The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers

The intuitive detection theorist (IDT) model of trust posits that trust in hazard managers stems from judgments about their performance on three criteria: their ability to discriminate safe from dangerous situations (discrimination ability); their tendency under uncertainty to assume danger is present (response bias); and their propensity to be open and honest with the public about events (communication bias). The current article tests the model's robustness using findings from three experiments and four surveys conducted by two different research teams. Study-specific analyses and an overall analysis of the seven studies combined confirm that all three of the IDT model's dimensions are important for trust, explaining on average 43% of trust variance. These effects occurred largely independently of hazard topic, research method, or investigator. Hypothesized interaction effects among the dimensions, based upon earlier studies, were weak and contradictory; this is the first known study of interactions among trust model variables.

[1]  Anja S. Göritz,et al.  The police officer's terrorist dilemma: trust resilience following fatal errors , 2008 .

[2]  Philip Catney,et al.  Dealing with Contaminated Land in the UK through ‘Development Managerialism’ , 2006 .

[3]  O. O’neill,et al.  A question of trust. , 2000, Nursing standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987).

[4]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[5]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Credibility and trust in risk communication , 1991 .

[6]  Helmut Jungermann,et al.  Credibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests , 1995 .

[7]  J A Swets,et al.  Psychological Science Can Improve Diagnostic Decisions , 2000, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[8]  Peter M Wiedemann,et al.  Trust in the Safety of Tourist Destinations: Hard to Gain, Easy to Lose? New Insights on the Asymmetry Principle , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  Bogdan Wojciszke,et al.  Morality and competence in person- and self-perception , 2005 .

[11]  Carolien Martijn,et al.  Negativity and positivity effects in person perception and inference: Ability versus morality , 1992 .

[12]  Branden B Johnson.  Trust and terrorism: citizen responses to anti-terrorism performance history. , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[13]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[14]  Branden B Johnson,et al.  Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  J. Eiser,et al.  Trust, Perceived Risk, and Attitudes Toward Food Technologies , 2002 .

[16]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[17]  Branden B. Johnson,et al.  Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust , 1999 .

[18]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[19]  J. Eiser,et al.  Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  Timothy C. Earle,et al.  Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind , 2007 .

[21]  M. Brewer,et al.  A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. , 1979 .

[22]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management , 2008, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[23]  Sabine Pahl,et al.  Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[24]  Donal E. Carlston,et al.  Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. , 1989 .

[25]  J Richard Eiser,et al.  “Trust me, I'm a Scientist (Not a Developer)”: Perceived Expertise and Motives as Predictors of Trust in Assessment of Risk from Contaminated Land , 2009, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  Mathew P White,et al.  The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers , 2010, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  V T Covello,et al.  The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[29]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[30]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  Philip Catney,et al.  Risk perception and trust in the context of urban brownfields , 2007 .

[32]  R Shepherd,et al.  What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. , 1996, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.