IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v71y2020i2p465-492.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Yang Yang
  • Jill E. Hobbs

Abstract

Agricultural biotechnology (genetic modification) has encountered resistance from many consumers, resulting in disparate regulatory approaches across different jurisdictions. The recent advent of CRISPR‐Cas9, or gene editing, offers the potential for significant improvements in plant breeding. However, little is known currently about consumer responses to the technology. A factor often omitted from previous economic analyses of consumer acceptance of new food technologies is underlying human values or worldviews. Drawing upon cultural cognition theory and using data from a survey of Canadian consumers, we examine the influence of cultural values on food choice behaviours. Respondents’ pre‐existing cultural values are measured on two dimensions: hierarchy‐egalitarianism and individualism‐communitarianism. Choice behaviours are captured using a discrete choice experiment featuring a sliced apple product with two consumer‐oriented attributes (non‐browning and antioxidant‐enhanced) and three novel food technologies (gene editing, genetic modification, edible coating). Using a random parameters logit model with error components we find pre‐existing cultural values to be significant determinants of choice behaviours. Individuals pre‐disposed towards a hierarchical worldview are more accepting of novel food technologies, as are individuals with a communitarian worldview. While the use of gene editing results in negative marginal utilities in a food choice situation, the effect is not as large as with genetic modification, suggesting there is scope to ameliorate potentially negative reactions to the technology with value‐compatible messages.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "How Do Cultural Worldviews Shape Food Technology Perceptions? Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 465-492, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:71:y:2020:i:2:p:465-492
    DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12364
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1477-9552.12364?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. Chengyan Yue & Shuoli Zhao & Jennifer Kuzma, 2015. "Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences for Nanotechnology and Genetic-modification Technology in Food Products," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 308-328, June.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & Andrea Bieberstein, 2014. "Consumer Acceptance of New Food Technologies: Causes and Roots of Controversies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 381-405, October.
    3. Zhihao Zheng & Shida R. Henneberry & Chuanzhong Sun & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2018. "Consumer Demand for Genetically Modified Rice in Urban China," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 705-725, September.
    4. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    5. Adrian D. Uzea & Jill E. Hobbs & Jing Zhang, 2011. "Activists and Animal Welfare: Quality Verifications in the Canadian Pork Sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 281-304, June.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & W. Bruce Traill & Lisa O. House & Carlotta Valli & Sara R. Jaeger & Melissa Moore & Bert Morrow, 2006. "Comparative Advantage in Demand: Experimental Evidence of Preferences for Genetically Modified Food in the United States and European Union," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-21, March.
    7. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    8. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    9. Ellen W. Goddard & Jill E. Hobbs & Brian G. Innes & Patrycja E. Romanowska & Adrian D. Uzea, 2013. "Risk Perceptions And Preferences For Ethical And Safety Credence Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 390-396.
    10. repec:ags:inpuer:188880 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    12. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2015. "Cognitive biases in the assimilation of scientific information on global warming and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 35-43.
    14. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    15. Armenak Markosyan & Jill J. McCluskey & Thomas I. Wahl, 2009. "Consumer Response to Information about a Functional Food Product: Apples Enriched with Antioxidants," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 325-341, September.
    16. McFadden, Brandon & Lusk, Jayson, 2016. "What Consumers Don’t Know about GM Food," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235325, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Kemper, Nathan P. & Popp, Jennie S. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Kerr, J. Brinck, 2018. "Cultural worldview and genetically modified food policy preferences," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 68-83.
    18. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    19. Kristine M. Grimsrud & Jill J. McCluskey & Maria L. Loureiro & Thomas I. Wahl, 2004. "Consumer Attitudes to Genetically Modified Food in Norway," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 75-90, March.
    20. Roosen, J. & Bieberstein, A. & Blanchemanche, S. & Goddard, E. & Marette, S. & Vandermoere, F., 2015. "Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 75-83.
    21. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    22. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
    23. Jill E. Hobbs & Marni D. Plunkett, 1999. "Genetically Modified Foods: Consumer Issues and the Role of Information Asymmetry," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 47(4), pages 445-455, December.
    24. Finucane, Melissa L. & Holup, Joan L., 2005. "Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting the perceived risk of genetically modified food: an overview of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(7), pages 1603-1612, April.
    25. House, Lisa & Lusk, Jayson L. & Jaeger, Sara & Traill, W. Bruce & Moore, Melissa & Valli, Carlotta & Morrow, Bert & Yee, Wallace M.S., 2004. "Objective And Subjective Knowledge: Impacts On Consumer Demand For Genetically Modified Foods In The United States And The European Union," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20125, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: 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. Severino, Romano & Vanni, Francesco & Viaggi, Davide, 2020. "Economics of culture and food in evolving agri-food systems and rural areas," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(2), August.
    2. Lin Bai & Zhanguo Zhu & Tong Zhang, 2021. "How to Improve Food Quality in the Domestic Market: The Role of “Same Line Same Standard Same Quality”—Evidence from a Consumer Choice Experiment in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, May.
    3. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 289-313, September.
    4. Cameron, Lachlan & Ride, Jemimah, 2023. "The role of mental health in online gambling decisions: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).

    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. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    2. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 289-313, September.
    3. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, September.
    4. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    5. Lusk, Jayson L. & McFadden, Brandon R. & Wilson, Norbert, 2018. "Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 81-90.
    6. Gina Waterfield & Scott Kaplan & David Zilberman, 2020. "Willingness to Pay versus Willingness to Vote: Consumer and Voter Avoidance of Genetically Modified Foods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 505-524, March.
    7. Yan Heng & Sungeun Yoon & Lisa House, 2021. "Explore Consumers’ Willingness to Purchase Biotechnology Produced Fruit: An International Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-10, November.
    8. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    10. Wüstenhagen, Rolf & Menichetti, Emanuela, 2012. "Strategic choices for renewable energy investment: Conceptual framework and opportunities for further research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-10.
    11. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Barbara Burkhard & Nicolai J. Foss & Dietmar Grichnik & Riikka M. Sarala & Yi Tang & Marc Van Essen, 2023. "The Heuristics and Biases of Top Managers: Past, Present, and Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1033-1063, July.
    12. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    13. Sheila Dow, 2010. "The Psychology of Financial Markets: Keynes, Minsky and Emotional Finance," Chapters, in: Dimitri B. Papadimitriou & L. Randall Wray (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Hyman Minsky, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Torsten Trimborn, 2018. "A Macroscopic Portfolio Model: From Rational Agents to Bounded Rationality," Papers 1805.11036, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2018.
    15. Gautam, Ruskin & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Brooks, Kathleen R., 2017. "Label Position and it Impacts on WTP for Products Containing GMO," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258105, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    17. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    18. F. Knobloch & J. -F. Mercure, 2016. "The behavioural aspect of green technology investments: a general positive model in the context of heterogeneous agents," Papers 1603.06888, arXiv.org.
    19. Ralf Elbert & Lowis Seikowsky, 2017. "The influences of behavioral biases, barriers and facilitators on the willingness of forwarders’ decision makers to modal shift from unimodal road freight transport to intermodal road–rail freight tra," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(8), pages 1083-1123, November.
    20. Zamri Ahmad & Haslindar Ibrahim & Jasman Tuyon, 2017. "Institutional investor behavioral biases: syntheses of theory and evidence," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(5), pages 578-603, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jageco:v:71:y:2020:i:2:p:465-492. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.