Frewer L J, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R
Institute of Food Research, Reading RG6 6BZ, U.K.
Risk Anal. 1996 Aug;16(4):473-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01094.x.
Trust in risk information about food related-hazards may be an important determinant of public reactions to risk information. One of the central questions addressed by the risk communication literature is why some individuals and organizations are trusted as sources of risk information and others are not. Industry and government often lack public trust, whereas other sources (for example, consumer organizations, the quality media, medical doctors) are highly trusted. Problematically, previous surveys and questionnaire studies have utilized questions generated by the investigators themselves to assess public perceptions of trust in different sources. Furthermore, no account of the hazard domain was made. In the first study reported here, semistructured interviewing was used to elicit underpinning constructs determining trust and distrust in different sources providing food-related risk information (n = 35). In the second study, the repertory grid method was used to elicit the terminology that respondents use to distinguish between different potential food-related information sources (n = 35), the data being submitted to generalised Procrustes analysis. The results of the two studies were combined and validated in survey research (n = 888) where factor analysis indicated that knowledge in itself does not lead to trust, but that trusted sources are seen to be characterised by multiple positive attributes. Contrary to previous research, complete freedom does not lead to trust-rather sources which possess moderate accountability are seen to be the most trusted.
对食品相关危害风险信息的信任可能是公众对风险信息反应的一个重要决定因素。风险沟通文献所探讨的核心问题之一是，为什么有些个人和组织作为风险信息来源会得到信任，而其他一些则不然。行业和政府往往缺乏公众信任，而其他来源（例如，消费者组织、优质媒体、医生）则备受信任。问题在于，以往的调查和问卷调查研究使用的是调查人员自己提出的问题，来评估公众对不同信息来源的信任认知。此外，没有考虑危害领域。在本文所报告的第一项研究中，采用半结构化访谈来引出决定对提供食品相关风险信息的不同来源的信任和不信任的潜在结构（n = 35）。在第二项研究中，使用 repertory grid 方法引出受访者用于区分不同潜在食品相关信息来源的术语（n = 35），数据提交给广义普罗克汝斯分析。两项研究的结果在调查研究（n = 888）中进行了合并和验证，其中因子分析表明，知识本身并不会带来信任，而受信任的来源被认为具有多种积极属性。与以往的研究相反，完全自由并不会带来信任——相反，具有适度问责制的来源被认为是最受信任的。
