A Cross-Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust-Acceptance Relationship

Risk Analysis

Volumn 31, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1919-1934

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

^a UNIVERSIDAD ANDRÉS BELLO   (Chile)

^b UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DEL ESTADO DE MORELOS   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Acceptability; Latin American economies; Mediation analysis; Social trust

Indexed keywords

ACCEPTABILITY; CAUSAL CHAINS; CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS; CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; LATIN AMERICANS; ME-XICO; MEDIATION ANALYSIS; PERCEIVED BENEFITS; PERCEIVED RISK; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; REGULATORY AUTHORITIES; REGULATORY ORGANIZATIONS; RELATIVE IMPORTANCE; SOCIAL TRUST; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TECHNOLOGICAL HAZARDS;

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; HAZARDS;

PUBLIC RISKS;

CULTURAL INFLUENCE; DEVELOPING WORLD; EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; RISK PERCEPTION; TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE;

ARTICLE; CULTURAL FACTOR; HUMAN; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA; THEORETICAL MODEL; TRUST; UNITED STATES;

CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; HUMANS; LATIN AMERICA; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUST; UNITED STATES;

LATIN AMERICA;

EID: 81855194344     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01637.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. López-Vázquez E, Sigalez-Ruíz A village tells its story: San Juan Ixhatepec (undergraduate thesis). Mexico City: School of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, 1990.
2. Inhaber H. Risk in developing countries. Risk Analysis, 1985; 5(2): 87.
3. Flynn J, Burns WJ, Mertz CK, Slovic P. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 1992; 12: 417-429.
4. Jungermann H, Pfister HR, Fischer K. Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk Analysis, 1996; 12: 251-261.
5. Siegrist M. A Causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999; 29: 2093-2106.
6. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(2): 195-203.
7. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich GT, Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(3): 353-362.
8. Cvetkovich GT, Löfstedt R. Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd, 1999.
9. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13(6): 675-682.
10. Bronfman NC, López-Vázquez E, Gutiérrez VV, Cifuentes LA. Trust, acceptance and knowledge of technological and environmental hazards in Chile. Journal of Risk Research, 2008; 11(6): 755-773.
11. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(5): 961-972.
12. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(1): 199-209.
13. Viklund M. Trust and risk perception in western Europe: A cross-national study. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(4): 727-738.
14. Eiser JR, Miles S, Frewer LJ. Trust, perceived risk and attitudes towards food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2002; 32(11): 2423-2433.
15. Frewer LJ, Scholderer J, Bredahl L. Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(6): 1117-1133.
16. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 1993; 13(6): 643-648.
17. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Prior attitudes, salient value similarity, and dimensionality: Toward an integrative model of trust in risk regulation 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2006; 36(7): 1674-1700.
18. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R. Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research, 1998; 1(3): 221-235.
19. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich GT. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20(5): 713-719.
20. Bronfman NC, López-Vázquez E. An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards. Safety Science, 2009; 47: 686-692.
21. Lawrence RJ, Jeanne MB. Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984; 69(2): 307-321.
22. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986; 51(6): 1173-1182.
23. MacKinnon DP. Contrasts in multiple mediator models. Pp. 141-60 in Rose JS, Chassin L, Presson C, Sherman S (eds). Multivariate Applications in Substance Use Research: New Methods for New Questions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
24. United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2007-2008. Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. New York: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2007.
25. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 2008; 40(3): 879-891.
26. Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 1982; 13: 290-312.
27. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2004; 36(4): 717-731.
28. Bollen KA. Total, direct, and indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 1987; 17: 37-69.
29. Bollen KA, Stine R. Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 1990; 20: 115-140.
30. Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(6): 1085-1096.
31. Bronfman NC, Cifuentes LA. Risk perception in a developing country: The case of Chile. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(6): 1271-1285.
32. Greene WH. Econometric Analysis. Third edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997.
33. Montgomery DC, Peck EA, Vining GG. Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2001.
34. Johnson BB. Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust. Journal of Risk Research, 1999; 2(4): 325-354.
35. Frewer LJ, Hedderley D, Shepherd R. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 1996; 16(4): 473-486.
36. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communication. Pp. 175-218 in Kasperson RE (ed). Communicating Risks to the Public: Technology, Risk, and Society: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1991.
37. Kasperson RE, Golding D, Tuler S. Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues, 1992; 48(4): 161-187.
38. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into a conceptual quagmire. Pp. 100-116 in Cvetkovich G, Löfstedt RE (eds). Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 1999.
39. Cvetkovich GT, Siegrist M, Murray R, Tragesser S. New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers. Risk Analysis, 2002; 22(2): 359-367.
40. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich GT. Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21(1): 199-206.
41. Miller J. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 1998; 7(3): 203-223.
42. Miller J. Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 2004; 13(3): 273-294.
43. Miller J. Civic scientific literacy in Europe and the United States. Annual Meeting of the World Association for Public Opinion Research; May 17, 2006; Montreal, Canada, 2006.
44. Earle TC, Cvetkovich G. Social Trust: Towards a Cosmopolitan Society. London: Praeger Publishers, 1995.
45. 2 storage. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(5): 743-751.
46. Terwel B, Harinck F, Ellemers N, Daamen D. Competence-based and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(8): 1129-1140.
47. Bastide S, Moatti J-P, Pages J-P, Fagnani F. Risk perception and the social acceptability of technologies: The French case. Risk Analysis, 1989; 9(2): 215-223.
48. Gardner GT, Tiemann AR, Gould LR, DeLuca DR, Doob LW, Stolwijk JAJ. Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. Journal of Social Psychology, 1982; 116: 179-197.
49. Poumadere M, Mays C, Slovic P, Flynn J, Johnson S. What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option. Pp. 393-405 in The Nuclear Power Option: Proceedings of an International Conference on the Nuclear Power Option. Vienna, 1995.
50. Tanaka Y. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(6): 1575-1583.