Critical trust: understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation

The binary opposition of trusting or not trusting is inadequate to understand the often ambiguous and contradictory ideas people possess about risk regulators, particularly when knowledge and experience of such institutions is limited. The paper reports qualitative and quantitative data from a major study of public perceptions (n = 30 focus groups) of UK risk regulators. We compare the complex and widely different ‘trust profiles’ of two regulatory organisations which are institutionally related (the Health and Safety Executive and the Railways Inspectorate) but very separate in the minds of our participants. The paper develops the notion of critical trust to interrogate the various ways in which people make sense of such organisations, as well as discussing the modes of reasoning that people deploy. The paper argues that views of participants are the outcome of a reconciliation of diverse perceptions concerning the role of the organisation, structural factors and the nature of the regulated risk.

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

[2]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[3]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Public Perception of Risks Associated with Major Accident Hazards , 1998 .

[4]  William R. Freudenburg,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: Institutional failure and the organizational amplification of risks: the need for a closer look , 2003 .

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

[6]  Andrew Weyman,et al.  Perceptions of and Trust in the Health and Safety Executive as a Risk Regulator , 2003 .

[7]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: The social dynamics of environmental risk perception: implications for risk communication research and practice , 2003 .

[8]  David Parkinson,et al.  Risk: Analysis, perception and management. report of a Royal Society Study Group: Pp 201. The Royal Society. 1992. Paperback £15.50 ISBN 0 85403 467 6 , 1993 .

[9]  Donna Riley,et al.  The Use of Mental Models in Chemical Risk Protection: Developing a Generic Workplace Methodology , 2003, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  C. Hood.  The Risk Game and the Blame Game * , 2002, Government and Opposition.

[11]  K. Cook.  Trust in Society , 2001 .

[12]  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.

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

[14]  Harry J. Otway,et al.  Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox , 1989 .

[15]  L. Frewer,et al.  Public trust in sources of information about radiation risks in the UK , 1999 .

[16]  Hindpal Singh Bhui,et al.  Risk and Blame , 1992 .

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

[18]  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 .

[19]  Diego Gambetta.  Can We Trust Trust , 2000 .

[20]  Peter Simmons,et al.  Faulty Environments and Risk Reasoning: The Local Understanding of Industrial Hazards , 1999 .

[21]  Pieter Leroy,et al.  Political Modernization Theory and Environmental Politics , 2000 .

[22]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Misunderstanding science?: Science and Hell's kitchen: the local understanding of hazard issues , 1996 .

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

[24]  J. Kitzinger,et al.  Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory and Practice , 1998 .

[25]  R. Kasperson,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk , 2003 .

[26]  Deirdre Boden,et al.  The Compulsion of Proximity , 1993 .

[27]  T. Horlick‐Jones.  Managing risk and contingency: Interaction and accounting behaviour , 2003 .

[28]  Timothy C. Earle,et al.  Culture, Cosmopolitanism, and Risk Management , 1997 .

[29]  D. H. Mills.  The Logic and Limits of Trust , 1983 .

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

[31]  Judith Petts,et al.  Trust and waste management information expectation versus observation , 1998 .

[32]  G. Kelly,et al.  A report of TRUSTNET on risk governance--lessons learned , 2002 .

[33]  Graham Loomes,et al.  Public Perceptions of Risk and Preference-Based Values of Safety , 2002 .

[34]  M. Bloor,et al.  Focus Groups in Social Research , 2000 .

[35]  Rae Zimmerman,et al.  Social Trust and the Management of Risk , 2006 .

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

[37]  J. Barnett,et al.  Social Amplification of Risk and the Layering Method , 2003 .

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

[39]  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.

[40]  Anthony Giddens.  Modernity and self-identity , 1991 .

[41]  Barry Turner,et al.  Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis: One way of organising the cognitive processes associated with the generation of grounded theory , 1981 .

[42]  Technological risk and sense of place : industrial encroachment on place values. , 2005 .

[43]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model , 1992 .