This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]On: 21 December 2014, At: 16:10Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment:An International JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bher20

Risk Literacy and Risk Perception AmongUndergraduates in Mainland China: TheCase of BSEHongxian Ma a b , Guofang Zhai a & Shoji Tsuchida ca Laboratory for Urban Disasters and Public Security, Department ofUrban Planning & Design, Nanjing University , Nanjing , Chinab Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Huaiyin Institute ofTechnology , Huaian , Chinac Faculty of Safety Science, Kansai University , Takatsuki-shi ,Osaka , JapanAccepted author version posted online: 06 Dec 2012.Publishedonline: 08 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Hongxian Ma , Guofang Zhai & Shoji Tsuchida (2013) Risk Literacy and RiskPerception Among Undergraduates in Mainland China: The Case of BSE, Human and Ecological RiskAssessment: An International Journal, 19:2, 526-537, DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2013.755101

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2013.755101

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 19: 526–537, 2013Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1080-7039 print / 1549-7860 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10807039.2013.755101

RISK PERCEPTION/COMMUNICATION ARTICLE

Risk Literacy and Risk Perception AmongUndergraduates in Mainland China: The Case of BSE

Hongxian Ma,1,2 Guofang Zhai,1 and Shoji Tsuchida3

1Laboratory for Urban Disasters and Public Security, Department of UrbanPlanning & Design, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China; 2Faculty of Architectureand Civil Engineering, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Huaian, China; 3Faculty ofSafety Science, Kansai University, Takatsuki-shi, Osaka, Japan

ABSTRACTRisk response and cognitive characteristics of different groups are important

aspects in risk research. In this article we discuss the general features of risk literacyand perception among undergraduates at Nanjing University and Huaiyin Instituteof Technology in China in the case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).The results show that: (1) there seem to be no relationships between respondents’knowledge about BSE and their risk identification; (2) between all contrast samples,the greatest divergence appears in the judgment about probability of risk while thesmallest one is the trust in science and technology to avoid BSE; (3) the judgment ofhazard probability would be related to gender, family location, and the backgroundsof college and academic specialty. And only gender has impact on the affirmationof hazard with a significant level of 0.05. These findings provide insights into thecomprehension of undergraduates’ risk literacy and perception, and can contributeto the improvement of risk communication and management in China.

Key Words: risk literacy, risk perception, risk management, undergraduate stu-dent, China, BSE, American beef.

INTRODUCTION

Risk has accompanied and influenced human society since its origin. Today,with the rapid development of science and technology, the increasing intensityof remodeling natural environment, and the ever-growing globalization, all hu-mankind is facing and undergoing an era of high risks. Further, individuals’ ability

Address correspondence to Guofang Zhai, Laboratory for Urban Disasters and PublicSecurity, Department of Urban Planning & Design, Nanjing University, 22 Hankou Road,Nanjing 210093, China. E-mail: guofang.zhai@gmail.com

526

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Risk Literacy and Risk Perception: The Case of BSE

to deal with risks becomes more and more important in daily life. And risk lit-eracy and perception are generally considered to be significant factors for riskmanagement.

As Reyna et al . (2009) defined “health literacy”—“one’s ability to understandand apply numerical information about cognition, health behavior and treatmenteffects,” risk literacy can be interpreted as a wide range of abilities and virtues relatedto risk management, which are either inherent or developed and acquired throughexperiences. These abilities and virtues mainly include abilities to identify, screen,and analyze risk information and abilities to judge situations, make decisions, andhandle risks. Some researchers have stressed the importance of risk literacy and riskeducation (Zint 2001; Smith 2005; Tsuchida 2010), especially, health literacy (Reynaet al. 2009; Headley and Harrigan 2009; Pappas et al. 2009; Brewer et al. 2009) andscientific literacy (Gardner et al. 2010).

“Risk perception” is a combination of human instinct, experience, and rationalanalysis (Slovic et al. 2004) and a mixture of reason and sensibility. It is also “aphenomenon in search of an explanation” (Sjoberg 2000). Risk perception andliteracy are basic issues for risk study. Compared to risk literacy, there are morestudies of risk perception in many countries including China, for example, Fei(2004), Liu et al. (2006a,b), Chen (2009), Huang et al. (2010), and Hoag et al .(2011). Moreover, some quantitative analysis methods were used in these paperssuch as clustering analysis (Xie 1998), principal component analysis (Liu et al.2006a), regression analysis (Zhang and Wang 2008), variance analysis (Xie and Xu2002), and Structural Equation Modeling (Shi et al. 2003).

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a fatal, neurodegenerative diseasethat affects the central nervous system of cattle. And it may cause a similar fatalhuman disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), when people consumecontaminated beef and meat products (Taylor 2002). Since BSE was first foundin Britain in 1986, it has become a heated topic in many disciplines such as zo-ology, food science, sociology (Jasanoff 1997), behavior science (von Alvensleben2002), and risk science (Pfister and Bohm 2001; Jensen 2004; Setbon et al. 2005;Lewis and Tyshenko 2009). However, there is little discussion specifically for the riskliteracy and perception of contemporary college students in mainland China associ-ated with public health (e.g., BSE, avian flu, and severe acute respiratory syndrome[SARS]). Taking the risk of contracting BSE as an example, this article attempts toget a clear view of general characteristics at risk literacy and perception of under-graduates and the dissimilarity between different groups of students in mainlandChina.

METHOD

Sampling

Convenience sampling was used in this survey. The respondents came fromNanjing University and Huaiyin Institute of Technology. To avoid any timingbias effects, all surveys were administered in November 2009. And students wereasked to complete the questionnaires in 10 minutes and submit them on thespot.

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013 527

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

H. Ma et al.

Design of Questionnaire

This article is based on the survey of “how BSE in American affected the public.”The initial questionnaire was written in Japanese and then translated into Korean.They were administered first in Japan and then in South Korea. After the successof the Japanese and South Korean surveys were confirmed (Tsuchida et al. 2010),the questionnaire was translated into Chinese by Chinese survey cooperators whoare fluent in Japanese. Finally, it was amended properly according to the specificsituations of China and Chinese subjects.

Characteristics of Sample

A total of 193 students participated in this survey. Among these students, 60.9%were female; 84.5% were between 21 and 23 years; the most (nearly one-third) camefrom mid-size cities; 62.7% majored in international trading, and the rest in urbanplanning or human geography; 78.2% came from Huaiyin Institute of Technology,and the rest from Nanjing University; 94.8% were undergraduates while only 5.2%were postgraduates. The details about the characteristics of the sample are listed inTable 1.

Data Analysis

This article adopted a combined methodology of descriptive statistics and the Chi-square test of independence. Moreover, with the help of statistics software SPSS13.0,

Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics.

Frequency Percentage (%)

GenderFemale 117 60.9Male 75 39.1

SpecialtyUrban planning 72 37.3International trading 121 62.7

CollegeNanjing University 42 21.8Huaiyin Institute of Technology 151 78.2

Education backgroundGraduate 10 5.2Undergraduate 183 94.8

Age group18∼20 16 8.621∼23 158 84.524∼27 13 6.9

Family locationSuper city 22 11.5Big city 28 14.7Mid-size city 57 29.9Small city 44 23.0Village 40 20.9

528 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Risk Literacy and Risk Perception: The Case of BSE

the empirical research on risk literacy and perception of university students inMainland China was conducted.

RESULTS

Familiarity with General Information

Familiarity with general information can reflect the whole level of respondents’understanding for a particular risk. In most circumstances, people’s perception andjudgment about a given risk are based on the relevant information that they canacquire and comprehend. The choice for the statement “I have a full understandingabout BSE” can illuminate the level of respondents’ familiarity with general infor-mation. The survey results (Figure 1) show that 60.1% of the total sample did notthink that they had a full understanding about BSE, and chose “partially disagree”or “totally disagree,” while only a few (4.7%) totally agreed. As for the sub-samples,their survey results are all broadly similar to that of the total sample, only there arerelatively big divergences among different samples of family location or differentsamples of specialty. Finally, the results of Chi-square Test (Table 2) indicate that:family location and specialty background may affect the familiarity with general in-formation about BSE, the former with a significance level of p < .05 and the latterwith p < .1, while gender and college background do not have obvious influenceson it.

Familiarity with Specific Information

Familiarity with specific information can better reveal whether respondents areknowledgeable about a certain risk. The statement “BSE was caused by variant Prion”is directing to specific information. From the survey results (Figure 2), it can be seenthat for the total sample, the two options—“partially agree” and “neither agree nor

Figure 1. Survey results for “I have a full understanding about BSE.”

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013 529

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Tab

le2.

Ch

i-squ

are

test

ofin

depe

nde

nce

for

con

tras

tsam

ple

onsa

me

topi

c.

Fam

iliar

ity

Trus

tin

Judg

men

tFa

mili

arit

yw

ith

wit

hsc

ien

cean

dab

out

gen

eral

spec

ific

tech

nol

ogy

prob

abili

tyA

ffirm

atio

nin

form

atio

nin

form

atio

nto

avoi

dB

SEof

risk

ofh

azar

d

Con

tras

tsam

ple

dfVa

lue

PVa

lue

PVa

lue

PVa

lue

PVa

lue

P

Fem

ale

vs.m

ale

42.

079

n.s

.7.

926

+3.

695

n.s

.13

.948

∗∗11

.922

∗

Dif

fere

ntf

amily

loca

tion

1629

.362

∗23

.735

+8.

912

n.s

.26

.393

∗14

.546

n.s

.D

iffe

ren

tspe

cial

ty4

9.40

6+

8.53

8+

5.57

8n

.s.

9.02

6+

6.47

1n

.s.

Dif

fere

ntc

olle

ge4

5.59

6n

.s.

12.1

∗2.

944

n.s

.8.

995

+2.

279

n.s

.

+ p<

.10;

∗ p<

.05;

∗∗p

<.0

1.

530

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Risk Literacy and Risk Perception: The Case of BSE

Figure 2. Survey results for “BSE was caused by variant Prion.”

disagree”—get similar proportions (nearly one-third); and compared to the surveyresults for “I have a full understanding about BSE,” there is a significant decline in theratio of selecting “partially disagree” and “totally disagree,” while an apparent growthin the ratio of choosing “totally agree.” So it seems that most of all respondents weremore confident on the specific information than the general. When it comes to sub-samples, the survey results present different characteristics. Lastly, the results of Chi-square testing (Table 2) indicate that gender, family location, and the backgroundsof college and academic specialty all affect respondents’ familiarity to some extentwith specific information about BSE. Among these factors, college background hasgreater influence on the survey results, with significance level of p < .05, comparedto others (p < .1).

Trust in Science and Technology in Order to Avoid BSE

Faced with risk, people’s psychological endurance and final identification of riskpartially depend on their trust in current science and technology in order to avoid orcontrol risk. According to the survey results (Figure 3), only 11.9% of the total sampleagreed that science and technology would help avoid contracting BSE, 45.1% chose“partially agree,” and 32.1% selected “partially disagree” or “totally disagree,” therest (10.9%) for “neither agree nor disagree.” With regard to sub-samples, the surveyresults are similar to each other. Finally, the results of Chi-square testing (Table 2)indicate all factors mentioned in this article do not have significant influence onrespondents’ trust in science and technology to avoid BSE.

Judgment about Probability of Risk

Respondents’ judgment about probability of risk can directly reflect their ba-sic understanding to a certain risk. The survey results (Figure 4) show that nearlyone-third of the total sample chose “totally agree,” and thought that American beefwas more likely to cause BSE than beef from other countries; 33.2% for “partially

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013 531

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

H. Ma et al.

Figure 3. Survey results for “Science and technology can avoid BSE.”

agree,” 23.8% for “totally disagree” or “partially disagree,” and the rest (14.5%) for“neither agree nor disagree.” Moreover, it can also be seen from the survey resultsthat the differences between sub-samples almost are greater than that between eachsub-sample and the total sample. Lastly, the results of Chi-square testing (Table 2)indicate that all factors mentioned in this article influence the respondents’ judg-ment to some extent about probability of BSE risk. Among these factors, gender hasgreatest influence (with significance level of p< .01), followed by family location (p< .05), the backgrounds of college and specialty (p < .1).

Figure 4. Survey results for “American beef is more likely to cause BSE than beeffrom other countries.”

532 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Tab

le3.

Ch

i-squ

are

test

ofin

depe

nde

nce

for

sam

esa

mpl

eon

rela

ted

topi

c.

Fam

iliar

ity

Fam

iliar

ity

Trus

tin

Judg

men

tw

ith

gen

eral

wit

hsp

ecifi

csc

ien

cean

dab

out

info

rmat

ion

vs.

info

rmat

ion

vs.

tech

nol

ogy

toav

oid

prob

abili

tyof

risk

Affi

rmat

ion

Affi

rmat

ion

BSE

vs.A

ffirm

atio

nvs

.Affi

rmat

ion

ofh

azar

dof

haz

ard

ofh

azar

dof

haz

ard

Sam

ple

dfVa

lue

PVa

lue

PVa

lue

PVa

lue

P

Tota

lsam

ple

463

.416

∗∗∗

24.3

45∗∗

∗13

.676

∗∗3.

496

n.s

.M

ale

419

.085

∗∗∗

9.67

4∗

4.61

9n

.s.

1.94

6n

.s.

Fem

ale

447

.793

∗∗∗

16.4

96∗∗

10.7

68∗

2.33

5n

.s.

Supe

rci

ty4

8.56

9+

8.60

6+

5.65

3n

.s.

4.19

3n

.s.

Big

city

49.

333

+10

.543

∗6.

887

n.s

.2.

431

n.s

.M

id-s

ize

city

412

.288

∗10

.743

∗4.

385

n.s

.4.

658

n.s

.Sm

allc

ity

421

.595

∗∗∗

2.51

1n

.s.

4.16

0n

.s.

2.95

7n

.s.

Vill

age

424

.595

∗∗∗

7.96

9+

4.66

0n

.s.

4.31

6n

.s.

Urb

anpl

ann

ing

435

.271

∗∗∗

11.3

01∗

9.82

1∗

2.84

n.s

.In

tern

atio

nal

trad

ing

435

.521

∗∗∗

18.2

95∗∗

∗10

.839

∗3.

91n

.s.

Nan

jing

Un

iver

sity

423

.159

∗∗∗

13.9

96∗∗

6.99

5n

.s.

3.27

1n

.s.

Hua

iyin

Inst

itut

eof

Tech

nol

ogy

443

.159

∗∗∗

15.3

94∗∗

9.12

8+

2.30

4n

.s.

+ p<

.10;

∗ p<

.05;

∗∗p

<.0

1,∗∗

∗ p<

.001

.

533

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

H. Ma et al.

Figure 5. Survey results for “It is dangerous to eat American beef.”

Affirmation of Hazard

Affirmation of hazard is the precondition and foundation of risk management;meanwhile, it reflects respondents’ subjective attitudes. From the survey results(Figure 5), it shows that 25.9% of the total sample agreed that it was dangerous toeat American beef, while 38.9% partially agreed, 24.3% partially or totally disagreed,and 11% neither agreed nor disagreed. Besides, the survey results for all sub-samplesare close to each other. Finally, the results of Chi-square testing (Table 2) indicatethat family location and the backgrounds of college and academic specialty do notaffect the respondents’ affirmation of hazard notably, except for gender with asignificant level of .05.

Consistency Test

The purpose of consistency testing is to confirm whether the survey results of eachsample (including total sample and sub-samples) on related topics are consistent. Interms of the risk of BSE, the results of Chi-square testing of independence (Table 3)indicate that there are relatively obvious differences between the affirmation ofhazard and the familiarity with general or specific information for almost all samples.However, the judgment about probability of risk shows a high consistency with theaffirmation of hazard for all samples. As for the coherence between trust in scienceand technology in order to avoid BSE and the affirmation of hazard, differentsamples presents different results, some consistent, and some not.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Taking the case of BSE, this article analyzed the general characteristics at riskliteracy and perception of undergraduates in mainland China and the dissimilarity

534 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Risk Literacy and Risk Perception: The Case of BSE

between different groups of students mainly from several aspects such as the famil-iarity with general information, the affirmation of hazard, and discussed the possiblefactors for these aspects. The results show that:

1. Although a majority of the respondents did not think themselves knowledgeableabout BSE, they were more confident in specific information. Meanwhile, quitea few but not most respondents thought that American beef was more likely tocause BSE than that from other countries and it was dangerous to eat Americanbeef. The reason may be that it is easier for subjects to identify and judge specificinformation, and respondents’ affirmation of hazard is liable to be influenced bynegative emotions.

2. As for all contrast samples, the greatest divergence appears in the judgment aboutprobability of risk, and then it is becoming smaller according to the sequence ofthe familiarity with specific information, the familiarity with general information,the affirmation of hazard, and the trust in science and technology to avoid BSE.It seemed that although the university students in mainland China may havesimilar science literacy, they may have not similar risk literacy and perception onthe whole.

3. Gender, family location, and the backgrounds of college and academic specialtydo not affect the survey results for “science and technology can avoid BSE”significantly, but to some extent they all influence respondents’ judgment aboutprobability of risk and the familiarity with specific information. Moreover, familylocation and specialty background both have some impact on the familiarity withgeneral information. Finally, it is only gender that has significant influence onthe affirmation of hazard and the proportion of females choosing “totally agree”and “partially agree” is higher than that for males. This result is consistent withprevious relevant research (Flynn et al. 1994; Cohn et al. 1995), namely femalesseem to be more sensitive to risk and tend to highly estimate possible damages.

The limitation of this article is that with regard to the risk of BSE, its sampling isnot enough to represent the variety in risk literacy and perception of people fromdifferent areas, or of different ages and social status in mainland China. Besidesthis, the survey was conducted in a way of convenience sampling and on-the-spotsubmission. So there was not enough time for researchers to communicate withrespondents on specific questions deeply, and then it may affect the analysis andinterpretation to survey results. These limitations will be considered and solved infuture research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was co-supported by the National Program on Key Basic ResearchProject of China (973) under grant no. 2010CB428506 and Project of NationalNatural Science Foundation of China under grant no. 41071325.

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013 535

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

H. Ma et al.

REFERENCES

Brewer NT, Tzeng JP, Lillie SE, et al. 2009. Health literacy and cancer risk perception:Implications for genomic risk communication. Medical Decision Making 29(2):157–66

Chen H. 2009. Discrepancy between perception of science risks and its interpretation in viewfrom psychology to sociology. J Northeastern University (Social Science) 11(5):389–93 (inChinese with English abstract)

Cohn LD, Macfarlane S, Yanez C, et al. 1995. Risk-perception-differences between adolescentsand adults. Health Psychol 14(3):217–22

Fei D. 2004. The scientific development of the science technology and society undertakings.Studies in Dialectics of Nature 20(10):91–4 (in Chinese with English abstract)

Flynn J, Slovic P, and Mertz CK. 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental-healthrisks. Risk Anal 14(6):1101–8

Gardner G, Jones G, Taylor A, et al. 2010. Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnologyapplications: Implications for science education. Internat J Sci Educ 32(14):1951–69

Headley AJ and Harrigan J. 2009. Using the pregnancy perception of risk questionnaire toassess health care literacy gaps in maternal perception of prenatal risk. J Natl Med Assoc101(10):1041–45

Hoag DLK, Keske CMH, and Goldbach R. 2011. Risk individuality in crisis planning: The caseof gender in American agriculture. Journal of Risk Analysis and Crisis Response 1(1):21–8

Huang L, Duan B, Bi J, et al. 2010. Analysis of determining factors of the public’s risk accep-tance level in China. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16(2):365–79

Jasanoff S. 1997. Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understandingof Sci 6(3):221–32

Jensen KK. 2004. BSE in the UK: Why the risk communication strategy failed. J AgriculEnviron Ethics 17(4–5):405–23

Lewis RE and Tyshenko MG. 2009. The impact of social amplification and attenuation of riskand the public reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada. Risk Anal 29(5):714–28

Liu J, Huang H, and Zhou G. 2006a. A research on the risk perception of urban inhabitants.Psychol Sci 29(6):1439–41 (in Chinese with English abstract)

Liu J, Zhou G, and Huang H. 2006b. A review of research on risk perception. Psychol Sci29(2):370–2 (in Chinese with English abstract)

Pappas G, Kiriaze IJ, Giannakis P, et al. 2009. Psychosocial consequences of infectious diseases.Clin Microbiol Infect 15(8):743–7

Pfister HR and Bohm G. 2001. BSE—Social psychological aspects of a controversial risk.Zeitschrift Fur Sozialpsychologie 32(4):213–21

Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, et al. 2009. How numeracy influences risk comprehensionand medical decision making. Psychol Bull 135(6):943–73

Setbon M, Raude J, Fischler C, et al. 2005. Risk perception of the “mad cow disease” in France:Determinants and consequences. Risk Anal 25(4):813–26

Shi K, Fan H, Jia J, et al. 2003. The risk perceptions of SARS and socio-psychological behaviorsof urban people in China. Acta Psychologica Sinica 35(4):546–54 (in Chinese with Englishabstract)

Sjoberg L. 2000. Factors in risk perception. Risk Anal 20(1):1–11Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, et al. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts

about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311–22Smith J. 2005. Dangerous news: Media decision making about climate change risk. Risk Anal

25(6):1471–82Taylor DM. 2002. Current perspectives on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and variant

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Clin Microbiol Infect 8(6):332–9

536 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Risk Literacy and Risk Perception: The Case of BSE

Tsuchida S. 2010. Researches at the Society for Risk Analysis, Japan. Japanese J Risk Anal20(1):9–14

Tsuchida S, Tsujikawa N, and Shiotani T. 2010. The BSE movement and the people’s aware-ness of food safety in the Republic of Korea, pp 1–35. Survey & Data Series No. 107(Interpersonal relations and risks in the contemporary societies), Institute of Economicand Political Studies, Kansai University. (in Japanese)

von Alvensleben R. 2002. Effects of BSE on consumer attitudes and behaviour. DeutscheTierarztliche Wochenschrift 109(8):335–7

Xie X. 1998. Experimental study of risk perception in the general social context. Psychol Sci21(4):315–8 (in Chinese with English abstract)

Xie X and Xu L. 2002. Survey on the public risk perception. Psychol Sci 25(6):723–4 (inChinese with English abstract)

Zhang W and Wang X. 2008. Self-framing, risk perception and risky choice. Acta PsychologicaSinica 40(6):633–41 (in Chinese with English abstract)

Zint MT. 2001. Advancing environmental risk education. Risk Anal 21(3):417–26

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 19, No. 2, 2013 537

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Selc

uk U

nive

rsite

si]

at 1

6:10

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14