information processing of incoming riskinformation, for example through
inabilityto adopt the perspective of others,or comparisonwithvulnerable
stereotypes (Weinstein,1980).Kunda(1990)has argued that motivational goals
mayinfluence howinformation abouta risk is processed. One mightargue, as a
consequence,that high levels of optimisticbias might therefore act as a
motivationalcue, or heuristic, to preventpeople processing informationrelated
to the risksassociatedwith a particular hazard.
Someempirical research has attempted to determinehow to reduceoptimistic
bias.This includes increasing perceived accountability associated with an
individual'srisk judgement. It can be achievedthroughproviding information
aboutactualrisk-takingbehaviours (McKenna and Myers, 1997),or through
makingpeople comparethemselveswithan individualsimilarto themselves
(Harris et al., 2000), or an individual similarto the receiver of the risk
information (Alickeet al., 1995).Datashowthat therehas beenvariedsuccess
in reducing optimistic biasthrough cognitive approaches(Miles and Scaife,
2003)althoughthe dual-processing approachdescribedlaterin this chaptermay
offera theoreticalapproach to combiningcognitive and motivationalapproaches
to reducing optimistic bias in the areaof foodsafety.
6.3 Riskperception and barriers to effective risk communication
Clearly, perceptionof risk will influence attitudes towards microbiological risks
and food-handling practices(Frewer,2001).Optimistic bias is likely to act as a
barrier to attempts to mitigatepublichealthproblemsassociated withfood
hygiene.An additionalbarrieris associatedwithattitudesto foodtechnologies
introduced to alleviate problems associatedwithmicrobiological risks.One
consequence of public concern about food technology is thatnovel food
processing technologies,suchas foodirradiation (Bruhn, 1995)or high-pressure
processing, maynot be acceptable to consumers (Freweret al., 2004).
Researchconducted withinthe psychometricparadigmhas demonstratedthat
microbiologicalfoodriskstend to be moderately dreaded by consumers, but also
perceived to be highlyfamiliar,which reducestheirthreatpotential (Fife-Schaw
and Rowe,2000).A furtherfactorto consider in the area of publicperceptionof
microbial risk is that someconsumer concernsare veryspecific to particular
hazarddomains, and this is verymuchthe casein relation to foodpoisoning
(Milesand Frewer, 2001).Qualitativeresearch has confirmedthe optimistic bias
effect.The results indicatedthat respondents weremaintainingoptimistic biases
regarding theirown risksfromfoodhygienethroughcomparingthemselves with
individualsperceivedto be moreat risk'thantheythemselves. Respondents alsoinvariably perceived that they knowand apply optimalfood hygiene practices. Theyalso reportedthat microbial riskswerethe frequentsubject of mediahype'and exaggeration (andthusdiscountable as potentiallyhaving a
negative effecton health), confined to certainproduct categoriessuchas eggs.
Consumerperceptionsof risksfromfood 107