IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i4p2326-d751983.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public Awareness of Consumer Products Containing Radioactive Materials: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia

Author

Listed:
  • Zuraidah Sulaiman

    (Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310, Johor, Malaysia)

  • Hanis Syuhada Ahmad Sugiran

    (Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310, Johor, Malaysia)

  • Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah

    (Faculty of Business and Management, UiTM Melaka, Kampus Bandaraya Melaka, Melaka 75350, Melaka, Malaysia)

  • Adaviah Mas’od

    (Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310, Johor, Malaysia)

  • Suhairul Hashim

    (Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310, Johor, Malaysia)

  • David Andrew Bradley

    (Centre for Applied Physics and Radiation Technologies, School of Engineering and Technology, Sunway University, Bandar Sunway 47500, Selangor, Malaysia
    Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Guilford GU2 7XH, UK)

Abstract

The emergence of online purchase platforms makes products containing radioactive materials more accessible to consumers. These products are gaining popularity and are widely available and easily accessible in the market today. This study examined how consumer’s psychological factors affect their decision of purchasing products containing radioactive materials in the market. Based on the protective action decision model (PADM) and the heuristic-systematic model (HSM), this study proposed a model to add to the literature on consumer awareness of risky products. In particular, this study investigated which type of regulatory focus message (promotion-focused advertisement or prevention-focused advertisement) is significant in moderating the effects of radiation safety knowledge and product knowledge on risk perception when purchasing products containing radioactive materials. The relationship between consumers’ risk perception and information seeking, which leads to the purchase intention of such products was also investigated. Advertisements with varying regulatory focus messages were randomly distributed to participants to determine whether consumers are more influenced by promotion-focused advertisement or prevention-focused advertisement to mitigate the risk of purchasing products containing radioactive materials. The results revealed that promotion-focused advertising messages evoked a positive effect on consumers’ radiation safety knowledge and product knowledge toward risk perception. However, prevention-focused regulatory advertising messages did not moderate the relationships between both radiation safety knowledge and product knowledge on consumers’ risk perception. This study offers guidelines for manufacturers, sellers, and marketers of products containing radioactive materials, and, importantly, for the government to devise strategies in designing effective social marketing advertisement for business, environmental and societal benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Zuraidah Sulaiman & Hanis Syuhada Ahmad Sugiran & Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah & Adaviah Mas’od & Suhairul Hashim & David Andrew Bradley, 2022. "Public Awareness of Consumer Products Containing Radioactive Materials: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:2326-:d:751983
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/2326/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/4/2326/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ellen Ter Huurne & Jan Gutteling, 2008. "Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 847-862, October.
    2. Chuanhui Liao & Yu Luo & Weiwei Zhu, 2020. "Food Safety Trust, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Response to Company Trust Repair Actions in Food Recall Crises," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, February.
    3. Seol-A Kwon & Hyun-Jung Yoo & Eugene Song, 2020. "Korean Consumers’ Recognition of Risks Depending on the Provision of Safety Information for Chemical Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Patrizia Gazzola & Enrica Pavione & Roberta Pezzetti & Daniele Grechi, 2020. "Trends in the Fashion Industry. The Perception of Sustainability and Circular Economy: A Gender/Generation Quantitative Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    7. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    8. Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Math J. J. M. Candel & Hein De Vries & Nanne K. De Vries, 2012. "Risk Perception and Information Processing: The Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Self‐Reported Information Processing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 54-66, January.
    9. Ragnar Lofstedt & Anne Schlag, 2017. "Risk-risk tradeoffs: what should we do in Europe?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(8), pages 963-983, August.
    10. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    11. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Philippe De Maeyer, 2012. "The Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public's Information‐Seeking Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1369-1381, August.
    12. Branden B. Johnson, 2005. "Testing and Expanding a Model of Cognitive Processing of Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 631-650, June.
    13. Hail Jung & Seyeong Song & Chang-Keun Song, 2021. "Carbon Emission Regulation, Green Boards, and Corporate Environmental Responsibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-12, April.
    14. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    15. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    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. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    2. Chuanhui Liao & Xiaomei Zhou & Dingtao Zhao, 2018. "An Augmented Risk Information Seeking Model: Perceived Food Safety Risk Related to Food Recalls," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    4. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 2020. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2067-2086, October.
    5. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Jia Shi & Xiangnan Hu & Xuesong Guo & Cuihong Lian, 2020. "Risk Information Seeking Behavior in Disaster Resettlement: A Case Study of Ankang City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-19, October.
    8. T. Terpstra & R. Zaalberg & J. de Boer & W. J. W. Botzen, 2014. "You Have Been Framed! How Antecedents of Information Need Mediate the Effects of Risk Communication Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1506-1520, August.
    9. Liyue Gong & Hao Jiang & Xusheng Wu & Yi Kong & Yunyun Gao & Hao Liu & Yi Guo & Dehua Hu, 2022. "Exploring Users’ Health Behavior Changes in Online Health Communities: Heuristic-Systematic Perspective Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    10. Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    11. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    12. Femke Hilverda & Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2018. "Online Information Sharing About Risks: The Case of Organic Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1904-1920, September.
    13. Hang Lu & APPC 2018–2019 ASK Group & Kenneth Winneg & Kathleen Hall Jamieson & Dolores Albarracín, 2020. "Intentions to Seek Information About the Influenza Vaccine: The Role of Informational Subjective Norms, Anticipated and Experienced Affect, and Information Insufficiency Among Vaccinated and Unvaccina," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2040-2056, October.
    14. Sabrina Cipolletta & Gabriela Rios Andreghetti & Giovanna Mioni, 2022. "Risk Perception towards COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-25, April.
    15. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    16. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    17. Cindy Helinski & Gerhard Schewe, 2022. "The Influence of Consumer Preferences and Perceived Benefits in the Context of B2C Fashion Renting Intentions of Young Women," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-25, August.
    18. Austin Y. Hubner & Shelly R. Hovick, 2020. "Understanding Risk Information Seeking and Processing during an Infectious Disease Outbreak: The Case of Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1212-1225, June.
    19. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    20. Raul P. Lejano & Muhammad Saidur Rahman & Laila Kabir, 2020. "Risk Communication for Empowerment: Interventions in a Rohingya Refugee Settlement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2360-2372, November.

    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:19:y:2022:i:4:p:2326-:d:751983. 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.