In today''s modern society, risks are scattered all around the life of consumers. A recent series of various food safety accidents has particularly sent out warning signs for the dietary life of consumers including the nuclear plant disaster at Fukushima, GMO foods, and carcinogens. In case of food accidents caused by new science or technology, however, there is a sharp opposition among the experts and also among the social stakeholders including the government, media agencies, and private organizations. Consumers are thus subject to hesitation about what information to trust and accept. This study divided the diagnostic framing of risk communication about risk information into safety and warning messages, proposed cautionary and coping actions for safety based on prognosis framing, examined a series of processes from the risk perceptions of consumers toward their safety behavior, and analyzed differences according to the exposure types of risk communication.
The analysis results point to differences in the risk information processing-behavior model of consumers according to the types of risk communication. A comparison of each model led to the discovery of several noteworthy points: First, the coping methods for consumers in case of radioactive contamination were conveyed through prognosis framing regardless of message type, which made consumers believe they could control risks themselves by observing the coping methods and drop in the level of risk perceptions. Second, safety messages turned out to be more effective for lowering the anxiety of consumers than warning messages. There is no need, however, to abstain from providing them with warning messages since they did not amplify their anxiety even in case of needing warning messages in a given situation. Third, consumers accepted warning messages with the filter of information reliability not active for the messages, which influenced their risk perceptions after being exposed to the messages. Given that warning messages for consumers can work in a negative fashion for them, it is of great importance to ensure the veracity of such messages. Fourth, consumers go through a judgmental heuristic process, which involves accepting information, making a decision with a focus only on the available information, and applying it to their actions, when exposed to a good amount of information during the processing of risk information. That is, consumers processed only warning information when exposed to complex messages, which affected their risk perceptions. They processed only the information about recommended actions and side effects to make decisions on risk control behavior. They processed only the information about the side effects and threats in case of fear control behavior. Fifth, consumers focused more on the messages and grasped the problems of reality before acting in a rational manner when exposed to negative messages. Finally, consumers'' prejudices about risks are not easily revised through risk communication, which means that they should be swiftly offered accurate information about risk factors in the early stage of risks.