IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jfrjnl/v11y2022i1p1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Communication under Conflicting Information: The Role of Confidence in Subjective Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Takashi Ishida
  • Atsushi Maruyama
  • Shinichi Kurihara

Abstract

In this study, we develop a model of food consumption with a focus on the subjectively assessed risk of consumers and their degree of confidence in their risk assessment and use it to examine consumer behavior in the chaotic situation created by the Fukushima nuclear accident in 2011. The data were collected in March 2012 using a mail survey for 1300 Japanese women, the primary food purchasers. The respondents were asked to evaluate the cancer risk of eating agricultural products, which were assumed to be grown in the affected area, despite meeting national regulatory standards for radioactive materials, as a measure of their risk assessment and willingness to purchase Fukushima beef. The results show that the effect of confidence in a consumer’s risk assessment on their behavior depends on the stated risk level- when stated risk is below an estimated critical value, termed the switching point, the risk perceived by a consumer without confidence exceeds that of one with confidence. On the other hand, perceived risk is inversely related to confidence when the stated risk exceeds the switching point.

Suggested Citation

  • Takashi Ishida & Atsushi Maruyama & Shinichi Kurihara, 2022. "Risk Communication under Conflicting Information: The Role of Confidence in Subjective Risk Assessment," Journal of Food Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(1), pages 1-1, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jfrjnl:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jfr/article/download/0/0/46486/49627
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jfr/article/view/0/46486
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Glynn T. Tonsor & Ted C. Schroeder & Joost M. E. Pennings, 2009. "Factors Impacting Food Safety Risk Perceptions," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 625-644, September.
    2. To N. Nguyen & Paul M. Jakus & Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2010. "An Empirical Model of Perceived Mortality Risks for Selected U.S. Arsenic Hot Spots," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1550-1562, October.
    3. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    4. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory & Martin Tusler, 2012. "Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(7), pages 717-735, August.
    5. Ding, Yulian & Veeman, Michele M. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2013. "The influence of trust on consumer behavior: An application to recurring food risks in Canada," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 214-223.
    6. Annelies Verdurme & Jacques Viaene, 2003. "Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implications for communication," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 91-113.
    7. Einhorn, Hillel J & Hogarth, Robin M, 1986. "Decision Making under Ambiguity," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 225-250, October.
    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. Kofi Britwum & Amalia Yiannaka, 2019. "Labeling food safety attributes: to inform or not to inform?," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Tonsor, Glynn T., 2010. "Consumer Food Safety Perceptions: Do they Differ across Products, Species, and Specific Risks?," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61044, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Peterson, Hikaru & Yamaura, Koichi, 2014. "Ambiguity Aversion and Preferences for Food Origin Post Fukushima Nuclear Disaster," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170552, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Fujikawa, Takemi, 2009. "The hot stove effect in repeated-play decision making under ambiguity," MPRA Paper 17647, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2013. "Effects of Cost and Campaign Advertising on Support for California’s Proposition 37," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-13, August.
    6. Marcello Basili & Stefano Dalle Mura, 2004. "Ambiguity and macroeconomics:a rationale for price stickiness," Department of Economics University of Siena 428, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    7. Wohl, Jennifer B. & Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & Hoehn, John P., 1995. "The Effect of Ambiguity on Willingness to Pay for Reduced Pesticide Residues," Staff Paper Series 201202, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    8. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Shawn P. Curley & Mark J. Young & J. Frank Yates, 1989. "Characterizing Physicians' Perceptions of Ambiguity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 9(2), pages 116-124, June.
    10. Schulz, Lee L. & Schroeder, Ted C. & White, Katharine L., 2012. "Value of Beef Steak Branding: Hedonic Analysis of Retail Scanner Data," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 41(2), pages 1-14, August.
    11. Marciano Siniscalchi, 2009. "Vector Expected Utility and Attitudes Toward Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 801-855, May.
    12. Akinwehinmi, Oluwagbenga & Ogundari, Kolawole & Amos, Taiwo, 2021. "Consumers' Food Control Risk Perception and Preference for Government-Controlled Safety Certification in Emerging Food Markets," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315312, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    14. Chen, Xianwen & Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre, 2014. "Consumer Preferences, Ecolabels, and the Effects of Negative Environmental Information," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 168094, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Kanter, Christopher & Messer, Kent D. & Kaiser, Harry M., 2008. "Do rBST-Free and Organic Milk Stigmatize Conventionally Produced Milk?," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 43491, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    16. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    17. Nathan F. Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Robin Gregory, 2015. "At Home on the Range? Lay Interpretations of Numerical Uncertainty Ranges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1281-1295, July.
    18. Huffman, Wallace & Rousu, M. & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 1009. "Are U.S. Consumers Tolerant of GM Foods?," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12336, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    19. Théodora Dupont-Courtade, 2012. "Insurance demand under ambiguity and conflict for extreme risks: Evidence from a large representative survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 12020, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    20. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:jfrjnl:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:1. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.