Relationships among trust in messages, risk perception, and risk reduction preferences based upon avian influenza in Taiwan

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Volumn 9, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 2742-2757

  Fang, David ^a   Fang, Chen Ling ^b   Tsai, Bi Kun ^c   Lan, Li Chi ^b   Hsu, Wen Shan ^b  

^a NATIONAL TAIPEI UNIVERSITY OF NURSING AND HEALTH SCIENCES   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIPEI UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Avian influenza; Risk perception; Risk reduction preference; Trust in message

Indexed keywords

AVIAN INFLUENZA; HEALTH GEOGRAPHY; HEALTH MONITORING; HEALTH RISK; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY; MASS MEDIA; MEDIA ROLE; RISK PERCEPTION;

ADULT; AGE; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; AVIAN INFLUENZA; AWARENESS; CONSUMER; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; INFECTION RISK; MALE; MARRIAGE; MASS COMMUNICATION; MASS MEDIUM; MEDICAL INFORMATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOM SAMPLE; RISK; RISK PERCEPTION; RISK REDUCTION; SEX DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TAIWAN; TRUST;

TAIWAN;

EID: 84865084974     PISSN: 16617827     EISSN: 16604601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9082742     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Kasperson, R.E.; Kasperson, J.X. The social amplification and attenuation of risk. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 1996, 545, 95-105.
2. Frewer, L.; Miles, S.; Marsh, R. The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of the social amplification of risk. Risk Anal. 2002, 22, 701-711.
3. Luhmann, N. Trust and Power; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1979.
4. Yeung, R.M.W.; Morris, J. Consumer perception of food risk in chicken meat. Nutr. Food Sci. 2001, 31, 270-279.
5. Yeung, R.M.W.; Yee, W.M.S. Multi-dimensional analysis of consumer perceived risk in chicken meat. Nutr. Food Sci. 2002, 32, 219-226.
6. O'Keefe, D.J. Persuasion: Theory and Research, 3rd ed.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1990.
7. Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 19, 123-205.
8. Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Communication and Persuasion-Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 1986.
9. Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1032-1043.
10. Wood, W.; Kallgren, C.A.; Preisler, R.M. Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1985, 21, 73-85.
11. Gunther, A.C. Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opin. Q. 1992, 56, 147-167.
12. Ohanian, R. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. J. Advert. 1990, 19, 39-52.
13. Hovland, C.I.; Janis, I.L.; Kelley, H.H. Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1953.
14. Applbaum, R.; Anatol, K. The factor structure of source credibility as a function of the speaking situation. Speech Monogr. 1972, 39, 216-222.
15. Belch, G.E.; Belch, M.A. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communication Perspective, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
16. Berlo, D.K.; Lemert, J.B.; Mertz, R.J. Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opin. Q. 1969, 33, 563-576.
17. Bowers, J.W.; Phillips, W.A. A note on the generality of source credibility scales. Speech Monogr. 1967, 34, 185-186.
18. DeSarbo, W.S.; Harshman, R.A. Celebrity-Brand Congruence Analysis. In Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Leigh, J.H., Martin, C.R., Jr., Eds.; Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1985; pp. 17-52.
19. Kiecker, P.; Cowles, D. Interpersonal communication and personal influence on the Internet: A framework for examining online Word-of-Mouth. J. Euro Marketing. 2002, 11, 71-88.
20. Lafferty, B.A.; Goldsmith, R.E. Corporate credibility's role in consumers' attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the Ad. J. Bus. Res. 1999, 44, 109-116.
21. Pornpitakpan, C. Validation of the celebrity endorsers' credibility scale: Evidence from Asians. J. Mark. Manag. 2003, 19, 179-195.
22. Simpson, E.K.; Kahler, R.C. A scale for source credibility, validated in the selling context. J. Personal Sell. Sales Manag. 1980, 12, 17-25.
23. Whitehead, J.L. Factors of source credibility. Q. J. Speech 1968, 54, 59-63.
24. Wynn, G.W. The Effects of a Salespersons' Credibility on Other Sales Persons and Sales Managers. In Developments in Marketing Science; Hawes, J.M., Glisan, G.B., Eds.; Academy of Marketing Science: Bal Harbour, FL, USA, 1987; Volume: 10, pp. 353-358.
25. Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches; Wm. C. Brown Company: Dubuque. IA, USA, 1981.
26. Heesacker, M.; Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message relevant thinking. J. Personal. 1983, 51, 653-666.
27. Rieh, S.Y.; Becklin, N.J. Understanding judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in WWW. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1998, 35, 279-289.
28. Sussman, S.W.; Siegal, W.S. Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Inf. Syst. Res. 2003, 14, 47-65.
29. Bhattacherjee, A.; Sanford, C. Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 805-825.
30. Tsen, M.H. Study on risk perception of Not-In-My-Back-Yard. People Land 1994, 122, 36-40.
31. Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. Judgments of and by Representativeness. In Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases; Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1982; pp. 84-98.
32. Bord, R.J.; O'Connor, R.E. Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site. Risk Anal. 1992, 12, 411-416.
33. Kasperson, R.E.; Golding, D.; Tuler, S. Social distrust as a factor in sitting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. J. Soc. Issues 1992, 48, 161-187.
34. Dittus, K.L.; Hillers, V.N.; Beerman, K.A. Attitudes and behaviors about pesticide residues, susceptibility to cancer, and consumption of fruits and vegetables. J. Nutr. Educ. 1993, 25, 245-250.
35. Slovic, P. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Anal. 1993, 13, 675-682.
36. Johnson, B.B.; Slovic, P. Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Anal. 1995, 15, 485-494.
37. Kunreuther, H.; Slovic, P.; Macgregor, D. Risk perception and trust: Challenges for facility sitting. Risk Health Saf. Environ. 1996, 7, 109-118.
38. Siegrist, M.; Cvetkovich, G.; Roth, C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal. 2000, 20, 353-362.
39. Pijawka, K.D.; Mushkatel, A.H. Public opposition to the sitting of the high-level nuclear waste repository: The importance of trust. Policy Stud. Rev. 1991, 10, 180-194.
40. Siegrist, M. The influence of trust and perception of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 2000, 20, 195-204.
41. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 263-291.
42. Roselius, T. Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. J. Mark. 1971, 35, 56-61.
43. Yeung, R.M.W.; Yee, W.M.S. Risk reduction: An insight from the UK poultry industry. Nutr. Food Sci. 2003, 33, 219-229.
44. Bauer, R.A. Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. In Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World; Hancock, R.S., Ed.; American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1960; pp. 389-398.
45. Fielding, R.; Lam, W.W.; Ho, E.Y.; Lam, T.H.; Hedley, A.J.; Leung, G.M. Avian influenza risk perception, Hong Kong. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 677-682.
46. Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan. Available online: http://www.coa.gov.tw/view.php?catid=8958 (accessed on 1May 2012).
47. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M. Structural equation modeling techniques and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 7, 1-78.
48. Shipley, B. Cause and Correlation in Biology: A User's Guide to Path Analysis, Structural Equations and Causal Inference; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000.