Jie Liu
Ziqiang Han
Yihong Liu2*- 1School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University, Jinan, China
- 2School of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Objective: This study examined the correlations between trust in government and the public’s protective behaviors regarding food safety, focusing on the mediating role of risk perception.
Methods: The 2013 (1,432 samples) and 2019 (1,276 samples) Taiwan Social Change Survey data were analyzed using ordinary least squares regression models. The bootstrap method was used to examine the mediating effect of risk perception.
Results: Perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues influences all four types of food protective behaviors directly and indirectly via risk perceptions. The four protective behaviors were “not eating that food,” “preparing food kit,” “preferring organic food,” and “overall behaviors.” Trust in government directly influences part of the protective food behaviors, while no mediating effects of risk perception were found.
Conclusion: The results of this study will deepen our understanding of food consumption behavior, identify key factors that influence public food protective behaviors, and inform food safety management to implement strategies necessary to improve food consumption.
Introduction
Food safety is one of the most complex and concerned social issues in China (1). In 2008, a nationwide incident of contaminated infant formula resulted in over 290,000 children suffering from urinary tract stones, and this event triggered public and media’s concern of food safety, and these impacts have lasted decades (2). Within Taiwan region, a series of food scandals, either large or small, also emerged in recent years (3). The lay public, which has a zero-tolerance attitude toward food safety, may be alarmed by these food safety-related events. Nevertheless, with the exception of the melamine incident, the health effects of most of these events have largely been under-assessed (4). Food safety regulation agencies and media are the primary sources of food safety information for the public, and they heavily influence the public’s risk perception and protective behaviors (5, 6). Such connection, however, has not received sufficient attention in the food safety field. To address this knowledge gap, we employed two cross-sectional representative surveys from Taiwan to examine the association between trust in government, the perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues, and food protection behaviors, focusing on the mediating role of public perceptions of food safety.
Understanding the public’s food consumption and self-protective behaviors in the face of food risk is particularly important for food safety management and risk regulation in the food industry. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the protective behaviors concerning food consumption from the behavioral science perspective. Generally, models such as the health belief model, the theory of planned behavior, the social-cognitive model (7–10), and the protective action decision model (11) are developed by scholars to facilitate the understanding of human behaviors about risks. Food choices are often influenced more by psychological interpretations of product characteristics than by the product’s physical characteristics (12). Risk perception is one such interpretation. Risk perception thus has implications for the purchase and production behavior of consumers and producers, as well as the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the food supply chain. When there are deficiencies in risk communication, or when consumers lose confidence or trust in the food supply chain and its various agents, especially the government, there will be a considerable gap between objective technical risk and subjective psychological risk (13).
The attributes of the information that individuals receive and their comprehension of the information can influence their risk perceptions and their self-protective actions (14). The attributes of the information can include sources, channels, formats, and the receivers’ trust in this information (11). The comprehension process varies according to the individual’s competence and the characteristics of the information (15). Risk communication sources from authorities, experts, media, and individual social networks can be perceived, interpreted, amplified, or attenuated differently (14, 16–18). The degree of trust in information sources influences risk perception and behavioral response, especially when individuals lack professional knowledge regarding a specific risk or are in a situation of uncertainty (19–21). Indeed, trust in information sources can reduce the degree of the perceived risk if the information’s purpose is to reduce the public’s concern about risk (22–24).
In the food safety context, the perception of food safety risks as consumers’ beliefs determine the consumers’ intentions and behaviors of purchasing those food products (19, 25–27). Consumers usually adjust their purchasing decisions to alleviate the risks by reducing, shifting, or postponing the purchase of the offending products if unavoidable (28) or seeking advice from trusted sources (13). Trust can be characterized as relying on those responsible for managing public health and safety (24). Considering the diverse sources of food safety and food quality information, trust in different information sources can vary, and affect the consumer to evaluate the information, especially when they lack appropriate knowledge (29). A previous study showed that information from government and state authorities could be a reliable source if the government were perceived as a neutral agency in most cases (30–32). Government and authorities play an essential role that could influence the consumers’ perception of food safety and quality and eventually affect their consumption behaviors (33). The above leads to the following hypothesis:
H1. Trust in government directly predicts the degree of taking food protective behaviors. With a higher trust degree of government, people would have a larger likelihood to take protective behaviors to protect themselves.Similarly, many aspects of life have been taken out of the control of the individual, including access to the food production system, which requires reliance on and trust in external institutions (34). Decisions about food risks are difficult for consumers if the information is not readily available and there are no alternatives to foods that are considered potentially risky (35). Factors influencing food choices often include government policies supporting specific agricultural or industrial practices. Thus, consumers select their purchases based on their reliance on and confidence in relevant government institutions (10, 36–40). Information uncertainty can lead to public mistrust and confusion (41). A Swedish case showed that the public became unnecessarily worried and confused as regulators magnified potential food risks that should have been mitigated (42). Citizens tend to distrust the government if they perceive that authorities often or sometimes keep vital public interest or information secret (43) and instead act in their personal best interests, also known as individualization (44). So, it is critical to note that the high perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues leads to a sense of predictability (45) and a perception of low risk (46). Therefore, we hypothesize:
H2. The perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues directly influences the public’s adoption of food protective behaviors. With less fear that the government hides food safety information, people would have less willingness to take protective behaviors.Risk perception also significantly influences people’s food consumption behaviors (47). It may not be surprising that in the food safety domain, risk perception is considered to be a determinant of attitudes and behaviors (48–50). This rationale is also in line with influential theoretical models such as the theory of planned behavior (7, 8). Individuals’ judgments and behavioral adoptions are also influenced by their trust in those responsible for risk assessment and regulation, especially when they cannot judge the risk k on their own, as in the case of food safety issues (24, 51–53). Thus, perceptions of the trustworthiness of those responsible for approving and regulating food may impact people’s perceptions of risks and their acceptance. The above makes it reasonable to assume that the public’s trust and perceived integrity in authority influences their risk perceptions and, thus, their food consumption behaviors. Therefore, after combining H1 and H2, we hypothesize that:
H3. Risk perception of food safety mediates the relationship between trust and “not eating” (H3a), “preparing food kit” (H3b), “preferring organic food” (H3c), and “overall behaviors” (H3d).
H4. Risk perception of food safety mediates the relationship between the perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues and “not eating” (H4a), “preparing food kit” (H4b), “preferring organic food” (H4c), “overall behaviors” (H4d).Additionally, individuals’ socioeconomic and demographic factors were incorporated into the hypothesized model as control variables. Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized model framework.
FIGURE 1. The hypothesized model framework (Taiwan Social Change Survey, Taiwan region, 2013 and 2019).
Methods
Data and Sampling
This paper analyzed the 2013 and 2019 Taiwan Social Change Survey (TSCS) risk society module data, respectively. The TSCS survey is a representative repeated cross-sectional survey conducted annually by the Institute of Social Science of Academia Sinica in collaboration with the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Center in Taiwan. The data is collected by face-to face interviews and publicly available from the Academia Sinica’s Survey Research Data Archive website and open to registered researchers.
Risk society modules were included in the 2013 and 2019 surveys. According to the reports of both surveys, the stratified three-stage (town-community-individual) probability and proportional-to-size sampling method were employed for both, and the 2013 data included 2,005 individuals, while the 2019 data covered 1,933 samples. 1,432 observations from the 2013 data and 1,276 samples from the 2019 data were included in the models because the ones with missing values were dropped directly in the analysis.
Measurement
Dependent Variables
The intentions for adopting protective behaviors are used as the proxy of actual behaviors because it is very difficult to measure the actual behaviors in reality (54, 55). Four food safety protective behaviors were used in this survey: “If media (i.e., media in the food and health sector) reported that there would be food safety issues, will you try to avoid eating it?”; “Will you bring your food kit when you eat out due to food safety concerns?”; “Will you try your best to eat organic food?” In a previous study of food safety in Taiwan, organic food was defined as food that is not genetically modified and produced naturally, especially without using synthetic chemicals such as pesticides and chemical fertilizers (56). Each question was measured on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = definitely not, 4 = definitely will). The sum of the three variables was then included in the analysis as the fourth one, “overall behaviors” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71 in 2013; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.62 in 2019).
Independent Variables
The trust in the government concept was measured in two dimensions. The first one was directly captured by the question, “In general, do you trust the government?” The “central/provincial government,” “county government,” and “town government” were listed as different levels of government. The trust in each type of government was represented on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = complete distrust, 5 = complete trust). The average of the three variables was used as the degree of trust in government (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74 in 2013; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78 in 2019).
The perceived integrity of government in the food safety area was used as the second dimension of the trust in government, and it was measured by the question, “Are you concerned that the government hides food safety information?” A 5-point Likert scale measured the answers (1 = very concerned, 5 = very little concerned), indicating an increased degree of integrity of government regarding food safety issues.
Mediating Variable
The risk perception for food safety was calculated from the responses collected from three questions: “How do you concern about possible pollution from heavy metal or plasticizers?,” “How do you concern about the pesticide residue in fruit, vegetables, and grocery?” and “How do you concern humans using biotechnology to alter the genes of plants and animals?” A 5-scale Likert scale measured the responses to each of the three questions (1 = very little concerned, 5 = very concerned), indicating the increased degree of concern. The sum of the responses to all three questions was used as the risk perception score in this analysis (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71 in 2013; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83 in 2019).
Control Variables
In reference to prior studies on risk perception and food protective behaviors (57–63), the ages of the respondents, gender, education attainments, religious status, current job status, marital status, whether having children at home, self-perceived social status, and the geographical locations of the respondents were included as control variables. See Table 1 for more information on the categories.
TABLE 1. Characteristics of sample (Taiwan Social Change Survey, Taiwan region, 2013 and 2019).
Analytical Strategies
The descriptive analysis was first demonstrated. For the indicators constructed by more than one variable, Cronbach’s alpha test was conducted to explore the internal consistency of treating the several variables as one. The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were employed when the protective behaviors were used separately. Simple mediation models regarding trust in government and perceived integrity of government regarding food safety which affects food safety protective behaviors via risk perceptions, were assessed (64). All the analyses were implemented by Stata/SE 15.1 version.
Results
The Characteristics of the Sample
1,432 respondents were included in the 2013 TSCS, 54.1% were male, 79.7% had religious beliefs, and 41.1% had a child(ren) at home. In the 2019 data, 1,276 respondents were included, 54.4% were male, 73.3% had religious beliefs, and 34.8% had a child(ren) at home, respectively. Respondents generally had lower perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues, both in 2013 (M = 1.9, SD = 1.0) and 2019 (M = 1.9, SD = 1.0). Nevertheless, they had a relatively higher level of trust in the government, reaching 3.3 in both the 2013 and 2019 surveys. Risk perception maintained similar levels in 2013 and 2019. Regarding the three food protective behaviors, the percentage of “definitely not,” “probability not,” “probability will,” and “definitely will” eating the food if a news report about the food safety issue were 5.8%, 15.0%, 37.7%, 41.5% in the 2013 survey, while these distributions in the 2019 survey were 3.8%, 14.0%, 39.6%, 42.7% in the 2019 survey. Similarly, the “preparing food kit” choices from “definitely not” to “definitely will” were 14.5%, 29.0%, 33.1%, and 23.4% in the 2013 survey, while they were 15.8%, 23.4%, 34.5%, 26.4% in the 2019 survey. The shares of “preferring organic food” in the 2013 survey were 7.9% (definitely not), 33.8% (probability not), 44.3% (probability will), and 14.0% (definitely will), and these percentages in the 2019 survey were 8.6%, 31.4%, 46.6%, 13.5%, respectively. Table 1 reported all the descriptive analyses of the respondents.
Direct effects of trust and perceived integrity on food protective behaviors
H1 examined whether trust in the government directly influenced food protective behaviors. The results show that trust has a significant direct association with “not eating that food” (β = 0.08, p < 0.01 in 2013; β = 0.09, p < 0.01 in 2019), “preparing food kit” (β = 0.08, p < 0.05 in 2013; β = 0.11, p < 0.01 in 2019), “preferring organic food” (β = 0.11, p < 0.001 in 2013; β = 0.06, p < 0.05 in 2019), and “overall behaviors” (β = 0.27, p < 0.001 in 2013; β = 0.26, p < 0.001 in 2019) (Tables 2, 3). Thus, H1 was supported.
TABLE 2. Direct effects of trust in government and perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues on adopting protective behaviors (Taiwan Social Change Survey, Taiwan region, 2013).
TABLE 3. Direct effects of trust in government and perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues on adopting protective behaviors (Taiwan Social Change Survey, Taiwan region, 2019).
H2 hypothesized that the perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues would be directly related to food protective behaviors. As we hypothesized, perceived integrity was significantly and negatively associated with all four protective behaviors in both 2013 and 2019, supporting H2.
The Mediating Effects of Risk Perception
The bootstrapping method (65) was used to examine the mediating effects of risk perception (H3 and H4). The indirect effects of trust and perceived integrity on the four dependent variables with risk perception as a mediator were tested (Table 4). Before that, we tested whether trust in government and perceived integrity were associated with risk perception. The results showed that perceived integrity was significantly related to risk perception, both in 2013 and 2019, while no correlation was found between trust in government and risk perception (Tables 2, 3). All control variables were included in all analyses.
TABLE 4. Indirect effects of trust in government on protective behaviors via risk perception (Taiwan Social Change Survey, Taiwan region, 2013 and 2019).
Tests of indirect effects to assess mediation revealed that risk perception did not mediate the correlations between trust in government and any type of protective behaviors, either in 2013 or 2019. Hence, H3a, H3b, H3c, and H3d were not supported (Table 4).
Risk perception mediated the relationship between perceived integrity on “not eating that food” (β = −0.09, 95% CI = [−0.11, −0.06] in 2013; β = −0.05, 95% CI = [−0.07, −0.03] in 2019), “preparing food kit” (β = −0.07, 95% CI = [−0.09, −0.05] in 2013; β = −0.08, 95% CI = [−0.10, −0.06] in 2019), “preferring organic food” (β = −0.06, 95% CI = [−0.07, −0.04] in 2013; β = −0.07, 95% CI = [−0.09, −0.05] in 2019), and “overall behaviors” (β = −0.21, 95% CI = [−0.26, −0.17] in 2013; β = −0.20, 95% CI = [−0.24, −0.15] in 2019), indicating that perceived integrity influences food protective behaviors both directly and indirectly. Therefore, H4a, H4b, H4c, and H4d were supported.
The Roles of Control Variables
Age of the public was a significant positive predictor of “preferring organic food” and “overall behaviors” in 2019. Respondents with college education and above were more active in adopting “preparing food kit” and “overall behaviors” both in 2013 and 2019, suggesting that well-educated persons tend to care about food safety risk than their less-educated counterparts. Meanwhile, Men are less inclined to adopt “preparing food kit” and “overall behaviors” than women, both in 2013 and 2019, which women may be more concerned about food safety and attach greater importance to healthy eating (66). Participants with higher self-rated social status in 2013 were more likely to adopt “preferring organic food” and “overall behaviors,” yet the opposite result was observed by 2019. We speculate that this may be related to socioeconomic changes, where the wealthy have easier access to quality material resources than before, which makes them less concerned about food safety. Additionally, those who were married or widowed were more likely to adopt “not eating that food” and “overall behaviors” in 2013, while no similar results were found in 2019.
Discussion
This study investigated the risk concerns on food safety based on the trust in government and perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues, about their self-protective behaviors. Furthermore, the roles of individual demographic factors were considered to extend our understanding of how information is processed by consumers. The present study allowed attempting to replicate and extend previous research on the perceived risk of food safety. In this section, some theoretical and policy implications for risk communication and future research, plus the strengths and limitations of this study are presented.
Some of the hypothesized paths were found to be highly significant. Firstly, the perceived integrity of a system, say technology or a financial market, comes about when citizens or investors perceive that the information released by regulators is consistent with what they perceived, which leads to a sense of predictability and being in control (45), and the perception of low risk (46). Our analysis revealed that the perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues influenced the food protective behaviors directly. Meanwhile, complex factors such as human perception, judgment, and choice have evolved to allow decision-makers to function in a broad range of environments that change with seasons or political regimes and over time. Thus, human actors need to procure sustenance regularly, which may require exploration and risk-taking. At the same time, there is the need to ensure safety and survival, which also require protection and caution. When the public has a sufficiently high level of acceptance of food safety information released by the government, their food consumption behavior is easily predicted. This finding has positive implications for urging health officials to be cautious in releasing food information to reassure the public.
Secondly, H1 was fully supported, argued that trust in government directly influences food protective behaviors, although no mediating role of risk perception between the two was found. The presence or absence of trust in government will play an important role in controlling risks. The findings imply that whether these consumer perceptions are accurate or not, they still can affect future consumption decisions and behaviors, the reputation of government institutions and the food industry. Consumers lack the scientific and infrastructural capacity to evaluate food risk. Hence, it is incumbent on the government and its institutions to provide the relevant guidelines and regulations to foodservice actors and ensure their enforcement to protect consumers (67). Past research showed that the degree of trust is significantly related to the attitude toward the potential threat and behavioral expectations of adopting protective behaviors (11, 68–70). These findings suggest that government, as an important food safety regulator, needs to earn a high level of public trust to promote food consumption behavior.
Additionally, risk perception mediated the effects of the perceived integrity of government regarding food safety issues. The mediating role of individual-level risk perception has been demonstrated in previous studies (13, 50, 71). Our findings further expand the literature in this area by revealing that trust in government influences food consumption behavior by affecting public risk perceptions. The results indicated that risk perception partially mediated the relationship between perceived integrity on food protective behaviors. Despite the mediating role of risk perception, perceived integrity still directly influences food protective behaviors, suggesting that government needs to take on a greater role as a food safety communicator. In most cases, the public will trust the regulator, even if they disagree with the regulatory decision, as long as they perceive the process to be credible, i.e., fair, competent, and efficient (41).
This study acknowledges its limitations. In the first place, there are non-negligible limitations in the cross-sectional survey design of this study that do not allow for causal relationships between the variables we analyzed. Secondly, since we used secondary data collected and designed by others, measures of key variables used in the model such as the risk perception could not be as precise as we would have wanted. Thirdly, loss of sample size due to missing values (29% in 2013; 34% in 2019), which may have an impact on the final results. Last but not least, although the relationship between information credibility and risk perception is certainly longstanding, the circumstances in which this relationship is expressed today, present great challenges and as such, an opportunity for future researches. The mechanisms linking credibility, information processing, and risk perception are likely to be located in motivation, issue involvement, information-holding, and the effect of message cues (72). More evidence of the relationship between food safety, risk perception, and protective behavior should be explored in future studies.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the design of the study. JL led the analysis. ZH proposed the idea of this study. YL wrote the original draft. SW reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.
References
1. Wu, Y, and Chen, Y. Food Safety in China. J Epidemiol Community Health (2013) 67:478–9. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
2. Yong-Ning, W, Yun-Feng, Z, Jin-Guang, L, and Group, MA. A Survey on Occurrence of Melamine and its Analogues in Tainted Infant Formula in China. Biomed Environ Sci Elsevier (2009) 22:95–9. doi:10.1016/S0895-3988(09)60028-3
3. Chen, M-F. Consumer Trust in Food Safety—A Multidisciplinary Approach and Empirical Evidence from Taiwan. Risk Anal Int J (2008) 28:1553–69. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01115.x
4. Li, J-H, Yu, W-J, Lai, Y-H, and Ko, Y-C. Major Food Safety Episodes in Taiwan: Implications for the Necessity of International Collaboration on Safety Assessment and Management. Kaohsiung J Med Sci (2012) 28:S10–6. doi:10.1016/j.kjms.2012.05.004
5. Du, Q, and Han, Z. The Framing of Nuclear Energy in Chinese media Discourse: A Comparison between National and Local Newspapers. J Clean Prod (2020) 245:118695. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118695
6. He, G, Mol, APJ, Zhang, L, and Lu, Y. Public Participation and Trust in Nuclear Power Development in China. Renew Sustainable Energ Rev (2013) 23:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.028
7. Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Action Control (1985) 11–39. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2
8. Ajzen, I. Consumer Attitudes and Behavior: The Theory of Planned Behavior Applied to Food Consumption Decisions. Rivista di Economia Agraria (2015) 70:121–38. doi:10.13128/REA-18003
9. Ejeta, LT, Ardalan, A, and Paton, D. Application of Behavioral Theories to Disaster and Emergency Health Preparedness: A Systematic Review. Plos Curr (2015) 7. doi:10.1371/currents.dis.31a8995ced321301466db400f1357829
10. Fischer, ARH, and Frewer, LJ. Consumer Familiarity with Foods and the Perception of Risks and Benefits. Food Qual Prefer (2009) 20:576–85. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.008
11. Lindell, MK, and Perry, RW. The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence. Risk Anal (2012) 32:616–32. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x
12. Rozin, P, Pelchat, ML, and Fallon, AE. Psychological Factors Influencing Food Choice. The food consumer (1986) 5:85–106.
13. Yeung, RM, and Morris, J. Food Safety Risk: Consumer Perception and purchase Behaviour. Br Food J (2001) 103:170–87. doi:10.1108/00070700110386728
14. Wu, H-C, Lindell, MK, and Prater, CS. Strike Probability Judgments and Protective Action Recommendations in a Dynamic hurricane Tracking Task. Nat Hazards (2015) 79:355–80. doi:10.1007/s11069-015-1846-z
15. Carmichael, JT, and Brulle, RJ. Media Use and Climate Change Concern. Int J Media Cult Polit (2018) 14:243–53. doi:10.1386/macp.14.2.243_7
16. Brenkert-Smith, H, Dickinson, KL, Champ, PA, and Flores, N. Social Amplification of Wildfire Risk: the Role of Social Interactions and Information Sources. Risk Anal (2013) 33:800–17. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01917.x
17. Chung, IJ. Social Amplification of Risk in the Internet Environment. Risk Anal (2011) 31:1883–96. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01623.x
18. Huang, S-K, Lindell, MK, Prater, CS, Wu, H-C, and Siebeneck, LK. Household Evacuation Decision Making in Response to Hurricane Ike. Nat Hazards Rev (2012) 13:283–96. doi:10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000074
19. Bardin, B, Perrissol, S, Facca, L, and Smeding, A. From Risk Perception to Information selection…And Not the Other Way Round: Selective Exposure Mechanisms in the Field of Genetically Modified organisms, and Not the Other Way Round: Selective Exposure Mechanisms in the Field of Genetically Modified Organisms. Food Qual preference (2017) 58:10–7. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.12.015
20. Pidgeon, M, Cox, DH, and Donna, G. Researching with Aboriginal Peoples: Practices and Principles. Can J Native Education (2002) 26:96–106.
21. Recchia, V. Risk Communication and Public Perception of Technological Hazards. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (1999). doi:10.2139/ssrn.200573
22. Jungermann, H, Pfister, H-R, and Fischer, K. Credibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests. Risk Anal (1996) 16:251–61. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01455.x
23. Siegrist, M. The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology. Risk Anal (2000) 20:195–203. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020
24. Siegrist, M, Cvetkovich, G, and Roth, C. Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/benefit Perception. Risk Anal (2000) 20:353–62. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.203034
25. Hudson, J, Caplanova, A, and Novak, M. Public Attitudes to GM Foods. The Balancing of Risks and Gains. Appetite (2015) 92:303–13. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.05.031
26. Prati, G, Pietrantoni, L, and Zani, B. The Prediction of Intention to Consume Genetically Modified Food: Test of an Integrated Psychosocial Model. Food Qual Prefer (2012) 25:163–70. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.011
27. Wunderlich, S, and Gatto, KA. Impact of Government-Sponsored Nutrition Education and Physical Activity Programs on Healthy Aging in the United States. Healthy Aging Res (2016) 5:1–6. doi:10.1097/01.hxr.0000491109.90858.d5
28. Wunderlich, S, Gatto, K, and Smoller, M. Consumer Knowledge about Food Production Systems and Their Purchasing Behavior. Environ Development Sustainability (2018) 20:2871–81. doi:10.1007/s10668-017-0021-y
29. Dobele, A, Fry, J, Rundle-Thiele, S, and Fry, T. Caring for Baby: what Sources of Information Do Mothers Use and Trust? J Serv Marketing (2017) 31:677–89. doi:10.1108/jsm-02-2015-0104
30. Gaskell, G, Bauer, MW, Durant, J, and Allum, NC. Worlds Apart? the Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the US. Science (1999) 285:384–7. doi:10.1126/science.285.5426.384
32. Wales, C, Harvey, M, and Warde, A. Recuperating from BSE: The Shifting UK Institutional Basis for Trust in Food. Appetite (2006) 47:187–95. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.007
33. Kornelis, M, De Jonge, J, Frewer, L, and Dagevos, H. Consumer Selection of Food-Safety Information Sources. Risk Anal (2007) 27:327–35. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00885.x
34. Giddens, A. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press (1991).
35. Kriflik, LS, and Yeatman, H. Food Scares and Sustainability: A Consumer Perspective. Health Risk Soc (2005) 7:11–24. doi:10.1080/13698570500042439
36. Arceneaux, K, and Stein, RM. Who Is Held Responsible when Disaster Strikes? the Attribution of Responsibility for a Natural Disaster in an Urban Election. J Urban Aff (2006) 28:43–53. doi:10.1111/j.0735-2166.2006.00258.x
37. Barnett, J, Begen, F, Howes, S, Regan, A, McConnon, A, Marcu, A, et al. Consumers’ Confidence, Reflections and Response Strategies Following the Horsemeat Incident. Food Control (2016) 59:721–30. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.06.021
38. Basolo, V, Steinberg, LJ, Burby, RJ, Levine, J, Cruz, AM, and Huang, C. The Effects of Confidence in Government and Information on Perceived and Actual Preparedness for Disasters. Environ Behav (2009) 41:338–64. doi:10.1177/0013916508317222
39. Berg, L, Kjaernes, U, Ganskau, E, Minina, V, Voltchkova, L, Halkier, B, et al. Trust in Food Safety in Russia, Denmark and Norway. Eur Societies (2005) 7:103–29. doi:10.1080/1461669042000327045
40. Omari, R, Ruivenkamp, GTP, and Tetteh, EK. Consumers’ Trust in Government Institutions and Their Perception and Concern about Safety and Healthiness of Fast Food. J Trust Res (2017) 7:170–86. doi:10.1080/21515581.2017.1289099
41. Löfstedt, RE. How Can We Make Food Risk Communication Better: Where Are We and where Are We Going? J Risk Res (2006) 9:869–90. doi:10.1080/13669870601065585
42. Löfstedt, RE. Science Communication and the Swedish Acrylamide" Alarm". J Health Commun (2003) 8:407–32. doi:10.1080/713852123
43. Gunnlaugsdottir, J. Government Secrecy: Public Attitudes toward Information provided by the Authorities. Rec Management J (2015) 25:197–222. doi:10.1108/rmj-07-2014-0032
44. Beck, U, Lash, S, and Wynne, B. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, United Kingdom: sage (1992).
45. Einhorn, H. Accepting Error to Make Less Error. J Pers Assess (1986) 50:387–95. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5003_8
46. Weber, EU, Siebenmorgen, N, and Weber, M. Communicating Asset Risk: How Name Recognition and the Format of Historic Volatility Information Affect Risk Perception and Investment Decisions. Risk Anal (2005) 25:597–609. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00627.x
47. Yeung, RMW, and Morris, J. An Empirical Study of the Impact of Consumer Perceived Risk on purchase Likelihood: a Modelling Approach. Int J Consumer Stud (2006) 30:294–305. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00493.x
48. Albertsen, L, Wiedmann, K-P, and Schmidt, S. The Impact of Innovation-Related Perception on Consumer Acceptance of Food Innovations – Development of an Integrated Framework of the Consumer Acceptance Process. Food Qual Preference (2020) 84:103958. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103958
49. Chen, M-F, and Li, H-L. The Consumer’s Attitude toward Genetically Modified Foods in Taiwan. Food Qual preference (2007) 18:662–74. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.10.002
50. Kuttschreuter, M. Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages. Risk Anal (2006) 26:1045–57. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00799.x
51. Earle, TC, and Cvetkovich, G. Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group (1995).
52. Eiser, JR, Miles, S, and Frewer, LJ. Trust, Perceived Risk, and Attitudes toward Food Technologies. J Appl Soc Psychol (2002) 32:2423–33. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01871.x
53. Wansink, B, Tal, A, and Brumberg, A. Ingredient-based Food Fears and Avoidance: Antecedents and Antidotes. Food Qual Preference (2014) 38:40–8. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2439279
54. Kytö, E, Virtanen, M, and Mustonen, S. From Intention to Action: Predicting purchase Behavior with Consumers’ Product Expectations and Perceptions, and Their Individual Properties. Food Qual preference (2019) 75:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.002
55. Schuitema, G, Anable, J, Skippon, S, and Kinnear, N. The Role of Instrumental, Hedonic and Symbolic Attributes in the Intention to Adopt Electric Vehicles. Transportation Res A: Pol Pract (2013) 48:39–49. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.004
56. Chen, M-F. Consumer Attitudes and purchase Intentions in Relation to Organic Foods in Taiwan: Moderating Effects of Food-Related Personality Traits. Food Qual Preference (2007) 18:1008–21. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.04.004
57. Armaş, I, and Avram, E. Perception of Flood Risk in Danube Delta, Romania. Nat Hazards (2009) 50:269–87. doi:10.1007/s11069-008-9337-0
58. Bish, A, and Michie, S. Demographic and Attitudinal Determinants of Protective Behaviours during a Pandemic: a Review. Br J Health Psychol (2010) 15:797–824. doi:10.1348/135910710X485826
59. Miles, S, Brennan, M, Kuznesof, S, Ness, M, Ritson, C, and Frewer, LJ. Public Worry about Specific Food Safety Issues. Br Food J (2004) 106:9–22. doi:10.1108/00070700410515172
60. Quinlan, J. Foodborne Illness Incidence Rates and Food Safety Risks for Populations of Low Socioeconomic Status and Minority Race/Ethnicity: A Review of the Literature. IJERPH (2013) 10:3634–52. doi:10.3390/ijerph10083634
61. Rosati, S, and Saba, A. The Perception of Risks Associated with Food-Related Hazards and the Perceived Reliability of Sources of Information. Int J Food Sci Tech (2004) 39:491–500. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.00808.x
62. Xu, L, and Wu, L. Food Safety and Consumer Willingness to Pay for Certified Traceable Food in China. J Sci Food Agric (2010) 90:1368–73. doi:10.1002/jsfa.3985
63. You, M, and Ju, Y. A Comprehensive Examination of the Determinants for Food Risk Perception: Focusing on Psychometric Factors, Perceivers’ Characteristics, and media Use. Health Commun (2017) 32:82–91. doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1110003
64. Hayes, AF. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium. Commun Monogr (2009) 76:408–20. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360
65. Hayes, AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford publications (2017).
66. Wardle, J, Haase, AM, Steptoe, A, Nillapun, M, Jonwutiwes, K, and Bellisie, F. Gender Differences in Food Choice: The Contribution of Health Beliefs and Dieting. Ann Behav Med (2004) 27:107–16. doi:10.1207/s15324796abm2702_5
67. Kennedy, D. Humans in the Chemical Decision Chain. Chemicals in the Human Food Chain: Sources, Options and Public Policy. 1998;pp.9–19.
68. Ibuka, Y, Chapman, GB, Meyers, LA, Li, M, and Galvani, AP. The Dynamics of Risk Perceptions and Precautionary Behavior in Response to 2009 (H1N1) Pandemic Influenza. BMC Infect Dis (2010) 10:296. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-10-296
69. Wang, F, Wei, J, Huang, S-K, Lindell, MK, Ge, Y, Gurt), , and Wei, H-L. Public Reactions to the 2013 Chinese H7N9 Influenza Outbreak: Perceptions of Risk, Stakeholders, and Protective Actions. J Risk Res (2018) 21:809–33. doi:10.1080/13669877.2016.1247377
70. Wei, J, Zhao, M, Wang, F, Cheng, P, and Zhao, D. An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers' Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions. Risk Anal (2016) 36:114–29. doi:10.1111/risa.12446
71. Oh, S-H, Lee, SY, and Han, C. The Effects of Social Media Use on Preventive Behaviors during Infectious Disease Outbreaks: The Mediating Role of Self-Relevant Emotions and Public Risk Perception. Health Commun (2020) 36(8):972–81. doi:10.1080/10410236.2020.1724639
Keywords: risk perception, food safety, protective behaviors, perceived integrity, trust in government
Citation: Liu J, Han Z, Liu Y and William S (2023) Trust in Government, Perceived Integrity and Food Safety Protective Behavior: The Mediating Role of Risk Perception. Int J Public Health 68:1605432. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2023.1605432
Received: 26 September 2022; Accepted: 27 February 2023;
Published: 08 March 2023.
Edited by:
Rana Charafeddine, Scientific Institute of Public Health (WIV-ISP), BelgiumCopyright © 2023 Liu, Han, Liu and William. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yihong Liu, y.liu@ruc.edu.cn