Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks

Appetite

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 111-121

  Hansen, Janus ^a,d   Holm, Lotte ^a   Frewer, Lynn ^b   Robinson, Paul ^c   Sandøe, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b National Insititute for Medical Research   (United Kingdom)

^c WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Knowledge deficit; Lay handling; Risk research

Indexed keywords

FOOD ADDITIVE; FOOD DYE; SWEETENING AGENT;

ATTITUDE; BACTERIUM CONTAMINATION; CONSUMER; DATA BASE; DNA MODIFICATION; FOOD CONTAMINATION; FOOD HANDLING; FOOD INDUSTRY; FOOD INTAKE; FOOD SAFETY; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIOLOGY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EID: 0141644385     PISSN: 01956663     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00079-5     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Alkhami A.S., Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationships between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis. 14:1994;1085-1096.
2. Bredahl L. Consumers' cognitions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a qualitative study in four countries. Appetite. 33:1999;343-360.
3. Cowan C. Irish and European consumer views on food safety. Journal of food safety. 18:2000;275-295.
4. Da Costa M.C., Deliza R., Rosenthal A., Hedderley D., Frewer L.J. Non-conventional technologies and impact on consumer behaviour. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 11:2001;188-193.
5. Einsiedel E.F. Understanding 'publics' in the public understanding of science. Dierkes M., Grote C.v. Between understanding and trust. The public, science and technology. 2000;205-216 Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
6. Fife-Schaw C., Rowe G. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: a psychometric study. Risk Analysis. 16:1996;487-500.
7. Frewer L.J. Environmental risk, public trust and perceived exclusion from risk management. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy. 9:2001;221-248.
8. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. What determines trust in information sources about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis. 16:1996;473-486.
9. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. The elaboration likelihood model and communication about food risks. Risk Analysis. 17:(6):1997;759-770.
10. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. Methodological approaches to assessing risk perceptions associated with food-related hazards. Risk Analysis. 18:(1):1998;95-102.
11. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. Reactions to information about genetic engineering: impact of source characteristics, perceived personal relevance, and persuasiveness. Public Understanding of Science. 8:1999;35-50.
12. 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. 15:1998b;15-30.
13. Frewer L.J., Hunt S., Kuznesof S., Brennon M., Ness M., Ritson. The views of scientific experts on now the public conceptualise uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research. 6:(1):2003;75-85.
14. Frewer L.J., Shepherd R., Sparks P. The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted at the self, other people and society. Journal of Food Safety. 14:1994;19-40.
15. Giddens A. Consequences of modernity. 1991;Polity Press, Cambridge, Oxford.
16. Glitsch K. Consumer perceptions of fresh meat quality: cross-national comparison. British Food Journal. 102:2000;177-194.
17. Grove-White R., Macnaghten P., Mayer S., Wynne B. Uncertain world. Genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. 1997;CSEC, Lancaster University, Lancaster.
18. Halkier B. Consequences of the politicization of consumption: the example of environmentally friendly consumption practices. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 1:1999;25-41.
19. Hamstra A.M. Studying public perception of biotechnology: Helicopter and microscope? Dierkes M., Grote C.v. Between understanding and trust. The public, science and technology. 2000;179-202 Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
20. Hilgartner S. The dominant view of popularisation: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science. 20:1990;519-539.
21. The interim response to the report of the BSE inquiry by HM government in consultation with the devolved administrations. 2001;The Stationary Office, London.
22. Hoban T.J. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: an international perspective. Nature Biotechnology. 15:1997;232-234.
23. Holm L., Kildevang H. Consumers' views on food quality. A qualitative interview study. Appetite. 27:(1):1996;1-14.
24. Hovland C.I., Janis I.L., Kelley H.H. Communication and persuasiveness: Psychological studies of opinion change. 1953;Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
25. Jasanoff S. Civilazation and madness. The great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understanding of Science. 6:1997;221-232.
26. Keane A., Willetts A. Concepts of healthy eating: An anthropological investigation in South East London. 1996;Goldsmiths College, University of London, London.
27. Kjærnes U. Food risks and trust relations. Sosiologisk tidsskrift. 7:1999;265-284.
28. Kjærnes, U., Dulsrud, A (1998). Consumption and mechanisms of trust. Paper to the ESA subgroup. The Sociology of Consumption, Milan, 16-17 September.
29. Knox B. Consumer perception and understanding of risk from food. British Medical Bulletin. 56:(1):2000;97-109.
30. Kruglanski A.W., Thompson E.P. Persuasion by a single route: a view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry. 10:(2):1999;83-110.
31. Luhmann N. Trust and power. 1979;Wiley, Chichester.
32. Mannion M., Cowan C. Beef safety concerns of consumers in Ireland. Farm and Food. 8:(4):1998;10-12.
33. McComas K.A., Trumbo C.W. Source credibility in environmental health risk controversies: application of Meyer's credibility index. Risk Analysis. 21:2001;467-479.
34. McGuire W.J. Attitudes and attitude change. Lindzey G., Aronson E. The handbook of social psychology. 1985;233-346 Random House, New York.
35. Miles S., Frewer L.J. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference. 12:(1):2001;47-61.
36. Miles, S., Frewer, L. J (submitted). Reducing optimistic bias for food-related hazards.
37. Misztal B.A. Trust in modern societies. 1996;Polity Press, Cambridge, Oxford.
38. Nygård B. Den moderne forbruker-refleksive vurderinger og tillitsforold i endring. Sosiologisk tidsskrift. 4:1999;005-322.
39. Peters H.P. From information to attitudes? Thoughts on the relationship between knowledge about science and technology and attitudes toward technologies. Dierkes M., Grote C.v. Between understanding and trust. The public, science and technology. 2000;265-286 Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam.
40. Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. 1986;Springer, New York.
41. Priester J.R., Petty R.E. Source attributions and persuasion: perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21:1995;637-654.
42. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G. Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis. 21:2001;199-206.
43. Sjoberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis. 21:2001;189-198.
44. Slovic P. Perception of Risk. Science. 236:1987;280-285.
45. Slovic P. Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. Golding D., Krimsky S. Social theories of risk. 1992;117-152 Praeger, Westport, CT, London.
46. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis. 19:1999;689-701. (Reprinted from Environment, Ethics, and Behaviour, 277-313 (1997)).
47. Sparks P., Shepherd R. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food-production and food-consumption: an empirical study. Risk Analysis. 14:1994;799-806.
48. Tilston C.H., Sear R., Neale R.J., Gregson K. The effect of BSE: consumer perceptions and beef purchasing behaviour. British Food Journal. 94:1992;23-26.
49. Urban D., Hoban T.J. Cognitive determinants of risk perceptions associated with biotechnology. Scientometrics. 40:1997;299-331.
50. Weinstein N.D. Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science. 246:1989;1232-1233.
51. Weinstein N.D. Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychology. 12:1993;324-333.
52. Weinstein N.D., Klein W.M. Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychology. 14:1995;132-140.
53. Weinstein N.D., Lyon J.E. Mindset, optimistic bias about personal risk and health-protective behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology. 4:1999;289-300.
54. Weinstein N.D., Lyon J.E., Rothman A.J., Cuite C.L. Changes in perceived vulnerability following natural disaster. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 19:2000;372-395.
55. Wynne B., Irwin A. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. 1996;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
56. Zimmerman L., Kendall P., Stone M., Hoban T. Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Technology Chicago. 48:1994;11. see also pages 71, 73-74, 76.