Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB) A Perceptual Divide? Consumer and Expert Attitudes to Food Risk...
-
Upload
bruce-lawrence -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB) A Perceptual Divide? Consumer and Expert Attitudes to Food Risk...
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
A Perceptual Divide? Consumer and Expert Attitudes to Food Risk Management (FRM) in Europe
A. Krystallis (1), L. Frewer (2), G. Rowe (3) & J. Houghton (3)
1: Agricultural University of Athens, Marketing and Consumer Behavior Group, Greece
2: University of Wageningen, Department of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, the
Netherlands 3: Institute of Food Research,
UK
15th Society of Risk Analysis Europe (SRA-E) Annual Meeting 11-13 September 2006, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
1. Introduction Food Risk Analysis process comprises 3 interrelated
components (FAO/WHO, 1995): Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Communication
What is included in these 3 components varies according to perspective of different food chain actors, including consumers
Important to understand nature of multiple perspectives: effective Risk Analysis depends on mutual understanding of the
parties involved
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
2. ‘Expert-lay discrepancy’ phenomenon
Public concern regarding safety of food, together with social distrust in institutions charged with consumer protection Public concerns often described as excessive or irrational by experts
‘Expert-lay discrepancy’ phenomenon: difference in opinions between experts and consumers about severity and consequences of food risks (Hansen et al, 2003; Jensen et al, 2005)
Expert-lay differences ascribed to: experts being more concerned with quantitative issues of frequency
and severity of consequences of hazard exposure lay people being more concerned with broader qualitative aspects of
risk
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Considerable empirical support for expert-lay differences in perceptions about hazards: in general (e.g. Sandman, 1987; Slovic, 1987); chemical hazard exposure (Kraus et al, 1992; Slovic et al, 1995); nuclear energy (Sjoberg et al, 2000); medical treatments such as blood transfusion (Lee et al, 2003); biotechnology (Savadori et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004); zoonotic food-borne risks (Jensen et al, 2005); etc
Much of this research criticised: either for flawed research methodology (e.g. Rowe and Wright, 2001;
Wright et al, 2002) or for misrepresentation of the processes that bring hazardous
activities into the realm of public discourse (Tesh, 1999)
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
3. Expert-lay differences in Food Risk Management
Investigation of expert-lay differences in FRM less common
Consumer negativity towards FRM is assumed consequence of expert-lay differences in perceptions of how hazards are/should be managed
Possibly there are expert-lay differences in what constitutes good and bad FRM
Increasing EU trend to include consumers actively in FRM important to understand how experts and consumers react to each
others’ views regarding what is good and bad FRM
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
4. Aim of the research Present research asks lay people and food risk experts to
consider one another’s views on FRM Interviews with consumers and experts to:
a) examine how they react when confronted with each others’ conceptualisations of what is good FRM practice so analyse how well they are able to understand each other
b) identify key FRM quality-related issues where experts and consumers express different levels of agreement thus revealing elements of expert-lay discrepancy in FRM
c) identify points of departure for future dialogue between consumers and experts to improve mutual understanding about FRM quality
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
5. Methodology Telephone follow-up interviews in DK, GE, GR, UK with
consumer and expert participants in a series of focus groups: Consumers presented with series of expert statements on FRM and
asked to express their agreement/disagreement and reasoning Experts undertake a similar exercise with consumer statements
Statements derived from previous focus groups to investigate consumer and expert perceptions of good FRM practice: Initial f. gr. /country with consumers (Houghton et al, 2006), to develop discussion guide for 4 f. gr. /country (van Kleef et al, 2006):
consumers food risk assessors (food industry); food risk managers (regulatory bodies, consumer organisations); food safety scientists (universities, research institutes)
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Analysis of f. gr. identified 15 key themes integral to FRM perceptions by consumers and experts (van Kleef et al, 2006) 2 key FRM-themes emerged only in consumers’ f. gr. 2 key FRM-themes emerged only in experts’ f. gr.
11 key FRM themes mutually comparable 11 statements generated for the follow-up interviews
translated into native languages and back-translated in English
Analysis reports 7 out of 11 key FRM-themes reflecting contradicting views put forward in follow-up interviews experts and consumers disagree or express different agreement level selection of themes closely follows 2d objective of the research
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Key FRM themes Experts’ statements
shown to consumers: Consumers’ statements
shown to experts:
1. Consumer awareness of food hazards
QC: Consumers are not sufficiently aware of food hazards
QE: Consumers are not sufficiently aware of food hazards
2. Consumer satisfaction from FRM efforts
QC: The responsible authorities make satisfactory efforts to manage food hazards in this country
QE: Existing food safety activities directed to protecting consumers from food risks are acceptable to consumers
3. Priorities in FRM QC: Consumer health protection is prioritized in food risk management
QE: Food risk managers give priority to economic interests over and above consumer protection
4. Responsibilities for food safety
QC: Consumers should take more responsibility for protecting themselves from food risks
QE: It is the state’s responsibility to protect consumers from food hazards
5. Role of the media QC: The media must be blamed for making consumers unnecessarily concerned about food hazards
QE: The media must be blamed for making consumers unnecessarily concerned about food hazards
6. Scientific uncertainty QC: Any uncertainty associated with risk assessment about food hazards is acknowledged by institutions which are responsible for managing food safety
QE: Science does not always know all the answers regarding food safety problems
7. Degree of similarity in opinions
QC: Food risk managers think about food safety issues in the same way as consumers
QE: Food risk managers think about food safety issues in the same way as consumers
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Follow-up interviews conducted in February-March 2005
Consumer and expert participants from earlier f. gr: contacted by letter prior to interview
advised of the format of the interview given a copy of the 13 statements
subsequently telephone contacts to arrange interview time Interviews conducted by members of research teams in each country
32 consumers and 39 expert participants in the f. gr. agreed to take part in follow-up interviews
Participants indicate agreement or disagreement with each of the statements and give reasons accordingly ‘don’t know’ answers also permitted
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Consumer groups’ socio-demographic profile (selected information), N=32
Denmark(n=7)
Germany (n=9)
Greece (n=9)
UK (n=7)
Age: mean (years)Range
42.6(25-64)
49.3(33-66)
43.6 (24-67)
43.7(37-63)
Gender:Male 5 2 4 3
Number of persons in household:1 or 2
34 or more
223
621
324
412
Children (younger than 12 years old) in household:012
412
630
621
430
Living situation:City
Town or rural areas52
72
63
25
Highest level of education:Secondary education or lower
Post-secondary education of all types34
45
36
43
Working status:in paid work
students / in educationunemployed
retireddoing housework
62010
51020
50022
50110
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Expert groups
Denmark (n=8)
Germany (n=7)
Greece (n=14)
UK (n=10)
No. Employment No. Employment No. Employment No. Employment
Food risk assessors
5 - Research institute (2), - Consumer/ patient representative association (2), - - Food industry (1)
5 - Food industry (2), - Regulatory body (2), - Consumer association (1)
4 - Food industry (4)
4 - Regulatory body (2), - Certification body (1), - HACCP consulting company(1)
Food safety scientists
4 - University (4)
2 - University (2)
4 - University (3), - Research institute (1)
5 - Research institute (4), - Food industry (1)
Food risk managers
3 - Regulatory body (2), - Research institute (1)
No separate focus group
6 -Ministry (3)- Inspection organisation (2), - Consumer association (1)
1 - Regulatory body (1)
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
6. Results
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Consumers' and experts' agreement with key FRM themes, %
81,274,3
15,6
43,740,6
68,7
31,2
71,8
7,6
84,6
64,1
20,5
79,4 79,4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
consumers' agreement experts' agreement
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Evidence that both consumers and experts agree on what constitutes good practice in FRM
but the reasons for that agreement are often different see following Figures, middle column and columns to left
and right respectively
7. Discussion
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Areas of (mostly) agreement between expert and lay:
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Areas of (mostly) disagreement between expert and lay:
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Interpretation differences in perceptions over FRM quality but opinions within different groups are not mutually
exclusive
Not appropriate to talk about expert-lay discrepancy’ in FRM because of the potential overlap between opinions and
attitudes, and because differences arise in motivation regarding
engagement in FRM
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
Implications for improving FRM practices: experts perceive that consumers approve their activities
unlikely they will be motivated to change current practices
consumers much less approving of what is being done regarding FRM may exert pressure for future change in these practices
anticipated that experts will be resistant to change and will continue to blame external factors for problems in
the context of consumer perceptions of FRM effectiveness such as lack of consumer information, or mishandling of risk
communication by the media
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
8. Conclusions Results indicate that both consumers and experts:
agree that certain themes must be included in any debate about effective FRM practice;
but differ: in their views of how actions are operationalised by food risk managers and in their attributions of the motives of key actors
Recognition by experts of best FRM practice must embrace the notion that experts differ from consumers in terms of interpretation of some key themes of FRM effectiveness
Disjunction of perceptions of what constitutes optimal FRM practices will reduce consumer confidence, unless FRM practitioners take due account of consumer perceptions
Marketing & Consumer Behavior (MCB)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
The research reported is funded by the European Commission and based on results from the fourth work package (WP4) of the Integrated Project “SAFE FOODS”, Promoting food safety through a new integrated risk analysis approach for foods.