Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023 - 120

TABLE 5. Correlations between perceptions of risk, control, responsibility, and hygiene
consciousness
Perceived risk of
foodborne illness
Perceived risk of foodborne illness
N/Aa
Perceived control of food safety
Perceived responsibility for food safety
Perceived hygiene consciousness
aN/A, not applicable.
Previously, risk perceptions and optimistic biases have
been determined to vary according to age, gender, and
ethnicity (9, 77). For example, females have indicated
higher perceptions of personal risk than males (6). However,
in the present study, no significant differences in risk
perceptions were determined according to the demographic
characteristics of respondents. The only factor that had an
impact upon the perceived risk was previous experience of
foodborne illness. Indeed, Parry et al. (67) hypothesized
and established that experience of foodborne illness would
impact risk perceptions and reduce optimistic bias. Although
both those who had and those who had not experienced
foodborne illness were said to exhibit optimistic bias,
experience with foodborne illness was suggested to reduce
optimistic bias (67). Certainly, in the present study, the
perceived risk of foodborne illness was significantly greater
among respondents who reported experiencing foodborne
illness than those who had not experienced foodborne
illness, thus agreeing that experience of foodborne illness
reduces optimistic bias among the respondents of this study.
Perceived control for food safety
The perception of control is an individual's perceived
ability to control an outcome as a direct result of their
own behavior (7, 13, 62). This study has determined that
participants perceived themselves to have high levels of
control for foodborne illness, indicating confidence in their
food safety behaviors. Perceptions of personal control were
120 Food Protection Trends March/April
significantly higher than the control others were perceived to
have. Similar findings have been reported previously wherein
the majority of consumers perceived themselves to have
greater levels of control than others (31, 33, 70).
Findings from this study suggest that participants may
overestimate their own ability to control food safety. Such
overestimation is known as the illusion of control (59, 83).
Recommended food safety practices may not be adhered to
or food safety education initiatives may be overlooked as a
result of the illusion of control. As consumers, they perceive
such information to be aimed at those who are less able to
control risks than themselves (67). No significant differences
were determined in perceived control in this study according
to gender or age group, whereas Barrett et al. (6) discussed
differences in perceived behavioral control according to
gender and age group.
The locus of control is the extent that individuals perceive
that they do or do not have control over specific outcomes.
The locus (i.e., the location) of control can be perceived as
being internal (i.e., an individual can control the specific
outcome) or external (i.e., an individual cannot control
the specific outcome) (75). Regardless of the outcome
being positive or negative to an individual, if individuals
have a strong internal locus of control, they are likely to
praise or blame themselves for the outcome, thus taking
responsibility, whereas individuals with a strong external
locus of control are likely to praise or blame external factors
for the outcome, thus refusing to accept responsibility (18,
r = 0.831,
n = 93,
P < 0.001
r = 0.799,
n = 94,
P < 0.001
r = 0.777,
n = 94,
P < 0.001
Perceived control
of food safety
r = 0.831,
n = 93,
P < 0.001
N/A
r = 0.759,
n = 92,
P < 0.001
r = 0.758,
n = 92,
P < 0.001
Perceived
responsibility for
food safety
r = 0.799,
n = 94,
P < 0.001
r = 0.759,
n = 92,
P < 0.001
N/A
r = 0.851,
n = 94,
P < 0.001
Perceived hygiene
consciousness
r = 0.777,
n = 94,
P < 0.001
r = 0.758,
n = 92,
P < 0.001
r = 0.851,
n = 94,
P < 0.001
N/A
Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023
