SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 29 Sayı: 55

Examining consumers’ food safety risk communication on social media: A study on convenience foods

Tüketicilerin sosyal medyadaki gıda güvenliği risk iletişiminin incelenmesi: Hazır gıdalar üzerine bir araştırma

İbrahim Yemez(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-3176-6394
Tuğba Delice Akca0000-0002-3626-0424
Pages
323–346
Publication Date
2026-06-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result of the analysis, it was found that perceived violence, perceived vulnerability and response barriers did not have a significant effect on protection motivation, but response effectiveness level and self-efficacy positively and significantly affected protection motivation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to examine consumers' risk communication on food safety on social media through ready-made foods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within the scope of the study, data were collected from a total of 432 people using an online survey technique between October 10-31, 2024.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result of the analysis, it was found that perceived violence, perceived vulnerability and response barriers did not have a significant effect on protection motivation, but response effectiveness level and self-efficacy positively and significantly affected protection motivation.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sosyal Medya · Gıda Güvenliği · Risk İletişimi

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine consumers' risk communication on food safety on social media through ready-made foods. Within the scope of the study, data were collected from a total of 432 people using an online survey technique between October 10-31, 2024. The reliability and validity of the scale used in the study were revealed by Factor Analysis. In the next stage, the model was tested with Path Analysis. As a result of the analysis, it was found that perceived violence, perceived vulnerability and response barriers did not have a significant effect on protection motivation, but response effectiveness level and self-efficacy positively and significantly affected protection motivation. Again, it was found that protection motivation and need for information positively and significantly affected food safety risk communication on social media. It was also found that the established model was structurally significant and valid.

Özet

Bu çalışmada amaç, tüketicilerin sosyal medyada gıda güvenliği hakkındaki risk iletişimlerinin hazır gıdalar üzerinden incelenmesidir. Çalışma kapsamında 10-31 Ekim 2024 tarihlerinde çevrimiçi anket tekniğiyle, toplam 432 kişiden veriler toplanmıştır. Çalışmada kullanılan ölçeğin güvenirlik ve geçerlilik durumu Faktör Analizi ile ortaya konmuştur. Sonraki aşamada ise model Yol Analizi ile test edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda algılanan şiddet, algılanan güvenlik açığı ve tepki engellerinin koruma motivasyonu üzerinde anlamlı bir etkisinin olmadığı ancak tepki etkinlik düzeyi ve öz yeterliliğin koruma motivasyonunu pozitif ve anlamlı olarak etkilediği bulunmuştur. Yine koruma motivasyonu ve bilgi ihtiyacının da sosyal medyadaki gıda güvenliği risk iletişimini pozitif ve anlamlı bir şekilde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca kurulan modelin yapısal olarak anlamlı ve geçerli olduğu da tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yemez, İ., Akca, T. D. (2026). Examining consumers’ food safety risk communication on social media: A study on convenience foods. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 55, 323–346. https://doi.org/10.31795/baunsobed.1675248

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (74)

  1. Anusha, A.C.S., Tunung, R., Kavita, C., Ribka, A. ve Chandrika, M. (2020). Ready-to-eat food consumption practices, food safety knowledge and relation to gender and education level of consumers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Food Research, 4(5), 1537 – 1544. https://doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.4(5).037
  2. Baba, F.V., ve Esfandiari, Z. (2023). Theoretical and practical aspects of risk communication in food safety: A review study, Heliyon, 9(e18141), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18141
  3. Balla, J. ve Hagger, M.S. (2024). Protection motivation theory and health behaviour: conceptual review, discussion of limitations, and recommendations for best practice and future research, Health Psychology Review, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2413011
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
  5. Chamroonsawasdi, K., Chottanapund, S., Pamungkas, R.A., Tunyasitthisundhorn, P., Sornpaisarn, B., ve Numpaisan, O. (2021). Protection motivation theory to predict intention of healthy eating and sufficient physical activity to prevent Diabetes Mellitus in Thai population: A path analysis, Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome. Clinical Research & Reviews 15, 121-127
  6. Charlebois, S., ve Summan, A. (2015). A risk communication model for food regulatory agencies in modern society. Trends in Food Science Technology, 45(1), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.05.004
  7. Chen, M. (2016). Extending the protection motivation theory model to predict public safe food choice behavioural intentions in Taiwan. Food Control, 68, 145–152
  8. Cho, T.J., Kim, S.A., Kim, H.W. ve Rhee, M.S. (2020). A closer look at changes in high-risk food-handling behaviors and perceptions of primary food handlers at home in South Korea across Time, Foods, 9(1457), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9101457
  9. Cope, S., Frewer, L.J., Houghton, J., Rowe, G., Fischer, A.R.H., ve de Jonge, J. (2010). Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy. Food Policy, 35, 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.04.002
  10. Çelik, İ., ve Çelik, T. (2020). Tüketicilerin gıda güvenliği konusunda bilinç ve davranış düzeylerinin belirlenmesi: Denizli ili örneği, Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(1), 48-59, https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.679288
  11. Damghanian, H., Zarei, A., ve Siahsarani Kojuri, M. A. (2016). Impact of perceived security on trust, perceived risk, and acceptance of online banking in Iran, Journal of Internet Commerce, 15(3), 214-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2016.1191052
  12. Dashti S, Dabaghi P. ve Tofangchiha S. (2020). The effectiveness of training program based on protective motivation theory on improving nutritional behaviors and physical activity in military patients with type diabetes mellitus, Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 9, 3328-32. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_70_20
  13. Dölekoğlu, C.O., Yılmaz, S., Gun, S., ve Uysal, Ö.K. (2012). The food safety perception in Turkey: gender variation, Revista De Cercetare, 36, 178-196.
  14. Facione, N. C. (2002). Perceived risk of breast cancer. Cancer Practice, 10(5), 256–261. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-5394.2002.105005.x
  15. Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., ve Ubel, P. A. (2005). How making a risk estimate can change the feel of that risk: Shifting attitudes toward breast cancer risk in a general public survey, Patient Education and Counseling, 57(3), 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2004.08.007
  16. Fornell, C. ve Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
  17. Frewer, L. (2000). Risk perception and risk communication about food safety issue, Nutrition Bulletin, 25(1), 31-33. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-3010.2000.00015.x
  18. Frewer, L. (2004). The public and effective risk communication. Toxicology Letters, 149(1-3), 391–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.12.049
  19. Hair J., E., Ringle C., M., ve Sarstedt M., (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-151.
  20. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., ve Tatham, R. L. (2016). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Education Limited.
  21. Hair, J., F., Hult, G., T., M., Ringle, C., M., ve Sarstedt, M., (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). (Second Edition). Sage.
  22. Hamşıoğlu, A.B. (2019). Girişimci işletmelerde pazarlama yeteneklerinin belirleyicileri ve sonuçlarının araştırılması. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(2), 848-863.
  23. Henderson, J., Wilson, A.M., Webb, T.,McCullum, D., Meyer, S.B., Joveney, J., ve Ward, P.R. (2017).The role of social media in communication about food risks Views of journalists, food regulators and the food industry, British Food Journal, 119(3), 453-467. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2015-0272
  24. Henseler, J., Christian M.R. ve Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discirimant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115-135.
  25. Huurne, E.T. ve Gutteling, J. (2008). Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking, Journal of Risk Research, 11(7), 847–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701875750
  26. Griffith, C., Worsfold, D., ve Mitchell, R. (1998). Food preparation, risk communication and the consumers, Food Control, 9(4), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-7135(98)00003-6
  27. Guo, Q., Yao, N., ve Zhu, W. (2020). How consumers’ perception and information processing affect their acceptance of genetically modified foods in China: A risk communication perspective, Food Research International, 137(6), 109518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109518
  28. Jevšnik, M., Hlebec, V. ve Raspor, P. (2008). Consumers’ awareness of food safety from shopping to eating, Food Control, 19(8), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2007.07.017
  29. Kang, Y. (2019). Food safety governance in China: Change and continuity. Food Control, 106, 106752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106752
  30. Kartal, M. ve Bardakçı, S. (2018). SPSS ve AMOS uygulamalı örneklerle güvenirlilik ve geçerlilik analizi. Akademisyen Kitabevi.
  31. Kim, N.H., Cho, T.J., Kim, Y.B. (2015). Implications for effective food risk communication following the Fukushima nuclear accident based on a consumer survey. Food Control, 50, 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.09.008
  32. Kornelis, M., De Jonge, J., Frewer, L., ve Dagevos, H. (2007). Consumer selection of food-safety ınformation sources, Risk Analysis, 27(2), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00885.x
  33. Lee D., Seo S., Song M.K., Lee H.K., ve Park S, Jin Y.W. (2017). Factors associated with the risk perception and purchase decisions of Fukushima-related food in South Korea. PLoS ONE 12(11),1-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0187655
  34. Leiss, W. (1996). Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, 85–94.
  35. Liao, C., Luo, Y., ve Zhu, W., (2020). Food safety trust, risk perception, and consumers’ response to company trust repair actions in food recall crises, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1270), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17041270
  36. Liu, R., Pieniak, Z., ve Verbeke, W. (2014). Food-related hazards in China: Consumers’ perceptions of risk and trust in information sources. Food Control, 46, 291–298.
  37. Mayer, A.B., ve Harrison, J.A. (2012). Safe eats: An evaluation of the use of social media for food safety education. Journal of Food Protection, 75(8), 1453–1463 https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.11-551
  38. McCarthy, M., ve Brennan, M. (2009). Food risk communication: Some of the problems and issues faced by communicators on the Island of Ireland (IOI). Food Policy, 34(6), 549–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.06.005
  39. McGloin, A., Delaney, L., Hudson, E., ve Wall, P. (2009). Session 5: Nutrition communication the challenge of effective food risk communication: Symposium on ‘The challenge of translating nutrition research into public health nutrition. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 68, 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665109001153
  40. Milne, S., Sheeran, P., ve Orbell, S. (2006). Prediction and ıntervention in health-related behavior: A meta-analytic review of protection motivation theory, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30, 106–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02308.x
  41. Mittendorf, C. ve Ostermann, U. (2017). Private vs. business customers in the sharing economy-The implications of trust, perceived risk, and social motives on Airbnb (pp. 5827- 5836). In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. The Association for Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.702
  42. Morowatisharifabad A.M, Abdolkarimi M, Asadpour M, Fathollahi M.S., ve Balaee P. (2018). The predictive effects of protection motivation theory on intention and behaviour of physical activity in patients with type 2 diabetes, Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 6(4), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.119
  43. Mou, Y. ve Lin, C.A. (2014). Communicating food safety via the social media: The role of knowledge and emotions on risk perception and prevention, Science Communication, 36(5), 593–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014549480
  44. Neuwirth, K., Dunwoody, S., ve Griffin, R.J. (2000). Protection motivation and risk communication, Risk Analysis, 20(5), 721-734. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205065
  45. Overbey, K.N., Jaykus, L.A., ve Chapman, B.J. (2017). A systematic review of the use of social media for food safety risk communication. Journal of Food Production, 80(9), 1537–1549. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-345
  46. Plotnikoff R.C., Trinh L., Courneya K.S., Karunamuni N., ve Sigal R.J. (2009). Aerobic physical activity and resistance training among Canadian adults with type 2 diabetes: An application of the protection motivation theory, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(3), 320e8, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-61
  47. Priyadarshini, V. (2015). Purchasing practice of the consumers towards ready to eat food products. Asian Journal of Home Science, 10(2), 290-295. DOI: 10.15740/HAS/AJHS/10.2/290-295
  48. Ratasuk, A., ve Gajesanand, S., (2023). Does food safety build customer trust? The mediating role of perceived risk in food delivery service in Bangkok during the COVID-19 Pandemic, Asia Social Issues, 16(2), 1-15.
  49. Regan, Á., Raats, M., Shan, L.C., Wall, P.G. ve McConnon, Á., (2014). Risk communication and social media during food safety crises: a study of stakeholders’ opinions in Ireland, Journal of Risk Research, 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.961517
  50. Rimal, R.N. ve Real, K. (2003). Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change use of the risk perception attitude (rpa) framework to understand health behaviors, Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/29.3.370
  51. Rimal, A., Fletcher, S.M., Mcwatters, K.H., Misra, S.K., ve Deothar, S. (2001). Perception of food safety and changes in food consumption habits: A consumer analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1470-6431.2001.00162.x
  52. Rutsaert, P., Pieniak, Z., Regan, Á., McConnon, A. ve Verbeke, W. (2013). Consumer interest in receiving information through social media about the risks of pesticide residues. Food Control, 34, 386–392.
  53. Shan, L., Regan, Á., De Brún, A., Barnett, J., van der Sanden, M.C.A., Wall, P., ve McConnon, Á. (2014). Food crisis coverage by social and traditional media: A case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin crisis. Public Underst. Sci., 23, 911–928
  54. Shan, L.C., Panagiotopoulos P., Regan, Á., De Brún, A., Barnett, J., Wall, P. ve McConnon, Á. (2014). Interactive communication with the public: qualitative exploration of the use of social media by food and health organizations, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.09.004
  55. Smillie, L., ve Blissett, A. (2010). A model for developing risk communication Strategy, Journal Risk Research, 13, 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903503655
  56. Soon, J.M. (2020). Consumers’ awareness and trust toward food safety news on social media in Malaysia Journal of Food Protection, 83(3), 452–459 https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-19-415
  57. Tavşancıl, E. (2014). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi. Nobel Yayıncılık.
  58. Tiozzo, B., Pinto, A., Mascarello, G., Mantovani, C., ve Ravarotto, L. (2018). Which food safety information sources do Italian consumers prefer? Suggestions for the development of effective food risk communication, Journal of Risk Research, 22(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1440414
  59. Unusan, N. (2007). Consumer food safety knowledge and practices in the home in Turkey. Food Control, 18, 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.08.006
  60. Vainio, A., Kaskela, J., Finell, E., Ollila, S,; Lundén, J. (2020). Consumer perceptions raised by the food safety inspection report: Does the smiley communicate a food safety risk?, Food Control, 110, 106976
  61. Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 347–368 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurrag/jbi017
  62. Verbeke, W. (2008). Impact of communication on consumers’ food choices. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 67, 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665108007179
  63. Wong, K.K.K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using smartpls. Technical Note 1, Marketing Bulletin, 24, 1-32.
  64. Wu, C.-W. (2015). Facebook users’ intentions in risk communication and food-safety issues. Journal of Businesss Research, 68(11), 2242–2247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.005
  65. Xia, L., Chen, B., Hunt, K., Zhuang, J., ve Song, C. (2022). Food safety awareness and opinions in China: A social network analysis approach. Foods, 11(2909), 1-20. https:// doi.org/10.3390/foods11182909
  66. Yang, Q., ve Lee, Y.-C. (2021). Why do people hide knowledge in the online knowledge community? An Integrated framework of protection motivation, self-determination, and social exchange beliefs. Sustainability, 13(9885), 1-24. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13179885
  67. Yang, Z., Paudel, K.P., Wen, X., Sun, S. ve Wang, Y. (2020). Food safety risk ınformation-seeking ıntention of wechat users in China, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2376), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072376
  68. Yang, X., Chen, L., ve Feng, Q. (2016). Risk perception of food safety issue on social media, Chinese Journal of Communication, 9(2), 124-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2015.1111247
  69. Yaşlıoğlu, M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(0), 7485.
  70. Zakowska-Biemans, S., Pieniak, Z., Gutkowska, K., Wierzbicki, J., Cieszy ´nska, K., Sajdakowska, M., Kosicka-G ˛ebska, M. (2017). Beef consumer segment profiles based on information source usage in Poland, Meat Science, 124, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.11.001
  71. Zhang, J., Wu H-C., Chen L. ve Su, Y. (2022). Effect of social media use on food safety risk perception through risk characteristics: Exploring a moderated mediation model among people with different levels of science literacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(963863), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.963863
  72. Zhu, Y., Wen, X., Chu, M., Zhang, G., Liu, X. (2021). Consumers’ food safety risk communication on social media following the Suan Tang Zi accident: An extended protection motivation theory perspective, International Journal Environmental Research and. Public Health, 18, 8080. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158080
  73. Zhu, Y., Wen, X., Chu, M., Sun, S. (2022). Consumers’ intention to participate in food safety risk communication: A model integrating protection motivation theory and the theory of reasoned action, Food Control, 138, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.108993
  74. Shan, L.C., Panagiotopoulos P., Regan, Á., De Brún, A., Barnett, J., Wall, P. ve McConnon, Á. (2014). Interactive communication with the public: qualitative exploration of the use of social media by food and health organizations, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2014.09.004