7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      “Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals

      1 , 1 , 1
      Risk Analysis
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This mixed-methods study investigated consumers' knowledge of chemicals in terms of basic principles of toxicology and then related this knowledge, in addition to other factors, to their fear of chemical substances (i.e., chemophobia). Both qualitative interviews and a large-scale online survey were conducted in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. A Mokken scale was developed to measure laypeople's toxicological knowledge. The results indicate that most laypeople are unaware of the similarities between natural and synthetic chemicals in terms of certain toxicological principles. Furthermore, their associations with the term "chemical substances" and the self-reported affect prompted by these associations are mostly negative. The results also suggest that knowledge of basic principles of toxicology, self-reported affect evoked by the term "chemical substances," risk-benefit perceptions concerning synthetic chemicals, and trust in regulation processes are all negatively associated with chemophobia, while general health concerns are positively related to chemophobia. Thus, to enhance informed consumer decisionmaking, it might be necessary to tackle the stigmatization of the term "chemical substances" as well as address and clarify prevalent misconceptions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

          Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit.

              Judgments of risk and judgments of benefit have been found to be inversely related. Activities or technologies that are judged high in risk tend to be judged low in benefit, and vice versa. In the present study, we examine this inverse relationship in detail, using two measures of relationship between risk and benefit. We find that the inverse relationship is robust and indicative of a confounding of risk and benefit in people's minds. This confounding is linked to a person's overall evaluation of an activity or technology. Theoretical and practical implications of this risk-benefit confounding are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Risk Analysis
                Risk Analysis
                Wiley
                0272-4332
                1539-6924
                July 09 2019
                July 09 2019
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Environmental DecisionsETH Zurich Universitaetstrasse 22 Zuerich Switzerland
                Article
                10.1111/risa.13375
                31290192
                797b7161-9f35-4665-8990-a475795a42d0
                © 2019

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article