Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 47-61

  Miles, Susan ^a   Frewer, Lynn J ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF FOOD RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Food hazards; Laddering technique; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

SALMONELLA;

EID: 0002688350     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00029-X     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Adam B. Industrial food for thought: timescapes of risk. Environmental Values. 8:1999;219-238.
2. Alhakmi A.S., Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationships between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis. 14(6):1994;1085-1096.
3. Bech-Larsen, T., Nielsen, N.A., Grunert, K.G. & Sorensen, E. (1997). Attributes of low involvement products - a comparison of five elicitation techniques and a test of their nomological validity. MAPP Report no. 43.
4. Bredahl, L. (1998). Consumers' cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods - results of a qualitative study in four countries. MAPP Working paper no. 59.
5. Burns W.J., Slovic P., Kasperson R.E., Kasperson J.X., Renn O., Emani S. Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk: Implications for theory construction and decision making. Risk Analysis. 13(3):1993;611-623.
6. Butt T. Ordinal relationships between constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology. 8:1995;227-236.
7. Fife-Shaw C., Rowe G. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: A psychometric study. Risk Analysis. 16(4):1996;487-500.
8. Fiorino D.J. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values. 15(2):1990;226-243.
9. Flynn J., Slovic P., Mertz C.K. Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis. 13(6):1993;643-648.
10. Frewer L.J. Risk perception, social trust, and public participation into strategic decision making - implications for emerging technologies. Ambio. 28(6):1999;569-574.
11. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of foodstuffs. Food Quality and Preference. 7:1996;61-67.
12. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values. 22(1):1997;98-124.
13. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agriculture and Human Values. 15:1998;15-30.
14. Griffin G. Talking straight: The benefits to industry of communication advances in food science and diet philosophy. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 4:1993;77-79.
15. Grunert, K. G., Grunert, S. C., & Sorensen, E. (1995). Means-end chains and laddering: an inventory of problems and an agenda for research. MAPP Working paper no. 34.
16. Gutman J. A means-end chain model on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing. 46:1982;60-72.
17. Standard occupational classification, Vol. 1. 1990;HMSO, London.
18. Ingenthron G.D. Public communication: Genetically improved food crops. Food Technology. 45:1991;110-117.
19. Johnson B.B. Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust. Journal of Risk Research. 2(4):1999;325-354.
20. Jonas, M. S., & Beckmann, S. C. (1998). Functional foods: Consumer perceptions in Denmark and England. MAPP Working paper no. 55.
21. Kletz T.A. Risk - two views: the public's and the experts. Disaster Prevention and Management. 5(4):1996;41-46.
22. Kraus N.N., Slovic P. Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: Modelling individual and group perceptions within homogenous hazard domains. Risk Analysis. 8(3):1988;435-455.
23. Lechowich R.V. Current concerns in food safety. ACS Symposium Series. 484:1992;232-242.
24. Reynolds T.J., Gutman J. Laddering: extending the repertory grid methodology to construct attribute-consequence-value hierarchies. Pitts R.E., Woodside A.G. Personal Values and Consumer Psychology. 1984;155-167 Lexington Books, London.
25. Reynolds T.T., Gutman J. Laddering theory, method, analysis and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research. 28(1):1988;11-31.
26. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values. 25(1):2000;3-29.
27. Rugg G., McGeorge P. Laddering. Expert Systems. 12(4):1995;339-346.
28. Senauer B. Consumer food safety concerns. Cereal Foods World. 37:1992;298-303.
29. Sjöberg L., Drotz-Sjöberg B.M. Risk perception of nuclear waste. Experts and the public. Report number 16. 1994;Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
30. Slovic P. Perceptions of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm. Golding S., Krimsky S. Theories of Risk. 1992;117-152 Praegor, London.
31. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis. 13(6):1993;675-682.
32. Slovic P., MacGregor D., Kraus N.N. Perception of risk from automobile safety defects. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 19(5):1987;359-373.
33. Soby B.A., Simpson A.C.D., Ives D.P. Managing food-related risks: Integration of public and scientific judgements. Food Control. 5:1994;9-19.
34. Sparks P., Shepherd R. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study. Risk Analysis. 14(5):1994;799-806.
35. Warren V.A., Hillers V.N., Jennings G.E. Beliefs about food supply safety: a study of Co-operative extension clientele. Journal of the American Dieticians Association. 90:1990;713-714.