Competence-based and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS)

Risk Analysis

Volumn 29, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1129-1140

  Terwel, Bart W ^a   Harinck, Fieke ^a   Ellemers, Naomi ^a   Daamen, Dancker D L ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

CCS; Competence based trust; Integrity based trust; Public acceptance; Risk and benefit perception

Indexed keywords

CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE; CAUSAL CHAINS; CCS; COMPETENCE-BASED TRUST; EXPERIMENTAL APPROACHES; IN-LINE; INTEGRITY-BASED TRUST; NEW TECHNOLOGIES; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; PUBLIC TRUST;

CARBON DIOXIDE; PUBLIC RISKS; QUALITY ASSURANCE; TECHNOLOGY;

RISK PERCEPTION;

CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; HUMAN BEHAVIOR; RISK PERCEPTION; STORAGE; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

ARTICLE; CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE TECHNOLOGY; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPETENCE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGY; TRUST;

ATTITUDE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CARBON DIOXIDE; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; HUMANS; MALE; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC OPINION; RISK; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUST;

EID: 68149098453     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01256.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Huijts NMA, Midden CJH, Meijnders AL. Social acceptance of carbon dioxide storage. Energy Policy, 2007 35 : 2780 2789.
2. Terwel BW, Harinck F, Ellemers E, Daamen DDL. Voice in political decision making: The effect of group voice on trust in decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3. 2 risks. Risk Analysis, 2001 21 : 955 966.
4. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000 20 : 713 719.
5. Löfstedt RE, Renn O. The Brent Spar controversy: An example of risk communication gone wrong. Risk Analysis, 1997 17 : 131 136.
6. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 2000 20 : 195 203.
7. Eiser JR, Miles S, Frewer LJ. Trust, perceived risk and attitudes toward food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002 32 : 2423 2433.
8. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into a conceptual quagmire. In Cvetkovich GT, Löfstedt RE (eds). Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London : Earthscan, 1999.
9. Jungermann H, Pfister H-R, Fischer K. Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk Analysis, 1996 16 : 251 261.
10. Earle TC, Siegrist M. Morality information, performance information, and the distinction between trust and confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2006 36 : 383 416.
11. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H. Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Analysis, 2003 23 : 705 716.
12. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003 23 : 961 972.
13. Kim PH, Dirks KT, Cooper CD, Ferrin DL. When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal vs. external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence- vs. integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2006 99 : 49 65.
14. Kim PH, Ferrin DL, Cooper CD, Dirks KT. Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004 89 : 104 118.
15. Reeder GD, Hesson-McInnis M, Krohse JO, Scialabba EA. Inferences about effort and ability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2001 27 : 1225 1235.
16. Trafimow D, Bromgard IK, Finlay KA, Ketelaar T. The role of affect in determining the attributional weight of immoral behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2005 31 : 935 948.
17. Reeder GD, Brewer MB. A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 1979 86 : 61 79.
18. Skowronski JJ, Carlston DE. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 1989 105 : 131 142.
19. Maeda Y, Miyahara M. Determinants of trust in industry, government, and citizen's groups in Japan. Risk Analysis, 2003 23 : 303 310.
20. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 2005 25 : 197 207.
21. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999 29 : 2093 2106.
22. Tanaka Y. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Analysis, 2004 24 : 1575 1583. (Pubitemid 40076079)
23. Tokushige K, Akimoto K, Tomoda T. Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2007 1 : 101 112.
24. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986 51 : 1173 1182.
25. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Hoffman JM, West SG, Sheets V. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 2002 7 : 83 104.
26. Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. Pp. 290 312 in Leinhart S (ed). Sociological Methodology 1982. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass, 1982.
27. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2007 42 : 185 227.
28. Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001 52 : 27 58.
29. Sjoberg L. Perceived risk and tampering with nature. Journal of Risk Research, 2000 3 : 353 367.
30. White MP, Eiser JR. Marginal trust in risk managers: Building and losing trust following decisions under uncertainty. Risk Analysis, 2006 26 : 1187 1203.