Consumers’ avoidance of information on red meat risks: information exposure effects on attitudes and perceived knowledge

In accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, individuals generally avoid information that is not consistent with their cognitions, to avoid psychological discomfort associated with tensions arising from contradictory beliefs. Information avoidance may thus make risk communication less successful. To address this, we presented information on red meat risks to red meat consumers. To explore information exposure effects, attitudes toward red meat and perceived knowledge of red meat risks were measured before, immediately after, and two weeks after exposure. We expected information avoidance of red meat risks to be: positively related to (1) study discontentment; and (2) positive attitudes toward red meat; and negatively related to (3) information seeking on red meat risks; and (4) systematic and heuristic processing of information. In addition, following exposure to the risk information, we expected that (5) individuals who scored high in avoidance of red meat risks information to change their attitudes and perceived risk knowledge less than individuals who scored low in avoidance. Results were in line with the first three expectations. Support for the fourth was partial insofar as this was only confirmed regarding systematic processing. The final prediction was not confirmed; individuals who scored high in avoidance decreased the positivity of their attitudes and increased their perceived knowledge in a similar fashion to those who scored low in avoidance. These changes stood over the two-week follow-up period. Results are discussed in accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, with the possible use of suppression strategies, and with the corresponding implications for risk communication practice.     

How to trust? The importance of self‐efficacy and social trust in public responses to industrial risks

Although a great deal of research has linked both self‐efficacy and social trust to risk responses, one overlooked question concerns the association between self‐efficacy and institutional trust. The purpose of this study was to investigate the main and combined effects of trust in the self and trust in responsible agencies to affective responses and information sufficiency. Survey respondents in this study were placed into one of four categories based on their levels of self‐efficacy (high/low) and social trust (high/low), including confidence, independence, dependence and insecure groups. Based on survey data (n = 466), the accuracy of the four‐group classification was tested. Indeed, we found that our classification system correlated with responses. Both self‐efficacy and institutional trust were found to contribute to emotional risk responses, as well as risk information needs and preferences for risk information.     

企业风险管理中的风险沟通机制研究

ERM是当今企业风险管理的核心标准,风险沟通是风险管理的重要方法,但企业风险沟通的研究尚不完备。本文将社会公共领域的风险沟通理论与COSO框架下的企业风险管理相结合,提出了一个风险沟通的理论假说,以全面风险感知、相互信任、伙伴关系和双向沟通模式作为该假说的四大支柱,以全面综合的方法,从企业内部(纵向)和企业外部(横向)两个维度构建了企业风险沟通体系,期望能够为企业层面的风险沟通发挥积极的作用。     

Perspective on ‘Four Questions for Risk Communication’

In his essay, ‘Four Questions for Risk Communication,’ Roger Kasperson challenges the risk communication community to take better stock of the lessons it’s learned over the past several decades. Implicated are the failure of many to reap the rewards or benefits of our field’s discoveries and the attendant responsibility we collectively bear in not communicating them well enough. Less a scolding than a call to action, Kasperson thoughtfully reflects on his four questions before offering some summary principles. In so doing, he has initiated a conversation that offers some key points of reflection on where our community stands today and where we might be going. Neither exhaustive in its scope nor patronizing in his directives, his essay is an invitation – a nudge – to begin a dialog on these issues and become more mindful of our own successes and failures in risk communication.     

Risk cultures and dominant approaches towards disasters in seven European countries

This paper builds upon the risk culture concept started with Mary Douglas’ and Aaron Wildavsky’s seminal work on risk and culture. Based upon the empirical results of a qualitative sociological study on sociocultural factors affecting risk perception and crisis communication in seven European countries, a theoretical model, illustrating how differences in disasters framing imply diverse approaches to risk and disaster management, is suggested. According to this framework, culturally bounded assumptions and conventions strongly influence how communities make sense of risks and hazards and how these communities consider some ways of dealing with disasters more appropriate than others. The framework suggested in this article distinguishes between risk cultures of a given society, which do not necessarily respond to nation states. In order to explain differences in how cultures deal with risks and disasters, and to define the main features of our typology, three main interrelated dimensions have been selected: disaster framing, trust in authorities and blaming. By analyzing differences and similarities in how people perceive and interpret disasters, as well as to whom the responsibility for risk prevention and crisis management is attributed, in seven European countries, three specific ideal types of risk cultures emerged: state-oriented risk culture, individual-oriented risk culture and fatalistic risk culture. Implications for crisis management and communication in case of a disaster will be addressed for each of these risk cultures.     

The use of multi‐level modelling in risk research. A secondary analysis of a study of public perceptions of genetically modified food

Many studies have examined the relationship between various individual variables and people's perceptions of genetically modified (GM) food. A problem with this type of research is that contextual factors are completely ignored. This article explores the use of multi‐level modelling in the field of risk research, by re‐analysing a recent British study of public perceptions of GM food. As the study employed a multi‐stage sampling strategy, it could be used to examine simultaneously the individual and spatial variation in trust and the acceptability of GM food. While the geographical variation in acceptability was largely due to compositional differences between the sampling points, a geographical variation in trust remained after controlling for individual differences. The analysis demonstrated that city‐dwellers commonly have more trust in the regulation of GM food than other respondents. Next to being associated with a number of socio‐demographic variables, both acceptability and trust were related strongly to voting intention. Moreover, the results suggest that there is a link between vulnerable groups, feelings of exclusion, and (dis)trust. The article is concluded by arguing that multi‐level modelling provides new opportunities for simultaneously examining the individual and contextual basis of public perceptions of controversial risk issues.     

The action suited to the word? Use of the framework of risk information seeking to understand risk-related behaviors

Although a growing body of risk communication research focuses on how people process risk information, one question that is overlooked is how the seeking of information contributes to behavioral adaptation toward the risk issue. How are people’s behavioral responses to risks affected by the search for risk information? Building on the Framework of Risk Information Seeking (FRIS), this paper reports on two studies that focus on the experimental testing of several of the basic FRIS assumptions. In study 1, a 2 (involvement: high vs. low)?×?2 (risk perception: high vs. low) between-subjects experiment was conducted to test the assumption that higher levels of involvement and risk perception stimulate the intention to seek additional risk information as well as the actual risk information. Study 2 is a partial replication of study 1. In study 2, a 2 (involvement: high vs. low)?×?2 (fear appeal: present vs. absent)?×?2 (response efficacy: high vs. low) between-subjects experiment was conducted to test how varying the levels of involvement, risk perception, and response efficacy influence actual and intended information seeking, as well as the intention to adopt risk-mitigating actions. The results showed that the high-involvement, high-risk perception, high-response efficacy group was most likely to actually seek information and make behavioral changes. The results are in accordance with basic FRIS assumptions. Implications for risk communication are discussed.