Trust and risk perception in western Europe: A cross-national study

Risk Analysis

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 727-738

  Viklund, Mattias J ^a  

^a Swedish National Post and Telecom Agency   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Cross national; Nuclear power; Risk perception; Trust

Indexed keywords

RISK PERCEPTION; RISKS;

NUCLEAR RISKS;

RISK MANAGEMENT;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; NUCLEAR POWER; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RISK PERCEPTION;

ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FRANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; NUCLEAR ENERGY; PERCEPTION; PREDICTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPAIN; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM;

ACCIDENTS, RADIATION; FRANCE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK; SPAIN; SWEDEN; TRUST;

FRANCE; SPAIN; SWEDEN; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0042164879     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00351     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bella, D. A., Mosher, C. D., & Calvo, S. N. (1988). Technocracy and trust: Nuclear waste controversy. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, 114, 27-39.
2. Biel, A., & Dahlstrand, U. (1995). Risk perception and the location of a repository for spent nuclear fuel. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36, 25-36.
3. Creed, W. E. D., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A conceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial philosophies, and the opportunity costs of control. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations (pp. 16-38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
4. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
5. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127-152.
6. Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12, 417-429.
7. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risk? Risk Analysis, 16, 473-486.
8. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequence of Modernity. Oxford: Oxford Polity Press.
9. Horst, P. (1966). Psychological Measurement and Prediction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
10. Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D., & Kasperson, J. X. (1999). Risk, trust and democratic theory. In G. Cvetkovich & R. Löfstedt (Eds.), Social Trust and the Management of Risk (pp. 22-41). London: Earthscan.
11. Laird, F. N. (1989). The decline of deference: The political context of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 9, 543-550.
12. Listhaug, O. (1995). The dynamics of trust in politicians. In H.-D. Klingemann & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Citizens and the State (pp. 261-297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Listhaug, O., & Wiberg, M. (1995). Confidence in political and private institutions. In H.-D. Klingemann & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Citizens and the State (pp. 298-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
15. Luhmann, N. (1988). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (pp. 94-108). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
16. Mitchell, J. V. (1992). Perception of risk and credibility at toxic sites. Risk Analysis, 12, 19-26.
17. Poumadère, M. (1995). Enjeux de la communication publique des risques pour la santé et l'environment. European Review of Applied Psychology, 45, 7-15.
18. Seligman, A. B. (1997). The Problem of Trust. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195-203.
20. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-720.
21. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353-362.
22. Sjöberg, L. (1980). Similarity and correlation. In E.-D. Lantermann & H. Feger (Eds.), Similarity and Choice (pp. 70-87). Bern: Huber.
23. Sjöberg, L. (1992a). Center for Risk Research: A Review of Work 1988-1991, RHIZIKON: Risk Research Report No. 8, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
24. Sjöberg, L. (1992b). Risk Perception and Credibility of Risk Communication, RHIZIKON: Risk Research Report No. 9, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
25. Sjöberg, L. (1999a). Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In G. Cvetkovich & R. Löfstedt (Eds.), Social Trust and the Management of Risk (pp. 89-99). London: Earthscan.
26. Sjöberg, L. (1999b). The psychometric paradigm revisited. Royal Statistical Society Conference, University of Warwick, July 12-15.
27. Sjöberg, L. (2001). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 21, 189-198.
28. Sjöberg, L. (2002). Attitudes to technology and risk: Going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences, 35, 379-400.
29. Sjöberg, L., Jansson, B., Brenot, J., Frewer, L., Prades, A., & Tønnessen, A. (2000). Risk Perception in Commemoration of Chernobyl: A Cross-National Study, RHIZIKON: Risk Research Report No. 33, Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics.
30. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
31. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 675-682.
32. Yamagishi, T. (2000). Session on Trust at the 27th International Congress of Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden, July 23-28, 2000.