IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agfoec/v9y2021i1d10.1186_s40100-021-00194-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the association between risk attitude and fruit and vegetable consumption: insights from university students in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Elisa Giampietri

    (University of Padova)

  • Giuseppe Bugin

    (University of Padova)

  • Samuele Trestini

    (University of Padova)

Abstract

As a novel contribution, this paper explores the possible association between individual risk attitudes and consumer fruit and vegetable (FV) intake. Inspired by the literature, the study also investigates the relationship between FV consumption frequency and health consciousness, perceived health benefits, trust, and attitude towards eating the recommended five-a-day FV portions. An ordered logit model is estimated on data collected through direct interviews among university students. The results show that risk aversion has a positive effect on consumer choice to eat the recommended number of FV servings, similar to the individual health consciousness and the perception of health benefits. The results pave the way for new research that aims to provide useful evidence for the implementation of new strategies to foster people’s FV intake in compliance with the five-a-day recommendation.

Suggested Citation

  • Elisa Giampietri & Giuseppe Bugin & Samuele Trestini, 2021. "On the association between risk attitude and fruit and vegetable consumption: insights from university students in Italy," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agfoec:v:9:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1186_s40100-021-00194-4
    DOI: 10.1186/s40100-021-00194-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s40100-021-00194-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s40100-021-00194-4?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. Katherine Appleton & Ann Hemingway & Laure Saulais & Caterina Dinnella & Erminio Monteleone & Laure Depezay & David Morizet & F. Armando Perez-Cueto & Ann Bevan & Heather Hartwell, 2016. "Increasing vegetable intakes: rationale and systematic review of published interventions," Post-Print hal-02118595, HAL.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Coletta, Attilio & Giampietri, Elisa & Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Severini, Simone & Trestini, Samuele, 2018. "A preliminary test on risk and ambiguity attitudes, and time preferences in decisions under uncertainty: towards a better explanation of participation in crop insurance schemes," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 7(3), December.
    4. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich & Claudia Roth, 2000. "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    5. Donna M. Dosman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz & Steve E. Hrudey, 2001. "Socioeconomic Determinants of Health‐ and Food Safety‐Related Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 307-318, April.
    6. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    7. Mary Riddel & David Hales, 2018. "Predicting Cancer‐Prevention Behavior: Disentangling the Effects of Risk Aversion and Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2161-2177, October.
    8. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    9. Chetan Dave & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Christian Rojas, 2010. "Eliciting risk preferences: When is simple better?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 219-243, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Alessandro Bonanno & Francesco Bimbo & Elena Castellari & Paolo Sckokai, 2017. "Five-a-Day, Fruit and Vegetables Portions, and the Food Environment: The Italian Case," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(4), pages 682-709.
    12. Hirschauer Norbert & Grüner Sven & Mußhoff Oliver & Becker Claudia, 2019. "Twenty Steps Towards an Adequate Inferential Interpretation of p-Values in Econometrics," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(4), pages 703-721, August.
    13. Richard Shepherd & Gary Barker & Simon French & Andy Hart & John Maule & Angela Cassidy, 2006. "Managing Food Chain Risks: Integrating Technical and Stakeholder Perspectives on Uncertainty," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 313-327, July.
    14. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2013. "Risk Aversion, Subjective Beliefs, and Farmer Risk Management Strategies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 384-389.
    15. Hansen, Torben & Sørensen, Maria Ingerslev & Eriksen, Marie-Louise Riewerts, 2018. "How the interplay between consumer motivations and values influences organic food identity and behavior," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 39-52.
    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. Christoph F. Wiedenroth & Verena Otter, 2022. "Can new healthy luxury food products accelerate short food supply chain formation via social media marketing in high-income countries?," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-30, December.
    2. Giulia Andreani & Rungsaran Wongprawmas & Beatrice Biasini & Alice Rosi & Cinzia Franchini & Irina Dolgopolova & Cristina Mora & Davide Menozzi & Francesca Scazzina & Miguel I. Gómez & Jutta Roosen & , 2024. "Digital nudging at the university canteen: an online study with American young adults," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Francesca Silvia Rota & Luigi Bollani & Maria Giuseppina Lucia & Alessandro Bonadonna, 2024. "Food Quality and Risk Perception: An Empirical Study Based on the Opinion of University Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Thomas Meissner & Xavier Gassmann & Corinne Faure & Joachim Schleich, 2023. "Individual characteristics associated with risk and time preferences: A multi country representative survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(1), pages 77-107, February.

    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. Giampietri, Elisa & Yu, Xiaohua & Trestini, Samuele, 2020. "The role of trust and perceived barriers on farmer’s intention to adopt risk management tools," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(1), April.
    2. Giampietri, Elisa & Bugin, Giuseppe & Trestini, Samuele, 2020. "Exploring the Interplay of Risk Attitude and Organic Food Consumption," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(03), September.
    3. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    4. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    5. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    6. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    7. Hermansson, Cecilia, 2018. "Can self-assessed financial risk measures explain and predict bank customers’ objective financial risk?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 226-240.
    8. Zack Dorner & Daniel A. Brent & Anke Leroux, 2019. "Preferences for Intrinsically Risky Attributes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(4), pages 494-514.
    9. Marianne Lefebvre & Estelle Midler & Philippe Bontems, 2020. "Adoption of Environment-Friendly Agricultural Practices with Background Risk: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 405-428, July.
    10. Giuseppe Attanasi & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Valentina Rotondi & Daria Vigani, 2018. "Lottery- and survey-based risk attitudes linked through a multichoice elicitation task," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 341-372, May.
    11. Gary Charness & Thomas Garcia & Theo Offerman & Marie Claire Villeval, 2020. "Do measures of risk attitude in the laboratory predict behavior under risk in and outside of the laboratory?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 99-123, April.
    12. Bartczak, Anna & Chilton, Susan & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2015. "Wildfires in Poland: The impact of risk preferences and loss aversion on environmental choices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 300-309.
    13. Murong Yang & Laurence S. J. Roope & James Buchanan & Arthur E. Attema & Philip M. Clarke & A. Sarah Walker & Sarah Wordsworth, 2022. "Eliciting risk preferences that predict risky health behavior: A comparison of two approaches," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(5), pages 836-858, May.
    14. Dorner, Zach & Brent, Daniel A. & Leroux, Anke, 2016. "Eliciting Risk Preferences for Intrinsic Attributes," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236644, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Menkhoff, Lukas & Sakha, Sahra, 2017. "Estimating risky behavior with multiple-item risk measures," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 59-86.
    16. Jean-Louis Bago & Bruce Shearer, 2022. "Risk preferences and contract choices," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(5), pages 1374-1398, November.
    17. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2013. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Matter? Evidence from Rural Uganda," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 158146, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    18. Antonio FILIPPIN & Paolo CROSETTO, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," Departmental Working Papers 2014-01, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    19. Brunette, Marielle & Jacob, Julien, 2019. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: An experiment in gain and loss," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 174-189.
    20. Pan He & Marcella Veronesi & Stefanie Engel, 2016. "Consistency of Risk Preference Measures and the Role of Ambiguity: An Artefactual Field Experiment from China," Working Papers 03/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.

    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:spr:agfoec:v:9:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1186_s40100-021-00194-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.