New information and social trust: asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers.

It has been argued that news about negative events has a much stronger effect on decreasing social trust than does news about positive events on increasing it. This asymmetry principle of trust was investigated in two surveys that also investigated the perseverance of trust. The possibility that established trust attributions persevere in the face of new information raises questions about the limits of trust asymmetry. The two studies yielded evidence that both type of news (good versus bad) and initial general trust in the nuclear power industry or the food supply industry affected level of trust. Compared to individuals trusting the industry, those distrusting the industry exhibited less trust following both bad and good news events. Study I also found that judged informativeness and judged positiveness of news events were affected by type of news and general trust of the industry. Individuals low in general trust of the nuclear power industry judged both bad news and good news as less positive than did those high in general trust. Those low in general trust judged bad news as more informative than good news and than did those high in general trust. An important implication of the perseverance of trust is to focus attention on including not only the effects of information about specific events and actions, but also on the judgment processes underlying social trust. The Salient Value Similarity model is suggested as one way of accounting for these psychological processes.     

Trust in the Safety of Tourist Destinations: Hard to Gain,Easy to Lose? New Insights on the Asymmetry Principle

According to the asymmetry principle of trust, negative events decrease trust to a much higher extent than positive events increase trust. The study at hand intended to verify whether this notion of asymmetry holds true with respect to trust in the safety of tourist destinations. Thus, in contrast to previous research that analyzed trust asymmetry in the context of involuntary technological risks, the present study evaluates the validity of the asymmetry principle of trust in the context of voluntary tourism risks. The hypothesis that negative or risky information on destination safety (absence of proper safety measures and conditions) has a higher impact on distrust than, conversely, positive or nonrisk information on destination safety (provision of proper safety measures and conditions) has on trust was tested in an online survey ( N = 640). In contrast to the asymmetry pattern found by Slovic (1993) , results of the current work suggest symmetry rather than asymmetry of trust. The presence of proper safety measures and conditions (positive or nonrisk information) was found to have at least the same—and in some cases an even higher—impact on trust than the absence of such measures and conditions (negative or risky information) had on distrust. Findings provide empirical evidence for the thesis that the prevalence of trust asymmetry is dependent on the risk source and demonstrate that trust is symmetric rather than asymmetric in the context of voluntary tourism risks. Furthermore, results imply an influence of positive versus negative expectations as well as of prior trusting relationships on the occurrence of the asymmetry principle.     

Trust and Risk Communication in High-Risk Organizations: A Test of Principles from Social Risk Research

This study explored the effects of open communication about occupational risks on workers' trust beliefs and trust intentions toward risk management, and the resilience of these beliefs and intentions to further risk information. An experimental survey of 393 student nurses showed the importance of open communication in the development of worker trust in risk management. Consistent with the trust asymmetry principle, we found that the increase in trust beliefs following open communication was weaker than the reduction in trust following a lack of communication. Further, the level of trust developed through communication (or lack of) influenced the way that subsequent risk information was processed. Negative risk information reduced trust beliefs in nurses with already low levels of trust while positive risk information increased trust beliefs only in those with already high levels. A similar pattern of results emerged for nurses' trust intentions, although the magnitude of these effects was weaker. The implications of these findings for occupational risk management are discussed.     

The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers

The intuitive detection theorist (IDT) model of trust posits that trust in hazard managers stems from judgments about their performance on three criteria: their ability to discriminate safe from dangerous situations (discrimination ability); their tendency under uncertainty to assume danger is present (response bias); and their propensity to be open and honest with the public about events (communication bias). The current article tests the model's robustness using findings from three experiments and four surveys conducted by two different research teams. Study‐specific analyses and an overall analysis of the seven studies combined confirm that all three of the IDT model's dimensions are important for trust, explaining on average 43% of trust variance. These effects occurred largely independently of hazard topic, research method, or investigator. Hypothesized interaction effects among the dimensions, based upon earlier studies, were weak and contradictory; this is the first known study of interactions among trust model variables.     

Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty

Although a considerable amount of research has examined correlates of baseline public trust in risk managers, much less research has looked at marginal changes in public trust following specific events. Such research is important for identifying what kinds of events will lead to increases and decreases in public trust and thus for understanding how trust is built and lost. Using a taxonomy based upon signal detection theory (SDT), the current article presents two experimental studies examining marginal trust change following eight different types of events. Supporting predictions, cautious decisionmakers who accepted signs of danger (Hits and False Alarms) were more likely to be trusted than those who rejected them (All Clears and Misses). Moreover, transparency about an event was associated with higher levels of marginal trust than a lack of transparency in line with earlier findings. Contrary to predictions, however, trust was less affected by whether the decisions were correct (i.e., Hits and All Clears) or incorrect (i.e., False Alarms and Misses). This finding was primarily due to a "False Alarm Effect" whereby Open False Alarms led to positive increases in trust despite being incorrect assessments of risk. Results are explained in terms of a cue diagnosticity account of impression formation and suggest that a taxonomy of event types based on SDT may be useful in furthering our understanding of how public trust in risk managers is gained and lost.     

The Role of Distrust in Offshore Safety Performance

Trust is recognized as a potentially important factor in safety within high-risk industries. However, little detailed empirical research has explored how trust operates in these contexts to influence worker safety performance. The present study addresses this by (i) identifying the target (occupational group) in which trust is most important for good safety, and (ii) establishing the "type" of trust (trust or distrust) with the greatest impact on safety performance. A questionnaire survey of 203 UK offshore gas workers' attitudes of trust and distrust toward four occupational groups (workmates, supervisors, offshore managers, and contractors) and an operating company was conducted. Logistic regression analysis identified attitudes toward offshore management as the strongest predictor of safety performance at an industry level. At an installation level, safety performance was best predicted by attitudes toward contractors and workmates. Further analysis revealed attitudes of distrust as better predictors of safety performance compared to attitudes of trust. These findings suggest that safety professionals should pay more attention to the role of distrust in safety performance. They also suggest that safety initiatives should target attitudes toward specific groups for optimal effectiveness.     

The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers

Effective risk management requires balancing several, sometimes competing, goals, such as protecting public health and ensuring cost control. Research examining public trust of risk managers has largely focused on trust that is unspecified or for a single goal. Yet it can be reasonable to have a high level of trust in one aspect of a target's performance but not another. Two studies involving redevelopment of contaminated land (Study 1) and drinking water standards (Study 2) present preliminary evidence on the value of distinguishing between performance criteria for understanding of trust. Study 1 assessed perceptions of several trust targets (councilors, developers, scientists, residents) on their competence (capacity to achieve goals) and willingness to take action under uncertainty for four criteria. Study 2 assessed competence, willingness, and trust for five criteria regarding a single government agency. In both studies overall trust in each target was significantly better explained by considering perceptions of their performance on multiple criteria than on the single criterion of public health. In Study 1, the influence of criteria also varied plausibly across trust targets (e.g., willingness to act under uncertainty increased trust in developers on cost control and councilors on local economic improvement, but decreased it for both targets on environmental protection). Study 2 showed that explained variance in trust increased with both dimension‐ and trust‐based measures of criteria. Further conceptual and methodological development of the notion of multiple trust criteria could benefit our understanding of stated trust judgments.     

Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs

Within the risk literature there is an ongoing debate on whether trust is vulnerable or enduring. Previous research on nuclear energy by Slovic in 1993 has shown that negative events have much greater impact on self-reported trust than do positive events. Slovic attributes this to the asymmetry principle: specifically, that trust is much easier to destroy than to create. In a questionnaire survey concerning genetically modified (GM) food in Britain (n= 396) we similarly find that negative events have a greater impact on trust than positive events. Because public opinion in Britain is skewed in the direction of opposition toward GM food, the pattern of results could either be caused by the fact that negative information is more informative than positive information (a negativity bias) or reflect the influence of people's prior attitudes toward the issue (a confirmatory bias). The results were largely in line with the confirmatory bias hypothesis: participants with clear positive or negative beliefs interpreted events in line with their existing attitude position. However, for participants with intermediate attitudes, negative items still had greater impact than the positive. This latter finding suggests that, congruent with the negativity bias hypothesis, negative information may still be more informative than positive information for undecided people. The study also identified the labeling of GM products, consulting the public, making biotechnology companies liable for any damage, and making a test available to detect GM produce as being particularly important preconditions for maintaining trust in the regulation of agricultural biotechnology.     

Competence-Based and Integrity-Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)

Public trust in organizations that are involved in the management and use of new technologies affects lay judgments about the risks and benefits associated with these technologies. In turn, judgments about risks and benefits influence lay attitudes toward these technologies. The validity of this (indirect) effect of trust on lay attitudes toward new technologies, which is referred to as the causal chain account of trust, has up till now only been examined in correlational research. The two studies reported in this article used an experimental approach to more specifically test the causal chain account of trust in the context of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS). Complementing existing literature, the current studies explicitly distinguished between two different types of trust in organizations: competence-based trust (Study 1) and integrity-based trust (Study 2). In line with predictions, results showed that the organizational position regarding CCS implementation (pro versus con) more strongly affected people's risk and benefit perceptions and their subsequent acceptance of CCS when competence-based trust was high rather than low. In contrast, the organizational position had a greater impact on people's level of CCS acceptance when integrity-based trust was low rather than high.     

Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes

Risk perception researchers have observed a "negativity bias" for hazard-related information. Messages indicating the presence of risk seem to be trusted more than messages indicating the absence of risk, and risk perceptions seem more affected by negative than positive information. Two experiments were conducted to examine alternative explanations of this finding within the area of food additives. Study 1 (N = 235) extended earlier work by (a) unconfounding message valence (positive or negative) from message extremity (definite or null finding) and (b) exploring the role of prior attitudes. Results suggested that negative/risky messages were indeed trusted more even when extremity was taken into account. However, prior attitudes significantly moderated the effect of message valence on trust. Positive messages were distrusted only by those with negative prior attitudes. Study 2 (N = 252), further explored the role of prior attitudes and extended the work by examining reactions to risky messages about a positively viewed additive--a vitamin. The results again found a moderating effect of prior attitudes on message valence. Participants had greater confidence in messages that were more congruent with their prior attitudes, irrespective of valence. Furthermore, positive messages had a greater impact on risk perception than negative messages. These findings suggest that greater trust in negative messages about hazards may be a product of a "confirmatory" rather than a "negativity" bias.     

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception

Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy. Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.     

Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust

Recent research suggests that public attitudes toward emerging technologies are mainly driven by trust in the institutions promoting and regulating these technologies. Alternative views maintain that trust should be seen as a consequence rather than a cause of such attitudes. To test its actual role, direct as well as mediating effects of trust were tested in an attitude change experiment involving 1,405 consumers from Denmark, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. After prior attitudes to genetic modification in food production had been assessed, participants received different information materials (either product-specific information or balanced/general information about genetic modification in food production) and were asked to evaluate different types of genetically modified foods (either beer or yoghurt). The information materials were attributed to different information sources (either an industry association, a consumer organization, or a government source). After completion, perceived risk and perceived benefit were assessed, and participants indicated their trust in the information sources to which the materials had been attributed. Direct and trust-mediated attitude change effects were estimated in a multi-sample structural equation model. The results showed that information provision had little effect on people's attitudes toward genetically modified foods, and that perceptions of information source characteristics contributed very little to attitude change. Furthermore, the type of information strategy adopted had almost no impact on postexperimental attitudes. The extent to which people trusted the information sources appeared to be driven by people's attitudes to genetically modified foods, rather than trust influencing the way that people reacted to the information. Trust was not driving risk perception-rather, attitudes were informing perceptions of the motivation of the source providing the information.     

Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources,Perceived Risks,and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power

We examined how individuals perceive nuclear energy in the context of climate change mitigation and how their perceptions are associated with trust in different risk information sources. We analyzed the interrelationships between trust, perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, perception of nuclear energy as an acceptable way to mitigate climate change, and willingness to pay (WTP) for alternatives to nuclear power. A nationwide survey (N = 967) collected in Finland was analyzed with structural equation modeling. The associations between trust and perceived risk of nuclear power, climate change concern, and perception of nuclear power as a way to mitigate climate change varied by the type of information source. Political party support and other background variables were associated with trust in different information sources. The effect of trust in information sources on WTP was mediated by perceived risks and benefits. The results will increase our understanding of how individuals perceive nuclear energy as a way to cut CO₂ emissions and the role of trust in different information sources in shaping nuclear risk perceptions and energy choices.     

Job insecurity and trust: Uncovering a mechanism linking job insecurity to well-being

Job insecurity has well-documented negative effects for individuals as well as organisations. However, the mechanisms by which job insecurity relates to its outcomes have received less research attention. The purpose of this study is to investigate trust in the organisation as a potential mechanism that may explain why job insecurity relates to two well-documented outcomes: decreased job satisfaction and lowered mental health. These hypotheses were tested in a Swedish longitudinal sample that consists of employees (longitudinal n?=?906) from three organisations, using structural equation modelling. Overall, the results showed support for our hypotheses. Our findings reveal an indirect effect of trust on job satisfaction, regardless of whether the previous levels of job satisfaction were controlled for. With regard to mental health, the indirect effect was only evident when previous levels of mental health were not controlled for. The results of this study contribute to our understanding about the intervening factors in the relationship between job insecurity and outcomes. Moreover, the results might be important for human resources departments and managers when there are indications that employees are worrying about the future of their jobs.     

Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross-National Study

The relationship between trust and risk perception was investigated, within and across four European countries (Sweden, Spain, United Kingdom, and France). Survey data were collected in 1996; total number of respondents was approximately 1,000 (United Kingdom and Spain), 1,350 (France), and 2,050 (Sweden). Trust was a significant predictor of perceived risk within countries, but the strength of the relationship varied from weak (Spain and France) to moderate (United Kingdom and Sweden). General trust was also a significant source of variation in perceived risk among countries, but much of the variation in perceived risk remained unexplained. Correlations between trust and risk perception also varied depending on the type of risk (i.e., nuclear risks were more influenced by trust) and trust measure (i.e., general trust explained perceived risk better than specific trust). It is concluded that trust may be an element in models explaining risk perception, but it is not as powerful as often argued in the risk perception literature.     

Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge

Recent research indicates that social trust of those who manage a hazard is strongly correlated to judgments about the hazard's risk and benefits. The present study investigates the more specific question of “For which hazards is this?” It was postulated that when an individual lacks knowledge about a hazard, social trust of authorities managing the hazard determines perceived risks and benefits. On the other hand, when an individual has personal knowledge about a hazard and therefore does not need to rely on managing authorities, social trust is unrelated to judged risks and benefits. Participants (N = 91) assessed risks, benefits, and trust in managing authorities and personal knowledge associated with 25 hazardous technologies and activities. As expected, strong correlations between social trust and judged risks and benefits were observed for hazards about which people did not possess much knowledge. No significant correlations between social trust and judged risks and benefits were found for hazards about which people were knowledgeable. Results suggest that the lay public relies on social trust when making judgments of risks and benefits when personal knowledge about a hazard is lacking. Replicating findings of other studies, the present study also found negative correlations between perceived risks and perceived benefits. When social trust was controlled for, correlations between perceived risks and benefits diminished. Implications of the results for risk management are discussed.     

Risk Perception in the U.K. Oil and Gas Production Industry: Are Expert Loss‐Prevention Managers' Perceptions Different From Those of Members of the Public?

This article investigates potential differences in risk perception between experts (loss-prevention managers in the U.K. oil and gas production industry) and nonexperts (managers and students). Extant research on expert versus nonexpert perceptions of risk is reviewed, followed by the present study concerning risk perceptions of seven pen-picture scenarios involving the occurrence of hazardous events in the U.K. oil and gas production industry. In contrast to many of the earlier studies of expert versus nonexpert perceptions of risk, the present analysis concludes that experts did not judge the overall riskiness of the portrayed hazardous events as less risky than the nonexperts. Nevertheless, the experts believe more strongly than our nonexperts that the risks portrayed in the scenarios pose little threat to future generations, are more precisely known, and are relatively controllable. Use of multiple regression analysis to help uncover the basis of overall riskiness assessments for expert and lay respondents was inconclusive, however. Finally, little evidence was found that nonexperts were any more heterogeneous in their risk perceptions than experts. It may be that the nature of the risks assessed in the present study may account for the general lack of clear expert versus nonexpert differences in overall perceptions of the riskiness of hazardous events in the North Sea. Earlier findings of strong expert versus nonexpert differences in risk perception assessed hazards of major public concern. It is inferred that using such extreme hazards may have resulted in an exaggerated view of differences in expert versus public (nonexpert) perception of risk.     

Methodological Approaches to Assessing Risk Perceptions Associated with Food-Related Hazards

The psychometric approach developed by Slovic and his co-workers has been effectively used to assess risk perceptions associated with different food-related hazards. However, further examination (using questionnaire data and partial correlation techniques) has indicated that technological hazards are highly differentiated from lifestyle hazards, in terms of both hazard control and knowledge about the hazard. Optimistic bias was also seen to vary between hazards. Further research has focused on a particular hazard, genetic engineering. Risk perceptions associated with genetic engineering are underpinned by ethical concern and questions relating to perceived need for the technology, as well as perceptions of risk or harm. However, increasing the specificity of hazard stimuli was found to alter the factor structure of underlying risk perceptions. The utility of preference mapping procedures in determining individual differences in trust in risk regulators is also discussed.     

Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation

This article investigates possible differential levels of trust in government regulation across five different risk contexts and the relationship between a number of concepts that might be thought of as comprising distinctive "dimensions" of trust. It appeared that how people perceive government and its policies toward risk regulation was surprisingly similar for each of the five risk cases. A principal-component analysis showed that the various trust items could best be described by two dimensions: a general trust dimension, which was concerned with a wide range of trust-relevant aspects, such as competence, care, fairness, and openness, and a scepticism component that reflects a sceptical view regarding how risk policies are brought about and enacted. Again, the results were surprisingly similar across the five risk cases, as the same solution was found in each of the different samples. It was also examined whether value similarity has an additional value in predicting trust in risk regulation, compared to the more conventional aspects of trust. Based on the two independent trust factors that were found in this study, a typology of trust is proposed that ranges from full trust to a deep type of distrust. It is argued that for a functioning society it could well be more suitable to have critical but involved citizens in many situations.     

Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?

Although there is ample empirical evidence that trust in risk regulation is strongly related to the perception and acceptability of risk, it is less clear what the direction of this relationship is. This article explores the nature of the relationship, using three separate data sets on perceptions of genetically modified (GM) food among the British public. The article has two discrete but closely interrelated objectives. First, it compares two models of trust. More specifically, it investigates whether trust is the cause (causal chain account) or the consequence (associationist view) of the acceptability of GM food. Second, this study explores whether the affect heuristic can be applied to a wider number of risk-relevant concepts than just perceived risk and benefit. The results suggest that, rather than a determinant, trust is an expression or indicator of the acceptability of GM food. In addition, and as predicted, "affect" accounts for a large portion of the variance between perceived risk, perceived benefit, trust in risk regulation, and acceptability. Overall, the results support the associationist view that specific risk judgments are driven by more general evaluative judgments The implications of these results for risk communication and policy are discussed.