The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study
Abstract
Although public perceptions of food‐related hazards receive much media comment and debate, the research literature on such perceptions is sparse and piecemeal. In the reported study, 216 people completed a questionnaire relating to their perceptions of the “risk characteristics” of potential hazards associated with various aspects of food production and food consumption. Responses were examined via principal‐components analysis to obtain a structural representation of risk perception of the kind provided by Fischhoff, Slovic, and their colleagues in their seminal psychometric work.(1,2) A three‐component solution accounting for 87% of the variance was obtained, with the dimensions labeled as “severity,”“unknown,” and “number of people exposed.” The findings also yielded information pointing to evidence of the phenomenon of unrealistic optimism. We conclude that our findings offer a useful base upon which further in‐depth research integrating different perspectives on risk perception with respect to food‐related hazards may be developed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Unrealistic optimism about future life events
Weinstein, N. D. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806 · Cited by 4,999
Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: a UK study
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1994) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/bf01534445 · Cited by 142
Self-citation
Cited by
Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x · Cited by 1,865
Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x · Cited by 802
Visschers, V. H. M., Wickli, N., & Siegrist, M. (2016) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.007 · Cited by 800
What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.x · Cited by 668
Self-citationConsumer attitudes, knowledge and behaviour: a review of food safety issues
Wilcock, A., Pun, M., Khanona, J., & Aung, M. (2004) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2003.08.004 · Cited by 483
Metadata
- Authors
- Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 799-806
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2045437271
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 31.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00291.x
- The paper
- Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00291.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.