What determines trust in information about food-related risks? underlying psychological constructs
In: Risk analysis, Volume 16, p. 473-486
ISSN: 0272-4332
8 results
Sort by:
In: Risk analysis, Volume 16, p. 473-486
ISSN: 0272-4332
Examining those risk and benefit perceptions utilised in the formation of attitudes and opinions about emerging technologies such as nanotechnology can be useful for both industry and policy makers involved in their development, implementation and regulation. A broad range of different socio-psychological and affective factors may influence consumer responses to different applications of nanotechnology, including ethical concerns. A useful approach to identifying relevant consumer concerns and innovation priorities is to develop predictive constructs which can be used to differentiate applications of nanotechnology in a way which is meaningful to consumers. This requires elicitation of attitudinal constructs from consumers, rather than measuring attitudes assumed to be important by the researcher. Psychological factors influencing societal responses to 15 applications of nanotechnology drawn from different application areas (e.g. medicine, agriculture and environment, food, military, sports, and cosmetics) were identified using repertory grid method in conjunction with generalised Procrustes analysis. The results suggested that people differentiate nanotechnology applications based on the extent to which they perceive them to be beneficial, useful, necessary and important. The benefits may be offset by perceived risks focusing on fear and ethical concerns. Compared to an earlier expert study on societal acceptance of nanotechnology, consumers emphasised ethical issues compared to experts but had less concern regarding potential physical contact with the product and time to market introduction. Consumers envisaged fewer issues with several applications compared to experts, in particular food applications.
BASE
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Volume 16, Issue 4, p. 473-486
ISSN: 1539-6924
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.
In: Science and public policy: journal of the Science Policy Foundation, Volume 41, Issue 3, p. 332-343
ISSN: 1471-5430
In: http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/21296
Evidence of a decline in public trust associated with food risk governance over recent years has called into question the appropriateness of the current dominant risk analysis framework. Within the EU-funded SAFE FOODS project a novel risk analysis framework has been developed that attempts to address potential shortcomings by increasing stakeholder (including consumer) input, improving transparency, and formally incorporating benefit and non-health aspects into the analysis. To assess the viability of this novel framework, the views of food risk experts from the EU and beyond were sought using a distributed online questionnaire process called Delphi. In this paper the main results of this survey are described, revealing varying levels of support for the key innovations of the novel framework. Implications of our results for the new and old frameworks, for the future of risk analysis, and for the policy community more widely, are discussed.
BASE
In: Risk analysis: an international journal, Volume 27, Issue 6, p. 1565-1580
ISSN: 1539-6924
In developing and implementing appropriate food risk management strategies, it is important to understand how consumers evaluate the quality of food risk management practices. The aim of this study is to model the underlying psychological factors influencing consumer evaluations of food risk management quality using structural equation modeling techniques (SEM), and to examine the extent to which the influence of these factors is country‐specific (comparing respondents from Denmark, Germany, Greece, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom). A survey was developed to model the factors that drive consumer evaluations of food risk management practices and their relative importance (n= 2,533 total respondents). The measurement scales included in the structural model were configurally and metrically invariant across countries. Results show that some factors appear to drive perceptions of effective food risk management in all the countries studied, such as proactive consumer protection, which was positively related to consumers' evaluation of food risk management quality, while opaque and reactive risk management was negatively related to perceived food risk management quality. Other factors appeared to apply only in certain countries. For example, skepticism in risk assessment and communication practices was negatively related to food risk management quality, particularly so in the UK. Expertise of food risk managers appeared to be a key factor in consumers' evaluation of food risk management quality in some countries. However, trust in the honesty of food risk managers did not have a significant effect on food risk management quality. From the results, policy implications for food risk management are discussed and important directions for future research are identified.
In: EFSA supporting publications, Volume 12, Issue 1
ISSN: 2397-8325
In: Stewart-Knox , B J , Markovina , J , Rankin , A , Bunting , B P , Kuznesof , S , Fischer , A R H , van der Lans , I A , Poinhos , R , de Almeida , M D V , Panzone , L , Gibney , M & Frewer , L J 2016 , ' Making personalised nutrition the easy choice: Creating policies to break down the barriers and reap the benefits ' , Food Policy , vol. 63 , pp. 134-144 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.08.001
Personalised diets based on people's existing food choices, and/or phenotypic, and/or genetic information hold potential to improve public dietary-related health. The aim of this analysis, therefore, has been to examine the degree to which factors which determine uptake of personalised nutrition vary between EU countries to better target policies to encourage uptake, and optimise the health benefits of personalised nutrition technology. A questionnaire developed from previous qualitative research was used to survey nationally representative samples from 9 EU countries (N = 9381). Perceived barriers to the uptake of personalised nutrition comprised three factors (data protection; the eating context; and, societal acceptance). Trust in sources of information comprised four factors (commerce and media; practitioners; government; family and, friends). Benefits comprised a single factor. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was employed to compare differences in responses between the United Kingdom; Ireland; Portugal; Poland; Norway; the Netherlands; Germany; and, Spain. The results indicated that respondents in Greece, Poland, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, rated the benefits of personalised nutrition highest, suggesting a particular readiness in these countries to adopt personalised nutrition interventions. Greek participants were more likely to perceive the social context of eating as a barrier to adoption of personalised nutrition, implying a need for support in negotiating social situations while on a prescribed diet. Those in Spain, Germany, Portugal and Poland scored highest on perceived barriers related to data protection. Government was more trusted than commerce to deliver and provide information on personalised nutrition overall. This was particularly the case in Ireland, Portugal and Greece, indicating an imperative to build trust, particularly in the ability of commercial service providers to deliver personalised dietary regimes effectively in these countries. These findings, obtained from a nationally representative sample of EU citizens, imply that a parallel, integrated, public-private delivery system would capture the needs of most potential consumers.
BASE