Measuring consumer resistance to a new food technology: A choice experiment in meat packaging

被引:98
作者
Chen, Qing [1 ]
Anders, Sven [1 ]
An, Henry [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Dept Resource Econ & Environm Sociol, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1, Canada
关键词
Consumer resistance; Innovation; Vacuum packaging; Willingness-to-pay; Food technology neophobia scale; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES; PREFERENCES; INFORMATION; ACCEPTANCE; BENEFITS; COLOR; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.008
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
The success of new food technologies hinges on consumers' behavioral responses to the innovation. New packaging technologies associated with improved quality and safety have been introduced but it is unclear if they will be successful. The market success of food innovations depends critically on consumers' perceptions of and response to the technologies. Using non-hypothetical consumer choice experiments and the food technology neophobia scale, this study examines consumer perceptions and estimates willingness-to-pay (WTP) for vacuum packaging of fresh beef under different information treatments. The findings suggest that information about the positive and potential negative properties of vacuum packaging play an important role in shaping consumers' attitudes towards vacuum packaging and WTP for vacuum-packaged beef steaks. Results for participants FINS scores are significantly correlated with their stated food safety perceptions, indicating that risk perceptions together with food safety concerns are major determinants of consumer resistance to food technologies. The results demonstrate the importance of consumer information and education about new food technologies in light of underlying resistance factors to avoid innovation failure in the marketplace. Crown Copyright (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:419 / 428
页数:10
相关论文
共 46 条
  • [1] Consumer reaction to information on food additives: Evidence from an eating experiment and a field survey
    Aoki, Keiko
    Shen, Junyi
    Saijo, Tatsuyoshi
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 2010, 73 (03) : 433 - 438
  • [2] Application of Modified Atmosphere Packaging and Active/Smart Technologies to Red Meat and Poultry: A Review
    Arvanitoyannis, Ioannis S.
    Stratakos, Alexandros Ch.
    [J]. FOOD AND BIOPROCESS TECHNOLOGY, 2012, 5 (05) : 1423 - 1446
  • [3] The no-choice option and dual response choice designs
    Brazell, Jeff D.
    Diener, Christopher G.
    Karniouchina, Ekaterina
    Moore, William L.
    Severin, Valerie
    Uldry, Pierre-Francois
    [J]. MARKETING LETTERS, 2006, 17 (04) : 255 - 268
  • [4] Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking
    Cardello, AV
    [J]. APPETITE, 2003, 40 (03) : 217 - 233
  • [5] Consumer benefits of labels and bans on GM foods-choice experiments with Swedish consumers
    Carlsson, Fredrik
    Frykblom, Peter
    Lagerkvist, Carl Johan
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2007, 89 (01) : 152 - 161
  • [6] Consumer preferences for beef color and packaging did not affect eating satisfaction
    Carpenter, CE
    Cornforth, DP
    Whittler, D
    [J]. MEAT SCIENCE, 2001, 57 (04) : 359 - 363
  • [7] How Closely Do Hypothetical Surveys and Laboratory Experiments Predict Field Behavior?
    Chang, Jae Bong
    Lusk, Jayson L.
    Norwood, F. Bailey
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2009, 91 (02) : 518 - 534
  • [8] Willingness to pay for GM foods: Results from a public survey in the USA
    Chen, HY
    Chern, WS
    [J]. CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, 2004, : 117 - 129
  • [9] A comparative analysis of consumer acceptance of GM foods in Norway and the USA
    Chern, WS
    Rickertsen, K
    [J]. CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, 2004, : 95 - 109
  • [10] Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers' fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale
    Cox, D. N.
    Evans, G.
    [J]. FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2008, 19 (08) : 704 - 710