Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
標題: 食品安全事件風險分級認知與再購意願之關聯性分析
Risk Perception of Food Safety Incident Categorization and Its Linkage to Repeat Purchase
作者: Xiu-Ying Li
關鍵字: Food safety risk perception
Food safety incident risk categorization
Repurchase intention
引用: 方立維 (2011)。從歐盟食品安全政策中的風險預防看塑化劑風暴。2014年6月24日取自 台灣駐歐盟兼駐比利時代表處 (2010)。歐洲醫衛機構介紹:歐洲食品安全局。2014年7月8日取自 余宣佑 (2008)。我國產銷履歷制度規劃與執行面探討:以風險社會理論為觀點。臺灣大學國家發展研究所碩士論文。台北。 林文傑 (2004)。日本食品安全委員會介紹。2014年6月25日取自 行政院 (2013)。食品安全事件風險分級制度。2014年6月25日取自 徐遵慈、吳佳勳 (2011)。美國《食品安全現代化法》對我國產品輸美之可能影響與因應建議。2014年6月24日取自 陳亭儒 (2012)。從食品風險議題探討政府風險溝通與媒體報導_以塑化劑事件為例。世新大學公共關係暨廣告學研究所碩士論文。台北。 楊雅嵐 (2011)。食品風險資訊表達型態對民眾風險知覺之影響、元智大學企業管理與服務科學學程碩士論文。桃園。 廖苑君 (2013)。消費者對有機農產品願付溢價之研究.。中興大學生物產業管理研 究所碩士論。台中。 Bauer, R. A. (1960), Consumer behavior as risk taking. In R. S. Hancock (Ed.), Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, Proceedings of the 43rd Conference. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 389-398. Chernev, A., Hamilton, R., & Gal, D. (2011). Competing for consumer identity: Limits to self-expression and the perils of lifestyle branding. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 66-82. Kiat, C.H. (2004), To risk or not to risk? Psychological dimensions of risk assessment and their impact on training safety. Pointer, 30(2). Retrieved from, July 15, 2014. Darden, W. R., & Reynolds, F. D. (1971). Shopping Orientations and products usage rates. Journal of Marketing Research. 8, 505-508. De Jonge, J., Van Trijp, H., Goddard, H .E., & Frewer, L. (2008). Consumer confidence in the safety of food in Canada and the Netherlands: The validation of a generic framework, Food Quality and Preference, 19, 439-451. De Jonge, J., Van Trijp, H., Renes, R. J., & Frewer, L. (2007). Understanding consumer confidence in the safety of food: Its two-dimensional structure and determinants, Risk Analysis, 27(3) , 729-740. Gillespie, A. M. H., & Johnson-Askew, W.L. (2009). Changing family food and eating practices: The family food decision-making system. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38 (Suppl 1), S31-S36. Krishna, A. (1991). Effect of dealing patterns on consumer perceptions of deal frequency and willlingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 441-451. Lando, A., & Carlton, E. (2010). Food safety survey: Key finding and topline frequency report. Home Food Science & Research (Food) Consumer Behavior Research. Mahon, D., & Cowan, C. (2004). Irish consumers' perception offood safety risk in minced beef. British Food Journal,106(4), 301-312. Manning , L., & Soon, J.M. (2013). Mechanisms for assessing food safety risk. British Food Journal, 115(3), 460-484. Potter, A., Murray, J., Lawson B., & Graham, S. (2012). Trends in product recalls within the agri-food industry: Empirical evidence from the USA, UK and the Republic of Ireland. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 28, 77-86. Reijnders, L. (2004). Food safety, environmental improvement and economic efficiency in The Netherlands. British Food Journal, 106(5), 388-405. Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35, 56-61. Rumble, T., Wallace, A., Deeps, C., McVay, K., Curran, M., Allen, J., Stafford, J., & O'Sullivan, A. (2003). New food labelling initiatives in Australia and New Zealand. Food Control, 14, 417-427. Saba, A., & Messina, F. (2003). Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/benefit perception associated with pesticides. Food Quality and Preferenc, 14, 637-645. Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19, 603-608. Stone, R. N., & Gr?nhaug, K. (1993). Perceived risk: Further considerations for the marketing discipline. European Journal of Marketing, 27(3), 39-50. Tuu, H.H. (2009). Food risk and knowledge in thesatisfaction-repurchase loyalty relationship. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 521-536. Thomsen, M. R. Shiptsova, R., & Hamm, S. J. (2006). Sales responses to recalls for listeria monocytogenes: Evidence from branded ready-to-eat meats. Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 482-493. Van Wezemael , L., Verbeke, W., Kugler, J. O., & Scholderer, S. (2011). European consumer acceptance of safety-improving interventions in the beef chain. Food Control, 22, 1776-1784. Wertenbroch, D. & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers' willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 228-241. Yeung, R.M.W., & Morris, J. (2001). Food safety risk: Consumer perception and purchase behavior. British Food Journal, 103(3), 170-186.
摘要: 行政院衛生福利部於2013年11月20日公布食品安全事件風級分級制度,第一級為「短期食用,立即危害」,第二級為「不符合食品衛生法規標準,但無立即危害」,第三級為攙偽假冒或標示誇大」,第四級為「標示不實或不完整」。風險分級之目的為教導消費者正確認識食品安全事件及其風險程度,並推動食品安全相關知識。 本研究於台北巿、台中巿、高雄巿三大都會區發放問卷,抽樣對象為18至59歲之受訪者共510人,以分析受訪者對食品安全風險認知與再購意願之關聯性。受訪者認為最為可能發生及發生後最為嚴重的食品安全事件為第二級「不符合食品衛生法規標準,但無立即危害」,如食品在加工過程添加不符合食品相關規範的原料、過量的添加物、藥物殘留。受訪者對食品安全風險事件第二級「不符合食品衛生法規標準,但無立即危害」、第三級「攙偽假冒或標示誇大」、第四級「標示不實或不完整」在風險評估上皆有高估的特性,顯示受訪者在食品安全風險分級的區別能力並非完全符合政府所推行的分級模式。 本研究進一步以多元線性迴歸分析當食品安全事件發生後,回復至事件發生前之原消費量所需天數,以推論受訪者對各級食品安全風險事件產品的再購意願。結果顯示消費者對四層級食品安全風險事件改善後產品之再購意願均受該層級食品風險認知、對台灣地區食品安全整體信任程度及婚姻狀況顯著影響。第一、二、四級食品安全風險事件改善後產品之再購意願另受食品重新上架販售顯著影響,第一、二級食品安全風險事件改善後產品之再購意願受家庭人口數顯著影響。 研究結果顯示食品安全事件風險分級認知影響消費者的再購意願。食品安全風險認知及食品安全事件風險分級認知愈高者,其再購意願愈低,消費者在食品安全事件發生後,會減少或延遲購買產品,以降低發生風險的可能性。本研究結果提供消費者對於食品安全風險分級的認知,可作為政府推動食品安全風險溝通之參考。
Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare, has announced categorization of food safety risk levels on November 20, 2013, in Taiwan. The first category of food safety risk level refers to 'immediate danger upon intake,' the second category refers to 'poses no immediate danger but does not meet the food-sanitation standards as regulated by domestic laws and regulations,' the third category refers to 'exaggerated labeling with fake ingredients or adulteration,' and the fourth category refers to 'incomplete or nonfactual labeling.' The aim of risk categorization in food safety issues is to educate consumers about various risk levels involved with food safety incidents. Stratified sampling was applied in conducting surveys for this study following age and gender distribution of the population between ages of 18 to 59. In-person interviews were administered in Taipei, Taichung, and Kaohsiung. Total valid samples were 510. Survey results indicated that respondents thought the most risky food safety incident would be those classified in the second category of food safety risk level. Respondents overrated certain food safety incidents classified in the second, third, and fourth categories, indicating consumers may not be able to discriminate food safety risk levels as what have been promoted by Food and Drug Administration. Multiple regression analysis was applied in this study to examine the number of days respondents needed to resume their original consumption levels after food safety incidents occurred to estimate repurchase intention in approximation. Results indicated that risk perception of categorized food safety levels, overall trust of food safety in Taiwan, marital status, reshelfing of food items, household sizes significantly influenced number of days respondents needed to resume consumption levels. Results of this study revealed that perceived food safety risk categorization influenced repurchase intention. The higher the perception of food safety and risk categorization, the lower the repurchase intention after incidents occurred. Consumers tend to reduce consumption or delay purchase after food safety incidents to ease the possibilities of bearing the risk. Findings in this study can be beneficial for government administrative agencies to form a baseline in educating the general public regarding food safety risk communication.
其他識別: U0005-2811201416200591
文章公開時間: 2016-08-31
Appears in Collections:高階經理人碩士在職專班



Show full item record
TAIR Related Article

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.