An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards

Safety Science

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 686-692

  Bronfman, Nicolás C ^a   Vázquez, Esperanza López ^b   Dorantes, Gabriel ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD ANDRÉS BELLO   (Chile)

^b UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DEL ESTADO DE MORELOS   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Emerging economies; Regulatory institutions; Risk perception; Social trust

Indexed keywords

ACCEPTABILITY; EMERGING ECONOMIES; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; INSTITUTIONAL TRUSTS; LINEAR RELATIONSHIPS; ME-XICO; PERCEIVED BENEFITS; PERCEIVED RISKS; POTENTIAL IMPACTS; REGULATORY INSTITUTIONS; SOCIAL TRUST; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCES;

HAZARDS; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; SURVEYS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ACCEPTABILITY; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MEXICO; NORMAL HUMAN; ORGANIZATION; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SOCIAL TRUST; TRUST;

EID: 61549112199     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2008.09.006     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Alhakami A.S., and Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis 14 6 (1994) 1085-1096
2. Bastide S., Moatti J.-P., Pages J.-P., and Fagnani F. Risk perception and the social acceptability of technologies: the French case. Risk Analysis 9 2 (1989) 215-223
3. Bord R.J., and O'Connor R.E. Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site. Risk Analysis 12 3 (1992) 411-416
4. Brénot, J., Hubert, P., El Jammal, M.H., 1994. Critères d'acceptation du risque. Institut de Protection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IPSN), Département de protection de la santé de l'homme et de dosimétrie 35.
5. Bronfman N.C., and Cifuentes L.A. Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile. Risk Analysis 23 6 (2003) 1271-1285
6. Bronfman N.C., Cifuentes L.A., DeKay M.L., and Willis H.H. Accounting for variation in the explanatory power of the psychometric paradigm: the effects of aggregation and focus. Journal of Risk Research 10 4 (2007) 527-554
7. Cvetkovich G.T., and Löfstedt R. Social Trust and the Management of Risk (1999), Earthscan, London
8. Earle T.C., and Cvetkovich G. Social Trust. Towards a Cosmopolitan Society (1995), Praeger, London
9. Earle T.C., Siegrist M., and Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind (2007), Earthscan Publications Ltd
10. Eiser J.R., Miles S., and Frewer L.J. Trust, perceived risk and attitudes towards food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32 11 (2002) 2423-2433
11. Fife-Schaw C., and Rowe G. Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risk: some methodological considerations. Journal of Risk Research 3 2 (2000) 167-179
12. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S., and Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 9 (1978) 127-152
13. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., and Lichtenstein S. Lay foibles and expert fables in judgments about risk. The American Statistician 36 3 (1982) 240-255
14. Flynn J., Burns W.J., Mertz C.K., and Slovic P. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis 12 (1992) 417-429
15. Frewer L.J., Hedderley D., and Shepherd R. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis 16 4 (1996) 473-486
16. Frewer L.J., Howard C., and Shepherd R. Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research 1 3 (1998) 221-235
17. Gardner G.T., and Gould L.C. Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis 9 2 (1989) 225-242
18. Gardner G.T., Tiemann A.R., Gould L.R., DeLuca D.R., Doob L.W., Stolwijk J.A.J., et al. Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. Journal of Social Psychology 116 (1982) 179-197
19. Greenberg M.R., and Williams B. Geographical dimensions and correlates of trust. Risk Analysis 19 2 (1999) 159-169
20. Hermand D., Karsenty S., Py Y., Guillet L., Chauvin B., Simeone A., et al. Risk target: an interactive context factor in risk perception. Risk Analysis 23 4 (2003) 821-828
21. Johnson B.B. Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust. Journal of Risk Research 2 4 (1999) 325-354
22. Kasperson R.E., Golding D., and Tuler S. Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues 48 4 (1992) 161-187
23. Keown C.F. Risk perceptions of Hong Kongese vs. Americans. Risk Analysis 9 3 (1989) 401-405
24. Kleinhesselink R., and Rosa E. Cognitive representations of risk perceptions: a comparison of Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22 1 (1991) 11-28
25. Lang J.T., and Hallman W.K. Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis 25 5 (2005) 1241-1252
26. Langford I.H., Marris C., McDonald A.-L., Goldstein H., Rasbash J., O'Riordan T., et al. Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modeling. Risk Analysis 19 4 (1999) 675-683
27. Marris C., Langford I., Saunderson T., and O'Riordan T. Exploring the psychometric paradigm: comparison between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Analysis 17 3 (1997) 303-312
28. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: a jurney into a conceptual quagmire. In: Cvetkovich G., and Löfstedt R.E. (Eds). Social Trust and the Management Risk (1999), Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, UK
29. Poortinga W., and Pidgean N.F. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis 23 5 (2003) 961-972
30. Poortinga W., and Pidgean N.F. Trust in risk regulation: cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?. Risk Analysis 25 1 (2005) 199-209
31. Poumadere, M., Mays, C., Slovic, P., Flynn, J., Johnson S., 1995. What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option. In: Proceedings of the International Atomic Energy Agency Meeting of the Nuclear Power Option, 5-7 September, Vienna, pp. 393-405.
32. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29 (1999) 2093-2106
33. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20 2 (2000) 195-203
34. Siegrist M., and Cvetkovich G.T. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 20 5 (2000) 713-719
35. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G.T., and Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20 3 (2000) 353-362
36. Sjöberg L. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20 1 (2000) 1-11
37. Sjöberg L. Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In: Cvetkovich G., and Löfstedt R. (Eds). Social Trust and the Management of Risk (2000), Earthscan Publications Ltd., London 89-99
38. Sjöberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis 21 1 (2001) 189-198
39. Sjöberg L. Are received risk perception models alive and well?. Risk Analysis 22 4 (2002) 665-669
40. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 236 (1987) 280-285
41. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13 6 (1993) 675-682
42. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. In: Cvetkovich G., and Löfstedt R. (Eds). Social Trust and the Management of Risk (2000), Earthscan Publications Ltd., London 42-52
43. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., and Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Schwing R.C., and Albers W.A. (Eds). Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? (1980), Plenum Press, New York 181-216
44. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., and Lichtenstein S. Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates R.W., Hohenemser C., and Kasperson J.X. (Eds). Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology (1985), Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado 91-125
45. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., and Lichtenstein S. The psychometric study of risk perception. In: Covello V.T., Menkes J., and Mumpower J. (Eds). Risk Evaluation and Management (1986), Plenum Press, New York 3-24
46. Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science 165 (1969) 1232-1238
47. Starr, C., 1972. Benefit-cost studies in sociotechnical systems. In: Committee on Public Energy Policy (Ed.), Perspectives on Benefit-Risk Decision Making, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC.
48. Tanaka Y. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Analysis 24 6 (2004) 1575-1583
49. Viklund M. Trust and risk perception in Western Europe: a cross-national study. Risk Analysis 23 4 (2003) 727-738
50. Vlek C., and Stallen P.-J. Judging risks and benefits in the small and in the large. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28 (1981) 235-271
51. Willis H.H., DeKay M.L., Fischhoff B., and Morgan M.G. Aggregate, disaggregate, and hybrid analyses of ecological risk perceptions. Risk Analysis 25 2 (2005) 405-428