No abstract

There is substantial empirical evidence that both trust and risk perceptions influence public acceptance of new technologies. We reanalyzed 3 studies (on food technology) to compare whether (a) both trust and perceived risk are independently and directly associated with acceptance, or (b) the relationship between trust and acceptance is mediated by perceived risk. In support of Interpretation a, the (negative) correlation between trust and perceived risk was reduced when controlling for acceptance, whereas the correlation between trust and acceptance was somewhat reduced when controlling for perceived risk. Controlling for trust had little effect on the correlation between perceived risk and acceptance. These findings suggest that expressions of trust and perceived risk often might be reflections of prior attitudes toward the technology.

Empirical examinations of the "social amplification of risk" framework are rare, partly because of the difficulties in predicting when conditions likely to result in amplification effects will occur. This means that it is difficult to examine changes in risk perception that are contemporaneous with increases and/or decreases in social or media discussion of the risks associated with a particular risk event. However, the collection of attitude data before, during, and after the increased reporting of the risks of genetically modified food in the United Kingdom (spring 1999) has demonstrated that people's risk perceptions do increase and decrease in line with what might be expected upon examination of the amplification and attenuation mechanisms integral to the framework. Perceptions of benefit, however, appeared to be permanently depressed by negative reporting about genetically modified food. Trust in regulatory institutions with responsibility for protecting the public was not affected. It was concluded that the social amplification of risk framework is a useful framework for beginning to explain the potential impact on risk perceptions of a risk event, particularly if that risk event is presented to the public as a new hazard occurring in a crisis context.

Background: The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) was published in 1997 as a tool to evaluate educational environments of medical schools and other health training settings and a recent review concluded that it was the most suitable such instrument. Aims: This study aimed to review the settings and purposes to which the DREEM has been applied and the approaches used to analyse and report it, with a view to guiding future users towards appropriate methodology. Method: A systematic literature review was conducted using the Web of Knowledge databases of all articles reporting DREEM data between 1997 and 4 January 2011. Results: The review found 40 publications, using data from 20 countries. DREEM is used in evaluation for diagnostic purposes, comparison between different groups and comparison with ideal/expected scores. A variety of non-parametric and parametric statistical methods have been applied, but their use is inconsistent. Conclusions: DREEM has been used internationally for different purposes and is regarded as a useful tool by users. However, reporting and analysis differs between publications. This lack of uniformity makes comparison between institutions difficult. Most users of DREEM are not statisticians and there is a need for informed guidelines on its reporting and statistical analysis.

No abstract

Objective To compare Year 1 medical students' perceptions of their educational environment at the end of Year 1, with their expectations at the beginning of the year using the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM). Methods Year 1 students (n = 130) at the University of East Anglia Medical School were asked to complete the DREEM during their induction week at the beginning of Year 1, thinking about the educational environment they expected to encounter (Expected DREEM), and again as part of a compulsory evaluation at the end of Year 1, thinking about the educational environment they had actually experienced (Actual DREEM). A total of 87 students (66.92% of the starting cohort) completed the DREEM on both occasions and gave permission for their data to be published. Results The Expected DREEM score was 153 out of a maximum of 200, and the Actual DREEM score was 143. Student's expected perceptions of learning and teachers, and their expected academic self- and social self-perceptions were all more positive than their actual perceptions. There was no difference between expected and actual perceptions of atmosphere. Specific aspects of the educational environment showing dissonance were identified. In some areas students' low expectations had been matched by their actual experience. Conclusions Medical students had started Year 1 with expectations about the educational environment that had not been met. However, areas showing dissonance received low item scores on the Actual DREEM and as such would be picked up for remediation, even without information about student expectations.

It has been assumed that the general public is unable to conceptualize information about risk uncertainties, and so communication about food risk has tended to avoid this type of information. However, recent societal and political pressure to increase transparency in risk management practices will result in the uncertainties inherent in risk analysis becoming subject to public scrutiny. Best practice regarding risk communication must address how to communicate risk uncertainty. A questionnaire was developed that aimed to assess how the general public characterized uncertainty associated with food risks. The results indicated that people wanted to be provided with information about food risk uncertainty as soon as the uncertainty was identified. People were more accepting of uncertainty associated with the scientific process of risk management than they were of uncertainty due to lack of action or lack of interest on the part of the government. The findings indicate that the focus of risk communication should be on “what is being done to reduce the uncertainty.” Recommendations are made regarding best practice for communicating risk uncertainty.

Consumers may encounter a number of potential food hazards through their food choice decisions and consumption behaviour. It is psychologically determined risk perceptions that drive acceptance of such potential food hazards, and define people's risk‐taking or self‐protective behaviours. As such, it is necessary to understand exactly what consumers are worried about. Food issues of concern to consumers were identified in a previous exploratory focus group study. A list of 18 food safety issues was developed for the purpose of the study reported here, with the aim of comparing worry about the different issues and investigating any demographic differences. Factor analysis indicated that attitudes to the 18 food safety issues reflected two underlying constructs, the first relating to technological food issues and the second to lifestyle food issues. In general, people were more worried about technological food hazards compared to lifestyle hazards. Demographic differences were observed for gender, age and social class, but not for geographical region, or having children; furthermore, experience of food allergy or intolerance increased worry about technological issues.