IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v19y2016i3p316-330.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Won’t we scare them? The impact of communicating uncontrollable risks on the public’s perception

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie De Vocht
  • An-Sofie Claeys
  • Verolien Cauberghe
  • Mieke Uyttendaele
  • Benedikt Sas

Abstract

Authorities often refrain from communicating risks out of fear to arouse negative feelings amongst the public and to create negative reactions in terms of the public’s behavior. This study examines the impact of communicating risks on the public’s feelings and behavioral intentions regarding an uncontrollable risk related to fresh produce. In addition, the impact of risk communication is compared between a situation in which the risk either does or does not develop into a crisis, by means of a 2 (risk communication vs. no risk communication) × 2 (crisis communication vs. no crisis communication) between-subjects factorial design. The results show that communicating risks has a positive impact on the behavioral intention to keep on eating fresh produce compared to when no risk communication was provided, as it reduces negative feelings amongst the public. In addition, the findings illustrate that when a risk develops into an actual crisis, prior risk communication can result in greater trust in the government and reduce perceived government responsibility for the crisis when the crisis hits. Based on these findings, it can be suggested that risk communication is an effective tool for authorities in preparing the public for potential crises. The findings indicate that communicating risks does not raise negative reactions amongst the public, on the contrary, and that it results in more positive perceptions of the authorities.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie De Vocht & An-Sofie Claeys & Verolien Cauberghe & Mieke Uyttendaele & Benedikt Sas, 2016. "Won’t we scare them? The impact of communicating uncontrollable risks on the public’s perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 316-330, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:3:p:316-330
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2014.971336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2014.971336
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2014.971336?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ragnar E. Lofstedt, 2006. "How can we Make Food Risk Communication Better: Where are we and Where are we Going?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(8), pages 869-890, December.
    2. Jean Kennedy & Liam Delaney & Eibhlin M. Hudson & Aileen McGloin & Patrick G. Wall, 2010. "Public perceptions of the dioxin incident in Irish pork," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(7), pages 937-949, October.
    3. Ellen Ter Huurne & Jan Gutteling, 2008. "Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 847-862, October.
    4. E. Van Kleef & J. R. Houghton & A. Krystallis & U. Pfenning & G. Rowe & H. Van Dijk & I. A. Van der Lans & L. J. Frewer, 2007. "Consumer Evaluations of Food Risk Management Quality in Europe," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1565-1580, December.
    5. Easley, Richard W. & Bearden, William O. & Teel, Jesse E., 1995. "Testing predictions derived from inoculation theory and the effectiveness of self-disclosure communications strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 93-105, October.
    6. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher & Timothy C. Earle, 2005. "Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 145-156, March.
    7. Elisabeth Deutskens & Ad Jong & Ko Ruyter & Martin Wetzels, 2006. "Comparing the generalizability of online and mail surveys in cross-national service quality research," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 119-136, April.
    8. Ellen F. J. ter Huurne & Jan M. Gutteling, 2009. "How to trust? The importance of self-efficacy and social trust in public responses to industrial risks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 809-824, September.
    9. Ortwin Renn, 2006. "Risk Communication -- Consumers Between Information and Irritation1," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(8), pages 833-849, December.
    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. T. Terpstra & R. Zaalberg & J. de Boer & W. J. W. Botzen, 2014. "You Have Been Framed! How Antecedents of Information Need Mediate the Effects of Risk Communication Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1506-1520, August.
    2. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Peter Modin & Sven Hansson, 2011. "Moral and Instrumental Norms in Food Risk Communication," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 313-324, June.
    4. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Sophie Tourenq & George Boustras & Jan M. Gutteling, 2017. "Risk communication policy design: Cyprus compared to France and the Netherlands," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 533-550, April.
    7. Miguel Ángel López-Navarro & Jaume Llorens-Monzonís & Vicente Tortosa-Edo, 2013. "The Effect of Social Trust on Citizens’ Health Risk Perception in the Context of a Petrochemical Industrial Complex," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Milou Kievik & Ellen F.J. ter Huurne & Jan M. Gutteling, 2012. "The action suited to the word? Use of the framework of risk information seeking to understand risk-related behaviors," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 131-147, February.
    9. Kaijing Xue & Shili Guo & Yi Liu & Shaoquan Liu & Dingde Xu, 2021. "Social Networks, Trust, and Disaster-Risk Perceptions of Rural Residents in a Multi-Disaster Environment: Evidence from Sichuan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-25, February.
    10. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2019. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing the Cross-Effect of Risk Perception and Cyberspace Factors on Online/Offline Opposition to Nuclear Energy in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, March.
    11. Robert L. Heath & Jaesub Lee, 2016. "Chemical Manufacturing and Refining Industry Legitimacy: Reflective Management, Trust, Precrisis Communication to Achieve Community Efficacy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1108-1124, June.
    12. Jia Shi & Xiangnan Hu & Xuesong Guo & Cuihong Lian, 2020. "Risk Information Seeking Behavior in Disaster Resettlement: A Case Study of Ankang City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-19, October.
    13. Weidan Cao & Qinghua Yang & Xinyao Zhang, 2023. "Understanding Information Processing and Protective Behaviors during the Pandemic: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-15, February.
    14. Tingqiang Chen & Lei Wang & Jining Wang & Qi Yang, 2017. "A Network Diffusion Model of Food Safety Scare Behavior considering Information Transparency," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-16, December.
    15. Paschalis Arvanitidis & Athina Economou & Christos Kollias, 2016. "Terrorism’s effects on social capital in European countries," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 231-250, December.
    16. Femke Hilverda & Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2018. "Online Information Sharing About Risks: The Case of Organic Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1904-1920, September.
    17. Liu Liu & Xiaotao Wang & Yang Xie & Wing-Hong Chui, 2022. "Using Illicit Drugs to Lose Weight among Recovering Female Drug Users in China: An Exploratory Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-11, February.
    18. Hang Lu & APPC 2018–2019 ASK Group & Kenneth Winneg & Kathleen Hall Jamieson & Dolores Albarracín, 2020. "Intentions to Seek Information About the Influenza Vaccine: The Role of Informational Subjective Norms, Anticipated and Experienced Affect, and Information Insufficiency Among Vaccinated and Unvaccina," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2040-2056, October.
    19. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    20. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.

    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:taf:jriskr:v:19:y:2016:i:3:p:316-330. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.