Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation

This article investigates possible differential levels of trust in government regulation across five different risk contexts and the relationship between a number of concepts that might be thought of as comprising distinctive "dimensions" of trust. It appeared that how people perceive government and its policies toward risk regulation was surprisingly similar for each of the five risk cases. A principal-component analysis showed that the various trust items could best be described by two dimensions: a general trust dimension, which was concerned with a wide range of trust-relevant aspects, such as competence, care, fairness, and openness, and a scepticism component that reflects a sceptical view regarding how risk policies are brought about and enacted. Again, the results were surprisingly similar across the five risk cases, as the same solution was found in each of the different samples. It was also examined whether value similarity has an additional value in predicting trust in risk regulation, compared to the more conventional aspects of trust. Based on the two independent trust factors that were found in this study, a typology of trust is proposed that ranges from full trust to a deep type of distrust. It is argued that for a functioning society it could well be more suitable to have critical but involved citizens in many situations.

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

[2]  Aneil Mishra.  ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSES TO CRISIS: THE CENTRALITY OF TRUST , 1996 .

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

[4]  F. Fukuyama.  Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity Penguin London , 1995 .

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

[6]  B. Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science? : the public reconstruction of science and technology , 1996 .

[7]  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.

[8]  Bernard Barber,et al.  The Logic and Limits of Trust , 1983 .

[9]  C. Dunn,et al.  Contextualisation of Local and Global Environmental Issues in North-east England: Implications for debates on globalisation and the 'risk society' , 2002 .

[10]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Determinants of Trust Perceptions among Residents Surrounding the Savannah River Nuclear Weapons Site , 1999 .

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

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

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

[14]  R. Putnam,et al.  Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. , 1994 .

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

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

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

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

[19]  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.

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

[21]  N. Luhmann.  Trust and Power , 1979 .

[22]  Geographical Dimensions and Correlates of Trust , 1999 .

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

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

[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]  Paul Slovic,et al.  The Social Amplification of Risk: The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory , 2003 .

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

[28]  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.

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

[30]  Karen Bickerstaff,et al.  The place(s) of matter: matter out of place – public understandings of air pollution , 2003 .

[31]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust , 1998 .

[33]  R. Löfstedt,et al.  Social Trust and the Management of Risk , 1999 .

[34]  P. Slovic,et al.  A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.