IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v18y1998i1p95-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food‐Related Hazards

Author

Listed:
  • Lynn J. Frewer
  • Chaya Howard
  • Duncan Hedderley
  • Richard Shepherd

Abstract

The psychometric approach developed by Slovic and his co‐workers has been effectively used to assess risk perceptions associated with different food‐related hazards. However, further examination (using questionnaire data and partial correlation techniques) has indicated that technological hazards are highly differentiated from lifestyle hazards, in terms of both hazard control and knowledge about the hazard. Optimistic bias was also seen to vary between hazards. Further research has focused on a particular hazard, genetic engineering. Risk perceptions associated with genetic engineering are underpinned by ethical concern and questions relating to perceived need for the technology, as well as perceptions of risk or harm. However, increasing the specificity of hazard stimuli was found to alter the factor structure of underlying risk perceptions. The utility of preference mapping procedures in determining individual differences in trust in risk regulators is also discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food‐Related Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 95-102, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:1:p:95-102
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00919.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00919.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00919.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. 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.
    2. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & Roberts, Tanya, 1991. "Food Safety Issues and Economic Analysis," Staff Paper Series 201138, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    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. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    2. Franz, Reiner & Enneking, U., 2005. "Bestimmungsgründe der Verbraucherverunsicherung im Bereich der Lebensmittelsicherheit," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 40, March.
    3. Celio Ferreira, 2006. "Food Information Environments: Risk Communication and Advertising Imagery," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(8), pages 851-868, December.
    4. Juha Munnukka & Outi Uusitalo & Veera-Juulia Koivisto, 2017. "The consequences of perceived risk and objective knowledge for consumers’ investment behavior," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(4), pages 150-160, December.
    5. Hyun Joung Jin & Dae Hee Han, 2019. "College Students’ Experience of a Food Safety Class and Their Responses to the MSG Issue," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-13, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    8. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    9. Carlene Wilson & Greg Evans & Phil Leppard & Julie Syrette, 2004. "Reactions to Genetically Modified Food Crops and How Perception of Risks and Benefits Influences Consumers' Information Gathering," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1311-1321, October.
    10. Haitham Nobanee & Maryam Alhajjar & Mohammed Ahmed Alkaabi & Majed Musabah Almemari & Mohamed Abdulla Alhassani & Naema Khamis Alkaabi & Saeed Abdulla Alshamsi & Hanan Hamed AlBlooshi, 2021. "A Bibliometric Analysis of Objective and Subjective Risk," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-20, July.
    11. Lydia Zepeda & Robin Douthitt & So‐Ye You, 2003. "Consumer Risk Perceptions Toward Agricultural Biotechnology, Self‐Protection, and Food Demand: The Case of Milk in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 973-984, 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. Dan Jiang & Guangling Zhang, 2021. "Marketing Clues on the Label Raise the Purchase Intention of Genetically Modified Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Hanna Valerie Wolf & Tanja Perko & Peter Thijssen, 2020. "How to Communicate Food Safety after Radiological Contamination: The Effectiveness of Numerical and Narrative News Messages," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Ying Zhu & Xiaowei Wen & May Chu & Gongliang Zhang & Xuefan Liu, 2021. "Consumers’ Food Safety Risk Communication on Social Media Following the Suan Tang Zi Accident: An Extended Protection Motivation Theory Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    5. Anna C. Hurlimann, 2007. "Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian community’s perspective," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 83-94, March.
    6. Kostagiolas, Petros & Korfiatis, Nikolaos & Kourouthanasis, Panos & Alexias, Georgios, 2014. "Work-related factors influencing doctors search behaviors and trust toward medical information resources," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 80-88.
    7. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    8. Dirk Grasmück & Roland W. Scholz, 2005. "Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination by High‐Exposed and Low‐Exposed Inhabitants: The Role of Knowledge and Emotional Concerns," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 611-622, June.
    9. Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2006. "Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1045-1057, August.
    10. Ashkan Pakseresht & Anna Kristina Edenbrandt & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2021. "Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Douglas J. Sylvester & Kenneth W. Abbott & Gary E. Marchant, 2009. "Not again! Public perception, regulation, and nanotechnology," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 165-185, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1997. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Communication About Food Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(6), pages 759-770, December.
    14. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    15. Mathew P. White & Sabine Pahl & Marc Buehner & Andres Haye, 2003. "Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 717-726, August.
    16. John T. Brady, 2012. "Health risk perceptions across time in the USA," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 547-563, June.
    17. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    18. Timothy C. Earle & Michael Siegrist, 2008. "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1395-1414, October.
    19. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    20. Izlawanie Muhammad & Norfakhirah Nazihah Mohd Hasnu & Mohd Adha Ibrahim & Suhaila Abdul Hamid & Mustafa Mohd Hanefah, 2022. "Trust in Government and Its Determinants: An Empirical Study of Public Acceptability for Carbon Tax in Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-12, 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:wly:riskan:v:18:y:1998:i:1:p:95-102. 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.