Prior Attitudes, Salient Value Similarity, and Dimensionality: Toward an Integrative Model of Trust in Risk Regulation

Although it is widely recognized that trust plays an important role in people's responses to various risks, there is still considerable conceptual disagreement about the different aspects of trust. There are at least 3 different approaches to trust: (a) dimensional, (b) salient value similarity, and (c) associationist. Three British datasets on genetically modified food were used to test the plausibility of a causal model that integrates these approaches. It appears that value similarity can be predicted by a combination of prior attitudes and perceived attitudes of the other, and that value similarity precedes other important trust judgments. The study suggests that various risk-relevant judgments are expressions of a more general attitude toward genetically modified food, and raises questions about the usefulness of detailed modelling.

[1]  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.

[2]  Joachim Scholderer,et al.  Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[3]  W. Poortinga,et al.  Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  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.

[5]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[6]  P. Bentler,et al.  Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures , 1980 .

[7]  S. Shapiro The Social Control of Impersonal Trust , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[8]  Wouter Poortinga,et al.  Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Andrew Weyman,et al.  Critical trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation , 2004 .

[10]  Daryl J. Bem,et al.  Template matching: A proposal for probing the ecological validity of experimental settings in social psychology. , 1979 .

[11]  I. Langford An Existential Approach to Risk Perception , 2002, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  W. Poortinga,et al.  The British 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis: a comparative study of public risk perceptions, trust and beliefs about government policy in two communities , 2004 .

[13]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  R. Shepherd,et al.  The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production , 1998 .

[15]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[16]  Stephen M. Johnson,et al.  The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits , 2000 .

[17]  Lillian Trettin,et al.  Is Trust a Realistic Goal of Environmental Risk Communication? , 2000 .

[18]  Carlene Wilson,et al.  Reactions to genetically modified food crops and how perception of risks and benefits influences consumers' information gathering. , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[19]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  The Brent Spar Controversy: An Example of Risk Communication Gone Wrong , 1997 .

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

[21]  R. Petty,et al.  Measuring the Affective and Cognitive Properties of Attitudes: Conceptual and Methodological Issues , 1994 .

[22]  P. Bellaby Communication and miscommunication of risk: understanding UK parents' attitudes to combined MMR vaccination , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

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

[25]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Shared Values, Social Trust, and the Perception of Geographic Cancer Clusters , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  S. Jasanoff Civilization and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996 , 1997 .

[27]  P. Slovic,et al.  The affect heuristic , 2007, European Journal of Operational Research.

[28]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment , 2002 .

[29]  B Fischhoff,et al.  Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. , 1995, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[30]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[32]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Social Distrust as a Factor in Siting Hazardous Facilities and Communicating Risks , 1992 .

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

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

[35]  R. Zajonc Feeling and thinking : Preferences need no inferences , 1980 .

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