Prospective - (2022) Volume 7, Issue 11
Received: 01-Nov-2022, Manuscript No. IJPHS-22-84739;
Editor assigned: 03-Nov-2022, Pre QC No. P-84739;
Reviewed: 15-Nov-2022, QC No. Q-84739;
Revised: 21-Nov-2022, Manuscript No. R-84739;
Published:
28-Nov-2022
, DOI: 10.37421/2736-6189.2022.7.311
Citation: Federigi, Ileana. “Political Ideology and Food Health Risk Perceptions.” Int J Pub Health Safety 7 (2022): 311.
Copyright: © 2022 Federigi I. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Food selection is frequently impacted more by psychological variables of consumer understanding and perception of food safety than by physical food attributes. Regulators and food firms have devised methods of communicating product health advantages through flavour, health, and nutrient claims on food packages, restaurant menus, and social media. When fast food establishments claim to be healthy, customers underestimate the health hazards connected with the main courses: fast food intake is viewed as a lower cause of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Nonetheless, while health claims are intended to assist customers make educated decisions, their efficacy is heavily dependent on how consumers use them.
According to consumer psychology research, firms and policymakers alike are increasingly using unique appeals to conservatives and liberals to affect their attitudes or behaviours. The literature on ideological message-matching, in particular, supports the notion that persuasive appeals based on political ideology can increase individuals' willingness to change their attitude toward a position in order to maintain consistency with their moral commitments and those who share them. Political appeals, for example, can impact views toward topics such as same-sex marriage and universal healthcare as well as assist policymakers in increasing sustainable practises such as recycling. Using two research areas-consumer psychology and health risk communicationthe current study analyses how political appeals can alter the behaviour of consumers [1].
While previous research has looked into the impact of political framing in societal and ethical domains this study looks into the impact of political appeals on an issue (food safety) linked with less moral and more self-centred values. Consumers are increasingly sceptical of health claims in the face of repeated food scandals and crises. Because consumers are more likely to engage in self-protection and risk-aversion tactics for food intake the employment of persuasive appeals based on values at odds with their ideology should limit the effectiveness of health claims. As a result, this study proposes that incongruent political appeals increase perceptions of health risk. People's attitudes, intentions, and risk behaviours are all influenced by how they perceive hazards. As a result, it is critical for health- and risk-communication efforts to address the elements that influence people's perceptions. A quantitative review of the literature found that when treatments successfully increased risk perceptions (or feelings of threat), behavioural intentions increased and health behaviour altered. Risk perception influences attitudes toward microbiological dangers as well as food handling procedures such as hand washing and preventing crosscontamination in the kitchen. Many researches have shown that optimistic bias, a cognitive bias in which people believe they are less likely than others to encounter a negative occurrence, may skew food-safety risk perceptions, encouraging dangerous dietary behaviours [2].
The phrase "risk" is most likely derived from the Greek word rhiza, which refers to the dangers of sailing around a cliff and risking scraping the ship's hull, defined risk more recently as a scenario or event in which something of human value (including humans themselves) is at stake and the conclusion is unclear. characterised risk as a function of hazard and outrage (R= f(H,O)), where hazard can be a chemical, a microbe, or a poison gas, and outrage can include factors like trust, fairness, familiarity, and memorability, the ideas of risk and responsibility are more linked, a trend that has expanded as public awareness has grown. Despite their importance, studies on food risk have not resulted in a cohesive corpus of consumer risk perception. The lack of integration in these studies may be due to the scope of food safety research, which encompasses marketing, supply chains, agriculture, and food-related professions. These various study lines investigate the same problem using various theoretical approaches, resulting in fruitful findings but fragmented literature. What, for example, are the primary drivers of FSRP? What impact do they have on FSRP? What effect does FSRP have on WTB? Another set of variables can play a critical role in regulating these interactions and setting boundary requirements for these phenomena in order to have a fuller grasp of FSRP [3].
To address these concerns, we conducted a meta-analysis to I study and integrate the findings of prior empirical studies on the impacts of antecedents on FSRP, (ii) assess the effects of FSRP on WTB, and (iii) investigate potential moderators of the FRSP-WTB association. We concentrate on customers' WTB since it indicates an important consumer outcome for suppliers. Consumers' unwillingness to acquire a product, for example, results in some unrealized sales and impacts suppliers' revenues and inventory. As a result, our paper serves two functions. First, we investigate the impact of important FSRP drivers and give a synthesis of the correlations revealed in earlier empirical investigations [4].
Our findings contribute to the literature in the following ways. First, we synthesise earlier findings and assist in demonstrating the effects of FSRPrelated variables. Identifying the antecedents of FSRP that have the most impact and those that have the least impact can assist scholars, practitioners, and policymakers chart a course of action. Another contribution is to estimate the effect size for the association between FSRP and WTB, as well as to assess how FSRP can influence customer purchase intention and supplier performance. Finally, we add to the increasing literature on this topic by presenting a collection of moderator variables that have not before been explored [5].
The FSRP is critical for food safety since it influences customer perceptions. Consumer attitudes are predispositions toward specific objects that represent behavioural, normative, and control views that are directly tied to the consumer's intention and, hence, his or her behaviour. Consumers influence industrial processes and governmental and private restrictions because of their views toward food buying and consumption. For these reasons, there is a considerable surge in studies that investigate the concept's key drivers. A preliminary review of the literature reveals four major types of predictors: trust, knowledge, subjective traits, and socio-demographic factors. Furthermore, socio-demographic factors can alter risk perception. The included research demonstrated that age increased risk perception, which means that the older people get, the more concerned they are about food safety. Many research indicated that women felt hazards more strongly than males. A negative relationship between education level and food safety risk perception was discovered, implying that the more educated people are, the less they perceive food safety problems.
None.
None.
Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at
Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at
Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at
Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at
