Risk Perception, Communication and Trust. How Might Consumer Confidence in the Food Supply be Maintained?

  • Lynn J. Frewer
  • Susan Miles


It is important to understand the psychology that underpins consumer beliefs about food choice if consumer confidence in the food supply is to be maintained. Recent food safety scares, such as BSE, E. coli O157:H7 and dioxins which contaminated Belgian eggs and meat products, have increased consumer worry about food security (Griffin 1993).


Risk Perception Food Choice Risk Communication Risk Information Precautionary Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burns, W.J., Slovic, P., Kasperson, R.E., Kasperson, J.X., Renn, O. and Emani, S. (1993) Incorporating structural models into research on the social amplification of risk–implications for theory construction and decision making. Risk Analysis, 13: 611–623Google Scholar
  2. Consumer and Biotechnology Foundation. (1999) Working Document. Genetically modified foods and allergenicity: Safety aspects and consumer information. Workshop, Breukelen, the Netherlands, 28–29 May 1999Google Scholar
  3. Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. New York: Brace Jovanovich Eagly, A., Wood, W. and Chaiken, S. (1978) Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 424–435Google Scholar
  4. Freudenberg, W.R. and Pastor, S.K. (1992) Public responses to technological risks–towards a sociological perspective. Sociological Quarterly, 33: 389–412Google Scholar
  5. Freudenburg, W.R, Coleman, C.L., Gonzales, J. and Hegleland, C. (1996) Media coverage of hazard events: Analyzing the assumptions. Risk Analysis, 16: 31–42Google Scholar
  6. Frewer, L.J. (1999) Demographic differences in risk perceptions and public priorities for risk mitigation. Final Report. Report submitted to MAFF/DoH, Norwich, Institute of Food ResearchGoogle Scholar
  7. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1996) What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16: 473–486Google Scholar
  8. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Campion, E., Miles, S. and Hunt, S. (1997a), Perceptions of radiation risk in the UK before, during and after the 10th Anniversary of the Chernobyl Accident. Report to the European Commission. Institute of Food Research, Reading. ( NB. Report obtainable from IFR Norwich )Google Scholar
  9. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1997b) The use of the elaboration likelihood model in developing effective food risk communication. Risk Analysis, 17: 269–281Google Scholar
  10. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1998) Methodological approaches to assessing risk perceptions associated with food related hazards. Risk Analysis, 18: 95–102Google Scholar
  11. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R. (1999a) Reactions to information about genetic engineering: impact of source credibility, perceived risk immediacy and persuasive content. Public Understanding of Science, 8: 35–50Google Scholar
  12. Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J., Downs, C. and Bredahl, L (1999b) Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods. Developing an information strategy. Report for the European Commission, MAPP, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  13. Frewer, L.J., Miles, S. and Marsh, R. (submitted) The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis Google Scholar
  14. Frewer, L.J., Raats, M. and Shepherd, R. (1993/4) Modelling the media: The transmission of risk information in the British quality press. Journal of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications to Industry, 5: 235–247Google Scholar
  15. Frewer, L.J., Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. (1994) The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food related hazards targeted at the self other people and society. Journal of Food Safety, 14: 19–40Google Scholar
  16. Haigh, N. (1994) The introduction of the precautionary principle into the UK In: O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (Eds.), Interpreting the precautionary principle. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, pp. 229–251Google Scholar
  17. Kasperson, R.E. (1992) The social amplification of risk: progress in developing an integrative framework. In: D. Golding and S. Krimsky (Eds.) Social Theories of Risk, Westport CT, Praeger, pp. 153–178Google Scholar
  18. Maass, A. and Clark, R.D. (1983) Internalization versus compliance: Differential processes underlying minority influence and conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13: 197–215Google Scholar
  19. Metcalfe, D.D., Astwood, J.D., Townsend, R., Sampson, H.A., Taylor, S.L. and Fuchs, R.L. (2000) Assessment of the allergenic potential of foods derived from genetically engineered crop plants. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 36: 165–186Google Scholar
  20. Miles, S. and Frewer, L.J. (2000) The impact of information content and presentational context on perceptions of specific food risks. Technical Annex to Final Report to the UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and FoodGoogle Scholar
  21. Miles, S. and Frewer, L.J. (2001) Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference, 12 (1): 47–61Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1998a) National Food Survey 1997. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1998b) MAFF Food Safety Information Bulletin, No. 92, January 1998. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Moscovici, S. (1976) Social Influence and Social Change. London: Academic Press Moscovici, S. (1985) Innovation and minority influence. In: S. Moscovici, G, Mugny and E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on Minority Influence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–51Google Scholar
  25. O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (1994) The history and contemporary significance of the precautionary principle. In: O’Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (Eds.), Interpreting the precautionary principle. London, Earthscan Publications Ltd, pp. 12–30Google Scholar
  26. Perloff, L.S. and Fetzer, B.K. (1986) Self-other judgements and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3): 502–510Google Scholar
  27. Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1984) Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11: 668–672Google Scholar
  28. Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  29. Pidgeon, N., Henwood, K. and Maguire, B. (1999) Public health communication and the social amplification of risks: present knowledge and future prospects, In: P. Bennet and K. Cal-man (Eds.) Risk communication and Public Health. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 65–77Google Scholar
  30. Priester, J.R. and Petty, R.E. (1995) Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 637–654Google Scholar
  31. Reilly, J. (1998) Just another Food Scare? Changes in public understandings of BSE?. In: P. Philo (Ed.) Message Received. London, Longman, pp. 81–95Google Scholar
  32. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000) Public participation methods. A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25 (1): 3–29Google Scholar
  33. Renn, O. (1991) Risk communication and the social amplification of risk. In: R.E. Kasperson and P.J.M. Stallen (Eds.) Communicating Risks to the Public. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 287–323Google Scholar
  34. Sjöberg, L. (in press) Risk perception in Western Europe. AmbioGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, D. and McCloskey, J. (1998) Risk communication and the social amplification of public sector risk. Public Money and Management, 18: 41–45Google Scholar
  36. Slovic, P. (1992) Perceptions of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In: D. Golding and S. Krimsky (Eds.) Social Theories of Risk, Westport CT, Praeger, pp. 153–178Google Scholar
  37. Sparks, P. and Shepherd, R. (1994) Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14: 799–806Google Scholar
  38. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., Wieringa, N. and Zimmermanns, N. (1995) Perceived behavioural control, unrealistic optimism and dietary change: an exploratory study. Appetite, 24: 243–255Google Scholar
  39. Underwood, A.J. (1997) Environmental decision-making and the precautionary principle: What does this principle mean in environmental sampling practice? Landscape and Urban Planning, 37: 137–146Google Scholar
  40. Warren, V.A., Hillers, V.N. and Jennings, G.E (1990) Beliefs about food supply safety: A study of co-operative extension clientele. Journal of the American Dieticians Association, 90: 713–714Google Scholar
  41. Weinstein, N.D. (1987) Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community wide sample. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 10: 481–500Google Scholar
  42. Weinstein, N.D. (1989) Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246: 1232–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynn J. Frewer
  • Susan Miles

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations