact on Belgian Consumers' Perception and Intention to Eat Fish," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 951-967, August.
    6. Beach, Robert H. & Kuchler, Fred & Leibtag, Ephraim S. & Zhen, Chen, 2008. "The Effects of Avian Influenza News on Consumer Purchasing Behavior: A Case Study of Italian Consumers' Retail Purchases," Economic Research Report 56477, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Branden B. Johnson & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 485-494, August.
    8. Maria Dickson‐Spillmann & Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Matthias Wormuth, 2009. "Phthalate Exposure Through Food and Consumers’ Risk Perception of Chemicals in Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1170-1181, August.
    9. Richard T. Carson, 2012. "Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 27-42, Fall.
    10. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    11. Sukharomana, Renu & Supalla, Raymond J., 1998. "Effect Of Risk Perception On Willingness To Pay For Improved Water Quality," 1998 Annual meeting, August 2-5, Salt Lake City, UT 20869, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Per E. Gustafsod, 1998. "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological erspectives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 805-811, December.
    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. Ivehammar, Pernilla, 2014. "Valuing environmental quality in actual travel time savings – The Haningeleden road project in Stockholm," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 349-356.
    2. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2017. "Towards a better understanding of eating behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk," Post-Print halshs-02923251, HAL.
    3. Jae-Eun Lee & Seol-A Kwon, 2021. "A Study on the Public’s Crisis Management Efficacy and Anxiety in a Pandemic Situation—Focusing on the COVID-19 Pandemic in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Edit Kővári & Katalin Formádi & Zsuzsanna Banász, 2023. "The Green Attitude of Four European Capitals of Culture’s Youth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-19, May.
    5. Dionysis Skarmeas & Constantinos N. Leonidou & Charalampos Saridakis & Giuseppe Musarra, 2020. "Pathways to Civic Engagement with Big Social Issues: An Integrated Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(2), pages 261-285, June.
    6. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    7. John C. Whitehead, 2024. "They doth protest too much, methinks: Reply to “Reply to Whitehead”," Working Papers 24-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    8. Eleonora Annunziata & Tommaso Pucci & Jacopo Cammeo & Lorenzo Zanni & Marco Frey, 2023. "The mediating role of exogenous shocks in green purchase intention: evidence from italian fashion industry in the Covid-19 era," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2023(1), pages 59-79, March.
    9. Tony Reyhanloo & Stefan Baumgärtner & Matthias Haeni & Simone Quatrini & Philippe Saner & Eike von Lindern, 2018. "Private-sector investor’s intention and motivation to invest in Land Degradation Neutrality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    11. Stöckigt, Gerrit & Schiebener, Johannes & Brand, Matthias, 2018. "Providing sustainability information in shopping situations contributes to sustainable decision making: An empirical study with choice-based conjoint analyses," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 188-199.
    12. Haoran Chu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 758-770, April.
    13. Saari, Ulla A. & Damberg, Svenja & Frömbling, Lena & Ringle, Christian M., 2021. "Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    14. Josephine Bremer & Martina K. Linnenluecke, 2017. "Determinants of the perceived importance of organisational adaptation to climate change in the Australian energy industry," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(3), pages 502-521, August.
    15. Piyapong Janmaimool & Jaruwan Chontanawat, 2021. "Do University Students Base Decisions to Engage in Sustainable Energy Behaviors on Affective or Cognitive Attitudes?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-18, September.
    16. Yanjing Gao & Lijun Chen, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 Risk Perception on Residents’ Behavioural Intention towards Forest Therapy Tourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-18, September.
    17. Olawole Fawehinmi & M. Y. Yusliza & Wan Zulkifli Wan Kasim & Zaleha Mohamad & Muhammad Abi Sofian Abdul Halim, 2020. "Exploring the Interplay of Green Human Resource Management, Employee Green Behavior, and Personal Moral Norms," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    18. Mohammad Naushad, 2018. "A study on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions among Saudi students," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 5(3), pages 600-617, March.
    19. John C. Whitehead & Pamela Wicker, 2018. "Valuing Non-Market Benefits of Participatory Sport Events Using Willingness to Travel: Payment Card vs Random Selection with Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias," Working Papers 18-06, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    20. Whitehead, John C. & Wicker, Pamela, 2018. "Estimating willingness to pay for a cycling event using a willingness to travel approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 160-169.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:9:p:7383-:d:1136124. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.