1932

Abstract

The literature abounds with evidence that consumers are critical of many new technologies used in modern food production. Influenced by the work on risk perception and technology acceptance in the 1980s, research has aimed to better understand the controversy around new food technologies. Whereas early contributions focused on risk perception and the lay-expert divide in objective and subjective risk perception, more recent research has turned to the role of emotions, moral judgments, and worldviews. This article takes stock of the theory and findings in this literature. In addition to providing an overview of the developments in the economic and sociopsychological literature, the review discusses selected topics related to consumer preferences for food technology and the determinants of food technology acceptance.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012735
2014-10-05
2024-05-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/6/1/annurev-resource-100913-012735.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012735&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alfnes F. 2004. Stated preferences for imported and hormone-treated beef: application of a mixed logit model. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 31:19–37 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alhakami AS, Slovic P. 1994. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 14:61085–96 [Google Scholar]
  3. Alston JM, Norton GW, Pardey PG. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  4. Ares G, Gambaro A. 2007. Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite 49:148–58 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beck U. 1992. Risk Society London: Sage
  6. Besley JC, Shanahan J. 2005. Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Sci. Commun. 26:4347–67 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bieberstein A. 2014. An Investigation of Women’s and Men’s Perceptions and Meanings Associated with Food Risks Wiesbaden, Ger.: Springer
  8. Bieberstein A, Roosen J, Marette S, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F. 2013. Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 40:173–94 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bredahl L. 2001. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food—results of a cross-national survey. J. Consum. Policy 24:123–61 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brenot J, Bonnefous S, Mays C. 1996. Cultural theory and risk perception: validity and utility explored in the French context. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 68:3/4239–43 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brooks K, Lusk JL. 2010. Stated and revealed preferences for organic and cloned milk: combining choice experiment and scanner data. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 92:1229–41 [Google Scholar]
  12. Browne MJ, Hoyt RE. 2000. The demand for flood insurance: empirical evidence. J. Risk Uncertain. 20:3291–306 [Google Scholar]
  13. Buchler S, Smith K, Lawrence G. 2010. Food risks, old and new. Demographic characteristics and perspectives of food additives, regulation and contamination in Australia. J. Sociol 46:4353–74 [Google Scholar]
  14. Buhr BL, Hayes DJ, Shogren JF, Kliebenstein JB. 1993. Valuing ambiguity: the case of genetically engineered growth enhancers. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 18:175–84 [Google Scholar]
  15. Campbell H, Fitzgerald R. 2001. Follow the fear: a multi-sited approach to GM. Rural Soc 11:3211–24 [Google Scholar]
  16. Carson R. 1963. Silent Spring. London: Hamish Hamilton
  17. Cobb M, Macoubrie J. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risk, benefits and trust. J. Nanopart. Res. 6:395–405 [Google Scholar]
  18. Combs B, Slovic P. 1979. Newspaper coverage of causes of death. Journal. Mass Commun. Q 56:837–43 [Google Scholar]
  19. Colson GJ, Huffman WE, Rousu MC. 2011. Improving the nutrient content of food through genetic modification: evidence from experimental auctions on consumer acceptance. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 36:2343–64 [Google Scholar]
  20. Costa-Font M, Gil M, Traill WB. 2008. Consumers’ acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33:99–111 [Google Scholar]
  21. Cox DN, Evans G. 2008. Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: the food technology neophobia scale. Food Qual. Prefer. 19:704–10 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dake K. 1990. Technology on trial: orienting dispositions toward environmental and health hazards. PhD Thesis, Univ. Calif., Berkeley
  23. Dake K. 1991. Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 22:161–82 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dannenberg A. 2009. The dispersion and development of consumer preferences for genetically modified food—a meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 68:2182–92 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dhar T, Foltz JD. 2005. Milk by any other name… consumer benefits from labeled milk. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87:1214–28 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dosman DM, Adamowicz WL, Hrudey SE. 2001. Socioeconomic determinants of health- and food safety–related risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 21:2307–17 [Google Scholar]
  27. Douglas M. 1978. Cultural bias. Occas. Pap. 35, R. Anthropol. Inst., London
  28. Douglas M. 1990. Risk as a forensic resource. Daedalus 119:41–16 [Google Scholar]
  29. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press
  30. Earle TC, Cvetcovich GT. 1995. Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society Westport, CT/London: Prager
  31. Erdem S, Rigby D. 2013. Investigating heterogeneity in the characterization of risks using best worst scaling. Risk Anal. 33:1728–48 [Google Scholar]
  32. Erdem S, Rigby D, Wossink A. 2012. Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety. Food Policy 37:661–70 [Google Scholar]
  33. Evans G, Kermarrec C, Sable T, Cox DN. 2010. Reliability and predictive validity of the Food Technology Neophobia Scale. Appetite 54:2390–93 [Google Scholar]
  34. Fallon A, Rozin P. 1983. The psychological bases of food rejection by humans. Ecol. Food Nutr. 13:15–26 [Google Scholar]
  35. Fife-Shaw C, Rowe G. 1996. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. Risk Anal. 16:487–500 [Google Scholar]
  36. Fingerhut K, Zhang P, Fox J, Boland M. 2001. Consumer preferences for pathogen‐reducing technologies in beef. J. Food Saf. 21:297–110 [Google Scholar]
  37. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J. Behav. Decis. Making 13:1–17 [Google Scholar]
  38. Fischler C. 1988. Anthropology of food. Soc. Sci. Inf. 27:2275–92 [Google Scholar]
  39. Fox JA, Hayes DJ, Shogren JF. 2002. Consumer preferences for food irradiation: how favorable and unfavorable descriptions affect preferences for irradiated pork in experimental auctions. J. Risk Uncertain. 24:175–95 [Google Scholar]
  40. Frewer LJ, Howard JC, Hedderley D, Shepherd R. 1996. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal. 16:4473–86 [Google Scholar]
  41. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl L. 2003. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: the mediating role of trust. Risk Anal. 23:61117–33 [Google Scholar]
  42. Frick MJ, Birkenholz RJ, Gardner H, Machtmes K. 1995. Rural and urban inner-city high school student knowledge and perception of agriculture. J. Agric. Educ. 36:1–9 [Google Scholar]
  43. Grebitus C, Jensen HH, Roosen J, Sebranek JG. 2013. Fresh meat packaging: consumer acceptance of modified atmosphere packaging including carbon monoxide. J. Food Prot. 75:199–107 [Google Scholar]
  44. Gupta N, Fischer RH, Frewer LJ. 2011. Social-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies—a review. Public Underst. Sci. 21:7782–95 [Google Scholar]
  45. Haidt J. 2001. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev 108:814–34 [Google Scholar]
  46. Haidt J. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion New York: Pantheon
  47. Hansen J, Frewer L, Robinson P, Sandø P. 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41:2111–21 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hayes DJ, Shogren JF, Shin SU, Kliebenstein JB. 1995. Valuing food safety in experimental auction markets. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 77:40–53 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hess S, Lagerkvist CJ, Redekop W, Pakseresh A. 2013. Consumers’ evaluation of biotechnology in food products: new evidence from a meta-survey. Presented at Agric. Appl. Econ. Assoc. Annu. Meet., Washington, DC, Aug. 4–6
  50. Hoffman E, Menkhaus D, Chakravarti D, Field R, Whipple G. 1993. Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: a case study of new packaging for fresh beef. Mark. Sci. 12:318–38 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hohl K, Gaskell G. 2008. European public perceptions of food risk: cross-national and methodological comparisons. Risk Anal. 28:2311–24 [Google Scholar]
  52. Jackson J, Allum N, Gaskell G. 2006. Bridging levels of analysis in risk perception research: the case of the fear of crime. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 7:1Artic. 20 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kahan DM. 2012. Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M. 725–60 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer [Google Scholar]
  54. Kahan DM, Braman D, Gastil J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. 2007. Culture and identity-protective cognition: explaining the white male effect in risk perception. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 4:3465–505 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. 2009. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4:87–90 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow New York: Macmillan
  57. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1972. A judgment of representativeness. Cognit. Psychol. 3:3430–54 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1979. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:2263–91 [Google Scholar]
  59. Kalaitzandonakes N, Marks LA, Vickner SS. 2004. Media coverage of biotech foods and influence on consumer choice. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86:1238–46 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kjærnes U, Harvey M, Warde A. 2007. Trust in Food: A Comparative and Institutional Analysis New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  61. Kuran T, Sunstein CR. 1999. Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Rev. 51:683–768 [Google Scholar]
  62. Lagerkvist CJ, Hess S. 2011. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 38:55–78 [Google Scholar]
  63. Liaukonyte J, Streletskaya NA, Kaiser HM, Rickard BJ. 2013. Consumer response to “contains” and “free of” labeling: evidence from lab experiments. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 35:3476–507 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Layman M, Combs B. 1978. Judged frequency of lethal events. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. 4:551–78 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lindeman M, Väänänen M. 2000. Measurement of ethical food choice motives. Appetite 34:55–59 [Google Scholar]
  66. Lobb A, Mazzocchi M, Traill WB. 2007. Modelling risk perception and trust in food safety information within the theory of planned behavior. Food Qual. Prefer. 18:384–95 [Google Scholar]
  67. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch E. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127:267–86 [Google Scholar]
  68. Luhmann N. 2000. Vertrauen [Trust and Power]. Stuttgart, Ger.: UTB. 4th ed.
  69. Lusk JL. 2010. The effect of Proposition 2 on the demand for eggs in California. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 8:11–20 [Google Scholar]
  70. Lusk JL. 2011. External validity of the food values scale. Food Qual. Prefer. 22:452–62 [Google Scholar]
  71. Lusk JL, Briggeman BC. 2009. Food values. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91:184–96 [Google Scholar]
  72. Lusk JL, Coble KH. 2005. Risk perceptions, risk preference, and acceptance of risky food. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 87:393–405 [Google Scholar]
  73. Lusk JL, Jamal M, Kurlander L, Roucan M, Taulman L. 2005. A meta analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 30:28–44 [Google Scholar]
  74. Lusk JL, Norwood FB, Pruitt JR. 2006. Consumer demand for a ban on antibiotic drug use in pork production. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 88:41015–33 [Google Scholar]
  75. Lusk JL, Schroeder TC, Tonsor GT. 2014. Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ In press; doi:10.1093/erae/jbt035 [Google Scholar]
  76. Marette S, Roe BE, Teisl M. 2012. The welfare impact of food pathogen vaccines. Food Policy 3:86–93 [Google Scholar]
  77. Marette S, Roosen J, Blanchemanche S. 2011. The combination of lab and field experiments for benefit-cost analysis. J. Benefit Cost Anal. 2:3Artic. 2 [Google Scholar]
  78. Marks LA, Kalaitzandonakes N. 2002. Mass media communications about agrobiotechnology. AgBioForum 4:199–208 [Google Scholar]
  79. Marris C, Langford I, O'Riordan T. 1998. A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Anal. 18:5635–47 [Google Scholar]
  80. Matin AH, Goddard E, Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A et al. 2012. Do environmental attitudes and food technology neophobia affect perceptions of the benefits of nanotechnology?. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 36:149–57 [Google Scholar]
  81. McCluskey JJ, Swinnen JFM. 2004. Political economy of the media and consumer perceptions of biotechnology. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86:1230–37 [Google Scholar]
  82. McCluskey JJ, Swinnen J. 2011. The media and food-risk perceptions. EMBO Rep. 12:624–29 [Google Scholar]
  83. McFadden BR, Lusk JL. 2013. Effects of cost and campaign advertising on support for California’s Proposition 37. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 38:174–86 [Google Scholar]
  84. McFadden BR, Lusk JL. 2014. Cognitive biases in the assimilation of scientific information on global warming and genetically modified food. Presented at South. Agric. Econ. Assoc. Annu. Meet., Dallas, Tex.
  85. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW III. 1972. The Limits of Growth New York: Universe
  86. Mueller RAE, Thiemann F. 2007. Population, agricultural discoveries and inventions. Poster, Dep. Agric. Econ., CAU Kiel. http://www.agric-econ.uni-kiel.de/Abteilungen/II/
  87. Mueller RAE, Thiemann F, Buergelt D. 2009. Population, discoveries and inventions in the food sector. Poster, Dep. Agric. Econ., CAU Kiel. http://www.agric-econ.uni-kiel.de/Abteilungen/II/
  88. Mullainathan S, Sheifer A. 2005. The market for news. Am. Econ. Rev. 95:1031–53 [Google Scholar]
  89. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA, Shanahan J, Moy P, Brossard D, Lewenstein BV. 2002. Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Commun. Res. 29:5584–608 [Google Scholar]
  90. Norwood FB, Lusk JL. 2011. Compassion by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  91. Nygård B. 1999. Den moderne forbruker—refleksive vurderinger og tillitsforhold i endring. Sosiol. tidsskr. 4:305–22 [Google Scholar]
  92. O’Connor E, Cowan C, Williams G, O’Connell J, Boland M. 2005. Acceptance by Irish consumers of a hypothetical GM dairy spread that reduces cholesterol. Br. Food J. 107:361–80 [Google Scholar]
  93. Pennings JME, Wansink B, Meulenberg MTG. 2002. A note on modeling consumer reactions to a crisis: the case of the mad cow disease. Int. J. Res. Mark. 19:91–100 [Google Scholar]
  94. Peters E, Burraston B, Mertz CK. 2004. An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: cognitive appraisals of emotions, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Anal 24:1349–67 [Google Scholar]
  95. Peters E, Slovic P. 1996. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 26:161427–53 [Google Scholar]
  96. Pliner P, Hobden K. 1992. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 19:105–20 [Google Scholar]
  97. Pliner P, Salvy SJ. 2006. Food neophobia in humans. The Psychology of Food Choice Shepherd R, Raats M. 75–91 Oxford, UK: CABI [Google Scholar]
  98. Pope J. 1990. Agricultural literacy: a basic American need. Agric. Educ. Mag. 62:8–23 [Google Scholar]
  99. Renner B, Sproesser G, Strohbach S, Schupp HT. 2012. Why we eat what we eat. The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). Appetite 59:117–28 [Google Scholar]
  100. Rokeach M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values New York: Free
  101. Roosen J, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F. 2011. The effect of information choice and discussion on consumers' willingness-to-pay for nanotechnologies in food. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 36:2365–74 [Google Scholar]
  102. Roosen J, Hennessy DA, Fox JA, Schreiber A. 1998. Consumers’ valuation of insecticide use restrictions: an application to apples. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 23:367–84 [Google Scholar]
  103. Rozin P. 1976. The selection of food by rats, humans and other animals. Advances in the Study of Human Behavior Vol. 6 Rosenblatt J, Hinde RA, Beer C, Shaw E. 21–76 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  104. Rozin P, Fallon A. 1980. The psychological categorization of foods and non-foods: a preliminary taxonomy of food rejections. Appetite 1:193–201 [Google Scholar]
  105. Rozin P, Fischler C, Shields-Argelès C. 2012. European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite 59:448–55 [Google Scholar]
  106. Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z, Neuhaus R, Surillo D et al. 2004. Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43:147–54 [Google Scholar]
  107. Schroeder TC, Tonsor GT, Pennings JME, Mintert J. 2007. Consumer food safety risk perceptions and attitudes: impacts on beef consumption across countries. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 7:65 [Google Scholar]
  108. Siegrist M. 2008. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products: food innovation management. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 19:603–8 [Google Scholar]
  109. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. 2000. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 20:5713–18 [Google Scholar]
  110. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal. 20:353–62 [Google Scholar]
  111. Sjöberg L. 1997. Explaining risk perception: an empirical and quantitative evaluation of cultural theory. Risk Decis. Policy 2:113–30 [Google Scholar]
  112. Sjöberg L. 2006. Will the real meaning of affect please stand up?. J. Risk Res. 9:2101–8 [Google Scholar]
  113. Slovic P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280–85 [Google Scholar]
  114. Slovic P. 1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal. 13:3675–82 [Google Scholar]
  115. Slovic P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 19:4689–700 [Google Scholar]
  116. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24:2311–22 [Google Scholar]
  117. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. 2007. The affect heuristic. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 177:31333–52 [Google Scholar]
  118. Tversky A. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. 1982. Facts versus fears: understanding perceived risk. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Kahneman D, Slovic P. 463–92 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  119. Steg L, Sievers I. 2000. Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environ. Behav. 23:250–69 [Google Scholar]
  120. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. 1995. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite 25:3267–84 [Google Scholar]
  121. Sunstein CR. 2002. Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  122. Swinnen JFM, Squicciarini P, Vandemoortele T. 2011. The food crisis, mass media, and the political economy of policy analysis and communication. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 38:409–26 [Google Scholar]
  123. Tannahill R. 1973/1979. Kulturgeschichte des Essens: Von der letzten Eiszeit bis heute Munich, Ger.: Deutscher Taschenbuch
  124. Teisl MF, Roe BE. 2010. Consumer willingness-to-pay to reduce the probability of retail foodborne pathogen contamination. Food Policy 35:521–30 [Google Scholar]
  125. Tenbült P, de Vries NK, Dreezens E, Martijn C. 2005. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 45:147–50 [Google Scholar]
  126. Thompson PB. 1993. Animals in the agrarian ideal. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 6:Spec. Suppl. 136–49 [Google Scholar]
  127. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–31 [Google Scholar]
  128. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. 2010. The morality of attitudes toward nanotechnology: about God, techno-scientific progress, and interfering with nature. J. Nanopart. Res. 12:2373–81 [Google Scholar]
  129. Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J. 2011. The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst. Sci. 20:195–206 [Google Scholar]
  130. Visschers VHM, Meertens RM, Passchier WF, deVries NK. 2007. How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks. Risk Anal. 27:3715–27 [Google Scholar]
  131. Wildavsky A, Dake K. 1990. Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?. Daedalus 19:441–60 [Google Scholar]
  132. Zhang H, Gallardo RK, McCluskey JJ, Kupferman EM. 2010. Consumers' willingness to pay for treatment-induced quality attributes in Anjou pears. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 35:1105–17 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012735
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012735
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error