IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i15p8080-d604926.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers’ Food Safety Risk Communication on Social Media Following the Suan Tang Zi Accident: An Extended Protection Motivation Theory Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Ying Zhu

    (College of Economics & Management, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • Xiaowei Wen

    (College of Economics & Management, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
    Research Institute of Rural Development of Guangdong Province, Guangzhou 510642, China)

  • May Chu

    (Department of Government and Public Administration, United College, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China)

  • Gongliang Zhang

    (Management College, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou 510408, China)

  • Xuefan Liu

    (College of Economics & Management, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China)

Abstract

There are many hidden safety hazards in homemade food due to an absence of food preparation and storage knowledge, and this has led to many food safety incidents. The purpose of this study was to explore the influencing factors of consumers’ food risk communication behavior on social media in northeast China, using the protection motivation theory. We integrate the Suan Tang Zi food poisoning accident and the protection motivation theory to develop a conceptual model to predict food safety risk communication on social media. We conducted a questionnaire which adapted measures from the existing Likert scales. A total of 789 respondents from northeast China participated in this study. We tested our hypotheses using a structural equation model. Results show that perceived severity, perceived vulnerability and self-efficacy have a significant influence on consumer protection motivation. Response efficacies have a positive impact on consumer protection motivation, but response barriers have a negative impact on consumer protection motivation. Additionally, information need and protection motivation of consumers have a significant impact on food safety risk communication on social media. Overall, the protection motivation theory accounted for 71% of the variance in food safety risk communication on social media. Practical implications and suggestions are proposed for the related stakeholders, as well as consumers, to encourage the public to participate in the food risk communication in this study. The research findings presented the social media as a kind of food risk communication channel contributes to consumers acquire accurate information on food quickly, in turn, reduce the probability of food poisoning in daily life. Protection motivation theory may provide some insights into how we can increase the rate of food safety risk communication on social media.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:15:p:8080-:d:604926
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8080/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8080/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Leiss, 1996. "Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practice," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 545(1), pages 85-94, May.
    2. L. Smillie & A. Blissett, 2010. "A model for developing risk communication strategy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 115-134, January.
    3. Áine Regan & Monique Raats & Liran Christine Shan & Patrick G. Wall & Áine McConnon, 2016. "Risk communication and social media during food safety crises: a study of stakeholders' opinions in Ireland," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 119-133, January.
    4. Kurt Neuwirth & Sharon Dunwoody & Robert J. Griffin, 2000. "Protection Motivation and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 721-734, October.
    5. Zhaohui Yang & Krishna P. Paudel & Xiaowei Wen & Sangluo Sun & Yong Wang, 2020. "Food Safety Risk Information-Seeking Intention of WeChat Users in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Mario Mazzocchi & Alexandra Lobb & W. Bruce Traill & Alessio Cavicchi, 2008. "Food Scares and Trust: A European Study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 2-24, February.
    7. Ling, Mathew & Kothe, Emily J. & Mullan, Barbara A., 2019. "Predicting intention to receive a seasonal influenza vaccination using Protection Motivation Theory," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 233(C), pages 87-92.
    8. Kharouf, Husni & Biscaia, Rui & Garcia-Perez, Alexeis & Hickman, Ellie, 2020. "Understanding online event experience: The importance of communication, engagement and interaction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 735-746.
    9. Ingrid M. Martin & Holly Bender & Carol Raish, 2007. "What Motivates Individuals to Protect Themselves from Risks: The Case of Wildland Fires," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 887-900, August.
    10. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    11. McCarthy, Mary & Brennan, Mary, 2009. "Food risk communication: Some of the problems and issues faced by communicators on the Island of Ireland (IOI)," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 549-556, December.
    12. Rutsaert, Pieter & Pieniak, Zuzanna & Regan, Áine & McConnon, Áine & Kuttschreuter, Margôt & Lores, Mònica & Lozano, Natàlia & Guzzon, Antonella & Santare, Dace & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Social media as a useful tool in food risk and benefit communication? A strategic orientation approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 84-93.
    13. 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.
    14. Ragnar E. Lofstedt, 2006. "How can we Make Food Risk Communication Better: Where are we and Where are we Going?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(8), pages 869-890, December.
    15. Helmut Jungermann & Hans‐Rüdiger Pfister & Katrin Fischer, 1996. "Credibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 251-261, April.
    16. Wu, Chih-Wen, 2015. "Facebook users' intentions in risk communication and food-safety issues," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2242-2247.
    17. Wang, Jie & Liu-Lastres, Bingjie & Ritchie, Brent W. & Mills, Deborah J., 2019. "Travellers' self-protections against health risks: An application of the full Protection Motivation Theory," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-1.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cong Cao & Dan Li & Qianwen Xu & Xiuyan Shao, 2022. "Motivational Influences Affecting Middle-Aged and Elderly Users’ Participation Intention in Health-Related Social Media," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-21, September.

    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. Tingqiang Chen & Lei Wang & Jining Wang & Qi Yang, 2017. "A Network Diffusion Model of Food Safety Scare Behavior considering Information Transparency," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-16, December.
    2. Jun Luo & Jiepeng Wang & Yongle Zhao & Tingqiang Chen, 2018. "Scare Behavior Diffusion Model of Health Food Safety Based on Complex Network," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-14, November.
    3. Farooq, Ali & Laato, Samuli & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Isoaho, Jouni, 2021. "Understanding the impact of information sources on COVID-19 related preventive measures in Finland," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Ueland, Øydis & Langsrud, Solveig & Veflen, Nina, 2023. "Food risk communication to consumers: The scare of antibiotic resistant bacteria in chicken," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 14(02), June.
    5. Hatem Elleuch & Wafik Hachicha & Habib Chabchoub, 2014. "A combined approach for supply chain risk management: description and application to a real hospital pharmaceutical case study," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(5), pages 641-663, May.
    6. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2012. "Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 661-670.
    7. 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.
    8. Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2006. "Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1045-1057, August.
    9. Pallab Mozumder & Ryan Helton & Robert P. Berrens, 2009. "Provision of a Wildfire Risk Map: Informing Residents in the Wildland Urban Interface," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1588-1600, November.
    10. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    11. Devaney, Laura, 2016. "Good governance? Perceptions of accountability, transparency and effectiveness in Irish food risk governance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-10.
    12. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    13. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.
    14. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    15. Rutsaert, Pieter & Pieniak, Zuzanna & Regan, Áine & McConnon, Áine & Kuttschreuter, Margôt & Lores, Mònica & Lozano, Natàlia & Guzzon, Antonella & Santare, Dace & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Social media as a useful tool in food risk and benefit communication? A strategic orientation approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 84-93.
    16. Mirko Ruzza & Barbara Tiozzo & Valentina Rizzoli & Mosé Giaretta & Laura D'Este & Licia Ravarotto, 2020. "Food Risks on the Web: Analysis of the 2017 Fipronil Alert in the Italian Online Information Sources," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2071-2092, October.
    17. Mohammed Ziaul Hoque & Md. Nurul Alam, 2018. "What Determines the Purchase Intention of Liquid Milk during a Food Security Crisis? The Role of Perceived Trust, Knowledge, and Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.
    18. Stevens, T.M. & Aarts, N. & Termeer, C.J.A.M. & Dewulf, A., 2018. "Social media hypes about agro-food issues: Activism, scandals and conflicts," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 23-34.
    19. Yu Zeng & Xing Xu, 2022. "The Construction and Optimization of an AI Education Evaluation Indicator Based on Intelligent Algorithms," International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI), IGI Global, vol. 16(1), pages 1-22, January.
    20. 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.

    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:18:y:2021:i:15:p:8080-:d:604926. 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.