Trust, perceived risk, and attitudes toward food technologies

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 32, Issue 11, 2002, Pages 2423-2433

  Richard Eiser, J ^a   Miles, Susan ^b   Frewer, Lynn J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF FOOD RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^c WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036881308     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01871.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alhakmi, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationships between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085-1096.
2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Burns, W. J., Slovic, P., Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X., Renn, O., & Emani, S. (1993). Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk: Implications for theory construction and decision making. Risk Analysis, 13, 611-623.
4. Cvetkovich, G., & Löfstedt, R. E. (Eds.). (1999). Social trust and the management of risk. London, UK: Earthscan.
5. Dunlap, R. E., Kraft, M. E., & Rosa, E. A. (Eds.). (1993). Public reactions to nuclear waste: Citizens' views of repository siting. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
6. Eiser, J. R. (1994a). Attitudes, chaos, and the connectionist mind. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
7. Eiser, J. R. (1994b). Risk judgements reflect belief strength, not bias. Psychology and Health, 9, 197-200.
8. Eiser, J. R., Spears, R., & Webley, P. (1989). Nuclear attitudes before and after Chernobyl: Change and judgement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 689-700.
9. Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-243). New York, NY: Guilford.
10. Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The role of attitude accessibility. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 153-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Fazio, R. H. (1990): Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior. The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12. Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlations of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13, 643-648.
14. Freudenberg, W. R., & Pastor, S. K. (1992). Public responses to technological risks: Towards a sociological perspective. Sociological Quarterly, 33, 389-412.
15. Frewer, L. J. (1999). Risk perception, social trust, and public participation into strategic decision making: Implications for emerging technologies. Ambio, 28, 569-574.
16. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., &Shepherd, R. (1997). The use of the elaboration likelihood model in developing effective food risk communication. Risk Analysis, 17, 269-281.
17. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1999). Reactions to information about genetic engineering: Impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 35-50.
18. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1998a). The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agriculture and Human Values, 15, 15-30.
19. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1998b). Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research, 1, 221-237.
20. Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & Bredahl, L. (in press). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: Effects of different information strategies. Risk Analysis.
21. Frewer, L. J., & Shepherd, R. (1996). Trust in risk information sources as an influence on communication effectiveness (Report to the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food). London, UK: Food Standards Agency.
22. Johnson, B. (1999). Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 325-354.
23. Johnson, B., & Slovic, P. (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 15, 485-494.
24. McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233-346). New York, NY: Random House.
25. Miles, S., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). The impact of information content and presentational context on perceptions of specific food risks (Technical Annex final report to the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food). London, UK: Food Standards Agency.
26. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
27. Sandman, P. (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
28. Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2093-2106.
29. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 675-682.
30. Smith,D., & McCloskey,J. (1998). Risk communication and the social amplification of public sector risk. Public Money and Management, 18, 41-45.
31. Worcester,R.M. (1999, July). Seeking consensus on contentious scientific issues: Science and democracy. Paper presented to the Foundation for Science and Democracy, Royal Society, London, UK.