IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v16y1996i4p473-486.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs

Author

Listed:
  • L. J. Frewer
  • C. Howard
  • D. Hedderley
  • R. Shepherd

Abstract

Trust in risk information about food related‐hazards may be an important determinant of public reactions to risk information. One of the central questions addressed by the risk communication literature is why some individuals and organizations are trusted as sources of risk information and others are not. Industry and government often lack public trust, whereas other sources (for example, consumer organizations, the quality media, medical doctors) are highly trusted. Problematically, previous surveys and questionnaire studies have utilized questions generated by the investigators themselves to assess public perceptions of trust in different sources. Furthermore, no account of the hazard domain was made. In the first study reported here, semistructured interviewing was used to elicit underpinning constructs determining trust and distrust in different sources providing food‐related risk information (n= 35). In the second study, the repertory grid method was used to elicit the terminology that respondents use to distinguish between different potential food‐related information sources (n= 35), the data being submitted to generalised Procrustes analysis. The results of the two studies were combined and validated in survey research (n= 888) where factor analysis indicated that knowledge in itself does not lead to trust, but that trusted sources are seen to be characterised by multiple positive attributes. Contrary to previous research, complete freedom does not lead to trust—rather sources which possess moderate accountability are seen to be the most trusted.

Suggested Citation

  • L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:4:p:473-486
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.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, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Lynn Frewer & Richard Shepherd, 1995. "Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 12(1), pages 48-57, December.
    3. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    4. J. Gower, 1975. "Generalized procrustes analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 40(1), pages 33-51, March.
    5. Richard P. Barke & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 1993. "Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 425-439, August.
    6. Paul Sparks & Richard Shepherd, 1994. "Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 799-806, 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. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    2. Justin Baker & W. Douglass Shaw & Mary Riddel & Richard T. Woodward, 2009. "Changes in subjective risks of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina evacuees," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 59-74, January.
    3. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    4. Joanna Burger & Robert A. Kennamer & I. Lehr Brisbin & Michael Gochfeld, 1998. "A Risk Assessment for Consumers of Mourning Doves," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 563-573, October.
    5. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    6. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    7. Joanna Burger & Kerry Kirk Pflugh & Lynette Lurig & Leigh Ann Von Hagen & Stanley Von Hagen, 1999. "Fishing in Urban New Jersey: Ethnicity Affects Information Sources, Pe ception, and Compliance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 217-229, April.
    8. Spencer Henson & Mamane Annou & John Cranfield & Joanne Ryks, 2008. "Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1601-1617, December.
    9. Monique M. Raats & Richard Shepherd, 1996. "Developing a Subject‐Derived Terminology to Describe Perceptions of Chemicals in Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 133-146, April.
    10. Ian H. Langford, 2002. "An Existential Approach to Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 101-120, February.
    11. Joanna Burger & Jessica Sanchez & J. Whitfield Gibbons & Michael Gochfeld, 1997. "Risk Perception, Federal Spending, and the Savannah River Site: Attitudes of Hunters and Fishermen," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 313-320, June.
    12. Deana Grobe & Robin Douthitt & Lydia Zepeda, 1999. "A Model of Consumers' Risk Perceptions Toward Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH): The Impact of Risk Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 661-673, August.
    13. Joanna Burger & Michael Gochfeld, 2009. "Changes in Aleut Concerns Following the Stakeholder‐Driven Amchitka Independent Science Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1156-1169, August.
    14. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    15. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    16. Kuhika Gupta & Joseph T. Ripberger & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva, 2020. "Exploring Aggregate vs. Relative Public Trust in Administrative Agencies that Manage Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(4), pages 491-510, July.
    17. Rhys Bidder & Ian Dew-Becker, 2016. "Long-Run Risk Is the Worst-Case Scenario," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2494-2527, September.
    18. Anne Lavigne, 2006. "Gouvernance et investissement des fonds de pension privés aux Etats-Unis," Working Papers halshs-00081401, HAL.
    19. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    20. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.

    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:16:y:1996:i:4:p:473-486. 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.