IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i7p2376-d339463.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Food Safety Risk Information-Seeking Intention of WeChat Users in China

Author

Listed:
  • Zhaohui Yang

    (College of Economics and Management, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Krishna P. Paudel

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University (LSU) and LSU Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA)

  • Xiaowei Wen

    (College of Economics and Management, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Sangluo Sun

    (College of Economics and Management, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Yong Wang

    (College of Economics and Management, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

Abstract

Consumers’ food safety risk information-seeking behavior plays a vital role in improving their food quality and safety awareness and preventing food safety risks. Based on the Risk Information Seeking and Processing Model (RISP), this paper empirically analyzes the food safety risk information-seeking intention of consumers in WeChat and influencing factors under the impact of food safety incidents. We use data from 774 WeChat users and apply the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach. We also conduct multigroup analysis with demographic characteristics as moderating variables. The results demonstrated that: (1) Risk perception ( p ≤ 0.01) has direct significant positive effects on consumers’ intention to seek food safety information. Besides, higher risk perception ( p ≤ 0.01) regarding food safety risks will make people feel more anxious and threatened, and then expand the gap between the information they need and the relevant knowledge they actually have ( p ≤ 0.1), which will further stimulate them to seek more information ( p ≤ 0.05). (2) Informational subjective norms ( p ≤ 0.01) can not only directly affect consumers’ information-seeking about food safety, but also indirectly affect consumers’ intention through information insufficiency ( p ≤ 0.01). (3) The more consumers trust the relevant channels ( p ≤ 0.01), the stronger their intention to search for food safety risk information. Moreover, the multiple-group analysis also shows that the effects of consumers’ gender, age, educational background, and average monthly earnings are different among different groups. Furthermore, implications are put forward for food safety risk communication efforts in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhaohui Yang & Krishna P. Paudel & Xiaowei Wen & Sangluo Sun & Yong Wang, 2020. "Food Safety Risk Information-Seeking Intention of WeChat Users in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2376-:d:339463
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2376/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2376/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ellen Ter Huurne & Jan Gutteling, 2008. "Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 847-862, October.
    2. Xiaowei Wen & Zhaohui Yang & Hui Dong & Xinqiang Fan & Yong Wang, 2018. "Barriers to Sustainable Food Trade: China’s Exports Food Rejected by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2011–2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-12, May.
    3. John M. Antle, 1996. "Efficient Food Safety Regulation in the Food Manufacturing Sector," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(5), pages 1242-1247.
    4. Qi, Lingqiao & Rabinowitz, Adam N. & Liu, Yizao & Campbell, Benjamin, 2017. "Buyer and Nonbuyer Barriers to Purchasing Local Food," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(3), pages 443-463, December.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Sharma, Subhash & Mukherjee, Soumen & Kumar, Ajith & Dillon, William R., 2005. "A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(7), pages 935-943, July.
    7. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    8. Jelke Bethlehem, 2010. "Selection Bias in Web Surveys," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 78(2), pages 161-188, August.
    9. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    10. Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele M., 2016. "Paying for sustainability: A cross-cultural analysis of consumers’ valuations of food and non-food products labeled for carbon and water footprints," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 50-58.
    11. Wim Verbeke, 2005. "Agriculture and the food industry in the information age," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 347-368, September.
    12. Guanghua Han & Yihong Liu, 2018. "Does Information Pattern Affect Risk Perception of Food Safety? A National Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, September.
    13. Stan Kaplan, 1997. "The Words of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 407-417, August.
    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. Ruxandra Malina Petrescu-Mag & Iris Vermeir & Carmen Roba & Dacinia Crina Petrescu & Nicoleta Bican-Brisan & Ildiko Melinda Martonos, 2021. "Is “Wild” a Food Quality Attribute? Heavy Metal Content in Wild and Cultivated Sea Buckthorn and Consumers’ Risk Perception," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Ying Zhu & Xiaowei Wen & May Chu & Gongliang Zhang & Xuefan Liu, 2021. "Consumers’ Food Safety Risk Communication on Social Media Following the Suan Tang Zi Accident: An Extended Protection Motivation Theory Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-19, July.

    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. Chuanhui Liao & Xiaomei Zhou & Dingtao Zhao, 2018. "An Augmented Risk Information Seeking Model: Perceived Food Safety Risk Related to Food Recalls," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.
    2. Zuraidah Sulaiman & Hanis Syuhada Ahmad Sugiran & Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah & Adaviah Mas’od & Suhairul Hashim & David Andrew Bradley, 2022. "Public Awareness of Consumer Products Containing Radioactive Materials: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    4. Chun-Hsi Vivian Chen & Yu-Cheng Chen, 2021. "Assessment of Enhancing Employee Engagement in Energy-Saving Behavior at Workplace: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Femke Hilverda & Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2018. "Online Information Sharing About Risks: The Case of Organic Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1904-1920, September.
    6. Hang Lu & APPC 2018–2019 ASK Group & Kenneth Winneg & Kathleen Hall Jamieson & Dolores Albarracín, 2020. "Intentions to Seek Information About the Influenza Vaccine: The Role of Informational Subjective Norms, Anticipated and Experienced Affect, and Information Insufficiency Among Vaccinated and Unvaccina," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2040-2056, October.
    7. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    8. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    9. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. D E Salazar A & C M Rocco S & E Zio, 2008. "Optimal protection of complex networks exposed to a terrorist hazard: A multi-objective evolutionary approach," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 222(3), pages 327-335, September.
    12. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    13. Barry Charles Ezell, 2007. "Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‐VAM)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 571-583, June.
    14. Jinsoo Hwang & Insin Kim & Muhammad Awais Gulzar, 2020. "Understanding the Eco-Friendly Role of Drone Food Delivery Services: Deepening the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, February.
    15. Panico, Teresa & Verneau, Fabio & Capone, Vincenza & La Barbera, Francesco & Del Giudice, Teresa, 2017. "Antecedents of Intention and Behavior Towards Fair Trade Products: A Study on Values and Attitudes in Italy," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 8(2), March.
    16. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    17. Lu, Hang & Song, Hwanseok & McComas, Katherine, 2021. "Seeking information about enhanced geothermal systems: The role of fairness, uncertainty, systematic processing, and information engagement intentions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 855-864.
    18. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    19. Steiner, B.E. & Peschel, A.O. & Grebitus, C., 2017. "Multi-Product Category Choices Labeled for Ecological Footprints: Exploring Psychographics and Evolved Psychological Biases for Characterizing Latent Consumer Classes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 251-264.
    20. Casati, Mirta & Stranieri, Stefanella & Rommel, Jens & Medici, Riccardo & Soregaroli, Claudio, 2022. "The impact of a carbon footprint label on food orders: A natural field experiment in a full-service restaurant," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322144, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2376-:d:339463. 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.