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
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.
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
Illusion and well‐being: A social psychological perspective on mental health
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193 · Cited by 7,814
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
Consumer 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
Food handlers' beliefs and self-reported practices
Clayton, D. A., Griffith, C. J., Price, P., & Peters, A. C. (2002) · International Journal of Environmental Health Research · doi:10.1080/09603120120110031 · Cited by 399
Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., & Lesher, L. L. (2007) · Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2006.07.002 · Cited by 305
Food Safety in Home Kitchens: A Synthesis of the Literature
Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Berning, J., Martin-Biggers, J., & Quick, V. (2013) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph10094060 · Cited by 262
Hailu, G., Boecker, A., Henson, S., & Cranfield, J. (2009) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.10.002 · Cited by 162
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
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.