Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
zhao Li
 -- 2014 2022-06-29 04:47:48 |
2 format correct
Nora Tang
 -96 word(s) 1918 2022-06-29 07:48:57 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Li, Z.;  Liang, W.;  Luo, J.; Li, Z. Mediation Effect of Risk Attitude. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24607 (accessed on 02 August 2024).
Li Z,  Liang W,  Luo J, Li Z. Mediation Effect of Risk Attitude. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24607. Accessed August 02, 2024.
Li, Zhao, Wangbing Liang, Jingfeng Luo, Zhao Li. "Mediation Effect of Risk Attitude" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24607 (accessed August 02, 2024).
Li, Z.,  Liang, W.,  Luo, J., & Li, Z. (2022, June 29). Mediation Effect of Risk Attitude. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/24607
Li, Zhao, et al. "Mediation Effect of Risk Attitude." Encyclopedia. Web. 29 June, 2022.
Mediation Effect of Risk Attitude
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14106372

The influence of the epidemic situation on an individual’s risk perception will change an individual’s risk attitude, which, in turn, will affect their willingness to consume products from restaurants. Epidemic risk perception may also directly affect said willingness. Prati and team found that risk attitude is the most important component in predicting willingness, and it is further predicted by risk perception. A study of Spanish consumers by Martinez-Poveda and others found that the willingness and acceptance of consumers to buy goods is largely determined by the risks they perceive in the goods. Yang and Chen found that there is an interaction between risk perception and risk attitude, which affects the behavior of subjects. A study of consumer attitudes toward genetically modifiedfood in recent years, conducted by Wang and others, found that both risk perception and return affect consumers’ willingness to purchase genetically modified food. Consumers’ risk perception of the epidemic situation will influence their risk attitude and willingness to consume food. Based on the above analysis, the following hypothesis is proposed: Risk attitude plays a mediating role in the influence of consumers’ epidemic risk perception on their willingness to consume products from restaurants.

epidemic risk perception risk attitude mediation effect

1. Risk Perception

The concept of risk perception refers to the subjective feeling and understanding of various objective risks in the external environment. At present, there is no unified conclusion on the definition of risk perception. It is now thought that the earliest risk research was that done by O.K. Burell on the impact of scientific analysis psychology on investment behavior. Bauer proposed the application of risk in the management field and interpreted risk perception as consumer awareness and subjective perception [1]. Hugstad, Taylor, and Bruce considered risk perception to be the risk a consumer may feel when purchasing a product or service [2]. McCaffrey divided risk perception into probability perception and loss perception [3]. Wang Wei-quan suggested that a high level of risk perception may lead to over-amplification of the individual’s influence on negative events, resulting in risk aversion [4]. Yeung and Morris proposed that, at any stage of consumer purchase, when consumers perceive security risks, their purchasing behavior will change accordingly. Scully and Joanne argued that consumers’ perception of risk tends to be higher than the actual level of risk, and consumers’ reaction to risk tends to be excessive and irrational.
There are many methods to measure risk perception. One of the most important research methods is the psychological measurement paradigm, which was put forward by many scholars and mainly represented by Slovic [5]. These scholars classified the risk according to its characteristics to understand why people react differently to risk. The main tool of this method is the questionnaire, with some subjective multiple-choice questions, the results of which determine the participants’ risk perception of a particular event. Roselius classified risk perception into four categories: financial, physical, time, and hazard risk [6]. Jacoby and Kaplan [7] further subdivided risk perception into five dimensions: functional, physical, psychological, social, and financial risk. Mumel added time risk on this basis, and the study of risk perception focuses on these six aspects. Xie and others found that duration, control, severity of consequences, and familiarity also affect risk perception [8]. Zhou divided the perception of earthquake risk into four factors: probability, fear, influence, and control [9]. Liu and Hu believe that the psychological attribute of risk perception is stronger, and that the subjective evaluation of events made by the subject reflects different values under different cultural and ideological backgrounds and it is both a psychological paradigm and a cognitive process [10].
The concept of risk perception is widely used in the field of consumption. Due to the asymmetry of information, consumers cannot accurately predict the outcome of purchase, and this kind of psychological pressure to the uncertain result is the consumer’s risk perception in the process of consumption. Under the influence of risk perception, consumers may change their original attitude towards products, reevaluate the purchasing suggestions made by the people around them, and, finally, change their purchasing intention and behavior. The COVID-19 outbreak will have an impact on the risk perception of consumers, consequently affecting their willingness to consume products from restaurants. In this study, risk perception was combined with an epidemic background, and epidemic risk perception was used as an independent variable to study its predictive effect on consumer’s willingness to consume products from restaurants.
In previous studies on risk perception and willingness to consume products from restaurants, Wojciech Kolanowski studied young Turkish and Polish consumers’ perceptions of food safety risks when they ate out by using a questionnaire, and young Polish consumers were found to be less aware of food safety risks when eating out than Turkish consumers [11]. Marcel Levy de Andrade, through structured questionnaires, evaluated the knowledge, risk perception, and optimistic bias of food handlers and consumers of restaurants and the relationship of these variables with the FBD risk of these establishments, and the results showed that consumers may have incorporated a sense of affection and identity to a place, associating it with making their own meals at home. Therefore, the consumer may not differentiate restaurants with regard to food safety [12].

2. Willingness to Consume

Scholars in the academic circle have put forward several opinions on the definition of consumer will. Consumers’ willingness to consume is the premise of consumer behavior. Ajzen first defined willingness to consume as the likelihood that a consumer will consume a product or service [13]. Schiffman, Kanuk, and Wisenbilt (2010) held that willingness to spend is the probability or subjective probability that a consumer is willing to spend on a product [14]. Kotler thought that the consumption intention is a subjective attitude which will influence a consumer’s future consumption behavior because of the consumption behavior of others or themself. Bi suggested that willingness to spend is the possibility that consumers will buy a product again after they have a better understanding of the product [15]. The academic circle’s view on consumption willingness is generally regarded as the enthusiasm and subjective attitude of consumers in producing consumption behavior and making a consumption decision, which is affected by a change in other factors.
In terms of the influencing factors of consumers’ willingness to spend, Spiggle and Sewall considered that the factors that have a direct impact on consumers’ purchasing behavior are mainly the characteristics of consumers [16]. At present, the main influencing factors for willingness to consume are as follows: (1) the influence of consumer experience on consumer willingness, where the consumer experience is when the consumer uses the goods or services and influences whether the consumer will make a second consumption; (2) the effect of consumer-perceived value on consuming willingness, and the fact that the evaluation of a product after use is user-perceived value, which has an important effect on consumers’ consuming willingness [17][18][19].
In the aspect of willingness to consume products from restaurants and its influencing factors, Chung-Te Ting constructed a contingent valuation model to study the importance of pre-processed services in the context of a possible restaurant service crisis [20]; Lalwani studied young couples in Singapore, and found that a spousal relationships have a significant impact on whether or not they go to a fancy restaurant. In a value–attitude–behavior model study [21], Jinhyun Jun found that customers’ health values and attitudes toward low-fat or low-calorie foods had an effect on their willingness to consume products from restaurants [22]; David Marshall used a mixture of correspondence analysis, cluster analysis, and discriminant analysis to investigate the interaction between British and Australian students in eating situations, places, and food choices [23]; Joo Ahn and others used the method of linear regression to analyze the impact of brand value on the customer satisfaction of fast food restaurants, and investigated how customer satisfaction further affects consumers’ willingness to spend—the results showed that food quality, brand image, brand awareness, and brand association were important factors affecting customer satisfaction, and there was a positive correlation between customer satisfaction and customers’ willingness to consume [24].
In the aspect of research on the relationship between public health emergency and willingness to consume products from restaurants, Arif Billah used the theory of planned behavior, and investigated the factors that affected consumers’ willingness to consume halal food during the epidemic in southern Thailand. The results showed that consumers’ habits and knowledge of halal food significantly influenced their behavior [25]. Maria studied the impact of the 2019 new coronavirus epidemic on the eating habits of Italian consumers, and the results showed that the impact of the epidemic on consumer behavior can be divided into changes in food buying, eating habits, and other behaviors [26]. 

3. Risk Attitude

Risk does not refer to the likelihood of loss in everyday life, but rather to uncertainty, including loss and gain, and risk attitudes refer to the degree of aversion or preference that people have for the outcome of such uncertainty. At present, there is no consensus on the precise definition of risk attitude. Weber, Blais, and Betz considered risk attitudes to be the attitudes and preferences of individuals when making economic decisions in uncertain future situations [27]. Schroeder, Tonsor, Pennings, and Mintert believe that risk attitude is the individual’s willingness to accept risk consistently in different situations: risk seekers tend to choose higher risk decisions, risk-neutral people will choose the average rate of return in different situations, and risk-averse people tend to minimize future risks in their decision-making [28]. Zhang and Wei defined risk attitudes as different risk choices made by different individuals for the same situation, which are influenced by individual preferences, social status, and economic conditions [29]. 
At present, there are many methods to measure risk attitude. Because the questionnaire survey method is simple and easy to operate, the cost of time and resources is low, and the requirements for the cognitive ability and understanding ability of the subjects are low. 
The influencing factors of risk attitude of scholars mainly include individual difference, external environment, and risk perception.
From the perspective of individual difference, the main influencing factors of risk attitude are age, education level, and income level. Zhou and colleagues found that, among risk-neutral individuals, the male samples were more than the female samples, while, in risk aversion and risk preference, the male samples were less than the female sample [30]. Arrow found that, the higher the individual’s income level, the stronger the risk-averse attitude. However, in a study by Friend and Blume, they found that, the higher the individual’s income level, the higher the proportion of risky assets in their total assets [31]. The influence of external environment on individual risk attitude is mainly reflected in scale reward, economic field, and risk-sharing. In terms of scale rewards, Binswanger found in a gambling experiment that, as the rewards increased, the participants became more risk-averse [32].
As far as the field of economic activity is concerned, Elke found a high correlation between the field of economic activity in which an individual participates and their risk attitude in the course of measuring the scale [27]. In terms of risk-sharing, Wang and Huang (2016) found that individuals are less risk-averse when sharing risk than when taking it alone, with this effect being particularly pronounced among vulnerable groups [33].
From the perspective of risk perception, Palich and Ray proposed that risk perception influences individual decision-making by influencing an individual’s risk attitude [34]. Lv found that risk preference has an indirect effect on an enterprise’s willingness to purchase insurance through a study on the impact of managers’ risk attitude and risk perception on their decision-making. This indirect effect is achieved through the mediating role of risk perception [35].

References

  1. Baucer, R.A. Consumer behavior as risk raking. In Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, Proceedings of the 43rd Conference of the American Marketing Association, 15–17 June 1960; Hancock, R.S., Ed.; Springer: Chicago, IL, USA, 1960.
  2. Hugstad, P.; Taylor, J.W.; Bruce, G.D. The effects of social class and perceived risk on consumer information search. J. Consum. Mark. 1987, 4, 41–46.
  3. Mccaffrey, S.M. Thinking of wildfire as a natural hazard. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2004, 17, 509–516.
  4. Wang, W. Risk Amplification, collective action and policy game: Research on the evolutionary path of violent protest of environmental group events. J. Public Adm. 2015, 1, 127–136.
  5. Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285.
  6. Roselius, T. Consumer raking of risk reduction methods. J. Mark. 1971, 2, 56–61.
  7. Jacoby, J.; Kaplan, L.B. The components of Perceived Risk. Assoc. Consum. Res. 1972, 3, 382–393.
  8. Xie, X.; Xu, L. An experimental study on risk cognition in general social context. Psychol. Sci. 1998, 21, 315–318.
  9. Zhou, Z. A Study on the Willingness to Purchase Earthquake Insurance; Southwestern University of Finance and Economics: Chengdu, China, 2014.
  10. Liu, W.; Hu, P. A study on the influence of entrepreneurial risk on entrepreneurial decision-making behavior—The media effect of risk perception and risk propensity. Sci. Sci. Technol. Manag. 2010, 31, 163–167.
  11. Kolanowski, W.; Karaman, A.D.; Yildiz Akgul, F.; Ługowska, K.; Trafialek, J. Food Safety When Eating Out—Perspectives of Young Adult Consumers in Poland and Turkey—A Pilot Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1884.
  12. De Andrade, M.L.; Rodrigues, R.R.; Antongiovanni, N.; Da Cunha, D.T. Knowledge and risk perceptions of foodborne disease by consumers and food handlers at restaurants with different food safety profiles. Food Res. 2019, 121, 845–853.
  13. Ajzen, F.I. Taking and Information Handing in Consumer Behavior. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA, 1975; pp. 176–210.
  14. Schiffman, L.G.; Kanuk, L.L.; Wisenbilt, J. Consumer Behavior, 10th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010.
  15. Bi, J. A Study on the Impact of Negative Online Word-of-Mouth on Consumer Behavior. Doctoral Thesis, Shandong University, Jinan, China, 2010.
  16. Spiggle, S.; Sewall, M.A. A Choice Sets Model of Retail Selection. J. Mark. 1987, 51, 97–111.
  17. Zhang, Y.; Zhu, H.; Liu, F. The relationship between tourism environment, consumption habit and participation willingness of low-carbon tourism—A case study of Wulingyuan Natural Heritage Site. Tourism 2013, 28, 56–64.
  18. Hosein, N.Z. Measuring purchase intention of visitors to the auto show. Manag. Mark. Res. 2012, 9, 1–17.
  19. Zhang, J.; Qin, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wang, K.; Yin, J. The impact of built environment on residents’Green Consumption Willingness —An empirical study from Zhengzhou. Geogr. Study 2021, 40, 2914–2929.
  20. Ting, C.-T.; Huang, Y.-S.; Lin, C.-T.; Pan, S.-C. Evaluation of Consumers’ WTP for Service Recovery in Restaurants: Waiting Time Perspective. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 63.
  21. Lalwani, A.K. Interpersonal Orientation of Spouses and Household Purchase Decisions: The Case of Restaurants. Serv. Ind. J. 2002, 22, 184–200.
  22. Jun, J.; Kang, J.; Arendt, S.W. The effects of health value on healthful food selection intention at restaurants: Considering the role of attitudes toward taste and healthfulness of healthful foods. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2014, 42, 85–91.
  23. Marshall, D.; Bell, R. Meal construction: Exploring the relationship between eating occasion and location. Food Qual. Prefer. 2003, 14, 53–64.
  24. Ahn, J.; Jun, K.; Kim, H.S. An Exploration of the Relationships among Brand Value, Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention in Fast Food Restaurant Visitors. Culin. Sci. Hosp. Res. 2015, 21, 14–24.
  25. Billah, A.; Ranman, M.A.; Hossain, M.T.B. Factors influencing Muslim and non-Muslim Muslim consumers’ consumption behavior: A case study on halal food. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2020, 23, 324–349.
  26. Fanelli, R.M. Changes in the Food-Related Behaviour of Italian Consumers during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Foods 2021, 10, 169.
  27. Weber, E.U.; Blais, A.-R.; Betz, N.E. A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2002, 15, 263–290.
  28. Schroeder, T.C.; Tonsor, G.T.; Pennings, J.M.E. Consumer food safety risk perceptions and attitudes: Impacts on beef consumption across countries. Contrib. Econ. Anal. Policy 2007, 7, 1848.
  29. Zhang, Y.; Wei, J. Risk attitude, risk perception and government trust—An analysis framework of government information supply mechanism under emergent situation based on prospect theory. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2011, 25, 53–59.
  30. Zhou, Y.; Zuo, C.; Yuan, X. A study of gender differences in preference: From the perspective of experimental economics. World Econ. 2013, 36, 3–27.
  31. Friend, I.; Blume, M.E. The demand for risky assets. Am. Econ. Rev. 1975, 65, 900–922.
  32. Binswanger, H.P. Risk Attitudes of Rural Households in Semi-Arid Tropical India. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 1978, 13, 49–62.
  33. Wang, H.; Huang, J. Study on risk and risk-sharing preference of farmers. Agric. Econ. 2016, 37, 86–94.
  34. Palich, L.E. Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom. J. Bus. Ventur. 1995, 10, 425–438.
  35. Lv, W. An empirical study on the influence of managerial risk preference and risk perception on technological insurance purchase intention. Chin. Soft Sci. 2014, 7, 128–138.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Social Issues
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Zhao Li
,
Wangbing Liang
,
Jingfeng Luo
,
zhao Li
View Times: 399
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 12 Jul 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback