The Roles of Three Types of Knowledge and Perceived Uncertainty in Explaining Risk Perception, Acceptability, and Self-Protective Response-A Case Study on Endocrine Disrupting Surfactants

Abstract

The ubiquitous surfactants nonylphenol (NP) and its ethoxylates (NPEOs), which are known as endocrine disrupters, have appeared in the lists of restricted chemical substances, monitoring programs, and environmental quality standards of many countries due to their adverse effects. Recent studies have reported alarming levels of NP, as the final metabolite of NPEOs, in Vietnamese urban waters, whilst response to this issue is negligible. With the aim of addressing how the public perceives and expects to avoid the risk of endocrine disrupting surfactants (EDSs), the study tested the hypothesized roles of specific knowledge, general knowledge, and perceived uncertainty using structural equation modelling. The findings revealed that different types of knowledge played certain roles in explaining risk perception, risk acceptability, and self-protective response, which are distinguished by experience amongst the public. Evidence of the mediating role that perceived uncertainty may play in the decrease of risk perception and the increase of risk unacceptance has been provided. The insights gained from the study may help answer why the public are in favor of taking non-diet-related self-protective measures rather than changing their dietary habits, which illustrates a comparison with the basis of health belief model. The needs for building cognitive capacity amongst the public, particularly pregnant women and young mothers, and risk communication concerning endocrine disrupting contamination linked to reproductive health are highlighted.

Keywords: endocrine disrupting surfactants (EDSs); health behavior; knowledge; perceived uncertainty; risk acceptability; risk perception; self-protective response.

Figure 1

Hypothesized concept model.

Figure 2

Modified hypothesized concept model.

Figure 3

Final model of the determinants of risk perception, risk acceptability, and self-protective response. Notes: Direct effects: thick solid arrows; moderating effects: slim solid and dot lines; indirect effects: combinations of a slim dot line (SA/RB to UN) and a long dash dot line (UN to DSP). * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; ^ns non-significant.

Figure 4

Contribution of three levels of knowledge on the risk belief of the experienced public (a) and the lay public (b). *** p < 0.001; ^ns non-significant.

Figure 5

The role of specific awareness and perceived uncertainty in contributing to the HBM [41]. Note: Shaded boxes and gray lines: the constructs and the relationships described in the HBM; unshaded boxes and black lines: the modifications by this study; solid lines: direct effects; dot lines: indirect/moderation effects.