IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/jlaare/309882.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Motivations for Acceptance of Cisgenic Food: Results from a Randomized Controlled Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • De Marchi, Elisa
  • Cavaliere, Alessia
  • Banterle, Alessandro

Abstract

European consumers have generally been reluctant to accept genetically modified food. Novel breeding technologies that avoid transgenic manipulations seem to be more positively perceived by consumers, opening new horizons on the market. This paper investigates the motivations of consumer acceptance for cisgenic products. By comparing four information treatments (i.e., basic information treatments, naturalness treatment, health, and environment treatments) we demonstrate that information on health-related benefits and, especially, on environmental benefits contribute to generate a positive communication landscape around cisgenic food. The results provide insights for the development of food policies and communication strategies aimed at increasing consumer acceptance for edited food.

Suggested Citation

  • De Marchi, Elisa & Cavaliere, Alessia & Banterle, Alessandro, 2021. "Identifying Motivations for Acceptance of Cisgenic Food: Results from a Randomized Controlled Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 47(1), January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:jlaare:309882
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.309882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/309882/files/JARE47.1.8%20Cavaliere%20128-144.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.309882?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. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    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. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Danforth, Diana M. & Dixon, Bruce L. & Nayga, Rodolpho M. Jr & Delwaide, Anne-Cecile, 2015. "Are all GMO’s the same? Consumer acceptance of cisgenic rice in India," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204869, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    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. John C. Beghin & Christopher R. Gustafson, 2021. "Consumer Valuation of and Attitudes towards Novel Foods Produced with New Plant Engineering Techniques: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-17, October.

    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. Jiang, Qi & Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2022. "Real payment priming to reduce potential hypothetical bias," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Ulrike Illmann & Jan Kluge, 2021. "Halb voll oder halb leer? Zur Bedeutung flächendeckender öffentlicher Ladeinfrastruktur für die Entwicklung der Elektromobilität," ifo Dresden berichtet, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 28(05), pages 10-17, October.
    3. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    4. Toşa, Cristian & Sato, Hitomi & Morikawa, Takayuki & Miwa, Tomio, 2018. "Commuting behavior in emerging urban areas: Findings of a revealed-preferences and stated-intentions survey in Cluj-Napoca, Romania," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 78-93.
    5. An, Wookhyun & Alarcón, Silverio, 2021. "Rural tourism preferences in Spain: Best-worst choices," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Peer, Stefanie & Knockaert, Jasper & Koster, Paul & Tseng, Yin-Yen & Verhoef, Erik T., 2013. "Door-to-door travel times in RP departure time choice models: An approximation method using GPS data," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 134-150.
    8. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    9. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    10. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    12. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Mengelkamp, Esther & Schönland, Thomas & Huber, Julian & Weinhardt, Christof, 2019. "The value of local electricity - A choice experiment among German residential customers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 294-303.
    14. Drichoutis, Andreas & Lusk, Jayson, 2012. "Risk preference elicitation without the confounding effect of probability weighting," MPRA Paper 37762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Yu Na Lee & Laura Stortz & Mike von Massow & Christopher Kimmerer, 2023. "Impact of ‘‘high in” front‐of‐package nutrition labeling on food choices: Evidence from a grocery shopping experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(3-4), pages 277-301, September.
    16. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Rakatama, Ari & Pandit, Ram & Iftekhar, Sayed & Ma, Chunbo, 2018. "Heterogeneous public preference for REDD+ projects under different forest management regimes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 266-277.
    18. Carrion, Carlos & Levinson, David, 2012. "Value of travel time reliability: A review of current evidence," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 720-741.
    19. Stefan Eriksson & Per Johansson & Sophie Langenskiöld, 2017. "What is the right profile for getting a job? A stated choice experiment of the recruitment process," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 803-826, September.
    20. 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.

    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:jlaare:309882. 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/waeaaea.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.