Scaife, 2003).In the areaof foodrisks,optimisticbiasesare muchgreater for
lifestyle hazards(suchas foodpoisoning contracted in the home,or illness
experiencedas a consequence of inappropriate dietary choices)comparedwith
technologies applied to foodproduction(such as foodirradiationor genetic
modificationof food). At the sametime,people perceivethat theyknowmore
aboutthe risksassociated withlifestylechoiceswhencompared with other
people, and are in greater control over theirpersonalexposure to specific
hazards. Thisis not the casefor perceptionsof personalknowledgeabout,and
control over,technology-related foodrisks.In consequence, this optimistic bias
means that a barrierto effectiverisk communication aboutlifestyleriskscan be
identified.People perceivethatinformationaboutrisk reductionis directed
towards other individualconsumers whoare at more risk fromthe hazard,and
whoalso haveless control abouttheirpersonalexposure to the associated risks,
and possess less knowledge regardingself-protectivebehaviours.It has been
wellestablished that people exhibitingoptimistic bias maynot take precautions
to reducetheirrisk froma hazard(Perloff and Fetzer, 1986;Weinstein, 1987,
1989).
The importanceof optimisticbias,and approachesto reducingthe disparity
between perceivedrisk to the self and to other people,havebeenreviewedin
detail elsewhere (Milesand Scaife, 2003 ). A briefsummary of issuesrelevant to
optimisticbias and foodpoisoning will be provided here.
In general,research into optimistic bias within the fooddomainhas focused
on two broadareas (Miles and Scaife, 2003).The first addresses comparative
risk judgementsfor negative health outcomesassociated withfoodchoices, and
the secondfocuses on risk factors associated withspecificbehaviours. Bothare
likely to be relevantto foodsafetyand consumers. This is because,in part,
consumers are likely to compare their own risksof food poisoning with
individualsthey perceive to be morevulnerable than themselves.They may also
over-estimatethe efficacyof theirownhealth-protective behaviours.
Optimistic biasisreducedfor hazards perceivedto occurmorefrequently
(Weinstein,1987),or whichhavebeen experiencedby individuals(Weinstein,
1987;Lek and Bishop, 1995).Increased perceptionsof personalcontrolincrease
optimisticbias (Weinstein,1987;Hoorens and Buunk,1993;Lek and Bishop,
1995).Similarly, if an individualcan identify a stereotypical `at risk'individual,
whois unlikethemselves, optimistic bias is increased (Weinstein,1980);where
an individualperceives the stereotype to be rather similar to themselves,
optimistic bias is decreased (Lekand Bishop, 1995).Welkenhuysenet al.(1996)
report that optimisticbias is not relatedto the perceived severity of the hazard
nor (contrary to some public health policyapproaches) to an individual's
knowledgeaboutthe hazardand associatedrisks.
Why do people exhibit optimistic bias for some types of hazard?
Motivationalexplanations assume that peopleare motivated to make judgements
aboutrisksthat promotepsychologicalwell-beingthroughremoving threatto
self-esteem by inducing anxiety (Weinstein, 1989). In contrast, cognitive
explanations havetended to place emphasison systematic biasesin human
106 Handbookof hygiene controlin the foodindustry