Abstract
Considerable efforts have been made to depict the causal patterns of trust, risk perception, and risk acceptance. Yet, it remains far from clear whether the established models are over-simplistic and to what extent the observed associations are contingent upon risk contexts. Extending the theorizing based on the Causal Chain model, this study adopts a comparative approach to examining the role of trust in regulators in the case of post-Fukushima food imports in Hong Kong, Mainland China, and Taiwan. Consistent with the proposed integrative framework, all three samples exhibited indirect relationships between trust in regulators and behavioral intentions through two types of risk perception (affective and cognitive risk perceptions) and risk acceptance. Findings showed that risk acceptance was the most prominent mediator in explaining the extended model and supported the necessity of distinguishing risk acceptance and behavioral intention as two self-contained constructs working in sequence. Moreover, trust in regulators showed the strongest predictivity in behavioral intentions in the Mainland China sample, while risk perception played a more important role in explaining outcome variables in the Hong Kong and Taiwan samples. In addition to contributing to theory building by presenting the external validity of the integrative framework across different political and food regulatory systems, the study demonstrates practical implications for regulatory authorities and risk communicators.
Highlights
Unlike hazards or disasters which exist in an objective nature, risks are largely defined in line with the general public’s subjective perceptions, judgments, and decision-making
The present study extends the recent theorizing based on the Causal Chain model (Bronfman et al, 2008; Earle, 2010), which situates the mediating role for risk perception in explaining the relationship between trust and risk acceptance
Grounded on the Causal Chain model, this study proposed an integrative framework examining the effects of trust in regulatory authorities on behavioral intentions across Hong Kong, Mainland China, and Taiwan
Summary
Unlike hazards or disasters which exist in an objective nature, risks are largely defined in line with the general public’s subjective perceptions, judgments, and decision-making. The emerging dual-process view of risk perception (Altarawneh et al, 2018; Finucane et al, 2000) has induced evidence suggesting that affect and cognition play different, if not mutually exclusive, roles in shaping how the public perceive risk events and forming behavioral intention in terms of timing (Richardson et al, 2012) and strength (De Vocht et al, 2015). Put it another way, the general public do think, and feel about risks
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
