Xiujuan Chen
Ke Qin
Linhai Wu- 1School of Business, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China
- 2Institute for Food Safety Risk Management, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China
Objective: Given that positive psychological capital motivates citizens to actively participate in social affairs, this study aims to provide insight into food safety risk management in China by empirically determining which individual characteristics are associated with positive psychological capital for actively participating in social co-governance.
Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was undertaken between December 5 and 10, 2020. The study participants were residents of Wuxi in China over the age of 18 years. A validated and pretested questionnaires was used to elicit responses with the participants. Student's t-test and one-way analysis of variance were performed to determine which individual characteristics are significantly correlated with the psychological capital of citizens who participate in co-governance. Post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed for each individual characteristic with a significant correlation to determine which categories of these characteristics yielded the significant differences. Study data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0.
Results: A total of 752 completed responses were received. Most respondents were females (52.39%), aged 26–45 (66.09%), married (70.48%), company employees (44.28%), and in good health (89.76%). Most had a household size of 3 (55.98%), a bachelor's degree (40.96%), a personal annual income of more than 100,000 yuan (26.46%), and no children aged under 18 (50.27%) or pregnant women (93.22%) in their households. Data analysis indicated that education, income, and health status significantly associate with the psychological capital of citizens to participate in co-governance. Citizens with high education, high income, and good health status have higher psychological capital to participate in co-governance.
Conclusion: The present study suggested citizens are likely to actively participate in food safety social co-governance only when they have at least one of the following three characteristics: (1) higher than average income in their city of residence; (2) a bachelor's degree or higher education; or (3) good health. Therefore, motivating citizens to participate in co-governance is a long-term process in China. The fundamental strategy is to increase the income of citizens, especially among low-income groups, promote education to improve the food safety literacy of the public, and improve sanitation and public health.
Introduction
Food safety is a major global public issue (1). Numerous studies have shown that it is difficult to avoid government or market failure, either alone or combined, by relying solely on the government or market, or on both government and market together to manage food safety risks. The traditional governance model has been unable to effectively meet the consumption needs of the society (2, 3). Ensuring food safety is the common responsibility of all stakeholders (4). In fact, the phenomenon of social co-governance first emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and since developed as a new governance model in Western countries. It has now become the most basic model for managing food safety risks in Western countries (5, 6). Although China has different national conditions from Western countries, the Chinese government has begun to reform the country's governance model over the last two decades, especially since 2012 (7), and the revised Food Safety Law has established social co-governance as the basic principle for managing food safety risks. At present, the academic community generally agrees that food safety social co-governance means that stakeholders, including the government, enterprises (market), social organizations, and citizens, jointly formulate or participate in the formulation of laws, regulations, and rules, coordinate and cooperate with each other, and fulfill their respective responsibilities in accordance with the law to jointly ensure food safety with low governance costs in an open, transparent, and flexible manner (8–10).
In a general sense, a citizen is a person who has citizenship and thus has certain rights as well as obligations in accordance with the laws of that country. According to Baidu Encyclopedia, it represents the concept of an individual, whereas the public is a collection of individual citizens and also includes legal persons and other organizations. Richard (11) argued that citizens are the best judges of their own behavior. Citizens capable of independent behavior are not simply food consumers. They should not only bear the responsibility of self-protection (12), but can also act as the best regulators of food safety. Following the inclusion of food safety in China's national security system in 2011, the food safety co-governance system has been gradually improved, and a consensus has gradually emerged regarding the role of social co-governance; the concept of “citizen,” with its connotation of responsibilities as well as rights, reflects the internal logic of this modernization of China's national governance system and governance capabilities. As such, they are an important force in social co-governance, playing an irreplaceable role (11, 13). For example, citizens can provide tip-offs to the media and regulatory agencies, report complaints and violations, and use the media to urge the government to strengthen food safety regulation. In this way, they play a unique role in improving food safety and become an important force in social co-governance (14, 15).
Studies in Western countries have shown that individual psychological capital (PsyCap) can ignite positive emotions in citizens and motivate them to actively participate in public affairs (10, 16), thus constituting the micro-psychological foundation of food safety social co-governance (10). Unlike Western countries, food safety incidents still occur frequently in China at its current stage of development, and food safety remains one of the top concerns among Chinese citizens (17). However, at present, most Chinese citizens merely play the role of passive consumer (18), and do not actively participate in co-governance (19). Starting from the practice in Western countries and the concept of PsyCap, how can the positive emotions of Chinese citizens to participate in co-governance be ignited and their PsyCap be improved? What are the individual characteristics of citizens who have high PsyCap and will actively participate in social co-governance? These questions have not been adequately answered in the literature. To this end, this study aims to offer an exploratory introduction of the concept PsyCap and its four dimensions, establish an analytical framework for the relationship between the characteristics and PsyCap of citizens who participate in co-governance, and examine the differences in the PsyCap of citizens with different individual characteristics based on a micro-level survey. The results of this study may provide a scientific basis for understanding how to motivate citizens to actively participate in social co-governance, and thus promote the construction of a new mechanism for food safety social co-governance in China.
Literature Review: Meaning of PsyCap and Relationship Between PsyCap and Citizen Characteristics
The concept of PsyCap first appeared in the economics and sociology literature. However, it was long believed that PsyCap was difficult to measure due to its instability, variability, and tendency to undergo dynamic changes (20). Only after Goldsmith et al. (21) found a correlation between an individual's PsyCap and income did PsyCap begin to be measurable, developable, and manageable. However, Goldsmith et al. (21) did not clearly define the concept of PsyCap. To address the situation whereby the field of psychology paid too much attention to human weakness and negative psychology, Seligman (22) proposed the concept of positive psychology, trying to direct psychology research to harness the power of progress and social virtues. This groundbreaking idea triggered intense research on PsyCap and its relationship with positive behavior. Avolio et al. (23) believed that PsyCap is a positive psychological state that affects individual emotions and improves their behavior. Luthans et al. (24) further proposed the concept of positive PsyCap (referred to simply as PsyCapfor short hereafter) based on the inclusion criteria of positive organizational behavior (i.e., being positive, measurable, open to development, and performance-influencing, and having a theoretical rationale) and defined it as a positive psychological state shown by an individual in the process of growth and development. It is the core psychological element that transcends human and social capital, and is a psychological resource that promotes personal growth.
Although the concept of PsyCap has not yet been adequately studied, it can be understood from the following three perspectives based on existing research. The first perspective is trait theory, which suggests that PsyCap is an inherent trait of individuals. Hosen et al. (25) believed that PsyCap is a basic psychological quality that is durable, relatively stable, and acquired through long-term investment, such as learning. Casey and Grzywacz (26) equated PsyCap with personality, which is a result of both nature and nurture. The second perspective is state theory, which posits that PsyCap is a positive psychological state that affects individual behavior, and is a complex culmination of various individual psychological factors (27). Goldsmith (21) pointed out that PsyCap includes self-perception, attitudes toward work, ethical orientation, and general outlook on life. Tettegah (28) understood PsyCap as a complex phenomenon formed by the interaction of self-perception, attitudes toward work, ethical orientation, beliefs about life, values, and consciousness;PsyCap is seen as having the ability to change behavior by influencing an individual's psychological state. The third perspective is the synthesis theory, which suggests that PsyCap is a state-like resource and a psychological quality with characteristics of both trait and state that can be effectively developed in a specific manner. At present, synthesis theory has predominated in terms of understanding PsyCap (29).
Since the start of the twenty-first century, the study of PsyCap has been extended to the field of human resource management. Ke et al. (30) found that male employees generally had higher PsyCap than female employees, and that age and PsyCap were generally positively correlated. Fang (31) pointed out that adolescents' PsyCap increased with age. Sui et al. (32) found that individual characteristics, such as education and years of working, were correlated with PsyCap and job performance. Babalola (33) suggested that individuals with higher education were more likely to have higher levels of self-confidence and optimism. Cole et al. (34) found that individuals with higher economic income and social status had higher PsyCap. Ke et al. (35) reported that age, gender, education, and years of working all had a significant impact on the PsyCap of Chinese employees.
However, other studies have found no significant correlation between individual characteristics and PsyCap. For example, Avey (36) used 1,264 engineers from American Airlines and 524 technicians from China Telecom as comparative samples. Among the US employees, although age was shown to be correlated with PsyCap, no distinct differences in PsyCap caused by age, gender, or employment duration were observed. Among the Chinese employees, age, gender, or employment duration did not significantly affect PsyCap. Similarly, Luthans et al. (37) found no significant correlation of PsyCap with gender, age, or education. Likewise, Mathe-Soulek et al. (38) found no significant correlation between individual characteristics, such as gender and age, and PsyCap in a study of employee performance in the restaurant industry.
The above literature review discussed the nature of PsyCap in terms of trait, state, and synthesis. However, PsyCap has a very rich meaning. In terms of meaning, it is agreed that PsyCap is both a state and a trait. It is neither purely a state, like emotions, i.e., something transient, variable, and unstable, nor purely a trait, like personality and physical characteristics, which are difficult to change. Instead, it is state-like and can be developed through interventions (9–40). Moreover, the literature on PsyCap in the field of human resource management shows the existence of many relationships between PsyCap and individual characteristics of citizens; these relationships are not fixed, but vary with the public affairs and external scenarios involved. However, no answer has been provided to the question of how to measure the relationship between individual characteristics and PsyCap of citizens who participate in food safety social co-governance. Therefore, it may be worth exploring the topic to establish a framework for analyzing the relationship between characteristics and PsyCap of citizens who participate in co-governance based on their PsyCap composition.
A Framework for Analyzing the Relationship Between Characteristics and PsyCap of Citizens Participating in Co-governance
Luthans et al. (41) suggested that self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, and hope are the four most basic core elements that constitute measurable state-like PsyCap and significantly affect individual attitudes and behaviors. These factors may provide insight into developing a framework for analyzing the relationship between characteristics and PsyCap of citizens who participate in co-governance.
Stajkovic et al. (42) defined self-efficacy as “an individual's convictions (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context.” According to Parker and Sharon (43), self-efficacy refers to an individual's confidence about their abilities to face challenges, do their job, and strive to succeed. In terms of food safety, as the main topic of the present study, a survey by Ovca et al. (44) showed that most students in Sloveniawere confident in handling food safely. Haapala and Probart (45) suggested that middle school students in central Pennsylvania had high self-efficacy in food handling and food safety issues. Moreover, females had significantly higher self-efficacy than males, and this gap increased with age. Similarly, Richards and Beavers (46) found that adolescents in six southeastern US states were confident in their ability to influence food safety and exhibited strong self-efficacy. Schafer et al. (47) investigated the impact of different individual characteristics, including age, gender, marriage status, household size, employment status, education, and income, on food safety attitudes and behaviors by using them as independent variables. They found that individuals who were female, elderly, or had a large household size had higher self-efficacy and were more likely to actively participate in food safety risk management. Cater et al. (48) suggested pregnant women were highly confident in knowing how to keep foods safe for consumption based on a random survey of 222 pregnant women from Louisiana and surrounding areas in the United States. Gase et al. (49) found that increasing the availability of healthy food helped to increase people's self-efficacy regarding their ability to eat healthy.
Resilience is the ability of individuals, families, or groups to quickly recover from adversity, setbacks, and failures and actively change their mentality (50). Bestor (51) and Rosenberger (52) suggested that due to doubts about imported food, many citizens in Japanoften turn to domestic products as a safer and more reliable substitute for imported food. Khanna et al. (53) and Lutz et al. (54) found that better diet quality, which means higher intake of vegetables and fruits, was associated with higher resilience. Whatnall et al. (55) found that a healthy diet helped improve psychological health and resilience in a survey of Australian college students. That study further found that college students with an unhealthy diet had poorer psychological health than the average person. Ren (56) pointed out that individuals with higher education and income levels were more sensitive to food safety, more cautious about food safety incidents, and able to manage their panic. Wang et al. (57) found a slower recovery of consumer confidence among citizens with higher income. They suggested this may be because the consumer confidence of high-income households is more severely affected by food safety incidents and more difficult to restore due to their original higher trust in food safety. Ren and Han (58) suggested that resilience is related to occupation and that food safety incidents do not significantly change the consumption of that category of food by individuals in food-related occupations. Likewise, Li et al. (59) reported that after the 2008 melamine-tainted milk powder crisis in China, Chinese citizens with more children or lower incomes had higher resilience than those with fewer children or higher incomes and were more confident in domestic infant milk powder.
Optimism is a positive attitude toward current and future success expectations (60). Optimistic individuals have less anxiety and are more inclined to express happy emotions; positive expectations for the future indicate their inner confidence and are the source of optimism (61). Jonge et al. (62) defined individual confidence in food safety as a psychological attitude that food safety is generally controllable and will not harm their health. A series of food safety incidents in China, such as the Shineway clenbuterol crisis, the cadmium-contaminated rice incident in Hunan province, and the Shanghai Fuxi food incident, have affected the confidence of Chinese citizens in future food safety (63). Ren et al. (64) surveyed Chinese consumers of different classes and found that individuals with an older age, higher education, or higher income had a higher food safety knowledge and lower confidence in food safety in China. According to Wang and Gu (65), more than 70% of Chinese citizens believed that Western developed countries had a higher level of food safety. A survey by Cheng et al. (66) found that middle school students in Beijing were pessimistic about food safety in China. Jonge et al. (62) reported that individuals with higher education were more optimistic about food safety, but the elderly were more pessimistic. Jonge et al. (67) also found a significant positive correlation between education and optimism about food safety among Canadian and Dutch consumers.
Hope provides individuals with lasting beliefs, positive expectations, and motivation for sustained efforts to achieve their goals (68). Liu et al. (69) reported that highly-educated female citizens aged 35–54 years expressed the strongest desire for the right to know about genetically modified foods. Zhang and Zhang (70) argued that gender, age, education, income, and household size are important factors that affect individual expectations for future food safety. Nan et al. (71) found that citizens with poor health were more sensitive to food safety risks due to concerns about their own health. Ye (72) suggested that individuals with higher education and income paid more attention to health, were more willing to search for food safety information and learn how to identify safe food, and were more aware of protecting their own rights when experiencing food safety issues. Sternsdorff-Cisterna (73) found that after the end of nuclear radiation crisis in Japan, Japanese women with children were skeptical of the government's commitment to food safety and were more willing to participate in food safety risk management.
To date, few studies have directly investigated the relationship between individual characteristics and PsyCap of citizens willing to participate in co-governance. However, research in other related fields provides a useful reference for thinking about this unexplored issue. Caprara et al. (74) found that the self-efficacy of Italian voters in political participation varied with gender, age, education, and income, and that voters participated actively only when they thought they were capable of handling political affairs. Zani and Barrett (75) reached a similar conclusion, and pointed out that the enthusiasm of citizens for political participation was not only affected by individual psychological factors, but also by the macro-environment. Crocetti et al. (76) found that US youths had higher political self-efficacy and higher levels of involvement in political activities than Italian youths. Zhao et al. (77) included gender, age, marital status, and education as control variables, and found that the PsyCap of college teachers to participate in public affairs was significantly related to age and education. Wang and Jiang (78) reported that female farmers were more willing to participate in the joint management of agricultural product safety risks than male farmers. Xu et al. (79) suggested that the PsyCap of migrant workers was significantly influenced by years of education, health status, and income. Jang (80) found that government employees aged over 40 years had higher PsyCap to participate in public affairs than younger ones. Therefore, there may be a correlation between occupation and the PsyCap to participate in social governance.
Citizens can be considered the basic unit in food safety risk management. In general, citizens have different consumption attitudes and food safety perceptions due to differences in individual characteristics such as gender, age, income, education, and household size (81, 82). Nayga (83) investigated the relationship between individual characteristics and attention to food safety and found that housewives with low education and income were more likely to perceive food safety risks. Baker (84) suggested that women and individuals with children in the household were most likely to avoid food safety risks. Flynn et al. (85) believed that gender was an important factor affecting individual perception of food safety risks. Both Dosman et al. (86) and Finke and Kim (87) confirmed the finding of Flynn et al. (85), and suggested that females were more concerned about food safety than males. Sternsdorff-Cisterna (73) reported that nearly 20% more Japanese females than males thought that nuclear radiation would cause serious harm to food safety, and thus argued that females were more willing to participate in food safety co-governance.
Dosman et al. (86) suggested that age is also a factor affecting food safety attitudes, and that the elderly are more worried about the health threats of pesticide residues in food. Roe et al. (88) pointed out that households with low income and education showed higher risk aversion and paid more attention to food safety. Wu et al. (89) believed that public perception of food safety risks is significantly related to individual characteristics such as age, gender, education, and income. According to Luthans (90), individual characteristics influence the PsyCap of citizens by acting on self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, and hope. Therefore, it can be argued that the differences in the perception and attitudes of citizens with different individual characteristics regarding food safety issues are attributable to differences in individual PsyCap. However, there are few studies that systematically examine the relationship among individual characteristics, PsyCap, and attitudes toward participation in food safety social co-governance.
In summary, numerous pioneering studies have been conducted on individual characteristics that associate with PsyCap. However, most of these studies only investigated the correlation between one or several individual characteristics and PsyCap. Studies have rarely incorporated age, income, education, marriage, occupation, gender, health status, and household size into a system to construct a collection of characteristics and comprehensively examine the correlation among several individual, family, and social characteristics in the collection and PsyCap. Furthermore, no studies have presented a complete framework for analyzing the relationship between characteristics and PsyCap of citizens. Therefore, drawing on existing literature, this study develops a 16-item scale to measure the PsyCap of citizens who participate in food safety social co-governance based on the four dimensions that are generally believed to constitute PsyCap, namely self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, and hope (90). Moreover, the scale is revised based on a pre-survey and tested for reliability and validity. On this basis, the effects of citizen characteristics on the four dimensions are analyzed using Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and post-hoc multiple comparisons to examine the relationship between the characteristics and PsyCap of citizens who participate in food safety social co-governance. Based on the meaning and four-dimensional composition of PsyCap, this study develops the original analytical framework as shown in Figure 1 to thoroughly examine the relationship between the characteristics and PsyCap of citizens who participate in food safety social co-governance. This framework clearly describes the process used in this study to explore ways to improve the psychological level of citizens to increase active participation in social co-governance.
Figure 1. Framework for analyzing the relationship between characteristics and PsyCap of citizens who participate in social co-governance.
Survey Design, Research Methods, and Sample Statistics and Tests
Sample Selection
In 2020, Wuxi in Jiangsu Province had the highest per capita GDP among all cities in China. Given the area's relatively balanced economic and social development, citizens in Wuxi show relatively high satisfaction with food safety, which provides a good foundation for this research. Primary data were collected from a field questionnaire survey in the five administrative districts (Liangxi, Xishan, Huishan, Binhu, and Xinwu) in Wuxi. The sample size in each district was proportional to the respective resident population. The survey was carried out among citizens aged over 18 years (herein after referred to as respondents) in farmers' markets and chain supermarkets with a large flow of customers. Investigators were instructed to select the third person coming into view as a respondent to ensure the randomness of sampling as much as possible (91). The questionnaires were completed anonymously by respondents at the survey sites and collected once completed. The entire survey process was completed in the period December 5–10, 2020. In total, 752 valid samples were obtained.
Questionnaire Design
A questionnaire survey provides authenticity and validity for assessing the psychological characteristics, attitudes, and behaviors of respondents (92, 93). Various classification methods have been proposed for the structure of PsyCap, mainly including two- (94), three- (21, 95), four- (96), and multi-dimensional structures (97). Among them, the four-dimensional classification method of Luthans et al. (24) has been widely accepted. According to Luthans et al. (24), psychological capital is composed of four dimensions, i.e., self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, and hope. Moreover, Luthans et al. (96) developed a questionnaire consisting of 24 items to measure PsyCap based on these four dimensions, which has been widely used in human resource management. Therefore, this study develops a scale for measuring the PsyCap of citizens who participate in food safety social co-governance, which includes four dimensional subscales in Table 1, drawing on the research of Luthans et al. (96) based on the analytical framework shown in Figure 1. Each subscale is composed of four items.
Table 1. Scale for PsyCap of citizens in food safety social co-governance.
A 5-point Likert scale was used where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The higher the score, the higher the PsyCap, except for Item 3, which has reverse scoring. The characteristic variables and their values are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Independent variables.
Analysis Methods
Data were processed using SPSS 24.0 software. Mean difference was used to analyze the association between different individual characteristics and the PsyCap of citizens who participate in food safety social co-governance. Student's t-test was used for dichotomous categorical variables and ANOVA for multichotomous variables. A significant F-value from ANOVA indicates that there are significant differences in the means of the dependent variable between at least two categories of the independent variable. In this case, post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed to determine which categories yielded the significant differences (98). Post-hoc multiple comparisons are used to compare the means of three or more categories to further determine the differences between each two categories (99). Post-hoc comparisons were performed via the least significant difference (LSD) test when the homogeneity of variance assumption was met. Otherwise, Tamhane's T2-test was employed.
Demographics of Respondents
Respondent demographics are presented in Table 3. In terms of gender composition, there were more females than males, which is consistent with the fact that in China, most household food purchasers are female. Most respondents were aged 26–45 (66.09%), married (70.48%), company employees (44.28%), and in good health (89.76%). In addition, most had a household size of 3 (55.98%), a bachelor's degree (40.96%), and a personal annual income of more than 100,000 yuan (26.46%). Finally, most had no children aged under 18 (50.27%) or pregnant woman (93.22%) in their households. It should be noted that the demographics of the sample do not perfectly match the overall demographics of Wuxi due to the higher number of females surveyed than males. However, this does not compromise the representativeness of the survey sample because household food is mostly purchased by one or some family members, who are generally female. Given the sampling method used, i.e., surveying carried out at the point of purchase of food, this sample distribution therefore reflects food purchase behavior in the study area. In fact, the demographics of the study's sample are consistent with those of Wu et al. (100) and Wu et al. (101), which are previous studies conducted in the same survey area as this study. However, readers should assess the results of this study based on consideration of data representativeness.
Table 3. Demographics of respondents.
Sample Tests
Reliability Test
Scale reliability indicates the consistency of results from repeated measurements obtained by the same evaluators in similar situations. The higher the consistency, the higher the reliability. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the reliability of the scale developed in this study. In general, a Cronbach's alpha of >0.8, >0.7, and >0.6 represents very good, good, and acceptable reliability, respectively. However, if the value is below 0.6, the scale needs to be revised (102). As shown in Table 4, the Cronbach's alpha values of the PsyCap scale developed in this study, and its subscales for each dimension, i.e., self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, and hope, are 0.750, 0.631, 0.677, 0.653, and 0.701, respectively, all of which are higher than 0.6. Thus, the scale can be considered reliable.
Table 4. Reliability of the PsyCap scale.
Validity Test
The four PsyCap dimensions of self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, and hope involve many variables, which are correlated among themselves. These interrelationships not only increase the complexity of analysis, but also result in an overlap in the information reflected by the observation data. Therefore, factor analysis was used to extract common factors from the many variables (103). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of sampling adequacy and Bartlett test of sphericity were used to determine whether the PsyCap scale developed in this study satisfies the requirements of factor analysis. According to Kaiser and Rice (104), if a KMO value >0.8, between 0.7 and 0.8, or between 0.6 and 0.7 is obtained, it would be very suitable, suitable, and barely suitable to conduct factor analysis. If the KMO value is below 0.6, it is not suitable to conduct factor analysis. As shown in Table 5, the KMO value of the PsyCap scale was 0.780, indicating that there are many common factors among variables and it would be suitable to conduct factor analysis. The significance (p) of Bartlett test of sphericity is <0.001, indicating that the variables are correlated, which also justifies the use of factor analysis.
Table 5. KMO test and Bartlett test of sphericity of the PsyCap Scale.
The structural validity of a questionnaire indicates the degree of correspondence between a certain structure reflected in the measurement results and the measured values. Factor analysis is an ideal method to assess the structural validity of questionnaires (105). According to Comrey and Lee (106), a questionnaire must meet all three following criteria to have acceptable structural validity: (a) the factor loadings of each item in its own factor should be at least 0.450, (b) those in other factors should be <0.320, and (c) there are at least three items for each factor. Because the PsyCap scale has four dimensions, principal component analysis with four factors and varimax rotation was performed. As can be seen from Table 6, the four common factors explain 51.674% of the variance, the four factors with 16 items have acceptable structural validity, and each item can represent the corresponding factor.
Table 6. Rotated factor loading matrix.
Results
Empirical Results for the Values of PsyCap and Its Four Dimensions
The PsyCapvalues of citizens who participate in co-governance and its four dimensions were calculated based on the 16 items measuring the four dimensions of PsyCap given in Table 1. As shown in Table 7, the mean values of the four dimensions are in a favorable range. Accordingly, following Luthans et al. (96), it can be concluded that the respondents had relatively high levels of self-efficacy, resilience, optimism, and hope, and thus high overall PsyCap.
Table 7. Empirical results for PsyCap and its four dimensions.
Empirical Results on the Correlation Between the Characteristics and PsyCap of Citizens
The one-way ANOVA results for PsyCap are shown in Table 8, Supplementary Table 1. Significant F-values were observed for education (F = 2.942, p = 0.020), annual income (F = 3.452, p = 0.008), and health status (F = 4.848, p = 0.008). Moreover, the homogeneity of variance assumption was met for annual income (p < 0.05), but not for education or health status (p > 0.05). Therefore, the Tamhane's T2 test was performed for annual income and the LSD test for education and health status for post-hoc multiple comparisons. As shown in Table 9, citizens with high school, bachelor's degree, master's degree, or higher education had significantly higher PsyCap to participate in food safety co-governance than those with junior high school or lower education. Citizens with an annual income of 50,000–80,000 yuan or more than 100,000 yuan had significantly higher PsyCap than those with an annual income of 36,000 yuan or less. Citizens in good health had significantly higher PsyCap than those in fair health. Further analysis can be performed using the four dimensions of PsyCap.
Table 8. Results for one-way analysis of variance about individual characteristics of citizens who will actively participate in food safety social co-governance.
Table 9. Post-hoc multiple comparisons.
Citizen Characteristics and Self-Efficacy
As shown in Supplementary Table 1, results of the Student's t-test indicated significantly higher self-efficacy (t = −2.386, p = 0.017) for females than for males, indicating that females had higher self-efficacy for participating in co-governance. A significant F-value was obtained for annual income (F = 5.287, p = 0.000) in the one-way ANOVA for self-efficacy. However, as shown in Table 2, annual income includes five different levels and met the homogeneity of variance assumption (p < 0.05). Therefore, the Tamhane's T2 test was performed for post-hoc multiple comparisons to determine the association between different levels of annual income and self-efficacy. As shown in Table 9, significantly higher self-efficacy was observed in citizens with an annual income of 50,000–80,000 yuan than in those with an income of 36,000–50,000 yuan, and also in those with an income of 50,000–100,000 yuan than in those with an income of 36,000 yuan or less. A significant F-value was also obtained for health status (F = 3.140, p = 0.044). Health status includes three different levels and did not meet the homogeneity of variance assumption (p = 0.170). Therefore, the LSD test was performed for post-hoc multiple comparisons. As shown in Table 8, citizens in good health had significantly higher self-efficacy than those in fair health.
Citizen Characteristics and Resilience
As shown in Table 8, a significant F-value was obtained for health status (F = 6.623, p = 0.001) in the one-way ANOVA for resilience. However, the homogeneity of variance assumption was not met (p = 0.510). Therefore, the LSD test was performed for post-hoc multiple comparisons. As shown in Table 9, citizens in good health had significantly higher resilience than those in fair health.
Citizen Characteristics and Optimism
As shown in Table 8, a significant F-value was obtained for education (F = 5.240, p = 0.000) in the one-way ANOVA for optimism. However, optimism includes five different levels and did not meet the homogeneity of variance assumption (p = 0.685). Therefore, the LSD test was performed for post-hoc multiple comparisons. As shown in Table 9, significantly higher optimism was observed in citizens with bachelor's degree than in those with lower educational attainment, and also in those with master's degree or higher than in those with junior high school or lower education.
Citizen Characteristics and Hope
As shown in Table 8, significant F-value were obtained for education (F = 5.240, p = 0.000) and annual income (F = 4.197, p = 0.002) in the one-way ANOVA for hope. Moreover, the homogeneity of variance assumption was met for both variables (p > 0.05). Therefore, the Tamhane's T2 test was performed for post-hoc multiple comparisons for both variables. As shown in Table 9, significantly higher hope was observed in citizens with high school, junior college, or a bachelor's degree than in those with junior high school or lower education, and also in those with an annual income of more than 100,000 yuan than in those with an annual income of 50,000 yuan or less.
Conclusions and Prospects
Conclusions
This paper has introduced the concept of analyzing PsyCap and its four dimensions and developed a framework for analyzing the relationship between characteristics and PsyCap of citizens willing to participate in food safety social co-governance. Moreover, the 10 most important individual characteristics associating with this behavior, including gender, age, marriage, household size, education, annual income, having children aged under 18 in the household or not, having a pregnant woman in the household or not, health status, and occupation, were identified. On this basis, the PsyCap of citizens with different individual characteristics willing to participate in co-governance was empirically examined based on a survey using Student's t-test, one-way ANOVA, and post-hoc multiple comparisons. The empirical results show that age, marriage, household size, having children aged under 18 in the household or not, having a pregnant woman in the household or not, and occupation had no significant correlation with any of the four dimensions of PsyCap. Therefore, these individual characteristics are ineffective in influencing the PsyCap of citizens to encourage them to participate in co-governance. The other four individual characteristics, including annual income, education, health status, and gender, are not significantly correlated with all dimensions of PsyCap, and have different associations with PsyCap. The main conclusions are summarized below.
First, gender is only significantly correlated with self-efficacy for participating in co-governance. Specifically, females have higher self-efficacy for participating in food safety co-governance. This is consistent with the findings of Schafer et al. (47) and Haapala and Probart (45). However, gender does not significantly associate with the PsyCap of citizens to encourage participation in co-governance.
Second, annual income is significantly correlated with self-efficacy and hope for participating in co-governance, but it does not significantly associate with resilience or optimism. In this study, significantly higher self-efficacy was observed in citizens with an annual income of 50,000–80,000 yuan than in those with 36,000–50,000 yuan, and also in those with an income of 50,000–100,000 yuan than in those with an income of 36,000 yuan or less. This is similar to the findings of Caprara et al. (74) and Zani and Barrett (75). Significantly higher hope was observed in citizens with an annual income higher than 100,000 yuan than in those with an income of 50,000 yuan or less. This is similar to the findings of Ye (72). Annual income associates with PsyCap through self-efficacy and hope. Moreover, citizens with an annual income of 50,000–80,000 yuan and more than 100,000 yuan had higher PsyCap to participate in co-governance than those with an income of 36,000 yuan or less. This is similar to the conclusions of Cole et al. (34) and Xu et al. (79).
Third, education is significantly correlated with optimism and hope for participating in co-governance, but it does not significantly associate with self-efficacy or resilience. In this study, significantly higher optimism was observed in citizens with a bachelor's degree than in those with lower educational attainment, and also in those with a master's degree or higher than in those with junior high school or lower education. This is similar to the conclusion of Jonge et al. (67). Significantly higher hope was observed in citizens with high school, junior college, or a bachelor's degree than in those with junior high school or lower education. This is similar to the findings of Liu et al. (69) and Babalola (33). Moreover, citizens with high school, bachelor's degree, and master's degree or higher education had significantly higher PsyCap than those with junior high school or lower education. This is similar to the conclusion of Xu et al. (79).
Lastly, health status is significantly correlated with self-efficacy and resilience for participating in co-governance, but it does not significantly associate with optimism or hope. In this study, citizens in good health had significantly higher self-efficacy and resilience than those in fair health. This is similar to the findings of Gase et al. (49) and Lutz et al. (54). Moreover, citizens in good health had higher PsyCap to participate in co-governance than those in fair health. This is similar to the findings of Xu et al. (79).
Previous studies have confirmed that many individual, family, and social characteristics associate with one or more dimensions of citizens' PsyCap as well as overall PsyCap. However, based on a survey in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, this study reveals that citizens are likely to actively participate in food safety social co-governance only when they have at least one of three characteristics: (a) higher than average income in their city of residence; (b) a bachelor's degree or higher education; or (c) good health. Therefore, motivating citizens to participate in co-governance is a long-term process in China. The fundamental strategy is to (1) develop the economy and increase citizens' incomes, especially low-income groups (for example, increasing the minimum subsistence allowance for low-income groups and especially increasing central and provincial fiscal transfer payments to relatively poor rural areasto increase incomes in these areas); (2) promote education, especially higher education, to improve food safety literacy of the public (for example, by improving compulsory education in relatively poor rural areas and providing as many affordable and practical education and training opportunities as possible to low-income workers); and (3) implement more progressive health policies to improve sanitation and public health. In the short term, it may be effective to strive to increase the income of low-income groups, implement popular education about food safety knowledge, and promote healthy dietary habits and lifestyles.
Prospects
This study does have some limitations. Due to the lack of a validated scale for measuring the PsyCap of citizens to participate in food safety social co-governance, the reliability, and validity of the scale developed in this study requires further investigation. In addition, the sample for this study was limited to citizens in Wuxi, and the demographics of the sample do not perfectly match the overall demographics of Wuxi1. Therefore, further research is required to confirm the findings this study. It is hoped that the methods, conclusions, and policy recommendations of this case study on Wuxi can be promoted across China and provide guidance at the national level. More broadly, it is hoped that the experience of China may provide lessons and insights for other developing countries.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Ethics Statement
Ethical approval for this study and written informed consent from the participants of the study were not required in accordance with local legislation and national guidelines. All data were de-identified and the article does not contain any individual person's data. Therefore, this study was exempted from ethics approval.
Author Contributions
LW conceptualized the study. KQ processed and analyzed the relevant data, as well as wrote the draft manuscript. XC collected and analyzed the relevant data, wrote, and revised the manuscript. All authors contributed to the study design, interpretation the results and manuscript revision, and have approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This study was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China: Research on social co-governance of food safety risks and cross-border cooperative governance mechanism (20&ZD117).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the contributions of the editors and reviewers.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.772117/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
1. ^The demographics of the sample for this study differed from those of the urban population of Wuxi, and, of course, could not represent the overall demographics of China. Therefore, readers should assess the results of this study based on consideration of data representativeness.
References
1. Krom M. Understanding consumer rationalities: consumer involvement in European food safety governance of avian influenza. SociologiaRuralis. (2010)49:1–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00474.x
2. Green J, Draper A, Dowler E. Short cuts to safety: risk and 'rules of thumb' in accounts of food choice. Health Risk Society. (2003) 5:33–52. doi: 10.1080/1369857031000065998
3. Bailey AP, Garforth C. An industry viewpoint on the role of farm assurance in delivering food safety to the consumer: the case of the dairy sector of England and Wales-ScienceDirect. Food Policy. (2014) 45:14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.006
4. FAO/WHO. Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National. Food Control Systems. Italy, Rome: FAO Food and Nutrition Paper (2003).
5. Ansell C, Vogel DT. In What's the Beef: The Contested Governance of European Food Safety Regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (2006). p. 389.
6. Rouviere E, Caswell JA. From punishment to prevention: a French case study of the introduction of co-regulation in enforcing food safety. Food Policy. (2012) 37:246–54. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.009
7. Wu LH, Chen YH, Chen XJ. Evolution of policy instruments for food safety risk management: comparison between China and Western countries and implications. Jiangsu Social Sci. (2021) 4:80–9; 242–3. doi: 10.13858/j.cnki.cn32-1312/c.20210727.009
8. Marian GM, Fearneb A, Caswellc JA, Hensen S. Co-regulation as a possible model for food safety governance: opportunities for public-private partnerships. Food Policy. (2007) 32:299–314. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.07.005
9. Elodie R, Elodie AC. Possibilities and constraints in the use of self-regulation and co-regulation in legislative policy: experience in the Netherlands-lessons to be learned for the EU. Social Sci Electr Pub. (2005) 9:1–8. doi: 10.5566/ias.v26.p157-164
10. Chen XJ, Wu LH. Psychological capital in food safety social co-governance. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1387. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01387
12. Houghton JR, Rowe G, Frewer LJ, Van Kleef E, Chryssochoidis G, Kehagia O, et al. The quality of food risk management in Europe: perspectives and priorities. Food Policy. (2008) 33:13–26. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.05.001
13. Qiu M, Zhao Z. Behavioral patterns of consumers participating in food safety and social co-governance: consumption choices and environmental improvement. E3S Web Conferences. (2019) 131:1086. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/201913101086
14. Corradof GG. Food safety issues: from enlightened elitism towards deliberative democracy? An overview of efsa's public consultation Instrument. Food Policy. (2012) 37:427–38. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.03.005
15. Regan A, Raats M, Shan LC, Wall PG, Mcconnon A. Risk communication and social media during food safety crises: a study of stakeholders' opinions in Ireland. J Risk Res. (2016) 19:119–33. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2014.961517
16. Steeneveld M. Psychological Capital: Training the 4 Positive Capacities. POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM. (2019). Available online at: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/psycap (accessed March 7, 2019).
17. Mintel Press Team. Urban Chinese Consumers Today Place More Value in Having an Enjoyable Job and Enough Time for Personal Life. (2020). Available online at: https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/social-and-lifestyle/urban (accessed April 20, 2020).
18. Liu R, Gao Z, Snell HA, Ma H. Food safety concerns and consumer preferences for food safety attributes: evidence from China. Food Control. (2020) 112:107157. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107157
19. Wu LH, Qiu GQ, Lu J. Allocation of responsibility among pork supply chain players. Br Food J. (2017) 119:2822–36. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2017-0045
20. Allen BP, Potkay CR. On the arbitrary distinction between states and traits. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1981) 41:16–28. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.916
21. Goldsmith A, Veum JR, Darity W. The impact of psychological and human capital on wages. Econ Inquiry. (1997) 35:815–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01966.x
22. Seligman ME, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: an introduction. Am Psychol. (2000) 55:1–8. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.5
23. Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Walumbwa FO, Luthans F, May DR. Unlocking the mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quart. (2004) 15:801–23. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003
24. Luthans F, Luthans KW, Luthans BC. Positive psychological capital: beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons. (2004) 47:45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007
25. Hosen R, Solovey-Hosen D, Stern L. Education and capital development: capital as durable personal, social, economic and political influences on the happiness of individuals. Education. (2003) 123:496–513. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2003.0069
26. Casey PR, Grzywacz JG. Employee health and well-being: the role of flexibility and work-family balance. Psychologist. (2008) 11:31–47. doi: 10.1080/10887150801963885
27. Luthans FB, Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO, Li WX. The psychological capital of Chinese workers: exploring the relationship with performance. Manag Org Rev. (2010) 1:249–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00011.x
28. Tettegah S. Teachers, identity, psychological capital and electronically mediated representations of cultural consciousness. In: Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Chesapeake, VA: AACE (2002).
29. Avey JB, Luthans F, Youssef CM. The additive value of positive psychological capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. J Manag. (2010) 36:430–52. doi: 10.1177/0149206308329961
30. Ke JL, Wu D, Sun JM. The impact of psychological capital on job involvement, subjective well-being, and silence behavior: Interaction effect and effect comparison. Stud Psychol Behav. (2015) 13:804–10.
31. Fang BJ. Structure, characteristics, related factors, and group intervention of the psychological capital of adolescent students (dissertation), Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou (2015).
32. Sui Y, Wang H, Yue YY, Luthans F. The effect of transformational leadership on follower performance and satisfaction: the mediating role of psychological capital and the moderating role of procedural justice. Acta Psychol Sinica. (2012) 44:1217–30. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.01217
33. Babalola SS. Women entrepreneurial innovative behaviour: the role of psychological capital. Int J Bus Manag. (2009) 4:184–92. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v4n11p184
34. Cole K, Daly A, Mak A. Good for the soul: the relationship between work, wellbeing and psychological capital. J Socio-Econ. (2009) 38:464–74. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2008.10.004
35. Ke JL, Sun JM, Li YR. Psychological capital: Chinese indigenous scale's development and its validity comparison with the western scale. Acta Psychol Sinica. (2009) 41:875–88. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2009.00875
36. Avey JB. The left side of psychological capital: new evidence on the antecedents of PsyCap. J Leadership Org Stud. (2014) 21:141–9. doi: 10.1177/1548051813515516
37. Luthans F, Avey JB, Clapp-Smith R, Li W. More evidence on the value of Chinese workers' psychological capital: a potentially unlimited competitive resource? Int J Human Resource Manag. (2008) 19:818–27. doi: 10.1080/09585190801991194
38. Mathe-Soulek K, Scott-Halsell S, Kim S, Krawczyk M. Psychological capital in the quick service restaurant industry: a study of unit-level performance. J Hosp Tourism Res. (2014) 41:823–45. doi: 10.1177/1096348014550923
39. Bandura A, Locke EA. Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. J Appl Psychol. (2003) 88:87–99. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87
40. Avolio B, Luthans F. The High Impact Leader: Moments Matter in Accelerating Authentic Leadership Development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill (2006). p. 273.
41. Luthans F, Carolyn M, Youssef-Morgan. Psychological capital: an evidence-based positive approach. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Org Behav. (2017) 4:339–66. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113324
42. Stadjkovic AD, Luthans F, Slocum JW. Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: going beyond traditional motivational and behavioral approaches. Org Dynamics. (1998) 26:62–74. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(98)90006-7
43. Parker Sharon K. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. J Appl Psychol. (1998) 83:835–52. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.83.6.835
44. Ovca A, Jevšnik M, Raspor P. Food safety awareness, knowledge and practices among students in Slovenia. Food Control. (2014) 42:144–51. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.01.036
45. Haapala I, Probart C. Food safety knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors among middle school students. J Nutr Educ Behav. (2004) 36:71–6. doi: 10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60136-X
46. Richards JK, Beavers AS. What implications does a baseline of self-efficacy of food safety in adolescent populations have for future food safety education interventions? Food Protection Trends. (2014) 34:20–4. Available online at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=fsr&AN=113144101&lang=zh-cn&site=ehost-live
47. Schafer RB, Schafer E, Bultena GL, Hoiberg EO. Food safety: an application of the health belief model. J Nutr Educ. (1993) 25:17–24. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3182(12)80183-X
48. Cater M, Gravois R, Gaitan G, Xu W. Pregnant women's confidence and perceptions on practices related to food safety: a study in Louisiana. Food Control. (2020) 113:107175. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107175
49. Gase LN, Glenn B, Kuo T. Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between the perceived food environment and healthy eating in a low income population in Los Angeles county. J Immigrant Minor Health. (2015) 18:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10903-015-0186-0
50. Masten AS. Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. Am Psychol. (2001) 56:227–38. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.56.3.227
51. Bestor TC. Tsukiji: The Fish Market at the Center of the World. Berkeley, LA; London: University of California Press (2004). p. 412.
52. Rosenberger N. Global food terror in Japan: media shaping risk perception, the nation, and women. Ecol Food Nutrit. (2009) 48:237–62. doi: 10.1080/03670240903001100
53. Khanna P, Chattu VK, Aeri BT. Nutritional aspects of depression in adolescents—A systematic review. Int J Prev Med. (2019) 10:42. doi: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_400_18
54. Lutz LJ, Gaffney-Stomberg E, Williams KW, Mcgraw SM, Mcclung JP. Adherence to the dietary guidelines for Americans is associated with psychological resilience in young adults: a cross-sectional study. J Acad Nutr Diet. (2017) 117:396–403. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.018
55. Whatnall MC, Patterson AJ, Yu YS, Kay-Lambkin F, Hutchesson MJ. Are psychological distress and resilience associated with dietary intake among Australian university students? Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:4099. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16214099
56. Ren JC. Emergency management of food safety incidents (dissertation), China Agricultural Universitym, Beijing (2017).
57. Wang ZG, Li TF, Huang SN. Consumer awareness of food safety and recovery of consumer confidence: the case of defective milk powder incident. Consumer Econ. (2013) 29:42–7.
58. Ren JC, Han Q. Comparative analysis of consumer decision-making under industry and enterprise crises: the case of dairy product quality and safety crisis. Collected Essays Finan Econ. (2017) 09:94–104. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-4892.2017.09.011
59. Li S, Sijtsema SJ, Kornelis M, Liu Y, Li S. Consumer confidence in the safety of milk and infant milk formula in China. J Dairy Sci. (2019) 102:8807–18. doi: 10.3168/jds.2019-16638
60. Luthans F. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J Org Behav. (2002) 23:695–706. doi: 10.1002/job.165
61. Helton WS, Dember WN, Warm JS, Matthews G. Optimism, pessimism, and false failure feedback: Effects on vigilance performance. Curr Psychol. (1999) 18:311–25. doi: 10.1007/s12144-999-1006-2
62. Jonge JD, Trijp HV, Renes RJ, Frewer L. Understanding consumer confidence in the safety of food: its two dimensional structure and determinants. Risk Anal. (2007) 27:729–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00917.x
63. Wu LH, Lv YX, Li QG, Shan LJ. Research progress on the role of food safety risk co-governance. J Dialectics Nature. (2017) 39:142–52. doi: 10.15994/j.1000-0763.2017.04.020
64. Ren C, Li HY, Zhang WB, Huo ST, Liu YZ, Zhao JJ, et al. Survey on awareness of food safety and related behaviors and attitudes in consumers of different social classes in 10 cities in China. Occup Health. (2015) 31:2501–3, 7.
65. Wang CW, Gu HY. Food safety situation in China and policy implications: comparative analysis based on event statistics, monitoring, and consumer cognition. J Soc Sci. (2013) 7:24–38. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0257-5833.2013.07.003
66. Cheng Y, Zhang Y, Ma J, Zhan S. Food safety knowledge, attitude and self-reported practice of secondary school students in Beijing, China: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0187208. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187208
67. Jonge JD, Trijp HV, Goddard E, Frewer L. Consumer confidence in the safety of food in Canada and the Netherlands: the validation of a generic framework. Food Qual Preference. (2008) 19:439–51. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.01.002
68. Lopez SJ, Snyder CR, Pedrotti JT. Hope: many definitions, many measures. Positive psychological assessment: a handbook of models and measures. Am Psychol Assoc. (2003) 26:91–107. doi: 10.1037/10612-007
69. Liu PC, Ma CY, Ma Q. Supervision on the GMO foods: viewed from the consumers' expectation. J Agrotech Econ. (2005) 06:18–23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6370.2005.06.003
70. Zhang Y, Zhang ZZ. Differences in social trust in food safety among youth groups: based on a sample survey of 18-35-year-old youths in 5 cities in Shandong province, China. China Youth Study. (2017) 02:65–71. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-9931.2017.02.010
71. Nan X, Verrill L, Kim J. Mapping sources of food safety information for U.S. consumers: findings from a national survey. Health Commun. (2017) 32:356–65. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1138385
72. Ye HY. Characteristics of food safety needs of Chinese urban consumers: based on a survey in Wuhan, China. Ecol Econ. (2014) 6:146–50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.16714407.2014.06.033
73. Sternsdorff-Cisterna N. Food after Fukushima: risk and scientific citizenship in Japan. Am Anthropol. (2015) 117:455–67. doi: 10.1111/aman.12294
74. Caprara GV, Vecchione M, Capanna C, Mebane M. Perceived political self-efficacy: theory, assessment, and applications. Euro J Soc Psychol. (2009) 39:1002–20. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.604
75. Zani B, Barrett M. Engaged citizens? Political participation and social engagement among youth, women, minorities, and migrants. Human Affairs. (2012) 22:273–82. doi: 10.2478/s13374-012-0023-2
76. Crocetti E, Jahromi P, Meeus W. Identity and civic engagement in adolescence. J Adolesc. (2012) 35:521–32. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.003
77. Zhao FQ, Chen Y, Zhang GL. The impact of university academic atmosphere on scientific research performance of teachers from the perspective of psychological capital: based on a survey of 784 teachers in 29 universities across China. J Higher Educ. (2015) 36:50–60.
78. Wang C, Jiang P. Farmers' willingness to participate in agricultural product safety co-governance and self-governance in Jiangsu, China: a gender perspective. J Food Protect. (2020) 83:736–44. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-19-214
79. Xu JY, Jiang LQ, Xie HJ. The mutual influences of psychological capital and migrant workers' wage: taking Zhejiang Province as the example. Zhejiang Soc Sci. (2012) 09:83–90; 157–8. doi: 10.14167/j.zjss.2012.09.016
80. Jang CL. The linkage between psychological capital and public service motivation: evidence from Taiwan. Arch Bus Res. (2016) 4:1–8. doi: 10.14738/abr.46.2461
81. Li Y. Assessing Canadian Consumers' perceptions for Food Safety and Environment Safety (dissertation), University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB (2008).
82. Lu J, Wu LH, Wang SX, Xu LL. Consumer preference and demand for traceable food attributes. Br Food J. (2016) 118:2140–56. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-12-2015-0461
83. Nayga RM. Socio-demographic influences on consumer concerns for food safety: the case of irridiation, antibiotics, hormones and pesticides. Rev Agric Econ. (1996) 18:467–75. doi: 10.2307/1349629
84. Baker GA. Food safety and fear: factors affecting consumer response to food safety risk. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev. (2003) 6:1–11. doi: 10.2307/4122327
85. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. (1994) 14:1101–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x
86. Dosman DM, Adamowicz WL, Hrudey SE. Socioeconomics determinants of health and food safety related risk perception. Risk Anal. (2001) 21:307–17. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.212113
87. Finke MS, Kim H. Attitudes about genetically modified foods among Korean and American college students. AgBioForum. (2003) 6:191–7. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237290296
88. Roe B, Hwang YJ, Teisl MF. An empirical analysis of U.S. consumers' concerns about eight food production and processing technologies. In: 2005 Annual Meeting. Providence, RI (2005).
89. Wu LH, Wang SX, Hu WY. Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: the case of pork. Chin Rural Econ. (2014) 08:58–75.
90. Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM. Psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychol. (2010) 60:541–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x
91. Wu LH, Xu LL, Zhu D, Wang XL. Factors affecting consumer willingness to pay for certified traceable food in Jiangsu province of China. Canad J Agric Econ. (2012) 60:317–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2011.01236.x
92. Dong Q. Psychology and Educational Research Methods (Revised Edition). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press (2004). p. 448.
93. Leong FTL, Austin JT. The Psychology Research Handbook: A Guide for Graduate Students and Research Assistants. Beijing: China Light Industry Press (2006). p. 347.
94. Larson MD, Luthans F. Beyond Human and Social Capital: The Additive Value of Psychological Capital on Employee Attitudes. Working Paper. Lincoln, NE: Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2004).
95. Jensen SM, Luthans F. Relationship between entrepreneurs' psychological capital and their authentic leadership. J Manag Issues. (2006) 18:254–73. doi: 10.3103/S0027134910010042
96. Luthans F, Youssef CM, Avolio BJ. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Capital Edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2007). p. 256.
97. Letcher L, Niehoff B. Psychological capital and wages: a behavioral economic approach. In: Paper submitted to be considered for presentation at the Midwest Academy of Management. Minneapolis, MN (2004).
98. Wu ML. SPSS Operation and Application: The Practice of Quantitative Analysis of Questionnaire Data. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press (2010). p. 328.
99. Bower JA. Statistics for food science V: ANOVA and multiple comparisons (Part B). Nutr Food Sci. (1998) 98:41–8. doi: 10.1108/00346659810201087
100. Wu LH, Wang SX, Zhu D, Hu WY, Wang HS. Chinese consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: the case of pork. China Econ Rev. (2015) 35:121–36. doi: 10.1016/j.chieco.2015.07.001
101. Wu LH, Wang HS, Zhu D, Hu WY, Wang SX. Chinese consumers' willingness to pay for pork traceability information—the case of Wuxi. Agric Econ. (2016) 47:71–9. doi: 10.1111/agec.12210
103. Liu ZD, Zhan QQ, Tian GL. Literature review of factor analysis for comprehensive assessment. Statist Decision. (2019) 35:68–73. doi: 10.13546/j.cnki.tjyjc.2019.19.015
104. Kaiser HF, Rice J. Little jiffy, mark IV. Educ Psychol Meas. (1974) 34:111–7. doi: 10.1177/001316447403400115
Keywords: citizen characteristics, psychological capital, food safety social co-governance, analysis of variance, post-hoc multiple comparisons
Citation: Chen X, Qin K and Wu L (2021) Citizen Characteristics and Their Participation in Food Safety Social Co-governance: Public Health Implications. Front. Public Health 9:772117. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.772117
Received: 07 September 2021; Accepted: 21 October 2021;
Published: 24 November 2021.
Edited by:
Xiao-Bing Zhang, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, ChinaReviewed by:
Li Yufeng, Shanghai Ocean University, ChinaAmâncio António De Sousa Carvalho, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Portugal
Mo Chen, Qufu Normal University, China
Copyright © 2021 Chen, Qin and Wu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Linhai Wu, d2xoNjc5OSYjeDAwMDQwO2ppYW5nbmFuLmVkdS5jbg==