IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v3y2013i2p2158244013492782.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Trust in Information Sources

Author

Listed:
  • Brad Love
  • Michael Mackert
  • Kami Silk

Abstract

Trust is essential to understanding public reaction to innovative issues. This research focuses on trust in information sources by explicating the construct of trust and testing a comprehensive model on several information sources about genetically modified foods. Results from a survey of 369 participants reveal the significance of projecting competence and the role of the environment in which a target public receives information. Perceptions of regulatory, social, business, and technical environments affect how likely individuals are to follow advice from institutions like the Food and Drug Administration and the news media. Future research should incorporate knowledge levels and personal relevance as variables likely to influence trusting relationships.

Suggested Citation

  • Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:3:y:2013:i:2:p:2158244013492782
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244013492782
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244013492782
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244013492782?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. George Gaskell & Nick Allum & Wolfgang Wagner & Nicole Kronberger & Helge Torgersen & Juergen Hampel & Julie Bardes, 2004. "GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 185-194, February.
    2. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    3. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    4. Wallace E. Huffman, 2003. "Consumers' Acceptance of (and Resistance to) Genetically Modified Foods in High-Income Countries: Effects of Labels and Information in an Uncertain Environment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1112-1118.
    5. Petty, Richard E & Cacioppo, John T & Schumann, David, 1983. "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 10(2), pages 135-146, September.
    6. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    7. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    8. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    9. Thomas F. Stinson & Koel Ghosh & Jean Kinsey & Dennis Degeneffe, 2008. "Do Household Attitudes about Food Defense and Food Safety Change Following Highly Visible National Food Recalls?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1272-1278.
    10. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2004. "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1475-1486, December.
    11. Sandro Castaldo & Katia Premazzi & Fabrizio Zerbini, 2010. "The Meaning(s) of Trust. A Content Analysis on the Diverse Conceptualizations of Trust in Scholarly Research on Business Relationships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(4), pages 657-668, November.
    12. Paul Sparks & Richard Shepherd, 1994. "Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 799-806, October.
    13. William Leiss, 1995. "“Down and Dirty:” The Use and Abuse of Public Trust in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 685-692, December.
    14. Branden B. Johnson & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 485-494, August.
    15. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance, 1995. "Improving Risk Communication in Government: Research Priorities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 127-135, April.
    16. Sim B. Sitkin & Nancy L. Roth, 1993. "Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 367-392, August.
    17. Kim, Kyongseok & Kim, Jooyoung, 2011. "Third-party Privacy Certification as an Online Advertising Strategy: An Investigation of the Factors Affecting the Relationship between Third-party Certification and Initial Trust," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 145-158.
    18. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    19. Onyango, Benjamin M. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2004. "Consumer Acceptance of Nutritionally Enhanced Genetically Modified Food: Relevance of Gene Transfer Technology," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Hallman, William K. & Hebden, W. Carl & Aquino, Helen L. & Cuite, Cara L. & Lang, John T., 2003. "Public Perceptions Of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study Of American Knowledge And Opinion," Research Reports 18174, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    21. Andreas I. Nicolaou & D. Harrison McKnight, 2006. "Perceived Information Quality in Data Exchanges: Effects on Risk, Trust, and Intention to Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 332-351, December.
    22. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    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. Gorton, Matthew & Tocco, Barbara & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Hartmann, Monika, 2021. "What determines consumers' use of eco-labels? Taking a close look at label trust," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    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. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    2. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    5. Spencer Henson & Mamane Annou & John Cranfield & Joanne Ryks, 2008. "Understanding Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Technologies in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1601-1617, December.
    6. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    7. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    8. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    9. Claudia Eitzinger & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2008. "Trust in the Safety of Tourist Destinations: Hard to Gain, Easy to Lose? New Insights on the Asymmetry Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 843-853, August.
    10. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    11. Stacey M. Conchie & Calvin Burns, 2009. "Improving occupational safety: using a trusted information source to communicate about risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 13-25, January.
    12. Longji Hu & Rongjin Liu & Wei Zhang & Tian Zhang, 2020. "The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.
    13. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    14. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.
    15. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    16. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    17. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    19. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    20. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.

    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:sae:sagope:v:3:y:2013:i:2:p:2158244013492782. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.