商品的負面印象烙印與接受度相關性初探-以民眾對Q彈澱粉食品之態度為例

Abstract

本研究探討經過毒澱粉事件後，是否出現對Q彈澱粉食品烙印的現象，而烙印又是如何伴隨著信任度、劑量危害敏感度等因素共同影響接受度呢？本研究假設對產品的烙印是一種負面的心理情感狀態，是風險社會擴大後造成的結果，但烙印會進一步影響利益感知和風險感知，最後再影響民眾對於Q彈澱粉食品的接受度。過往研究中，對風險管理者的信任、食品相關知識、性別、年紀、收入等變項均與風險感知及接受度有顯著關聯，在本研究希望探討烙印是否為預測模型中影響接受度的最主要因素、也想探討劑量危害敏感度與風險管理者之信任是否會影響接受度，最後再提供相關建議。 本研究採問卷調查法進行資料收集，針對台灣16到45歲的民眾採取非隨機配額抽樣，用路徑分析探討變項間關聯。 在分析714個有效樣本後，發現： 1.受試者的負面烙印偏高、風險感知偏高、對風險管理者的信任度偏低、接受度與利益感知呈現中等沒意見的態度； 2.負面形象烙印程度是影響接受度最主要的因素，與接受度有顯著負相關，負面形象烙印也和風險感知呈現顯著正相關； 3.利益感知是影響接受度第二重要的因素，並與對廠商的信任有顯著關聯； 4.劑量危害敏感度會透過風險感知與風險感知對接受度產生顯著影響； 5.信任度需透過風險感知與利益感知才對接受度產生效果，其中對廠商的信任又比對政府信任更重要。 6.背景變項會影響研究變項，但在偏相關研究中，控制了年紀、月收入、最高學歷後，研究變項之間的關聯依舊顯著。並發現年紀與劑量反應敏感度呈現負相關、年紀和月收入與信任呈現負相關，最高學歷和烙印與劑量危害敏感度有顯著關聯。 研究結論，證實烙印和接受度有顯著關聯，並且劑量危害敏感度也是一個重要的影響變項。政府應該推廣劑量危害的相關概念，可以讓民眾更準確地判斷風險大小，避免過度恐慌。在食安事件之後，若媒體與政府可以避免引發負面的情緒、提升產品之利益感知、政府和餐飲業者展現自己對風險控管的能力進而提高民眾對他們的信任度，或是從影響消費者行為之因素介入，還是有機會讓消費者願意接受這類食品。 本研究限制是問卷透過網路和紙本同步發放，而問卷發放期間台灣剛好發生食品安全事件，可能無法排除其他食安事件可能的潛在影響，需要未來不同時間點的研究來證實變項間關係穩健性。

In 2013, the maleic anhydride (MA) was illegally added into starch to prepare chewy Taiwanese traditional foods. MA may cause adverse effects to kidney of rodents but the effect on human is uncertain. After a series of reports on the MA adulteration appeared on TV and newspapers, the consumers were of great concerns of potential health effects and dissatisfaction toward to governments, and led to dramatic drop in sales of the traditional foods in Taiwan. This study aimed to investigate whether the stigma existed after the MA-tainted starch incident and how stigma affected the acceptance of chewy food with path analysis. Methods and material：In this study, I adopted the questionnaire to collect data associated with the attitudes of study subjects aged from 16 to 45 in Taiwan. I defined stigma as the negative psychological status which was production of social amplification of food risk. In addition, I assumed the stigma would affect the acceptance both directly and indirectly, and risk/ benefit perception would served important mediators between trust in government, trust in food industries, dose-response sensitivity and acceptance of current chewy food. I used several scales from previous studies, namely: the stigma scale revised from Kasperson et al.(2001) and Peters et al.(2004), the risk perception scale from Kirk et al.(2002), the benefit perception scale from Saba and Messina (2003), dose-response sensitivity scales combined Kraus et al.(1994) with Slovic et al.(1995), trust scale from Siegrist et al.(2012), and I also developed the acceptance scale by integrating the consumption intention, behavior and acceptability attitude of chewy starch food. I validated the questionnaire by Cronbach’s alpha, test-retest reliability and factor analysis by SPSS in pretest stage. In this study, 714 subjects were recruited by path analysis using Lisrel to figure out the association in the proposed model. Results：(1) The respondents shown higher level of food stigma, higher perceived risk, lower trust toward risk managers. (2) The stigma had both direct and indirect effect to the chewy food acceptance, and stigma was the most important variable in the model. (3) The benefit perception was the second influential factor to predict the acceptance. (4) Dose-response sensitivity had significant effect on the perceptions and affected acceptance indirectly. (5) Trusts were important in the model but not directly affect the acceptance, and trust in industries was more important than trust toward government. (6) Among the background variables, age has negative relationship with dose-response sensitivity and food acceptance; income and age were significant negative associated with the trust in risk managers; expertise made the stigma level and dose-response seneitivity different. Conclusion：Stigma did appear in Taiwan and had a significant positive correlation to risk perception, negative correlation to benefit perception, and posed a negative effect on chewy food acceptance. Stigma had direct effect to acceptace and would affect risk perception with other variables like the dose-response sensitivity, trust in government and affect acceptance indirectly. Benefit perception was one strong determent which would be affected by the trust in industry. For further application, to emphasize the benefit aspect of foods, to increase the trust toward risk managers, and not to create negative affects may increase the acceptance of foods after food safety incident. Limit：This study cannot exclude the potential effect of the incident of gutter oil and other food incidents. It may need more studies to confirm the model by controlling the time effect.