Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE, CONTROL AND RISK ASSOCIATED WITH A RANGE OF FOOD‐RELATED HAZARDS TARGETED AT THE INDIVIDUAL, OTHER PEOPLE AND SOCIETY

FREWER, LYNN J., SHEPHERD, RICHARD, SPARKS, PAUL·1994·Journal of Food Safety

Abstract

The relationship between perceived risk, perceived control and perceived knowledge was investigated for a range of food related hazards. One hundred and eighty six questionnaires were completed; these were designed to assess perceived risk for a range of food related hazards at three levels of risk “target”— personal risk, risk for other people, and risk for society. Additional questions about perceived control and perceived knowledge for the potential hazards were also asked. Results indicated that individuals perceived personal risk to be lower than for either other people or society, independent of the hazard characteristics, in line with the theory of optimistic bias. Personal control tended to be seen as greater for the self than for other people, for those hazards where personal control was conceptually feasible. Perceived control for societal hazards was conferred onto society. Individuals thought that personal knowledge for a given hazard was greater than for other people. No direct relationship between perceived control and perceived risk was found, although there was a direct relationship between perceived knowledge and perceived control. The results are discussed within the framework of optimistic bias and illusion of control. It is concluded that the mechanism for such effects is dependent on the perceived characteristics of the potential hazard itself. Optimistic bias and greater perceived knowledge about potential hazards may explain the failure of public information campaigns; individuals will assume that they are invulnerable to hazards, and that information is directed at individuals less knowledgeable than themselves.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-4565.1994.tb00581.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 259

Metadata

Authors
FREWER, L. J., SHEPHERD, R., & SPARKS, P.
Venue
Journal of Food Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-03
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
19-40
ISSN
  • 0149-6085 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-4565
OpenAlex
W1980549592
Cited by
259
References
2
FWCI
24.78
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: THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED KNOWLEDGE, CONTROL AND RISK ASSOCIATED WITH A RANGE OF FOOD‐RELATED HAZARDS TARGETED AT THE INDIVIDUAL, OTHER PEOPLE AND SOCIETY. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1745-4565.1994.tb00581.x
The paper
FREWER, L. J., SHEPHERD, R., & SPARKS, P. (1994). 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.1994.tb00581.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.