IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v8y2011i6p1923-1935d12599.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Pesticide Risk Beliefs Inventory: A Quantitative Instrument for the Assessment of Beliefs about Pesticide Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine E. LePrevost

    (Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, North Carolina State University, Box 7633, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
    Department of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education, North Carolina State University, Box 7801, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Margaret R. Blanchard

    (Department of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education, North Carolina State University, Box 7801, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • W. Gregory Cope

    (Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, North Carolina State University, Box 7633, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

Abstract

Recent media attention has focused on the risks that agricultural pesticides pose to the environment and human health; thus, these topics provide focal areas for scientists and science educators to enhance public understanding of basic toxicology concepts. This study details the development of a quantitative inventory to gauge pesticide risk beliefs. The goal of the inventory was to characterize misconceptions and knowledge gaps, as well as expert-like beliefs, concerning pesticide risk. This study describes the development and field testing of the Pesticide Risk Beliefs Inventory with an important target audience: pesticide educators in a southeastern U.S. state. The 19-item, Likert-type inventory was found to be psychometrically sound with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.780 and to be a valuable tool in capturing pesticide educators’ beliefs about pesticide risk, assessing beliefs in four key categories. The Pesticide Risk Beliefs Inventory could be useful in exploring beliefs about pesticide risks and in guiding efforts to address misconceptions held by a variety of formal and informal science learners, educators, practitioners, the agricultural labor force, and the general public.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine E. LePrevost & Margaret R. Blanchard & W. Gregory Cope, 2011. "The Pesticide Risk Beliefs Inventory: A Quantitative Instrument for the Assessment of Beliefs about Pesticide Risks," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:8:y:2011:i:6:p:1923-1935:d:12599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/6/1923/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/6/1923/
    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. Patrick Cox & Jörg Niewöhner & Nick Pidgeon & Simon Gerrard & Baruch Fischhoff & Donna Riley, 2003. "The Use of Mental Models in Chemical Risk Protection: Developing a Generic Workplace Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 311-324, April.
    3. Jörg Niewöhner & Patrick Cox & Simon Gerrard & Nick Pidgeon, 2004. "Evaluating the Efficacy of a Mental Models Approach for Improving Occupational Chemical Risk Protection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 349-361, April.
    4. Melissa Zaksek & Joseph L. Arvai, 2004. "Toward Improved Communication about Wildland Fire: Mental Models Research to Identify Information Needs for Natural Resource Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1503-1514, December.
    5. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    6. Ann Bostrom & Cynthia J. Atman & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Evaluating Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part II," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 789-798, October.
    7. Cynthia J. Atman & Ann Bostrom & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 779-788, October.
    8. Helmut Jungermann & Holger Schütz & Manfred Thüring, 1988. "Mental Models in Risk Assessment: Informing People About Drugs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 147-155, March.
    9. Daniel C. Kovacs & Baruch Fischhoff & Mitchell J. Small, 2001. "Perceptions of PCE use by dry cleaners and dry cleaning customers," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(4), pages 353-375, October.
    10. Ann Bostrom & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Daniel Read, 1994. "What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 1. Mental Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 959-970, December.
    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. Patrick Cox & Jörg Niewöhner & Nick Pidgeon & Simon Gerrard & Baruch Fischhoff & Donna Riley, 2003. "The Use of Mental Models in Chemical Risk Protection: Developing a Generic Workplace Methodology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 311-324, April.
    2. Nick Boase & Mathew White & William Gaze & Clare Redshaw, 2017. "Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2132-2149, November.
    3. Yan Cao & William L. McGill, 2013. "LinkIT: A Ludic Elicitation Game for Eliciting Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1066-1082, June.
    4. Jörg Niewöhner & Patrick Cox & Simon Gerrard & Nick Pidgeon, 2004. "Evaluating the Efficacy of a Mental Models Approach for Improving Occupational Chemical Risk Protection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 349-361, April.
    5. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.
    6. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    7. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    8. Carless, Travis S. & Redus, Kenneth & Dryden, Rachel, 2021. "Estimating nuclear proliferation and security risks in emerging markets using Bayesian Belief Networks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    9. Parnali Dhar‐Chowdhury & C. Emdad Haque & S. Michelle Driedger, 2016. "Dengue Disease Risk Mental Models in the City of Dhaka, Bangladesh: Juxtapositions and Gaps Between the Public and Experts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 874-891, May.
    10. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    11. Heather Lazrus & Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Ann Bostrom, 2016. "“Know What to Do If You Encounter a Flash Flood”: Mental Models Analysis for Improving Flash Flood Risk Communication and Public Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 411-427, February.
    12. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 335-348, June.
    13. Sarah E. Hampson & Judy A. Andrews & Michael E. Lee & Lyn S. Foster & Russell E. Glasgow & Edward Liechtenstein, 1998. "Lay Understanding of Synergistic Risk: The Case of Radon and Cigarette Smoking," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 343-350, June.
    14. A. Skarlatidou & T. Cheng & M. Haklay, 2012. "What Do Lay People Want to Know About the Disposal of Nuclear Waste? A Mental Model Approach to the Design and Development of an Online Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1496-1511, September.
    15. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 103-114, February.
    16. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.
    17. Branden B. Johnson, 2003. "Communicating Air Quality Information: Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Formats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 91-103, February.
    18. Teun Terpstra & Michael K. Lindell & Jan M. Gutteling, 2009. "Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions? Results of a Quasi‐Experimental Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1141-1155, August.
    19. Ramona Hambach & Philippe Mairiaux & Guido François & Lutgart Braeckman & Alain Balsat & Guido Van Hal & Chantal Vandoorne & Paul Van Royen & Marc van Sprundel, 2011. "Workers’ Perception of Chemical Risks: A Focus Group Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 335-342, February.
    20. Tzu Yang Loh & Mario P. Brito & Neil Bose & Jingjing Xu & Kiril Tenekedjiev, 2020. "Fuzzy System Dynamics Risk Analysis (FuSDRA) of Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Operations in the Antarctic," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 818-841, April.

    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:8:y:2011:i:6:p:1923-1935:d:12599. 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.