IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v24y2004i1p289-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences in Perception of Risk Between People Who Have and Have Not Experienced Salmonella Food Poisoning

Author

Listed:
  • Sharon M. Parry
  • Susan Miles
  • Ascanio Tridente
  • Stephen R. Palmer
  • South and East Wales Infectious Disease Group

Abstract

It is believed that food hygiene precautions in domestic kitchens are an important strategy in efforts to reduce the incidence of sporadic food poisoning, but recent research has shown that people who have suffered food poisoning handle the same types of foods and adopt similar food hygiene precautions in their kitchens to the rest of the population. This suggests the need to examine other factors. A case‐control study of sporadic Salmonella food poisoning was conducted to investigate several domestic kitchen risk factors. Measures of perception of risk, knowledge, and control associated with food poisoning in case and control respondents are reported here. It was found that perceived personal risk from food poisoning in the home was less than perceived risk to other people. In contrast, ratings of personal knowledge about food poisoning and personal control over food poisoning in the home were seen to be greater than other people's knowledge and control. There were no differences between the cases and the controls in their ratings of knowledge about food poisoning or their control over food poisoning. However, cases perceived their personal risk from food poisoning to be higher than controls. Both case and control samples exhibited optimistic bias but this was reduced in the case sample, suggesting that experience with food poisoning may reduce optimistic bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Sharon M. Parry & Susan Miles & Ascanio Tridente & Stephen R. Palmer & South and East Wales Infectious Disease Group, 2004. "Differences in Perception of Risk Between People Who Have and Have Not Experienced Salmonella Food Poisoning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 289-299, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:1:p:289-299
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00429.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00429.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00429.x?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. Chris Fife‐Schaw & Gene Rowe, 1996. "Public Perceptions of Everyday Food Hazards: A Psychometric Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 487-500, August.
    2. 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.
    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. Claudia Freivogel & Vivianne H. M. Visschers, 2020. "Understanding the Underlying Psychosocial Determinants of Safe Food Handling among Consumers to Mitigate the Transmission Risk of Antimicrobial-Resistant Bacteria," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Peake, Whitney O. & Detre, Joshua D. & Carlson, Clinton C., 2014. "One bad apple spoils the bunch? An exploration of broad consumption changes in response to food recalls," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 13-22.
    3. Tatiana Intigrinova, 2011. "Property regimes for pastoral resources: discussions, practices and problems," Research Paper Series, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, issue 158P.
    4. Craig Trumbo & Michelle A. Meyer & Holly Marlatt & Lori Peek & Bridget Morrissey, 2014. "An Assessment of Change in Risk Perception and Optimistic Bias for Hurricanes Among Gulf Coast Residents," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1013-1024, June.
    5. Evans, Keith S. & Teisl, Mario F. & Lando, Amy. M. & Liu, Sherry T., 2020. "Risk perceptions and food-handling practices in the home," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(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. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    2. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    3. Ashkan Pakseresht & Anna Kristina Edenbrandt & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2021. "Genetically modified food and consumer risk responsibility: The effect of regulatory design and risk type on cognitive information processing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    6. Bocker, Andreas & Hanf, Claus-Hennig, 2000. "Confidence lost and -- partially -- regained: consumer response to food scares," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 471-485, December.
    7. Celio Ferreira, 2006. "Food Information Environments: Risk Communication and Advertising Imagery," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(8), pages 851-868, December.
    8. Hiroko Ohtsubo & Yukiko Yamada, 2007. "Japanese Public Perceptions of Food-Related Hazards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 805-819, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Seda Erdem & Dan Rigby, 2013. "Investigating Heterogeneity in the Characterization of Risks Using Best Worst Scaling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1728-1748, September.
    11. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn J. Frewer, 2010. "Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food and Newspaper Coverage of Food Safety Issues: A Longitudinal Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 125-142, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Deana Grobe & Robin Douthitt & Lydia Zepeda, 1999. "A Model of Consumers' Risk Perceptions Toward Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH): The Impact of Risk Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 661-673, August.
    14. Katrin Hohl & George Gaskell, 2008. "European Public Perceptions of Food Risk: Cross‐National and Methodological Comparisons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 311-324, April.
    15. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    16. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    17. Bocker, Andreas & Albrecht, Silke, 2001. "Risikowahrnehmung und Verbrauchervertrauen nach einem Lebensmittelskandal - Eine experimentelle Studie," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 50(06), pages 1-9.
    18. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    19. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    20. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.

    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:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:1:p:289-299. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.