IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i11p1762-1769.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Labeling of Nanotechnology Consumer Products Can Influence Risk and Benefit Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Siegrist
  • Carmen Keller

Abstract

Currently, there is no mandatory labeling for products containing synthetic nanoparticles. The public as well as other stakeholders have positive views about mandatory labeling. However, little is known how such a label influences the risk and benefit perception of a product. Consumers may infer that a label is a signal that there are risks associated with this technology. Data were collected in a survey experiment (N= 1,382). Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions. The control group received a picture of a sunscreen container without a label. One experimental group received a picture of a sunscreen container with a label. The other groups received, in addition to the sunscreen container with a label, some risk or benefit information. Results suggest that labeling of products may reduce consumers’ benefit perception and increase risk perception. Labeling nanotechnology consumer products may change the public perception of the products. Respondents may have relied on the affect heuristic for assessing the risks and benefits of the sunscreen.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller, 2011. "Labeling of Nanotechnology Consumer Products Can Influence Risk and Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1762-1769, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:11:p:1762-1769
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01720.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01720.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01720.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    3. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Tran, Van & Yiannaka, Amalia & Giannakas, Konstantinos, 2019. "An economic analysis of nanofood labeling," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-20.
    3. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    4. Kamarulzaman, Nur Aizat & Lee, Khai Ern & Siow, Kim Shyong & Mokhtar, Mazlin, 2020. "Public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development: Psychological and sociological aspects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    5. Zhang, Jun & Shi, Hongxu & Sheng, Jiping, 2022. "The effects of message framing on novel food introduction: Evidence from the artificial meat products in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    6. Anastasia Thyroff & Jennifer Christie Siemens & Jeff B. Murray, 2018. "Constructing a theoretical framework for the process of innovation legitimation," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 8(3), pages 180-194, December.
    7. Longji Hu & Rongjin Liu & Wei Zhang & Tian Zhang, 2020. "The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    2. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    3. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    4. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2017. "Does Size Matter? A Study of Risk Perceptions of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 65-81, January.
    5. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    7. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    8. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Philippe De Maeyer, 2012. "The Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public's Information‐Seeking Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1369-1381, August.
    9. Zhiyong Yang & Ritesh Saini & Traci Freling, 2015. "How Anxiety Leads to Suboptimal Decisions Under Risky Choice Situations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1789-1800, October.
    10. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2008. "Natural Hazards and Motivation for Mitigation Behavior: People Cannot Predict the Affect Evoked by a Severe Flood," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 771-778, June.
    11. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    12. Yung-Jaan Lee, 2018. "Relationships among Environmental Attitudes, Risk Perceptions, and Coping Behavior: A Case Study of Four Environmentally Sensitive Townships in Yunlin County, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-22, July.
    13. Stephanie Moser & Susanne Elisabeth Bruppacher & Hans‐Joachim Mosler, 2011. "How People Perceive and Will Cope with Risks from the Diffusion of Ubiquitous Information and Communication Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 832-846, May.
    14. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    15. Gabriele Prati & Luca Pietrantoni & Bruna Zani, 2011. "A Social‐Cognitive Model of Pandemic Influenza H1N1 Risk Perception and Recommended Behaviors in Italy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 645-656, April.
    16. Wim Kellens & Teun Terpstra & Philippe De Maeyer, 2013. "Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 24-49, January.
    17. Teun Terpstra, 2011. "Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1658-1675, October.
    18. Julie L. Demuth, 2018. "Explicating Experience: Development of a Valid Scale of Past Hazard Experience for Tornadoes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1921-1943, September.
    19. Kazuya Nakayachi & Kazuhisa Nagaya, 2016. "The Effects of the Passage of Time from the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake on the Public’s Anxiety about a Variety of Hazards," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, August.
    20. Manika, Danae & Dickert, Stephan & Golden, Linda L., 2021. "Check (it) yourself before you wreck yourself: The benefits of online health information exposure on risk perception and intentions to protect oneself," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:11:p:1762-1769. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.