What Determines Trust in Information About Food‐Related Risks? Underlying Psychological Constructs

TLDR

Trust in food‑hazard risk information varies by source, with industry and government often lacking public confidence while consumer groups, media, and doctors are more trusted, yet prior studies have relied on investigator‑generated questions and ignored hazard domain differences. This research seeks to uncover the underlying psychological constructs that shape trust and distrust toward different food‑risk information sources. The authors conducted two studies with 35 participants each—semistructured interviews to elicit trust determinants and a repertory‑grid exercise to capture source terminology, with the resulting data subjected to generalized Procrustes analysis. Survey validation with 888 respondents revealed that knowledge alone does not predict trust; instead, trusted sources are characterized by multiple positive attributes, and moderate accountability—not complete freedom—is most associated with trust.

Abstract

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.