Cultural uncertainty avoidance predicts consumers' affective reactions to chemicals.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Risk Analysis Pub Date : 2025-01-17 DOI:10.1111/risa.17693
Christian Martin
{"title":"Cultural uncertainty avoidance predicts consumers' affective reactions to chemicals.","authors":"Christian Martin","doi":"10.1111/risa.17693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chemicals in general often evoke negative emotions (e.g., worry or fear) in consumers. This can cause consumers to avoid beneficial products and may even lead to suboptimal public policy decisions. It is, therefore, important to better understand how affective reactions to chemicals in general (ARC) form in order to be able to counteract these undesirable effects. The present research contributes to the literature on ARC by studying between-country differences in ARC. While ARC were negative in all countries in our dataset, there were practically relevant between-country differences in how negative they were. We predicted and found that consumers in higher uncertainty avoidance (UA) societies reported more negative ARC than their counterparts in lower UA societies. This effect was due to the rule orientation component rather than the anxiety component of UA. Importantly, while we found evidence for several alternative explanations for between-country variation in ARC (i.e., differences in affluence, individualism, prevalence of chemicals, and trust in consumer protection), the UA effect remained statistically significant when we controlled for other country characteristics. The present research contributes to a better understanding of how contextual factors on the society level influence consumers' ARC and in doing so advances our understanding of ARC. It also has implications for practitioners who wish to educate consumers on the risks and benefits of chemicals.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17693","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chemicals in general often evoke negative emotions (e.g., worry or fear) in consumers. This can cause consumers to avoid beneficial products and may even lead to suboptimal public policy decisions. It is, therefore, important to better understand how affective reactions to chemicals in general (ARC) form in order to be able to counteract these undesirable effects. The present research contributes to the literature on ARC by studying between-country differences in ARC. While ARC were negative in all countries in our dataset, there were practically relevant between-country differences in how negative they were. We predicted and found that consumers in higher uncertainty avoidance (UA) societies reported more negative ARC than their counterparts in lower UA societies. This effect was due to the rule orientation component rather than the anxiety component of UA. Importantly, while we found evidence for several alternative explanations for between-country variation in ARC (i.e., differences in affluence, individualism, prevalence of chemicals, and trust in consumer protection), the UA effect remained statistically significant when we controlled for other country characteristics. The present research contributes to a better understanding of how contextual factors on the society level influence consumers' ARC and in doing so advances our understanding of ARC. It also has implications for practitioners who wish to educate consumers on the risks and benefits of chemicals.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
文化不确定性规避预测了消费者对化学品的情感反应。
化学物质通常会引起消费者的负面情绪(例如,担心或恐惧)。这可能导致消费者避开有益的产品,甚至可能导致次优的公共政策决策。因此,为了能够抵消这些不良影响,更好地了解对一般化学物质的情感反应(ARC)是如何形成的是很重要的。本研究通过研究ARC的国家间差异,为ARC的研究文献做出贡献。虽然在我们的数据集中,ARC在所有国家都是负的,但它们的负程度在国家之间存在实际相关的差异。我们预测并发现,高不确定性规避(UA)社会的消费者比低UA社会的消费者报告了更多的负ARC。这种影响是由于UA的规则取向成分而不是焦虑成分造成的。重要的是,虽然我们发现了国家间ARC差异的几种替代解释(即富裕程度、个人主义、化学品流行程度和对消费者保护的信任)的证据,但当我们控制其他国家特征时,UA效应在统计上仍然显着。本研究有助于更好地理解社会层面的情境因素如何影响消费者的ARC,从而促进我们对ARC的理解。这对那些希望教育消费者了解化学品的风险和益处的从业者也有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include: • Human health and safety risks • Microbial risks • Engineering • Mathematical modeling • Risk characterization • Risk communication • Risk management and decision-making • Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics • Laws and regulatory policy • Ecological risks.
期刊最新文献
An uncertainty-based risk perspective on risk perception and communication: Opportunities for new empirical-based research. The taxonomy of risky activities and technologies: Revisiting the 1978 psychological dimensions of perceptions of technological risks. Who views what from whom? Social media exposure and the Chinese public's risk perceptions of climate change. An adversarial risk analysis framework for software release decision support. Do engagement best practices motivate preparedness intentions? Data from earthquake workshops for Spanish speakers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1