IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0188758.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presenting information on regulation values improves the public’s sense of safety: Perceived mercury risk in fish and shellfish and its effects on consumption intention

Author

Listed:
  • Michio Murakami
  • Mai Suzuki
  • Tomiko Yamaguchi

Abstract

Risk communication aims to promote health and understanding through information exchange; however, explanations regarding the basis of regulation values for the public are insufficient. Moreover, it is unclear how information presentation affects the public’s sense of safety and their consumption intentions. We first investigated the relationship between perception of mercury-risk in fish and shellfish and individual attributes and knowledge. We then examined how presenting information on regulation values and primary factors regarding perception affected sense of safety toward regulations and food-consumption intentions. An online survey was conducted with Japanese individuals (N = 1148). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three groups based on the presentation level of regulation values. People who frequently consumed tuna had a high perception of dread risk of mercury. This suggests that the dread risk perception of mercury does not determine tuna-type consumption behavior; rather, individuals’ consumption behavior determines dread risk perception of mercury. Among those with high tuna-type consumption, those receiving information that a safety factor of 10 times had been considered showed a significantly greater sense of safety than did the group that was not presented with information on regulation values (odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 2.04 (1.18–3.53), p

Suggested Citation

  • Michio Murakami & Mai Suzuki & Tomiko Yamaguchi, 2017. "Presenting information on regulation values improves the public’s sense of safety: Perceived mercury risk in fish and shellfish and its effects on consumption intention," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188758
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188758
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188758&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0188758?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emilie Roth & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Lester Lave & Ann Bostrom, 1990. "What Do We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 375-387, September.
    2. Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2006. "Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1045-1057, August.
    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. Hiroko Hori & Makiko Orita & Yasuyuki Taira & Takashi Kudo & Noboru Takamura, 2019. "Risk perceptions regarding radiation exposure among Japanese schoolteachers living around the Sendai Nuclear Power Plant after the Fukushima accident," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-10, March.

    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. Huaiyuan Zhai & Mengjie Li & Shengyue Hao & Mingli Chen & Lingchen Kong, 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    4. Alan S. Levy & Conrad J. Choinière & Sara B. Fein, 2008. "Practice‐Specific Risk Perceptions and Self‐Reported Food Safety Practices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 749-761, June.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. Aaron Wildavsky, 1991. "Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 15-16, March.
    9. Shan Gao & Weimin Li & Shuang Ling & Xin Dou & Xiaozhou Liu, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Influence Path of Environmental Risk Perception on Behavioral Responses In China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    11. Lee, Sang Hun & Kang, Hyun Gook, 2016. "Integrated framework for the external cost assessment of nuclear power plant accident considering risk aversion: The Korean case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 111-123.
    12. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2010. "Nanotechnology Risk Communication Past and Prologue," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(11), pages 1645-1662, November.
    13. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    14. Olga Untilov & Stéphane Ganassali, 2020. "Product‐harm science communication: The halo effect and its moderators," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(3), pages 1002-1027, September.
    15. Stephanie Moser & Susanne Elisabeth Bruppacher & Hans‐Joachim Mosler, 2011. "How People Perceive and Will Cope with Risks from the Diffusion of Ubiquitous Information and Communication Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 832-846, May.
    16. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    17. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 131-145, February.
    18. Marielle Brunette, 2012. "Do risk communication methods perform to generate rationality?," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2012-01, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    19. 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.
    20. Meerza, Syed Imran Ali & Brooks, Kathleen R. & Gustafson, Christopher R. & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2021. "Information avoidance behavior: Does ignorance keep us uninformed about antimicrobial resistance?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0188758. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.