Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments

Risk Analysis

Volumn 32, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 1394-1403

  Siegrist, Michael ^a   Connor, Melanie ^a   Keller, Carmen ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Acceptance of technologies; Confidence; Fairness; Gene technology; Trust

Indexed keywords

CONFIDENCE; ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS; FAIRNESS; FIELD EXPERIMENT; GENE TECHNOLOGY; GENETICALLY MODIFIED; GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS; RISK COMMUNICATION; SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHES; TRUST;

FACTOR ANALYSIS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

LAW ENFORCEMENT;

CROP PLANT; CULTIVATION; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CROP; ETHICS; FEMALE; GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD; GENETICS; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEADERSHIP; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SWITZERLAND; TRUST;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE; BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMMUNICATION; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; FEMALE; FOOD, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; HUMANS; LEADERSHIP; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SWITZERLAND; TRUST;

SWITZERLAND;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84865088094     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01739.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. McComas KA, Besley JC, Yang Z. Risky business: Perceived behavior of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28:1539-1552.
2. Nakayachi K, Cvetkovich G. Public trust in government concerning tobacco control in Japan. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30:143-152.
3. Tyler TR. Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 2000; 35:117-125.
4. Earle TC, Siegrist M. On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis, 2008; 28:1395-1413.
5. Skitka LJ, Bauman CW, Lytle BL. Limits of legitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009; 97:567-578.
6. Chen M-F, Li H-L. The consumer's attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 2007; 18:662-674.
7. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:195-203.
8. Tanaka Y. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24:1575-1583.
9. Durant J, Bauer MW, Gaskell G. Biotechnology in the Public Sphere. London, UK: Science Museum, 1998.
10. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT. Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995.
11. Knight A. Intervening effects of knowledge, morality, trust, and benefits on support for animal and plant biotechnology applications. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27:1553-1563.
12. Sjöberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 2001; 21:189-198.
13. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis, 2005; 25:199-209.
14. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:713-719.
15. Earle TC, Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation. In Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H (eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. London, UK: Earthscan, 2007.
16. Metlay D. Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into a conceptual quagmire. In Cvetkovich G, Löfstedt R (eds). Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London, UK: Earthscan, 1999
17. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23:961-972.
18. Allum N. An empirical test of competing theories of hazard-related trust: The case of GM food. Risk Analysis, 2007; 27:935-946.
19. 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.
20. Earle TC, Siegrist M. Morality information, performance information, and the distinction between trust and confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2006; 36:383-416.
21. Twyman M, Harvey N, Harries C. Trust in motives, trust in competence: Separate factors determining the effectiveness of risk communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 2008; 3:111-120.
22. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 2000; 20:353-362.
23. Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Rowe G, Jones T-H, Walls J, O'Riordan T. Using surveys in the public participation processes for risk decision making: The case of the 2003 British GM Nation public debate. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25:467-479.
24. Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1995.
25. Rowe G, Frewer LJ. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2000; 25:3-29.
26. Napier JL, Tyler TR. Does moral conviction really override concerns about procedural justice? A reexamination of the value protection model. Social Justice Research, 2008; 21:509-528.
27. Skitka LJ. Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2002; 28:588-597.
28. Skitka LJ, Mullen E. Moral convictions often override concerns about procedural fairness: A reply to Napier and Tyler. Social Justice Research, 2008; 21:529-546.
29. Brockner J, Siegel PA, Daly JP, Tyler T, Martin C. When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997; 42:558-583.
30. Tyler TR, Degoey P. Trust in organizational authorities. In Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds). Trust in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
31. Besley JC. Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication, 2010; 32:256-280.
32. Besley JC, McComas KA, Trumbo CW. Local newspaper coverage of health authority fairness during cancer cluster investigations. Science Communication, 2008; 29:498-521.
33. Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple Regression: Testing an Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1991.
34. Cousin M-E, Siegrist M. Laypeople's health concerns and health beliefs in regard to risk perception of mobile communication. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2008; 14:1235-1249.
35. Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Scholz RW. Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision making: Site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Risk Research, 2010; 13:861-875.
36. Flynn J, Peters E, Mertz CK, Slovic P. Risk, media, and stigma at Rocky Flats. Risk Analysis, 1998; 18:715-727.
37. Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB. The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 1997; 17:43-54.
38. Earle TC. Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30:541-574.
39. Earle TC. Dinstinguishing trust from confidence: Manageable difficulties, worth the effort. Reply to: Trust and confidence: The difficulties in distinguishing the two concepts in research. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30:1025-1027.
40. Siegrist M. Trust and confidence: The difficulties in distinguishing the two concepts in research. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30:1022-1024.
41. de Jonge J, van Trijp H, Renes RJ, Frewer LJ. Consumer confidence in the safety of food and newspaper coverage of food safety issues: A longitudinal perspective. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30:125-142.