Search results

This review of studies of trust in risk management was designed, in part, to examine the relations between the reviewed research and the consensus model of trust that has recently emerged in other fields of study. The review begins by briefly elaborating the consensus views on the dimensionality and function of trust. It then describes the various models of trust that have been developed in the field of risk management, comparing them with the consensus approach. The findings of previous reviews are outlined, followed by a delineation of the open questions addressed by the present review, the method used, and the results. Finally, the findings of the review are discussed in relation to the important issue of trust asymmetry, the role of trust in risk management, and directions for future research. The consensus model specifies two conceptualizations of trust, each linked to particular types of antecedents. Relational trust, which is called trust in this review, is based on the relations between the trusting person and the other. Calculative trust, which is called confidence, is based on past behavior of the other and/or on constraints on future behavior. Results of this review showed that most studies of trust in risk management, while exploring matters of particular concern to the risk management community, were at least in part consistent with the consensus model. The review concludes by urging greater integration between the concerns of the former and the insights of the latter.

The 2008 global financial crisis has been compared to a "once‐in‐a‐century credit tsunami," a disaster in which the loss of trust and confidence played key precipitating roles and the recovery from which will require the restoration of these crucial factors. Drawing on the analogy between the financial crisis and environmental and technological hazards, recent research on the role of trust and confidence in the latter is used to provide a perspective on the former. Whereas "trust" and "confidence" are used interchangeably and without explicit definition in most discussions of the financial crisis, this perspective uses the TCC model of cooperation to clearly distinguish between the two and to demonstrate how this distinction can lead to an improved understanding of the crisis. The roles of trust and confidence—both in precipitation and in possible recovery—are discussed for each of the three major sets of actors in the crisis, the regulators, the banks, and the public. The roles of trust and confidence in the larger context of risk management are also examined; trust being associated with political approaches, confidence with technical. Finally, the various stances that government can take with regard to trust—such as supportive or skeptical—are considered. Overall, it is argued that a clear understanding of trust and confidence and a close examination of the specific, concrete circumstances of a crisis—revealing when either trust or confidence is appropriate—can lead to useful insights for both recovery and prevention of future occurrences.

There are two general theories of trust in risk management. One, derived from normative considerations, claims that trust is based on universally applicable factors such as fairness and objectivity. According to the second, social‐psychological theory, trust is based on agreement or similarity and is context specific. Although the first theory is normative, it also claims, along with the second, to be a descriptive account of how trust judgments are made. The present study was designed to test the adequacy of these two theories by using a think‐aloud procedure to examine the thinking associated with trust judgments in an experimental simulation of a typical risk management context. Contrary to the universalist theory, results supported two hypotheses derived from the social‐psychological theory. First, study participants—who read brief policy statements designed to address global climate change—based their trust judgments on specific forms of agreement, ranging from agreement on the importance of the issue to agreement on values inferred from the policy statement. Second, the extent and depth of participants' conscious information processing was negatively related to the level of trust. Disagreement and distrust generated more conscious consideration than agreement and trust. These results provide a more detailed understanding than previously available of how trust in risk management is based on local forms of agreement that vary across people, contexts, and time.

In this study, we empirically examine the relations between trust, fairness, and cooperation within two environmental risk management contexts, one in which the focal issue is of high personal moral importance and the other in which the focal issue is of low moral importance. Using an experimental design embedded in two parallel survey questionnaires, one mailed to residents of Washington State, the other to German‐speaking residents of Switzerland, we either manipulated or constructed three factors, issue importance (high/low), procedural fairness (fair/unfair), and policy outcome (risk averse/risk accepting). This design enabled us to compare the predictions of the standard account of procedural fairness, that trust and cooperation are determined by judgments of fairness, with the predictions of an alternative account, that trust and cooperation will be determined by judgments of procedural fairness only when the issue involved is not morally important. Results for the American case showed that under conditions of high issue importance, policy outcome affected judged fairness, trust, and cooperation. Under conditions of low issue importance, policy outcome had no effect on judged fairness or trust but did have a moderate impact on cooperation. Analyses also showed that when issue importance was high, procedural fairness had no effects. When issue importance was low, procedural fairness had moderate effects on judged fairness and trust. Results for the Swiss case replicated the main findings for the American case. Together, these results support the alternative model of the relation between trust and fairness, suggesting that the efficacy of fair procedures is strictly limited.

Most cultural approaches to risk management deal with the connections between the forms of social relations within groups and the risk concerns of those groups. According to these theories, a certain limited set of different relational forms (usually three, four, or five) lead to specific, different and conflicting, risk concerns. In contrast to these theories, cosmopolitanism is an approach to culture that focuses, not on forms of sociality, but on changes among forms—expansions and contractions in the inclusivity of forms and movement by persons from one form of sociality to another. Relative to other cultural theories, cosmopolitanism thus is much more concerned with the solution of risk management problems than with their origins. Cosmopolitanism can be thought of as a cultural continuum, with cosmopolitanism at one end and pluralism at the other. Cosmopolitan persons are more open to cultural change—and thus the solution of risk management problems. In this article, we outline our new theory of cosmopolitanism, describe a method for measuring it and present an experimental study that tests some implications of the theory. Results from the study support the theory by showing that, compared to pluralistic respondents, cosmopolitan respondents are more inclusive in their risk management judgments—that is, they express equal concern for a local and a national issue, whereas the pluralistic respondents express greater concern in the local case. We discuss the risk management implications of a cosmopolitan approach to culture.

Public opinion poll data have consistently shown that the proportion of respondents who are willing to have a nuclear power plant in their own community is smaller than the proportion who agree that more nuclear plants should be built in this country. Respondents' judgments of the minimum safe distance from each of eight hazardous facilities confirmed that this finding results from perceived risk gradients that differ by facility (e.g., nuclear vs. natural gas power plants) and social group (e.g., chemical engineers vs. environmentalists) but are relatively stable over time. Ratings of the facilities on thirteen perceived risk dimensions were used to determine whether any of the dimensions could explain the distance data. Because the rank order of the facilities with respect to acceptable distance was very similar to the rank order on a number of the perceived risk dimensions, it is difficult to determine which of the latter is the critical determinant of acceptable distance if, indeed, there is only one. There were, however, a number of reversals of rank order that indicate that the respondents had a differentiated view of technological risk. Finally, data from this and other studies were interpreted as suggesting that perceived lack of any other form of personal control over risk exposure may be an important factor in stimulating public opposition to the siting of hazardous facilities.

Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation / Timothy C. Earle, Michael Siegrist and Heinz Gutscher -- Social identity and the group context of trust : managing risk and building trust through belonging / Michael A. Hogg -- Trust and risk : implications for management / Eric M. Uslaner -- A social judgement analysis of trust : people as intuitive detection theorists / Mathew P. White and J. Richard Eiser -- Scepticism, reliance and risk managing institutions : towards a conceptual model of "critical trust" / Nick Pidgeon, Wouter Poortinga and John Walls -- Societal trust in risk analysis : implications for the interface of risk assessment and risk management / Lynn Frewer and Brian Salter -- Rebuilding consumer trust in the context of a food crisis / Lucia Savadori ... [et al.] -- Trust and risk in smallpox vaccination / Ann Bostrom and Emily Atkinson -- The what, how and when of social reliance and cooperative risk management / George Cvetkovich and Patricia L. Winter -- Getting out of the swamp : towards understanding sources of local officials' trust in wetlands management / Branden B. Johnson -- Antecedents of system trust : cues and process feedback / Peter de Vries, Cees Midden and Anneloes Meijnders -- Trust and confidence in crisis communication : three case studies / Michael Siegrist, Heinz Gutscher and Carmen Keller

Trust is an important factor in risk management. There is little agreement among researchers, however, on how trust in risk management should be studied. Based on a comprehensive review of the trust literature a "dual‐mode model of social trust and confidence" is proposed. Trust and confidence are separate but, under some circumstances, interacting sources of cooperation. Trust is based on value similarity, and confidence is based on performance. According to our model, judging similarity between an observer's currently active values and the values attributed to others determines social trust. Thus, the basis for trust is a judgment that the person to be trusted would act as the trusting person would. Interpretation of the other's performance influences confidence. Both social trust and confidence have an impact on people's willingness to cooperate (e.g., accept electromagnetic fields or EMF in the neighborhood). The postulated model was tested in the applied context of EMF risks. Structural equation modeling procedures and data from a random sample of 1,313 Swiss citizens between 18 and 74 years old were used. Results indicated that after minor modifications the model explained the data very well. In the applied context of EMF risks, both trust and confidence had an impact on cooperation. Results suggest that the dual‐mode model of social trust and confidence could be used as a common framework in the field of trust and risk management. Practical implications of the results are discussed.

Trust is an important factor in risk management, affecting judgements of risk and benefit, technology acceptance and other forms of cooperation. In this book the world?s leading risk researchers explore all aspects of trust as it relates to risk management and communication. Drawing on a wide variety of disciplinary approaches and empirical case studies (on topics such as mobile phone technology, well-known food accidents and crises, wetland management, smallpox vaccination, cooperative risk management of US forests and the disposal of the Brent Spar oil drilling platform), this is the most th

Perceptions of risks associated with mobile phones, base stations, and other sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) were examined. Data from a telephone survey conducted in the German‐ and French‐speaking parts of Switzerland are presented (N= 1,015). Participants assessed both risks and benefits associated with nine different sources of EMF. Trust in the authorities regulating these hazards was assessed as well. In addition, participants answered a set of questions related to attitudes toward EMF and toward mobile phone base stations. According to respondents' assessments, high‐voltage transmission lines are the most risky source of EMF. Mobile phones and mobile phone base stations received lower risk ratings. Results showed that trust in authorities was positively associated with perceived benefits and negatively associated with perceived risks. People who use their mobile phones frequently perceived lower risks and higher benefits than people who use their mobile phones infrequently. People who believed they lived close to a base station did not significantly differ in their level of risks associated with mobile phone base stations from people who did not believe they lived close to a base station. Regarding risk regulation, a majority of participants were in favor of fixing limiting values based on the worst‐case scenario. Correlations suggest that belief in paranormal phenomena is related to level of perceived risks associated with EMF. Furthermore, people who believed that most chemical substances cause cancer also worried more about EMF than people who did not believe that chemical substances are that harmful. Practical implications of the results are discussed.