IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v39y2023i1p3-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behavioral framing and consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Factors influencing consumer demand for active packaging

Author

Listed:
  • David R. Just
  • Julie M. Goddard

Abstract

We examine consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for foods packaged using active packaging which can be used to improve quality, shelf life, or safety of a range of products, potentially reducing the use of food additives (preservatives) and food waste. We administer an experimental survey of US food consumers (n = 2325) with five treatments. The surveys include contingent valuation exercises to assess consumer WTP for six products in active packaging relative to conventional packaging. We find that consumer acceptance of this technology is dependent on the product packaged and related directly to the specific relative benefit. In addition, consumer WTP is impacted by the framing of the technology in relation to other available technologies, information about the developer of the technology, and the degree of specificity of information regarding benefits. Notably, impacts of framing and use cases are primarily apparent among those who are resistant to the technology. A cluster analysis finds that those more likely to resist the technology include households that are lower income, less educated, and more likely to be white [EconLit citations: Q18, M31, D12, D83].

Suggested Citation

  • David R. Just & Julie M. Goddard, 2023. "Behavioral framing and consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Factors influencing consumer demand for active packaging," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(1), pages 3-27, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:39:y:2023:i:1:p:3-27
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.21778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21778
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.21778?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. 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.
    2. Dannenberg, Astrid, 2009. "The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food -- A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2182-2192, June.
    3. de Gorter, Harry & Drabik, Dušan & Just, David R. & Reynolds, Christian & Sethi, Geeta, 2021. "Analyzing the economics of food loss and waste reductions in a food supply chain," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    4. Corso, Phaedra S & Hammitt, James K & Graham, John D, 2001. "Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 165-184, September.
    5. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Food: Relevance of Gene Transfer Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-17, December.
    8. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    9. Barska, Anetta & Wyrwa, Joanna, 2016. "Consumer perception of active and intelligent food packaging," Problems of Agricultural Economics / Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej 252644, Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics - National Research Institute (IAFE-NRI).
    10. Wang, Zhigang & Mao, Yanna & Gale, Fred, 2008. "Chinese consumer demand for food safety attributes in milk products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 27-36, February.
    11. Julia Bailey-Serres & Jane E. Parker & Elizabeth A. Ainsworth & Giles E. D. Oldroyd & Julian I. Schroeder, 2019. "Genetic strategies for improving crop yields," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7781), pages 109-118, November.
    12. Kara R. Grant & R. Karina Gallardo & Jill J. McCluskey, 2021. "Consumer preferences for foods with clean labels and new food technologies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 764-781, October.
    13. Kevin J. Boyle & Thomas P. Holmes & Mario F. Teisl & Brian Roe, 2001. "A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 441-454.
    14. Baker, Gregory A. & Burnham, Thomas A., 2001. "Consumer Response To Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis And Implications For Producers And Policy Makers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Pierre M. L. Pelzer & Dale J. Menkhaus & Glen D. Whipple & Ray A. Field & Shawn W. Moore, 1991. "Factors influencing consumer rankings of alternative retail beef packaging," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(3), pages 253-267.
    16. Amani, Pegah & Gadde, Lars-Erik, 2015. "Shelf life extension and food waste reduction," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206209, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    17. Grebitus, Carola & Jensen, Helen H. & Roosen, Jutta & Sebranek, Joseph G., 2013. "Fresh Meat Packaging: Consumer Acceptance of Modified Atmosphere Packaging including Carbon Monoxide," Staff General Research Papers Archive 35611, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Davvetas, Vasileios & Sichtmann, Christina & Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, 2015. "The impact of perceived brand globalness on consumers' willingness to pay," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 431-434.
    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. Nomzamo N. Dlamini & Emily J. Mayhew & Alissa A. Nolden, 2024. "Unpacking Consumer Preferences: Perceptions and Sustainability of Packaging Material for Orange Juice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-14, July.

    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. Karen Lewis DeLong & Carola Grebitus, 2018. "Genetically modified labeling: The role of consumers’ trust and personality," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 266-282, March.
    2. Rongting Zhou & Dong Wang & Ahmad Nabeel Siddiquei & Muhammad Azfar Anwar & Ali Hammad & Fahad Asmi & Qing Ye & Muhammad Asim Nawaz, 2019. "GMO/GMF on Social Media in China: Jagged Landscape of Information Seeking and Sharing Behavior through a Valence View," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Bindu Paudel & Deepthi E. Kolady & David Just & Evert Van der Sluis, 2023. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of gene‐edited foods and its implications for innovators and policymakers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 623-645, July.
    4. Kennedy Otieno Pambo & David Jakinda Otieno & Julius Juma Okello, 2017. "Analysis of Consumer Preference for Vitamin A-Fortified Sugar in Kenya," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(4), pages 745-768, August.
    5. Dolores Garrido & Rosa Karina Gallardo, 2022. "Are improvements in convenience good enough for consumers to prefer new food processing technologies?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(1), pages 73-92, January.
    6. Alexandre Magnier & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Jayson Lusk, 2022. "Changes in Consumer Preferences toward Non‐GM Foods within an Information‐Rich Environment: The Case of the Washington State Ballot Initiative," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(1), pages 489-510, March.
    7. Paudel, Bindu & Kolady, Deepthi Elizabeth & Just, David R. & Van Der Sluis, Evert, 2021. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of genetically modified and gene-edited foods: Market and policy implications," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313905, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. 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.
    9. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    14. Emma McIntosh, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments within a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 24(9), pages 855-868, September.
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    17. Abou-Ali, Hala & Carlsson, Fredrik, 2004. "Evaluating the welfare effects of improved water quality using the choice experiment method," Working Papers in Economics 131, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. Craig F. Berning & Brian E. Roe, 2017. "Assessing the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Can Americans Access Electronic Disclosure Information?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, May.
    19. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    20. Sund, Björn, 2009. "Sensitivity to scope in contingent valuation – introducing a flexible community analogy to communicate mortality risk reductions," Working Papers 2009:2, Örebro University, School of Business.

    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:wly:agribz:v:39:y:2023:i:1:p:3-27. 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://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.