"Trust me, I'm a scientist (not a developer)": Perceived expertise and motives as predictors of trust in assessment of risk from contaminated land

Risk Analysis

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 288-297

  Eiser, J Richard ^a,b   Stafford, Tom ^b   Henneberry, John ^b   Catney, Philip ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contamination; Expertise; Trust

Indexed keywords

CONTAMINATED LANDS; EXPERTISE; POTENTIAL SOURCES; PUBLIC TRUSTS; TRUST; URBAN REGIONS;

CONTAMINATION;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

LAND DEGRADATION; NEIGHBORHOOD; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; SOIL POLLUTION; URBAN AREA;

ARTICLE; CONTAMINATION; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LAND USE; MOTIVATION; NORMAL HUMAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; SAFETY; SKILL; TRUST;

EID: 58849111431     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01131.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Catney, P., Henneberry, J., Meadowcroft, J., & Eiser, J. R. (2006). Dealing with contaminated land in the UK through "development managerialism Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 8, 331 356.
2. Cvetkovich, G., & Löfstedt, R. (1999). Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London : Earthscan.
3. Earle, T. C., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2007). Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. In M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle, & H. Gutscher (Eds Trust, Technology, and Society: Studies in Cooperative Risk Management (pp. 1 49). London : Earthscan.
4. Eddy, D. M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (pp. 249 267). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
5. Eiser, J. R. (1990). Social Judgment. Buckingham, UK : Open University Press.
6. Eiser, J. R., Stafford, T., Henneberry, J., & Catney, P. (2007). Risk perception and trust in the context of urban brownfields. Environmental Hazards, 7, 150 156.
7. Eiser, J. R., & Van Der Pligt, J. (1979). Beliefs and values in the nuclear debate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 524 536.
8. Fischoff, 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.
9. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21, 107 112.
10. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341 350.
11. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2000). Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: A review of research. Environment and Behavior, 32, 461 501.
12. Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62, 42 55.
13. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (2003). The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
14. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713 719.
15. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280 285.
16. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 31 322.
17. Swets, J. A. (1973). The receiver operating characteristic in psychology. Science, 182, 990 1000.
18. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124 1131.
19. White, M. P., & Eiser, J. R. (2006). Marginal trust in decision makers: Building and losing trust following decisions under uncertainty. Risk Analysis, 26, 1187 1203.
20. White, M. P., & Eiser, J. R. (2007). A social judgement approach to trust: People as intuitive detection theorists. In M. Siegrist, T. C. Earle, & H. Gutscher (Eds Trust, Technology, and Society: Studies in Cooperative Risk Management (pp. 95 116). London : Earthscan.
21. White, M. P., Eiser, J. R., Harris, P., & Pahl, S. (2007). Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risks? Comparative optimism, comparative utility, and regulatory preference for mobile phone technology. Risk Analysis, 27, 741 753.