IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i12p4189-d370494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to Communicate Food Safety after Radiological Contamination: The Effectiveness of Numerical and Narrative News Messages

Author

Listed:
  • Hanna Valerie Wolf

    (Fellow at Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)/Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Tanja Perko

    (Institute for Environment, Health and Safety, SCK•CEN Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, 2400 Mol, Belgium
    Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Peter Thijssen

    (Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium)

Abstract

Food risk and the safety of foodstuffs in the aftermath of contamination are highly sensitive issues to communicate. Food risks receive extensive attention from the news media, which requires messages to be carefully drafted to minimize harm and avoid unnecessary boycotts. Once a food risk is deemed eliminated, communication efforts must rebuild trust among consumers. The latter is a particularly difficult task after radiological contamination. This study tests whether numerical messages, narrative messages, or messages combining both elements are more effective in persuading the public to consume foodstuffs from Fukushima, a region that continues to battle stigma since the nuclear accident in 2011. We employ a survey-embedded experiment on a sample of the general Belgian population ( N = 1085), during which respondents are presented with a mock news article presenting either a (1) numerical, (2) narrative, or (3) a combined message and test their subsequent evaluation of the article. We find that the numerical message leads to significantly higher perceived credibility and message acceptance than both the combined and the narrative message. Furthermore, we find that attitudes towards nuclear energy have a strong independent effect on message acceptance and evaluation, with those respondents who report a more positive stance towards nuclear energy more readily accepting the message. Food risk and safety communication may thus benefit from adopting a more detached, numerical approach for sensitive issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanna Valerie Wolf & Tanja Perko & Peter Thijssen, 2020. "How to Communicate Food Safety after Radiological Contamination: The Effectiveness of Numerical and Narrative News Messages," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4189-:d:370494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4189/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4189/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. L. J. Frewer & C. Howard & D. Hedderley & R. Shepherd, 1996. "What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, August.
    2. Barbara Tiozzo & Anna Pinto & Giulia Mascarello & Claudio Mantovani & Licia Ravarotto, 2019. "Which food safety information sources do Italian consumers prefer? Suggestions for the development of effective food risk communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(8), pages 1062-1077, August.
    3. Joanna Burger, 2012. "Rating of worry about energy sources with respect to public health, environmental health, and workers," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(9), pages 1159-1169, October.
    4. Rodolfo M. Nayga & Wipon Aiew & John P. Nichols, 2005. "Information Effects on Consumers' Willingness to Purchase Irradiated Food Products," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 37-48.
    5. Alexander Belyakov, 2015. "From Chernobyl to Fukushima: an interdisciplinary framework for managing and communicating food security risks after nuclear plant accidents," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(3), pages 404-417, September.
    6. Rui Gaspar & Sílvia Luís & Beate Seibt & Maria Luísa Lima & Afrodita Marcu & Pieter Rutsaert & Dave Fletcher & Wim Verbeke & Julie Barnett, 2016. "Consumers’ avoidance of information on red meat risks: information exposure effects on attitudes and perceived knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 533-549, April.
    7. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gülbanu Kaptan & Arnout R.H. Fischer & Lynn J. Frewer, 2018. "Extrapolating understanding of food risk perceptions to emerging food safety cases," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(8), pages 996-1018, August.
    2. Lynn J. Frewer & Chaya Howard & Duncan Hedderley & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food‐Related Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 95-102, February.
    3. Bachev, Hrabrin & Ito, Fusao, 2017. "Agricultural impacts of the Great East Japan Earthquake - six years later," MPRA Paper 79469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    5. Zeynep Altinay & Eric Rittmeyer & Lauren L. Morris & Margaret A. Reams, 2021. "Public risk salience of sea level rise in Louisiana, United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 523-536, December.
    6. Dan Jiang & Guangling Zhang, 2021. "Marketing Clues on the Label Raise the Purchase Intention of Genetically Modified Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    7. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2019. "Assessments of preparedness, agri-food impacts and implications for disaster risk management of Fukushima nuclear disaster," MPRA Paper 96917, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Yuriko Suzuki & Yoshitake Takebayashi & Seiji Yasumura & Michio Murakami & Mayumi Harigane & Hirooki Yabe & Tetsuya Ohira & Akira Ohtsuru & Satomi Nakajima & Masaharu Maeda, 2018. "Changes in Risk Perception of the Health Effects of Radiation and Mental Health Status: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-11, June.
    9. Ying Zhu & Xiaowei Wen & May Chu & Gongliang Zhang & Xuefan Liu, 2021. "Consumers’ Food Safety Risk Communication on Social Media Following the Suan Tang Zi Accident: An Extended Protection Motivation Theory Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Bachev, Hrabrin, 2015. "Изследване На Социално-Икономическите Ефекти На Земетресението, Цунамито И Ядрената Авария Във Фукушима През Март 2011 Година Върху Агро-Хранителните Вериги В Япония [A study on socio-economic impa," MPRA Paper 69426, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Timothy Sim & Li-San Hung & Gui-Wu Su & Ke Cui, 2018. "Interpersonal communication sources and natural hazard risk perception: a case study of a rural Chinese village," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1307-1326, December.
    12. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    13. Goncharuk, A. G., 2019. "Alternative View on Wine Value and Its Measurement," Journal of Applied Management and Investments, Department of Business Administration and Corporate Security, International Humanitarian University, vol. 8(2), pages 88-106, May.
    14. Anna C. Hurlimann, 2007. "Is recycled water use risky? An Urban Australian community’s perspective," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 83-94, March.
    15. Xu, Haifeng & Ding, Yi & Zhang, Cheng & Tan, Bernard C.Y., 2023. "Too official to be effective: An empirical examination of unofficial information channel and continued use of retracted articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    16. Kostagiolas, Petros & Korfiatis, Nikolaos & Kourouthanasis, Panos & Alexias, Georgios, 2014. "Work-related factors influencing doctors search behaviors and trust toward medical information resources," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 80-88.
    17. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    18. Dirk Grasmück & Roland W. Scholz, 2005. "Risk Perception of Heavy Metal Soil Contamination by High‐Exposed and Low‐Exposed Inhabitants: The Role of Knowledge and Emotional Concerns," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 611-622, June.
    19. Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2006. "Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1045-1057, August.
    20. Vincenzina Caputo, 2020. "Does information on food safety affect consumers' acceptance of new food technologies? The case of irradiated beef in South Korea under a new labelling system and across different information regimes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(4), pages 1003-1033, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:12:p:4189-:d:370494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.