Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 755-773

  Bronfman, Nicolas C ^a   Vazquez, Esperanza Lopez ^b   Gutierrez, Virna Vaneza ^c   Cifuentes, Luis Abdon ^d  

^a UNIVERSIDAD ANDRÉS BELLO   (Chile)

^b UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DEL ESTADO DE MORELOS   (Mexico)

^c UNIVERSIDAD DIEGO PORTALES   (Chile)

^d PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DE CHILE   (Chile)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Environmental hazards; Risk perception; Social trust; Technological hazards

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER NETWORKS; DECISION MAKING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

ACCEPTABILITY; ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS; SOCIAL TRUST; TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS;

HAZARDS;

EID: 50949123773     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870801967184     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alhakami, A.S., and P. Slovic. 1994. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis 14, no. 6: 1085-96.
2. Banco Central de Chile. 2007. Producto Interno Bruto por clase de actividad económica. Actividad Económica y Gasto. http://www.bcentral.cl/estadisticas-economicas/ series-indicadores/index.htm.
3. Bastide, S., J.-P. Moatti, J.-P. Pages, and F. Fagnani. 1989. Risk perception and the social acceptability of technologies: The French case. Risk Analysis 9, no. 2: 215-23.
4. Bord, R.J., and R.E. O'Connor. 1992. Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site. Risk Analysis 12, no. 3: 411-16.
5. Bronfman, N.C., and L.A. Cifuentes. 2003. Risk perception in a developing country: The case of Chile. Risk Analysis 23, no. 6: 1271-85.
6. Cifuentes, L.A., A. Krupnick, R. O'Ryan, and M. Toman. 2005. Urban air quality and human health in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: Interamerican Development Bank.
7. Comisión Chilena del Cobre. 2005. Reseña de la Innovación Tecnológica en la Minería del Cobre: 'El Caso Codelco'. http://www.cochilco.cl/anm/articlefiles/ 164-resena-innovacion-tecno- caso-codelco.pdf.
8. Comisión Nacional de Energía. 2006. Política de Seguridad Energética. Chile: Gobierno de Chile.
9. Corporación de Fomento de la Producción (CORFO). 2005. Políticas públicas de apoyo a la biotecnología: el programa Genoma Chile y otras iniciativas. Gobierno de Chile. http:// www.codelco.com/hacia_futuro/ppt/session4/p_sierra2.pdf.
10. Cvetkovich, G., and R. Löfstedt. 1999. Social trust and the management of risk. London: Earthscan.
11. Cvetkovich, G.T., M. Siegrist, R. Murray, and S. Tragesser. 2002. New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers. Risk Analysis 22, no. 2: 359-67.
12. Earle, T.C., and G. Cvetkovich. 1995. Social trust. Towards a cosmopolitan society. London: Praeger.
13. Eiser, J.R., S. Miles, and L.J. Frewer. 2002. Trust, perceived risk and attitudes towards food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32, no. 11: 2423-33.
14. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk. The American Statistician 36, no. 3: 240-55.
15. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 9: 127-52.
16. Flynn, J., W.J. Burns, C.K. Mertz, and P. Slovic. 1992. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis 12: 417-29.
17. Flynn, J., P. Slovic, and C.K. Mertz. 1993. Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis 13, no. 6: 643-8.
18. Frewer, L.J., D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd. 1996. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis 16, no. 4: 473-86.
19. Frewer, L.J., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd. 1998. Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research 1, no. 3: 221-35.
20. Gardner, G.T., and L.C. Gould. 1989. Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis 9, no. 2: 225-42.
21. Gardner, G.T., A.R. Tiemann, L.R. Gould, D.R. DeLuca, L.W. Doob, and J.A.J. Stolwijk. 1982. Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. Journal of Social Psychology 116: 179-97.
22. Greenberg, M.R., and B. Williams. 1999. Geographical dimensions and correlates of trust. Risk Analysis 19, no. 2: 159-69.
23. Gregory, R., and R. Mendelsohn. 1993. Perceived risk, dread, and benefits. Risk Analysis 13, no. 3: 259-64.
24. Kasperson, R.E., D. Golding, and S. Tuler. 1992. Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues 48, no. 4: 161-87.
25. Kraus, N., T. Malmfors, and P. Slovic. 1992. Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis 12, no. 2: 215-32.
26. Lazo, J.K., J.C. Kinnell, and A. Fisher. 2000. Expert and layperson perceptions of ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis 20, no. 2: 179-93.
27. Morgan, M.G. 1990a. Choosing and managing technology-induced risk. In Readings in Risk, ed. T.S. Glickman and M. Gough, 17-28. New York: Resources for the Future.
28. _. 1990b. Probing the question of technology-induced risk. In Readings in Risk, ed. T.S. Glickman and M. Gough, 5-16. New York: Resources for the Future.
29. Poortinga, W., and N.F. Pidgeon. 2003. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis 23, no. 5: 961-72.
30. _. 2005. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis 25, no. 1: 199-209.
31. Savadori, L., S. Savio, E. Nicotra, R. Rumiati, M. Finucane, and P. Slovic. 2004. Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis 24, no. 5: 1289-300.
32. Siegrist, M. 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20, no. 2: 195-203.
33. Siegrist, M., and G. Cvetkovich. 2000. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 20, no. 5: 713-19.
34. Siegrist, M., and G.T. Cvetkovich. 2001. Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis 21, no. 1: 199-206.
35. Siegrist, M., G. Cvetkovich, and C. Roth. 2000. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/ benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20, no. 3: 353-62.
36. Sjöberg, L. 2000. Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In Social trust and the management of risk, ed. G. Cvetkovich and R. Löfstedt, 89-99. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
37. _. 2001. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis 21, no. 1: 189-98.
38. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280-85.
39. _.1993. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13, no. 6: 675-82.
40. _. 2000. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. In Social trust and the management of risk, ed. G. Cvetkovich and R. Löfstedt, 42-52. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
41. Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? ed. R.C. Schwing and W.A. Albers, 181-216. New York: Plenum Press.
42. _. 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. In Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology, ed. R.W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and J.X. Kasperson, 91-125. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
43. _. 1986. The psychometric study of risk perception. In Risk evaluation and management, ed. V.T. Covello, J. Menkes, and J. Mumpower, 3-24. New York: Plenum Press.
44. Slovic, P., T. Malmfors, D. Krewski, C.K. Mertz, N. Neil, and S. Bartlett. 1995. Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis 15, no. 6: 661-75.
45. Viklund, M. 2003. Trust and risk perception in Western Europe: A cross-national study. Risk Analysis 23, no. 4: 727-38.
46. White, M.P., S. Pahl, M. Buehner, and A. Haye. 2003. Trust in risky messages: The role of prior attitudes. Risk Analysis 23, no. 4: 717-26.