Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perception of Product Risks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits

Abstract

This chapter provides several explanations for consumer risk perception. For frequently repeated behavior that is seemingly under their own control, consumers tend to be overly optimistic. This occurs in spite of the general tendency of consumers to be risk averse. Specific dimensions of different products or situations trigger psychometric factors, most notably dread and uncertainty that increase, or reduce risk perception. Cultural theories look for differences in risk perception caused by difference between consumer groups and how this result in interpretation of risk information. Besides these takes on risk perception, it is now commonly accepted that risk perception is at least in part based on emotions, that there is some relation between risk and benefit perception, that media attention influences perceived risks, and that perceived lack of knowledge influence risk seeking behavior. These approaches influence risk perception through potential categorical rejection of risky products, through weighing of risk against benefits and other product properties. Risk perception influences behavior as part of an elaborate evaluation or as trigger of an automatic behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods—results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(1), 23–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Steur, H., Gellynck, X., Feng, S., Rutsaert, P., & Verbeke, W. (2012). Determinants of willingness-to-pay for GM rice with health benefits in a high-risk region: Evidence from experimental auctions for folate biofortified rice in China. Food Quality And Preference, 25(2), 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defoe, I. N., Dubas, J. S., Figner, B., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (2015). A meta-analysis on age differences in risky decision making: Adolescents versus children and adults. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 48–84. doi:10.1037/a0038088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fife-Schaw, C., & Rowe, G. (2000). Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risks: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Risk Research, 3(2), 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A. S., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, A. R. H., van Trijp, H. C. M., Hofenk, D., Ronteltap, A., Esjberg, L., & Tudoran, A. A. (2013) Collation of scientific evidence on consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Three roads to consumer choice. Wageningen, NI, RECAPT EU FP7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1994). The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food-related hazards targeted at the individual, other people and society. Journal of Food Safety, 14(1), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Kleter, G. A., Brennan, M., Coles, D., Fischer, A. R. H., Houdebine, L. M., Mora, C., Millar, K., & Salter, B. (2013). Genetically modified animals from life-science, socio-economic and ethical perspectives: Examining issues in an EU policy context. New Biotechnology, 30(5), 447–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (1999). Simple Heuristics that make us smart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., Dunwoody, S., & Giese, J. (2004). Information sufficiency and risk communication. Media Psychology, 6(1), 23–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, K. G. (2002). Current issues in the understanding of consumer food choice. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 13(8), 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, N., Fischer, A. R. H., & Frewer, L. J. (2015). Ethics, risk and benefits associated with different applications of nanotechnology: A comparison of expert and consumer perceptions of drivers of societal acceptance. NanoEthics, 9(2), 93–108. doi:10.1007/s11569-015-0222-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L. J., Robinson, P., & Sandoe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41(2), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. B. (2003). Further notes on public response to uncertainty in risks and science. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 781–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 557–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E. (2015) Social amplification of risk: Progress and new issues. In Society for risk analysis annual meeting, Alrington, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988) The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x.

  • Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1987). Testing for regret and disappointment in choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal Supplement, 97, 118–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marris, C., Langford, I. H., & O’Riordan, T. (1998). A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis, 18(5), 635–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, B. K., Picou, J. S., Formichella, C., & Nicholls, K. (2006). Environmental risk perceptions and the white male effect: Pollution concerns among deep-South coastal residents. Journal of Applied Social Science, 23(2), 31–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, S. M., Miles, S., Tridente, A., & Palmer, S. R. (2004). Differences in perception of risk between people who have and have not experienced Salmonella food poisoning. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings, J. M. E., & Smidts, A. (2000). Assessing the construct validity of risk attitude. Management Science, 46(10), 1337–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 25(1), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–204. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. (2008). Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite, 51(2), 283–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2002). Are received risk perception models alive and well? Risk Analysis, 22(4), 665–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio Economics, 31(4), 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumbo, C. W. (1999). Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 391–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden, S. (2016). A conceptual critique of the cultural cognition thesis. Science Communication, 38(1), 128–138. doi:10.1177/1075547015614970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kleef, E., Fischer, A. R. H., Khan, M., & Frewer, L. J. (2010). Risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phone and base station technology in Bangladesh. Risk Analysis, 30(6), 1002–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U., & Milliman, R. A. (1997). Perceived risk attitudes: Relating risk perception to risky choice. Management Science, 43(2), 123–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246(4935), 1232–1233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilde, G. J. S. (1994). Target risk. Toronto: PDE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue, W., Hine, D. W., Loi, N. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Phillips, W. J. (2014). Cultural worldviews and environmental risk perceptions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 249–258. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z. J., Aloe, A. M., & Feeley, T. H. (2014). Risk information seeking and processing model: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 20–41. doi:10.1111/jcom.12071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaleskiewicz, T. (2001). Beyond risk seeking and risk aversion: Personality and the dual nature of economic risk taking. European Journal of Personality, 15(1 special issue), S105–S122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wageningen University, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Hollandseweg 1, 6706, KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Arnout R. H. Fischer

Authors
  1. Arnout R. H. Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnout R. H. Fischer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Clinique du Nord, Port Louis, Mauritius

    Gerard Emilien

  2. Philip Morris Products S.A, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Rolf Weitkunat

  3. Philip Morris Products S.A, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Frank Lüdicke

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fischer, A.R.H. (2017). Perception of Product Risks. In: Emilien, G., Weitkunat, R., Lüdicke, F. (eds) Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50530-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation