Abstract
PurposeIn this study, the authors clarified the differences in consumers' benefit–risk perceptions based on changes (description order and amount) in the benefit–risk information after an assessment of the health impact of foods.Design/methodology/approachThe authors set the following four benefit–risk information groups relating to fatty fish consumption—Group 1: benefit/simple–risk/detail; Group 2: risk/detail–benefit/simple; Group 3: benefit/detail–risk/detail; Group 4: risk/detail–benefit/detail. The authors conducted a randomized controlled study on June, 2022, involving 7,200 Japanese consumers aged over 18 years.FindingsThere were no significant differences in the risk and benefit perceptions. Furthermore, the logistic regression analysis identified women and benefit perception as significant influencing factors of “no-risk acceptance.”Originality/valueThis study found that all four message formats were acceptable to consumers due to high-benefit/low-risk perceptions. However, despite the difference in message types used in benefit–risk communication, there was no effect on risk acceptance among consumers. Public agencies should design their communication with considerations toward women and benefit perceptions.
Subject
Food Science,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
Reference22 articles.
1. Crime as risk taking;Psychology, Crime and Law,2012
2. Fagerlin, A. and Peters, E. (2011), “Chapter 7: quantitative information”, in Fischhoff, B., Brewer, N.T. and Downs, J.S. (Eds), Communicating Risks and Benefits: an Evidence-Based User's Guide, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
3. Gender, race, and perceived risk: the ‘white male’ effect;Health, Risk and Society,2000
4. Subjective numeracy and the influence of order and amount of audible information on perceived medication value;Medical Decision Making,2017