Common definitions of the concept of danger include: the possibility of something undesirable happening; and a situation, condition, a state or circumstances that could lead to – or is likely to lead to – some undesirable events or consequences. A distinction is made between ‘in danger’ (e.g. the person is in danger of being exploited) and ‘danger of’ (e.g. the danger of smoking). There are different ways of defining and understanding risk (different risk perspectives), and several of these very much resemble the above ways of understanding danger. For example, one well-established risk perspective adopted in social sciences views smoking as a risk, as we face a situation where something of human value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain. But smoking may also be seen as a danger, which makes us question whether there is in fact a difference between the two concepts. This paper aims at clarifying this challenge. New insights are provided by reviewing common terminology from theory and practice and using current knowledge on risk conceptualization and characterization. The paper concludes that danger should be viewed as a risk source for which the associated risk is judged as relatively high in relation to undesirable consequences.
The steady rise of consumer products with internet connectivity (e.g. voice assistants, smart door locks, smart speakers) (CPIC) in people's homes means that users face a complex array of potential hazards and harms. A pilot study ran in 2023 using a mixed methods design sought to increase the evidence base regarding CPIC with the practical aim that it could inform risk management decisions. A nationally representative sample of 854 UK participants provided ratings concerning their perceptions of risks concerning 10 CPIC (smart: watch, pet feeder, speaker, doorbell, toothbrush, door lock, robot sweeper, teddy camera, connected children's toy and bluetooth tracker). A two-component solution (consisting of concern and benefits) was found to explain 89.3% of the variation in risk perceptions. Attitudes towards new technology were key in predicting levels of risk tolerance. In terms of specific risks participants were concerned by, data security concerns were most frequently rated the highest, with concerns about physical health and social relationships lowest. Data leakage (inadequate warnings or instructions) was deemed the most common cause of risks associated with CPIC. Over 5000 separate free text concerns for CPIC were analysed in response to the open question 'What is the biggest risk you could envision associated with this product?'. Similar to the quantitative ratings, the most common concerns were around risks to do with data handling (privacy, storage, collection) and criminal activity from unauthorised internet access via the devices. Concerns of risks of a psychological nature made up only 5% of the overall reports. Our findings indicate that normal product functioning does not necessarily allay public concerns when it comes to CPIC, with results highlighting several areas of consumer concerns (data issues, criminal usage) that would be fruitful for regulators to focus their efforts towards.
Risk perception during food safety crises can extend beyond the directly affected product, yet the mechanisms shaping cross-category spillover remain insufficiently understood. This study examines whether perceived risk associated with a pox outbreak affecting goats spills over from goat meat to related meat and dairy categories and whether trust in regulatory authorities mediates these relationships. Survey data were analyzed using structural equation modeling across five categories: beef, pork, goat milk, goat yogurt, and goat cheese. The findings reveal significant direct relationships between goat meat perceived risk and perceived risk for beef, pork, and goat milk. For goat yogurt, the total association was significant, although neither the direct effect nor the indirect effect through trust reached statistical significance, while no significant relationship was found for goat cheese. Trust in regulatory authorities mediated the spillover relationships for beef, pork, and goat milk, but not for goat yogurt or goat cheese. These findings show that cross-category risk spillover is product-specific and that institutional trust constitutes an important, but non-uniform, mechanism through which perceived risk may extend across food categories. The study contributes to understanding the boundaries of risk spillover during food safety crises and offers practical implications for policymakers, regulatory authorities, and industry stakeholders regarding product-specific crisis communication and the management of consumer risk perceptions.
