IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea16/235602.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Information Affects Consumer Acceptance of Nano-packaged Food Products

Author

Listed:
  • Zhao, Shuoli
  • Yue, Chengyan
  • Wang, Yumeng

Abstract

Many food companies are developing nanotechnology modified food packages and it is critical to understand the informational and attitudinal factors that influence public acceptance of nano-packaging. This study uses experimental auction with real nano-packaged products to test and compare consumer acceptance for nano-packaged food products with information from various sources. The results indicate when provided with information from different sources, consumer acceptance for and attitude toward nano-packaged food products are changing: for plain-labeled food products, reliance on government regulation was the only determinant influencing participants’ willingness to pay; after general information about nanotechnology was given, participants were willing to pay more for nano-packaged products, which was affected by their general attitude towards new food technology and concerns about environment/health; when detailed information were provided, concern about the environment/health became the only factor that significantly influenced participant willingness to pay for nano-packaged food products.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhao, Shuoli & Yue, Chengyan & Wang, Yumeng, 2016. "How Information Affects Consumer Acceptance of Nano-packaged Food Products," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235602, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea16:235602
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.235602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/235602/files/Nanotechnology%20SEM%20for%20AAEA%202016R.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.235602?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. Chengyan Yue & Shuoli Zhao & Jennifer Kuzma, 2015. "Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 308-328, June.
    2. Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2007. "The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 193-206, May.
    3. Koert Van Ittersum & Matthew T. G. Meulenberg & Hans C. M. Van Trijp & Math J. J. M. Candel, 2007. "Consumers’ Appreciation of Regional Certification Labels: A Pan-European Study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Toma, Luiza & McVittie, Alistair & Hubbard, Carmen & Stott, Alistair W., 2009. "A Structural Equation Model of the Factors Influencing British Consumers’ Behaviour towards Animal Welfare," 113th Seminar, September 3-6, 2009, Chania, Crete, Greece 58149, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Roosen, Jutta & Bieberstein, Andrea & Marette, Stephan & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Vandermoere, Frederic, 2011. "The Effect of Information Choice and Discussion on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Nanotechnologies in Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, August.
    6. Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Sayadi, Samir, 2013. "Applying partial least squares to model genetically modified food purchase intentions in southern Spain consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 44-53.
    7. Jura Liaukonyte & Nadia A. Streletskaya & Harry M. Kaiser & Bradley J. Rickard, 2013. "Consumer Response to "Contains" and "Free of" Labeling: Evidence from Lab Experiments," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 476-507.
    8. Michaelidou, Nina & Hassan, Louise M., 2010. "Modeling the factors affecting rural consumers' purchase of organic and free-range produce: A case study of consumers' from the Island of Arran in Scotland, UK," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 130-139, April.
    9. Ward, James C. & Barnes, John W., 2001. "Control and affect: the influence of feeling in control of the retail environment on affect, involvement, attitude, and behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 139-144, November.
    10. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    11. Wendy J. Umberger & Dillon M. Feuz, 2004. "The Usefulness of Experimental Auctions in Determining Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Quality-Differentiated Products," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 170-185.
    12. Harrison, Glenn W. & Rutström, E. Elisabet, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 81, pages 752-767, Elsevier.
    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. Katare, Bhagyashree & Yue, Chengyan & Hurley, Terrance M., 2013. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Nano-packaged Food Products: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149676, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Katare, Bhagyashree, 2013. "Consumer willingness to pay for nano-packaged food products: evidence from experimental auctions and visual processing data," Master's Theses and Plan B Papers 162233, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    3. Dolores Garrido & Ana Espínola‐Arredondo & Felix Munoz‐Garcia, 2020. "Can mandatory certification promote greenwashing? A signaling approach," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(6), pages 1801-1851, December.
    4. Dmitriy Volinskiy & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Michele Veeman & Lorie Srivastava, 2009. "Does Choice Context Affect the Results from Incentive‐Compatible Experiments? The Case of Non‐GM and Country‐of‐Origin Premia in Canola Oil," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(2), pages 205-221, June.
    5. Liaukonyte, Jura & Streletskaya, Nadia A. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2015. "Noisy Information Signals and Endogenous Preferences for Labeled Attributes," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 289-313, September.
    7. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    8. Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan, 2021. "Consumers’ Preferences for Eco-labels on Plants: The Influence of Trust and Consequentiality Perceptions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    9. Lawless, Lydia J.R. & Drichoutis, Andreas & Nayga, Rodolfo & Threlfall, Renee T. & Meullenet, Jean-François, 2012. "Identifying product attributes and consumer attitudes that impact willingness-to-pay for a nutraceutical-rich juice product," MPRA Paper 53023, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Jan 2014.
    10. Houman Hashemzadeh & Alireza Karbasi & Hosein Mohammadi & Ali Firoozzare & Flavio Boccia, 2022. "Investigating the Effect of Nudges on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Corn Oil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, October.
    11. Chong Li & Yingqi Li, 2023. "Factors Influencing Public Risk Perception of Emerging Technologies: A Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-37, February.
    12. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    13. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Márcio Lopes Pimenta & Éderson Luiz Piato & Luiz Henrique de Barros Vilas Boas & Stella Naomi Moriguchi, 2012. "Flavor and wellbeing: relationship between product's attributes and consumers’ personal values of regional coffee brands," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 9(3), pages 119-140, July.
    15. Filimonau, Viachaslau & Högström, Michaela, 2017. "The attitudes of UK tourists to the use of biofuels in civil aviation: An exploratory study," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 84-94.
    16. Ding, David Xin & Hu, Paul Jen-Hwa & Sheng, Olivia R. Liu, 2011. "e-SELFQUAL: A scale for measuring online self-service quality," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(5), pages 508-515, May.
    17. Verity Watson & Chris Dibben & Matt Cox & Iain Atherton & Matt Sutton & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "Testing the Expert Based Weights Used in the UK’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) Against Three Preference-Based Methods," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(3), pages 1055-1074, August.
    18. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    19. Greiff, Matthias & Egbert, Henrik, 2016. "A Survey of the Empirical Evidence on PWYW Pricing," MPRA Paper 68693, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Roy Brouwer & Solomon Tarfasa, 2020. "Testing hypothetical bias in a framed field experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 343-357, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Marketing;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:aaea16:235602. 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/aaeaaea.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.