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(01), 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. Filippin, Antonio & Crosetto, Paolo, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 8184, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Omid M. Ghoochani & Mansour Ghanian & Masoud Baradaran & Erfan Alimirzaei & Hossein Azadi, 2018. "Behavioral intentions toward genetically modified crops in Southwest Iran: a multi-stakeholder analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 233-253, February.
    4. Andersson, Angelica & Kristoffersson, Ida & Daly, Andrew & Börjesson, Maria, 2024. "Long-distance mode choice estimation on joint travel survey and mobile phone network data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    5. Kalogeras, Nikos & Pennings, Joost M.E. & van Ittersum, Koert, 2008. "Consumer Food Safety Risk Attitudes and Perceptions Over Time: The Case of BSE Crisis," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44156, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. 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.
    7. Schmitz, Hendrik & Madlener, Reinhard, 2021. "Preferences for Energy Retrofit Investments Among Low-income Renters," FCN Working Papers 8/2021, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    8. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Ahmed Driouchi & Olivier L’Haridon, 2011. "Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 63-80, July.
    9. Fanghella, Valeria & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim, 2022. "Discriminatory subsidies for energy-efficient technologies and the role of envy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Anne Wambui Mumbi & Helen Pittson & Frank Vriesekoop & Sebnem Kurhan, 2024. "Consumer Acceptance of Grass-Derived Ingredients in the UK: A Cross-Sectional Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Helveston, John Paul & Feit, Elea McDonnell & Michalek, Jeremy J., 2018. "Pooling stated and revealed preference data in the presence of RP endogeneity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 70-89.
    14. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa, 2013. "Preference discontinuity in choice experiment: Determinants and implications," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 138-145.
    15. Tinggui Chen & Hui Wang, 2022. "Consumers' purchase intention of wild freshwater fish during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(4), pages 832-849, October.
    16. 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.
    17. Akin, Zafer & Yavas, Abdullah, 2023. "Elicited Time Preferences and Behavior in Long-Run Projects," MPRA Paper 117133, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. An, Wookhyun & Alarcón, Silverio, 2021. "Rural tourism preferences in Spain: Best-worst choices," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.

    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.