Investigating heterogeneity in the characterization of risks using best worst scaling

Risk Analysis

Volumn 33, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 1728-1748

  Erdem, Seda ^a   Rigby, Dan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Best worst scaling; Food pathogens; Heterogeneity; Novel technology; Risk perception

Indexed keywords

BEST-WORST SCALING; ELICITATION METHODS; FOOD PATHOGENS; HETEROGENEITY; LOGIT MODELS; NEW APPROACHES; PERCEPTIONS OF RISKS; RANDOM PARAMETERS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ESTIMATION METHOD; FOOD SECURITY; HETEROGENEITY; HUMAN GEOGRAPHY; NUMERICAL MODEL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX-RELATED DIFFERENCE; WOMENS STATUS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEST WORST SCALING; FEMALE; FOOD CONTAMINATION; FOOD CONTROL; FOOD PATHOGENS; HETEROGENEITY; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NOVEL TECHNOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PROBABILITY; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; RURAL POPULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED KINGDOM; URBAN POPULATION;

BEST WORST SCALING; FOOD PATHOGENS; HETEROGENEITY; NOVEL TECHNOLOGY; RISK PERCEPTION;

ADULT; FEMALE; FOOD CONTAMINATION; FOOD MICROBIOLOGY; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PROBABILITY; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; RURAL POPULATION; URBAN POPULATION;

EID: 84884202461     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12012     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Frewer L. Risk perception and risk communication about food safety issues. Nutrition Bulletin, 2000; 25(1):31-33.
2. Knox B. Consumer perception and understanding of risk from food. British Medical Bulletin, 2000; 56(1):97-109.
3. HPA Independent Investigation Team. Review of the major outbreak of E. coli O157 in Surrey. Report of the Independent Investigation Committee: HPA, 2009.
4. E. coli in Nestlé Toll House Cookie Dough. US Food and Drug Administration, 2009. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm169858.htm, Accessed on May 5, 2012.
5. EHEC outbreak 2011: Summary from a risk assessment perspective. Available at: http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_information/2011/45/ehec_outbreak_2011_summary_from_a_risk_assessment_perspective-128210.html, Accessed on October 20, 2012.
6. Slovic P. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception: The Earthscan Risk in Society Series. Taylor & Francis, 2010.
7. Marris C, Langford I, Saunderson T, O'Riordan T. Exploring the "psychometric paradigm": Comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Analysis, 1997; 17(3):303-312.
8. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kiers HAL. A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(1):211-222.
9. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek. A laypeople's and experts' perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Assessment, 2007; 27:59-69.
10. Langford IH, Marris C, McDonald A-L, Goldstein H, Rasbash J, O'Riordan T. Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modeling. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(4):675-683.
11. Bronfman NC, Cifuentes LA, deKay ML, Willis HH. Accounting for variation in the explanatory power of the psychometric paradigm: The effects of aggregation and focus. Journal of Risk Research, 2007; 10(4):527-554.
12. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1974; 185(4157):1124-1131.
13. Keller C, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 2006; 26(3):631-639.
14. Loewenstein GF, Hsee CK, Weber EU, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 2001; 127(2):267-286.
15. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? Psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 1978; 9(2):127-152.
16. Slovic P. Psychology of protective behaviour. Journal of Safety Research, 1978; 10(2):58-68.
17. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Perceived risk and quantitative safety goals for nuclear-power. Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, 1980; 35(Nov):400-401.
18. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts vs. fears: Perceived risk and opposition to nuclear energy. Pp. 181-216 in Schwing RC, Albers WA (eds). Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? New York: Plenum, 1980.
19. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1993; 236:280-285.
20. Sparks P, Richard S. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(5):799-806.
21. Fife-Schaw C, Rowe G. Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: A psychometric study. Risk Analysis, 1996; 16(4):487-500.
22. Savadori L, Savio S, Nicotra E, Rumiati R, Finucane M, Slovic P. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(5):1289-1299.
23. Hohl K, Gaskell G. European public perceptions of food risk: Cross-national and methodological comparisons. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(2):311-324.
24. Siegrist M. Perception of gene technology, and food risks: Results of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research, 2003; 6(1):45-60.
25. Frewer LJ, Shepherd R, Sparks P. The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society. Journal of Food Safety, 1994; 14(1):19-40.
26. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R. Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance? British Food Journal, 1995; 97:31-36.
27. Raats MM, Shepherd R. Developing a subject-derived terminology to describe perceptions of chemicals in foods. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 1996; 18:227.
28. Saba A, Rosati S, Vassallo M. Biotechnology in agriculture. Perceived risks, benefits and attitudes in Italy. British Food Journal, 2000; 102:114-121.
29. Henson S, Mamane A, John C, Joanne R. Understanding consumer attitudes toward food technologies in Canada. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(6):1601-1617.
30. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R. Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research, 1998; 1(3):221-235.
31. Lee JEC, Lemyre L, Krewski D. A multi-method, multi-hazard approach to explore the uniqueness of terrorism risk perceptions and worry. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2010; 40(1):241-272.
32. Setbon M, Raude J, Fischler C, Flahault A. Risk perception of the "mad cow disease" in France: Determinants and consequences. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(4):813-826.
33. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R. Methodological approaches to assessing risk perceptions associated with food-related hazards. Risk Analysis, 1998; 18(1):95-102.
34. Scholz RW, Siegrist M. Low risks, high public concern? The cases of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), heavy metals, and nanotech particles. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2010; 16(1):185-198.
35. Sjoberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(1):1-11.
36. Ho M-C, Shaw D, Lin S, Chiu Y-C. How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(3):635-643.
37. Dohle S, Keller C, Siegrist M. Examining the relationship between affect and implicit associations: Implications for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 30(7):1116-1128.
38. Sjöberg L. Risk perception is not what it seems: The psychometric paradigm revisited. Pp. 14-29 in Andersson K (ed). VALDOR Conference. Stockholm: VALDOR, 2003.
39. Gardner GT, Gould, LC. Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis, 1989; 9:225-242.
40. Willis HH, DeKay ML, Fischhoff B, Morgan MG. Aggregate, disaggregate, and hybrid analyses of ecological risk perceptions. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(2):405-428.
41. Scarpa R, Notaro S, Louviere J, Raffaelli R. Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in alpine grazing commons. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2011; 93(3):813-828.
42. Lusk JL, Briggeman BC. Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2009; 91:184-196.
43. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN. Using best-worst scaling choice experiments to measure public perceptions and preferences for healthcare reform in Australia. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2011; 3(4):275-283.
44. Finn A, Louviere JJ. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 1992; 11(2):12-25.
45. Erdem S, Rigby D, Wossink A. Using best-worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety. Food Policy, 2012; 37(6):661-670.
46. Baumgartner H, Steenkamp J-BEM. Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 2001; 38(May):143-156.
47. Cohen S, Orme B. Asking survey respondents about their preferences created new scaling decisions. Marketing Research, 2004.
48. Winslott HL. Using choice experiments to assess people's preferences for railway transports of hazardous materials. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(5):1199-1214.
49. Rheinberger CM. Experimental evidence against the paradigm of mortality risk aversion. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30(4):590-604.
50. Johnson FR, Özdemir S, Mansfield C, Hass S, Siegel CA, Sands BE. Are adult patients more tolerant of treatment risks than parents of juvenile patients? Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(1):121-136.
51. Goodman S, Lockshin L, Cohen E. Best-worst scaling: A simple method to determine drinks and wine style preferences. Paper presented at the International Wine Marketing Symposium, Sonoma, 2005.
52. Cohen S, Markowitz P. Renewing Market Segmentation: Some New Tools to Correct Old Problems, Pp. 595-612. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2002.
53. Sawtooth Software. The MaxDiff/Web v6.0 technical paper, 2007.
54. Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 1927; 34:278-286.
55. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1998; 80(1):64-75.
56. Lusk JL, Roosen J, Fox JA. Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2003; 85: 16-29.
57. Revelt D, Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households' choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 1998; 80(4):647-657.
58. Brownstone D, Train K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. Journal of Econometrics, 1998; 89(1-2):109-129.
59. McFadden D, Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 2000; 15(5):447-470.
60. Train KE. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
61. Lyndhurst B. An evidence review of public attitudes to emerging food technologies. Social Science Research Unit Food Standard Agency, 2009. Available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/emergingfoodtech.pdf.
62. Greenberg M, Schneider D. Gender differences in risk perception: Effects differ in stressed vs. non-stressed environments. Risk Analysis, 1995; 15(4):503-511.
63. Yi-Wen K, Chen S-H. Perception of earthquake risk in Taiwan: Effects of gender and past earthquake experience. Risk Analysis, 2012; 2(10):1539-6924.
64. Siegrist M. Belief in gene technology: The influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Personality and Individual Differences, 1998; 24(6):861-866.
65. Leikas S, Lindeman M, Roininen K, Lähteenmäki L. Food risk perceptions, gender, and individual differences in avoidance and approach motivation, intuitive and analytic thinking styles, and anxiety. Appetite, 2007; 48(2):232-240.
66. Sjoberg L. Worry and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 1998; 18(1):85-93.
67. Gustafson, PE. Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 1998. 18(6):805-811.
68. Xiao C, McCright AM. Explaining gender differences in concern about environmental problems in the United States. Society & Natural Resources, 2012; 25(11):1067-1084.
69. Henson S, Annou M, Cranfield J, Ryks J. Understanding consumer attitudes toward food technologies in Canada. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28(6):1601-1617.
70. Kirk SFL, Greenwood D, Cade JE, Pearman AD. Public perception of a range of potential food risks in the United Kingdom. Appetite, 2002; 38(3):189-197.
71. Brooks K, Lusk JL. Stated and revealed preferences for organic and cloned milk: Combining choice experiment and scanner data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2010; 92(4):1229-1241.
72. Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR. Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 1996; 28(3):302-339.
73. Greenbaum A. Taking stock of two decades of research on the social bases of environmental concern. In DM Michael & O Eric (Eds). Environmental Sociology. North York, Ontario, Canada: Captus Press, 1995:125-152.
74. McCright A. The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population & Environment, 2010; 32(1):66-87.
75. Rasmussen J. Situational judgment test responding: Best and worst or rate each response. Master's thesis, Texas A&M University, 2009. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2009-05-383, Accessed on November 20, 2012.
76. Cohen S, Orme B. What's your preference? Marketing Research, 2004; 16:32-37.