IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jfrjnl/v11y2022i1p1.html

Risk Communication under Conflicting Information: The Role of Confidence in Subjective Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Takashi Ishida
  • Atsushi Maruyama
  • Shinichi Kurihara

Abstract

In this study, we develop a model of food consumption with a focus on the subjectively assessed risk of consumers and their degree of confidence in their risk assessment and use it to examine consumer behavior in the chaotic situation created by the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011. The data were collected in March 2012 using a mail survey for 1300 Japanese women, the primary food purchasers. The respondents were asked to evaluate the cancer risk of eating agricultural products, which were assumed to be grown in the affected area, despite meeting national regulatory standards for radioactive materials, as a measure of their risk assessment and willingness to purchase Fukushima beef. The results show that the effect of confidence in a consumer’s risk assessment on their behavior depends on the stated risk level- when stated risk is below an estimated critical value, termed the switching point, the risk perceived by a consumer without confidence exceeds that of one with confidence. On the other hand, perceived risk is inversely related to confidence when the stated risk exceeds the switching point.

Suggested Citation

  • Takashi Ishida & Atsushi Maruyama & Shinichi Kurihara, 2022. "Risk Communication under Conflicting Information: The Role of Confidence in Subjective Risk Assessment," Journal of Food Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-1, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jfrjnl:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jfr/article/download/0/0/46486/49627
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jfr/article/view/0/46486
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    2. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory & Martin Tusler, 2012. "Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(7), pages 717-735, August.
    3. Annelies Verdurme & Jacques Viaene, 2003. "Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 91-113.
    4. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2009. "Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 625-644, September.
    5. To N. Nguyen & Paul M. Jakus & Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2010. "An Empirical Model of Perceived Mortality Risks for Selected U.S. Arsenic Hot Spots," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1550-1562, October.
    6. Ding, Yulian & Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2013. "The influence of trust on consumer behavior: An application to recurring food risks in Canada," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 214-223.
    7. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tonsor, Glynn T., 2010. "Consumer Food Safety Perceptions: Do they Differ across Products, Species, and Specific Risks?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61044, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Peterson, Hikaru & Yamaura, Koichi, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion and Preferences for Food Origin Post Fukushima Nuclear Disaster," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170552, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Shawn P. Curley & Mark J. Young & J. Frank Yates, 1989. "Characterizing Physicians' Perceptions of Ambiguity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(2), pages 116-124, June.
    4. Akinwehinmi, Oluwagbenga & Ogundari, Kolawole & Amos, Taiwo, 2021. "Consumers' Food Control Risk Perception and Preference for Government-Controlled Safety Certification in Emerging Food Markets," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315312, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Huffman, Wallace & Rousu, M. & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 1009. "Are U.S. Consumers Tolerant of GM Foods?," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12336, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    6. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Silva, Andres, 2006. "The Effect of Risk Presentation on Product Valuation: An Experimental Analysis," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21429, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Simon Chege Kimenju & Hugo De Groote, 2008. "Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 35-46, January.
    8. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Tom Lehman & Bill Killam & Holly Massett & Andrew N. Freedman, 2011. "Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 354-366, March.
    9. Britwum, Kofi & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety interventions: The role of message framing and issue involvement," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Robin Gregory & Ralph L. Keeney, 2017. "A Practical Approach to Address Uncertainty in Stakeholder Deliberations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 487-501, March.
    11. repec:ken:wpaper:0601 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Fosso, Prisca Koncy & Tsafack Nanfosso, Roger, 2016. "Adoption of agricultural innovations in risky environment: the case of corn producers in the west of Cameroon," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 97(01), April.
    13. Taylor, Mykel & Klaiber, H. Allen & Kuchler, Fred, 2016. "Changes in U.S. consumer response to food safety recalls in the shadow of a BSE scare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 56-64.
    14. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    16. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2013. "Rational inattention or rational overreaction? Consumer reactions to health news," IFRO Working Paper 2013/14, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Clement, Michael B. & Hales, Jeffrey & Xue, Yanfeng, 2011. "Understanding analysts' use of stock returns and other analysts' revisions when forecasting earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 279-299, April.
    18. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.
    19. Wong, Kit Pong, 2024. "Optimal nonlinear pricing by a monopoly with smooth ambiguity preferences," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 89(PA), pages 594-604.
    20. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    21. Vincent R. Nijs & Shuba Srinivasan & Koen Pauwels, 2007. "Retail-Price Drivers and Retailer Profits," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 473-487, 07-08.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:ibn:jfrjnl:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:1. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.