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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. Heikkila, Jaakko & Pouta, Eija & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Makela, Johanna, 2011. "Consumer risk perceptions of zoonotic, chemical and gm risks: the case of poultry purchase intentions in Finland," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114551, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. 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.
    14. Schroeder, Ted C. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Pennings, Joost M.E. & Mintert, James R., 2007. "The Role of Consumer Risk Perceptions and Attitudes in Cross Cultural Beef Consumption Changes," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon 10254, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Jaakko Heikkilä & Eija Pouta & Sari Forsman-Hugg & Johanna Mäkelä, 2013. "Heterogeneous Risk Perceptions: The Case of Poultry Meat Purchase Intentions in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    16. Colin C Williams, 2021. "Tackling Undeclared Self-Employment in South-East Europe: from Deterrents to Preventative Policy Measures," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 2, pages 280-298, July.
    17. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    18. Chia-chen Wang & Chin-ta Chen & Shu-chen Yang & Cheng-kiang Farn, 2009. "Pirate or Buy? The Moderating Effect of Idolatry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 81-93, November.
    19. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    20. Mustapha Bachiri, 2016. "Determinants of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions: Evidence from Moroccan University," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(11), pages 83-89, November.

    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.