• Journal of the East Asian Society of Dietary Life
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.691-702
• /
• 2015

This study examined the levels of risk perception of food risk elements by adopting a psychometric paradigm and analyzed factors affecting concerns about food risk elements to obtain basic materials for food safety policy. The data were collected from 296 housewives in Daegu, Korea, by a self-administered questionnaire. Frequency distributions, Pearson's correlation coefficient analysis, factor analysis, Cronbach's ${alpha}$, and multiple regression analyses were conducted by SPSS 21.0. The mean level of concern for food safety was 3.75/5.00 points, and the mean percentage of correct answers about heavy metal contamination was highest among food risk elements. The respondents perceived radioactive contaminated foods, GM foods, and endocrine disruptors as a new, delayed, scientifically unknown, involuntary, serious, and uncontrollable risk in risk perception. According to the result of factor analysis for risk perception, two factors such as non-controllability and dread were categorized. In the risk perception map, radioactive contaminated foods and GM foods were considered as an uncontrollable and dreaded risk, heavy metal contamination, endocrine disruptors, and pesticide residues as a controllable and dreaded risk, and foodborne illness and food additives as a controllable and less dreaded risk. On the other hand, the levels of concerns about food risk elements were higher in order of radioactive contaminated foods, GM foods, and endocrine disruptors. The results of multiple regression analysis showed that age, concern for food safety, percentage of correct answers about food risk elements, non-controllability, and dread influenced the concerns about food risk elements. These results imply that food safety policies should consider differences in consumer's risk perception of food risk elements.

• Korean Journal of Cognitive Science
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.199-211
• /
• 2005

Using a psychometric paradigm, risk perception of 30 hazards was investigated for three social groups-college students, experts of technologies, and employees of environmental organizations. The aim of this study was to examine psychological dimensions of risk perception, namely, to replicate the psychological dimensions - dread and knowledge -, which Slovic et al(1978; 1984; 1987) found and to forker explore discrepancies between societal groups. The results confirmed the same psychological dimensions Slovic et al have found. However, there are a number of significant differences in perceived risk such as perceived social benefits and other risk characteristics between three groups that suggest differences in ecological attitudes. The results were compared with those of Slovic et af and the nature of differences in risk perception among three groups were discussed.

• Journal of the East Asian Society of Dietary Life
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.450-458
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study was to investigate the levels of risk perception characteristics for food risk elements using a psychometric paradigm from 298 university students in Yeungnam region, Korea, by a self-administered questionnaire. The respondents showed the highest level of risk concern about radioactive contaminated foods and the lowest level about GM (genetically modified) foods. In the risk perception characteristics for food risk elements, they perceived radioactive contaminated foods as a catastrophic, worried, new, and uncontrollable risk. In addition, they regarded food additives and foodborne illness as a chronic, controllable, old, and scientifically and individually known risk. According to the results of the factor analysis for risk perception characteristics, dread and unknown were categorized. In the risk perception map, mad cow disease, heavy metal contaminated foods, and radioactive contaminated foods were considered as a dreaded and unknown risk, whereas pesticide residues and GM foods were perceived as a less dreaded and unknown risk. Additionally, food additives and foodborne illness were regarded as a less dreaded and known risk and endocrine disruptors and avian influenza as a dreaded and known risk. These results imply that risk perception characteristics of consumers should be considered to establish strategies for risk communication in food science.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.269-277
• /
• 2009

Objective : The objective of this study was to examine how experts and the public perceived various environmental and technological hazards based on psychometric paradigm. Methods : We conducted a survey that included 30 hazards and 10 risk attributes. Subjects of this study were 214 people with three groups; (1) experts (55 people), (2) graduates( 78 people), (3) under graduates (81 people). Factor analysis was used to confirm the common risk attribute from 8 risk attributes. Also, multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors influencing on perceived risk and benefit of hazards. Results : This study revealed that experts tend to be more tolerant than graduates and under graduate students for the 30 hazards. Using factor analysis, two main factors were identified: factor 1, commonly called "Dread Risk", and factors 2, commonly called, "Unknown Risk" in the literature. We identified that environmental hormone concentration and global warming ranked high in both dread risk and unknown risk. Multiple regression models were used to test the association of perceived social risk and perceived social benefit with two main factors. Dread risk had significant explanatory power on perceived social risk and benefit. We identified that the experts were less likely to perceived dread risk and know more information about the hazards. Conclusions : There were differences of risk perception between experts and lay people. Especially, experts' perception of risk was commonly lower than other people's perception.

• Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research
• /
• v.1 no.3
• /
• pp.217-231
• /
• 2014

This study begins with a review of commonly discussed dimensions of public risk perception that may influence public opinion toward risks. Factors that have been revealed by the literature to have substantial impact on risk perception, such as demographic background, trust, and media environment, are also discussed. Meanwhile, we evaluate two well-known research models in the realm of risk analysis: 1) the psychometric paradigm, and 2) the social amplification of risk framework (SARF). Based on a literature review, this study suggests that, besides the psychological and social approach, models of risk perception and risk communication research should shift to a more comprehensive one by considering the interrelations between laypeople and the environment. This study proposes a research model from the perspective of social cognitive theory (SCT) as a potential framework for future studies: 1) in the societal environment, individuals' risk perception and information seeking behavior, which is determined by risk perception will be influenced by trust in regulators and interpersonal trust; 2) in the media environment, individuals' risk perception and information seeking behavior will be influenced by individuals' perceived information characteristics. Knowledge about risk accumulated through information seeking will change risk perception in a longitudinal process.

• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.14 no.5
• /
• pp.67-75
• /
• 2016

This study focused on university students' risk perception of cybercrime through media exposure. For this purpose, I tried to figure out the results of risk perception on cybercrime with 8 factors. As a result, the lowest type of cybercrime was internet fraud, and it was caused by media type and degree of exposure, where university students get information about cybercrime. There's a difference of students' risk perception by media type, news media was the best. Depending on the media of the environment, even in the area of cyber crime there is a difference of perception of risk for each individual. And it can be confirmed that the risk perception in response to the exposure of the media has changed.