In 2006 AFIC surveyed Australian, Chinese and Malaysian responses to health risk information. The aim was to compare relative differences in response and to better understand if best practice for risk communication in the industrialised Western world were as relevant and effective in Asian countries. The results highlighted some very interesting and useful differences in responses to risk information….. 

Background on the Research Project

This survey was conducted online and involved 150 undergraduate business studies and humanities students in each of the 3 countries. 39 closed questions and 2 open-ended word association questions in English and Chinese were used to explore relative differences in responses to risk information. Just under half of these questions found similar response patterns amongst all 3 groups, but just over half of the questions generated significantly different responses between country groups. The study also included questions to determine if the respondents’ social values were representative of their national culture, using a well respected test developed by Geert Hofstede. This did indeed confirm that values for each country group followed similar patterns to expected trends. Here are some results highlights… 

Confidence in Information Sources – some Surprising Findings

The survey explored confidence in sources of information on health risk and found very different attitudes. Australian respondents expressed the lowest levels of confidence in mass media and campaigning groups, whilst Chinese and Malaysians ranked these sources much higher. This was somewhat surprising as other studies have found consumers believe food safety and health risk information to be frequently confusing, unreliable and contradictory from these and other sources. An example of this attitude is illustrated in Chart 1, which compared relative differences of Australians, Chinese and Malaysian responses to a question on credibility of print media.  

Chart 1: Australians express lowest levels of confidence in newspaper and magazine health risk information, compared to Chinese and Malaysian respondents

Kruskal-Wallis H value = 63.57, p = 0.001; Z values, Aus = -6.22, Chi = -0.50, Mal = 6.72 

Low levels of risk tolerance could cloud recognition of potential benefits

The Chinese respondents expressed greatest anxieties and negativity to potential health risks. Australian respondents were the most positive, more readily perceiving the potential gains as well as threats associated with hypothetical risk-benefit scenarios. Malaysian responses were more mixed, expressing both heightened anxiety about some potential risks, but also greatest confidence in management of potential threats to health. Chart 2 illustrates this tendency, presenting responses to a statement on whether the local community was becoming a healthier place to live. 

Chart 2: Australians agreed most strongly that local community was becoming a healthier place to live, Malaysians disagreed most, Australians agreed most

Kruskal-Wallis H value = 10.8, p = 0.005; Z values, Aus = -2.47, Chi = -0.34, Mal = 2.76 

Perceived threats from humankind and nature

Research in risk perception and communication has confirmed that there is tendency for the general public to believe that risks which are generated by nature may somehow be inherently less risky than those generated by humankind. Of course, there is little or no basis for this perception – and in many cases society is able to assess and manage risk associated with human innovation more than risk generated by the natural environment. Nevertheless, risk communicators take this perception very seriously. It would seem that recognising and responding to this perception may be particularly relevant for  Asian populations, because the survey found Chinese and Malaysians were more worried than Australians about man-made vs ‘natural’ risk. An example of this type of concern can be seen in Chart 3. 

Chart 3: Chinese and Malaysians more likely than Australians to perceive natural chemicals less harmful than man-made

Kruskal-Wallis H value = 16.65, p = 0.00;, Z values, Aus = 2.58, Chi = -0.70, Mal = -3.46

Unbalanced perceptions?

In light of Asia’s rapid economic development driven partially by adoption of technology and modernisation, it might seem likely that the Chinese and Malaysian respondents would express as much, if not more positive attitudes to innovations such as mobile phones, food additives (to extend shelf life or lower retail prices), chemical insect treatments and so on. In this survey this was not the case - the Chinese respondents expressed greatest levels of concern regarding common features of modern life. Chart 4 which illustrates differing responses to food additives is an example of this. 

Chart 4: Malaysians and Chinese more worried about food additives than Australians

Kruskal-Wallis H value = 9.53, p = 0.009; Z values, Aus = -1.30, Chi = 2.56, Mal = -0.06 

Taking Steps Towards Better Risk Communications

Effective risk messages should reflect, and respond to the values and concerns of the target audiences. These findings provide some unique and original insights into Asian consumer attitudes to risk information. These insights spotlight the gaps and needs that need to be met if risk communications in the region are to become more effective. 

The survey identified greater levels of anxiety in 2 countries in the region, compared to Australia, with respect to modern innovations. This perception, as well as the belief that potential risk from the natural environment is by default more benign than those driven by humankind seems to reflect an underlying uneasiness with technological progress. Information that is accurate, relevant, targeted and balanced could help to reassure. However, delivery is as important as content and applying best practice risk communication  techniques could greatly enhance impact.  

Encouraging responsible reporting and messaging by mass media and campaigning organisations also seems a high priority goal, as these are clearly important information sources for consumers. Helping consumer’s to evaluate information and recognise the difference between fact and fiction; speculation and consensus opinion; sensational and balanced information also appears to be a priority based on the findings of this survey.  

Building on these findings, AFIC is now embarking on a project to develop regionally-focused risk communication resources. These resources will be available to consumer information providers such as educators, health professionals, risk analysis experts and regulatory professionals in the Asia region. For more information, contact the AFIC office by emailing info@afic.org.   

References

• Cooper M (1997) Evidence from safety culture that risk perception is culturally determined. Int J Project and Bus Risk Mgmt Vol2 185-202

• Sjoberg C (2000) Factors in Risk Perception. J Risk Analysis Vol 20 (1) 1-11

• Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organisations across nations, Sage Publications , USA

• Hsee C & Weber E (1999) Cross national difference in risk preference and lay perceptions. J Behav Decision Making Vol 12 165-179