What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs.

Trust in risk information about food related-hazards may be an important determinant of public reactions to risk information. One of the central questions addressed by the risk communication literature is why some individuals and organizations are trusted as sources of risk information and others are not. Industry and government often lack public trust, whereas other sources (for example, consumer organizations, the quality media, medical doctors) are highly trusted. Problematically, previous surveys and questionnaire studies have utilized questions generated by the investigators themselves to assess public perceptions of trust in different sources. Furthermore, no account of the hazard domain was made. In the first study reported here, semistructured interviewing was used to elicit underpinning constructs determining trust and distrust in different sources providing food-related risk information (n = 35). In the second study, the repertory grid method was used to elicit the terminology that respondents use to distinguish between different potential food-related information sources (n = 35), the data being submitted to generalised Procrustes analysis. The results of the two studies were combined and validated in survey research (n = 888) where factor analysis indicated that knowledge in itself does not lead to trust, but that trusted sources are seen to be characterised by multiple positive attributes. Contrary to previous research, complete freedom does not lead to trust-rather sources which possess moderate accountability are seen to be the most trusted.

[1]  Monique M. Raats,et al.  Modelling the media: the transmission of risk information in the British quality press , 1993 .

[2]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm , 1992 .

[3]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Ethical concerns and risk perceptions associated with different applications of genetic engineering: Interrelationships with the perceived need for regulation of the technology , 1995 .

[4]  John R. Piggott,et al.  Consumer profiling of Scotch whisky , 1989 .

[5]  R P Barke,et al.  Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. , 1993, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Attributing information to different sources: effects on the perceived qualities of information, on the perceived relevance of information, and on attitude formation , 1994 .

[7]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[8]  Raymond L. Falcione,et al.  The Factor Structure of Source Credibility Scales for Immediate Superiors in the Organizational Context. , 1974 .

[9]  Neil Gains,et al.  Sensory profiling of canned lager beers using consumers in their own homes , 1990 .

[10]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[11]  R. Shepherd,et al.  Developing a subject-derived terminology to describe perceptions of chemicals in foods. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE, CONTROL AND RISK ASSOCIATED WITH A RANGE OF FOOD‐RELATED HAZARDS TARGETED AT THE INDIVIDUAL, OTHER PEOPLE AND SOCIETY , 1994 .

[13]  D. Ellsberg.  Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[14]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  ASSESSING AND STRUCTURING ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF GENE TECHNOLOGY IN FOOD-PRODUCTION - THE ROLE OF PERCEIVED ETHICAL OBLIGATION , 1995 .

[15]  P. Slovic,et al.  Nuclear wastes and public trust , 1993 .

[16]  Monique M. Raats,et al.  An evaluation of the use and perceived appropriateness of milk using the repertory grid method and the ‘item by use’ appropriateness method , 1991 .

[17]  J. Mccroskey.  Scales for the measurement of ethos , 1966 .

[18]  William R. Freudenburg,et al.  Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions , 1993 .

[19]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model , 1992 .

[20]  Richard Shepherd,et al.  Public Concerns in the United Kingdom about General and Specific Applications of Genetic Engineering: Risk, Benefit, and Ethics , 1997, Science, technology & human values.

[21]  Risk perception: Changing the terms of the debate , 1989 .

[22]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLIC , 1992 .

[23]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks , 1992 .

[24]  Gillian M. Arnold,et al.  A comparison of the aromas of six coffees characterised by conventional profiling, free‐choice profiling and similarity scaling methods , 1985 .

[25]  E. Scott Baudhuin,et al.  Scales for the measurement of ethos: Another attempt , 1972 .

[26]  J. Durant,et al.  Risk communication. A literature review and some implications for biotechnology. , 1992 .

[27]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public , 1992 .

[28]  J. Gower.  Generalized procrustes analysis , 1975 .

[29]  M. Zanna,et al.  Attitudes and Attitude Change , 1993 .

[30]  R Shepherd,et al.  Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.