{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03163686382393398, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002751031636863824, 'mean_word_length': 5.928571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Modeling Retrospective Attribution of Responsibility to Hazard‐Managing Institutions: An Example Involving a Food Contamination Incident

Perceptions of institutions that manage hazards are important because they can affect how the public responds to hazard events. Antecedents of trust judgments have received far more attention than antecedents of attributions of responsibility for hazard events. We build upon a model of retrospective attribution of responsibility to individuals to examine these relationships regarding five classes of institutions that bear responsibility for food safety: producers (e.g., farmers), processors (e.g., packaging firms), watchdogs (e.g., government agencies), sellers (e.g., supermarkets), and preparers (e.g., restaurants). A nationally representative sample of 1,200 American adults completed an Internet‐based survey in which a hypothetical scenario involving contamination of diverse foods with Salmonella served as the stimulus event. Perceived competence and good intentions of the institution moderately decreased attributions of responsibility. A stronger factor was whether an institution was deemed (potentially) aware of the contamination and free to act to prevent or mitigate it. Responsibility was rated higher the more aware and free the institution. This initial model for attributions of responsibility to impersonal institutions (as opposed to individual responsibility) merits further development.