IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01173066.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food

Author

Listed:
  • Jutta Roosen

    (TUM - Technische Universität Munchen - Technical University Munich - Université Technique de Munich)

  • Andréa Bieberstein

    (TUM - Technische Universität Munchen - Technical University Munich - Université Technique de Munich)

  • Sandrine Blanchemanche

    (ECO-PUB - Economie Publique - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - AgroParisTech)

  • Ellen Goddard

    (Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology - University of Alberta)

  • Stephan Marette

    (ECO-PUB - Economie Publique - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - AgroParisTech)

  • Frédéric Vandermoere

    (Department of Sociology - UA - University of Antwerp)

Abstract

Les auteurs analysent le rôle de la confiance dans l'évaluation d'une nouvelle technologie alimentaire, à savoir les nanotechnologies. Une revue de la littérature en sciences sociales et économiques révèle que de nombreux concepts de confiance sont disponibles. La littérature économique suggère que la confiance peut conduire à un moindre effort des personnes, quand il s'agit de leur propre protection. Il est possible de traduire ce concept de confiance dans le cadre de la disposition à payer pour des produits alimentaires. Ils montrent que la disposition à payer pour la nourriture utilisant des nanotechnologies augmente avec la confiance, y compris quand de nouvelles informations à propos de cette technologie sont révélées. Les résultats sont confirmés par des données de sondages en ligne réalisés au Canada et en Allemagne, et des données expérimentales provenant d'Allemagne.

Suggested Citation

  • Jutta Roosen & Andréa Bieberstein & Sandrine Blanchemanche & Ellen Goddard & Stephan Marette & Frédéric Vandermoere, 2015. "Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food," Post-Print hal-01173066, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01173066
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McEvily, Bill & Radzevick, Joseph R. & Weber, Roberto A., 2012. "Whom do you distrust and how much does it cost? An experiment on the measurement of trust," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 285-298.
    2. Dionne, Georges & Eeckhoudt, Louis, 1985. "Self-insurance, self-protection and increased risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 17(1-2), pages 39-42.
    3. Edward L. Glaeser & David I. Laibson & José A. Scheinkman & Christine L. Soutter, 2000. "Measuring Trust," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(3), pages 811-846.
      • Glaeser, Edward Ludwig & Laibson, David I. & Scheinkman, Jose A. & Soutter, Christine L., 2000. "Measuring Trust," Scholarly Articles 4481497, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    4. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    5. Andrea Bieberstein & Jutta Roosen & Stéphan Marette & Sandrine Blanchemanche & Frederic Vandermoere, 2013. "Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(1), pages 73-94, February.
    6. Louis Eeckhoudt & Christian Gollier, 2005. "The impact of prudence on optimal prevention," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(4), pages 989-994, November.
    7. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    8. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    9. John Hudson, 2006. "Institutional Trust and Subjective Well‐Being across the EU," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 43-62, February.
    10. Joseph C. Cooper & Michael Hanemann & Giovanni Signorello, 2002. "One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 742-750, November.
    11. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    12. Oh, Hyungna & Hong, Jong Ho, 2012. "Citizens’ trust in government and their willingness-to-pay," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 345-347.
    13. Ehrlich, Isaac & Becker, Gary S, 1972. "Market Insurance, Self-Insurance, and Self-Protection," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 80(4), pages 623-648, July-Aug..
    14. Rothschild, Michael & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 1970. "Increasing risk: I. A definition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 225-243, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Goddard, Ellen & Muringai, Violet, 2017. "Trust, Fairness and Acceptance of Food Technologies," Project Report Series 264423, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    2. Gracious M. Diiro & Menale Kassie & Beatrice W. Muriithi & Nancy G. Gathogo & Michael Kidoido & Rose Marubu & John Bwire Ochola & Clifford Maina Mutero, 2020. "Are Individuals Willing to Pay for Community-Based Eco-Friendly Malaria Vector Control Strategies? A Case of Mosquito Larviciding Using Plant-Based Biopesticides in Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Weinrich, Ramona & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Can a Multi-Level Label do Better than a Binary Label for Animal Welfare? A PLS-Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1-30, August.
    5. Hobbs, Jill E. & Goddard, Ellen, 2015. "Consumers and trust," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-74.
    6. Teerapong Pienwisetkaew & Peerapong Wongthahan & Phaninee Naruetharadhol & Sasichakorn Wongsaichia & Chonnipa Vonganunsuntree & Siraphat Padthar & Santi Nee & Ping He & Chavis Ketkaew, 2022. "Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Functional Non-Dairy Milk and Gender-Based Market Segmentation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-25, September.
    7. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    8. Britwum, Kofi & Noblet, Caroline L. & Evans, Keith S., 2018. "More Farms on The Water? U.S Consumers’ Perceptions of Aquaculture Practices and Products," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273824, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. D'Souza, Clare & Apaolaza, Vanessa & Hartmann, Patrick & Brouwer, Anne Renée & Nguyen, Ninh, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of irradiated food and information disclosure – A retail imperative," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    10. Samal Kaliyeva & Francisco Jose Areal & Yiorgos Gadanakis, 2021. "Would Kazakh Citizens Support a Milk Co-Operative System?," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Zhang, Jun & Shi, Hongxu & Sheng, Jiping, 2022. "The effects of message framing on novel food introduction: Evidence from the artificial meat products in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    12. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    13. Goddard, Ellen & Muringai, Violet & Robinson, Amber, 2017. "Consumer Interest in a Natural Designation in Food Choice," Project Report Series 264421, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    14. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    15. Muringai, V. & Goddard, E., 2018. "Public Attitudes Towards the Use of Vaccination and Antibiotics in Animals in Canada," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275975, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    2. Courbage, Christophe & Rey, Béatrice, 2012. "Optimal prevention and other risks in a two-period model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 213-217.
    3. Donald Meyer & Jack Meyer, 2011. "A Diamond-Stiglitz approach to the demand for self-protection," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 45-60, February.
    4. Gylfason, Haukur Freyr & Olafsdottir, Katrin, 2017. "Does Gneezy's cheap talk game measure trust?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 143-148.
    5. Courbage, Christophe & Rey, Béatrice & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Prevention and precaution," TSE Working Papers 13-445, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    6. Light, Bar & Perlroth, Andres, 2021. "The Family of Alpha,[a,b] Stochastic Orders: Risk vs. Expected Value," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Donald Meyer & Jack Meyer, 2010. "Excluded losses and the demand for insurance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 1-18, August.
    8. Liqun Liu & Jack Meyer & Andrew J. Rettenmaier & Thomas R. Saving, 2018. "Risk and risk aversion effects in contests with contingent payments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 289-305, June.
    9. Peter, Richard, 2017. "Optimal self-protection in two periods: On the role of endogenous saving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 19-36.
    10. Arthur Snow, 2011. "Ambiguity aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 27-43, February.
    11. Richard Peter, 2021. "Who should exert more effort? Risk aversion, downside risk aversion and optimal prevention," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 71(4), pages 1259-1281, June.
    12. Liqun Liu & Jack Meyer, 2017. "The Increasing Convex Order and the Trade–off of Size for Risk," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 84(3), pages 881-897, September.
    13. Tao Yuqing & Mei Jie & Cheng Wen & Zou Sijie, 2019. "Precautionaryriority Effort Investment under Cross Risk Aversion," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 7(4), pages 344-358, August.
    14. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    15. Jindapon, Paan, 2013. "Do risk lovers invest in self-protection?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 290-293.
    16. Dionne, Georges & Li, Jingyuan, 2011. "The impact of prudence on optimal prevention revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 147-149.
    17. Kaïs Dachraoui & Georges Dionne & Louis Eeckhoudt & Philippe Godfroid, 2004. "Comparative Mixed Risk Aversion: Definition and Application to Self-Protection and Willingness to Pay," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 261-276, December.
    18. Maddalena Ferranna, 2017. "Does Inefficient Risk Sharing Increase Public Self-Protection?," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 59-85, March.
    19. Jimin Hong & Kyungsun Kim, 2021. "Self-insurance and saving under a two-argument utility framework," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 73-94, September.
    20. Timo R. Lambregts & Paul Bruggen & Han Bleichrodt, 2021. "Insurance decisions under nonperformance risk and ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 229-253, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    confiance; disposition à payer;

    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:hal:journl:hal-01173066. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.