Trust,confidence, familiarity,and support for land-based recirculating aquaculture facilities

Surveys in three U.S. localities (n = 523) with proposed or existing land-based aquaculture facilities probed trust's relationship with perceived net benefits and public intentions to cooperate with siting of this novel technology. The trust, confidence, and cooperation (TCC) model posits that shared values shape willingness to be vulnerable to others (trust), while past performance shapes certainty that others will behave as expected (confidence). Trust affects confidence given moral outweighs performance information, possibly varying by familiarity. Other research suggests that trust shapes benefit and risk perceptions, which drive cooperation (defined here by potentially observable behavior: voting on siting, trying to influence government decisions directly or through citizen groups, and buying or eating facility fish). Confirmatory factor analyses suggested that a two-factor model fit the trust/confidence measures better than a one-factor model or a two-factor model without inter-factor correlation, indicating (despite a strong association of trust and confidence) that they are empirically distinct. Path analyses suggested that trust had stronger direct effects on cooperation than did confidence, reflecting the TCC notion that moral information underlying trust judgments is more influential, and stronger indirect effects through benefit-risk judgments. Model fit was better than if the benefit-risk mediator was omitted. Trust in government had a small direct effect on cooperation and confidence, but a large effect on trust in the corporation, and model fit was much worse if any of these paths was omitted. Low familiarity with the project lowered both model fit and trust–confidence association. We discuss implications for risk analysis theory and practice.     

Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks

Perceptions of risks associated with mobile phones, base stations, and other sources of electromagnetic fields (EMF) were examined. Data from a telephone survey conducted in the German- and French-speaking parts of Switzerland are presented (N = 1,015). Participants assessed both risks and benefits associated with nine different sources of EMF. Trust in the authorities regulating these hazards was assessed as well. In addition, participants answered a set of questions related to attitudes toward EMF and toward mobile phone base stations. According to respondents' assessments, high-voltage transmission lines are the most risky source of EMF. Mobile phones and mobile phone base stations received lower risk ratings. Results showed that trust in authorities was positively associated with perceived benefits and negatively associated with perceived risks. People who use their mobile phones frequently perceived lower risks and higher benefits than people who use their mobile phones infrequently. People who believed they lived close to a base station did not significantly differ in their level of risks associated with mobile phone base stations from people who did not believe they lived close to a base station. Regarding risk regulation, a majority of participants were in favor of fixing limiting values based on the worst-case scenario. Correlations suggest that belief in paranormal phenomena is related to level of perceived risks associated with EMF. Furthermore, people who believed that most chemical substances cause cancer also worried more about EMF than people who did not believe that chemical substances are that harmful. Practical implications of the results are discussed.     

审计师关注客户所在地区社会信任水平吗? ——基于Pecking Order模型的研究

文章利用CGSS调查数据度量客户所在地区的社会信任水平,进而考察其对审计师决策的影响。文章首先分别考察了社会信任水平与审计定价、出具非标审计意见的倾向、审计师变更之间的关系,结果发现,公司所在地区的社会信任水平与审计定价、审计师变更均呈显著负向关系,表明审计师会对位于高社会信任地区的客户收取更低的审计费用、审计契约更为稳定,但社会信任与审计师出具非标意见的倾向之间没有显著关联。有序Logistic检验结果表明,在审计定价和审计师变更决策之间,审计师存在优先选择次序:对于低社会信任地区客户,他们会优先通过提高审计收费的手段来控制相关风险。只有在风险超出其承受力、不能通过提高审计费用来控制时,才会放弃客户。此外,文章还发现,地区法治水平能够缓解社会信任对审计师决策的影响。这一研究有助于加深社会信任与审计师决策之间关系的理解,并有助于理解审计师的风险管理策略。     

Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception

It was postulated that shared values determine social trust in institutions and persons related to a technology: One has trust in people holding similar salient values. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that social trust has a positive influence on perceived benefits and a negative impact on perceived risks. Results of a survey of University of Zürich students indicated that the proposed causal model explained perception of pesticides, nuclear power, and artificial sweetener very well. When social trust was controlled, the relation between risks and benefits perceived diminished. Results indicate that social trust is a key predictive factor of the perceived risks and benefits of a technology, and provide support for the salient values similarity theory of social trust.     

Information Specificity and Hazard Risk Potential as Moderators of Trust Asymmetry

Trust in risk managers appears to be an important antecedent of public acceptance for many hazards. However, such trust may be fragile since research suggests that negative performance information has a greater impact than positive performance information (Slovic, 1993). Closer examination of these findings suggests two potential moderators of this valence-related asymmetry-information specificity and hazard risk potential. First, we predicted that the asymmetry would be less evident for low versus high specificity information (risk management policies vs. concrete events). Second, we predicted that it would also be less evident for a low- versus high-risk hazard (pharmaceutical vs. nuclear industry). Study 1 reanalyzed Slovic's original trust asymmetry data for the nuclear industry. In line with Prediction 1, trust asymmetry was less evident for policy than event-related information. Using a new set of items with more clearly defined levels of specificity, Study 2 replicated and extended these findings for the high-risk hazard (nuclear power). In line with Prediction 2, trust asymmetry was even less evident for the low-risk hazard (pharmaceuticals). Positive policies in this industry actually had a greater impact on trust than negative ones, in contrast to previous findings. Results support an information diagnosticity account of earlier findings and suggest that trust in risk managers may be more robust than previously believed.     

Trust, Confidence, and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis

The 2008 global financial crisis has been compared to a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami," a disaster in which the loss of trust and confidence played key precipitating roles and the recovery from which will require the restoration of these crucial factors. Drawing on the analogy between the financial crisis and environmental and technological hazards, recent research on the role of trust and confidence in the latter is used to provide a perspective on the former. Whereas "trust" and "confidence" are used interchangeably and without explicit definition in most discussions of the financial crisis, this perspective uses the TCC model of cooperation to clearly distinguish between the two and to demonstrate how this distinction can lead to an improved understanding of the crisis. The roles of trust and confidence—both in precipitation and in possible recovery—are discussed for each of the three major sets of actors in the crisis, the regulators, the banks, and the public. The roles of trust and confidence in the larger context of risk management are also examined; trust being associated with political approaches, confidence with technical. Finally, the various stances that government can take with regard to trust—such as supportive or skeptical—are considered. Overall, it is argued that a clear understanding of trust and confidence and a close examination of the specific, concrete circumstances of a crisis—revealing when either trust or confidence is appropriate—can lead to useful insights for both recovery and prevention of future occurrences.     

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.     

社会化商务中基于经验及推荐的消费者感知信任模糊融合模型

社会化商务中消费者根据个人经验和他人推荐建立感知信任,是一种典型的信任融合问题。其中,相似性决定了过往个人经验和他人推荐对消费者感知信任的影响力,是信任融合问题中的主导因素。信任融合起源于计算机网络安全领域,国内外学者对此进行了大量研究,但在社会化商务背景下,消费者感知信任的模糊性和感知信任形成的多源性问题对信任融合模型提出新的挑战,带来相似性与感知信任度量难及多源信任融合难问题。针对上述问题,以基于案例的决策理论（CBDT）为基础构建由相似性引导的模型框架,结合直觉模糊集和多属性决策方法构建感知信任模糊融合模型。该模型将决策者的经验与他人推荐相融合,将多种方法相结合优势互补,对完善信任融合方法体系有贡献,对多学科交叉有意义,为传统电子商务平台制定精准营销策略提供新思路,为社会化商务商家预测消费者感知信任提供新的度量方法。     

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.     

A Holistic Framework for Trust in Online Transactions

This paper systematically reviews previous studies of trust from social, economic and technological perspectives and develops a holistic framework for trust, which can be used to analyse the establishment and maintenance of trust in online transactions, and identify the mechanisms that can be used to increase trust. Trust plays a crucial role in the formation of dependent relationships represented by online transactions, and a holistic treatment of trust is necessary because of the gap that exists between the developments in information systems and our understanding of their social and economic implications, and the impact on the perceived trust of the transacting parties. This review enables us to depict an online transaction through its attributes and context, and systematically map these to identified trust antecedents. The key components and processes of the framework are outlined, and three strands of empirical work are discussed to develop it further. The framework highlights the critical role of institutions in the establishment and maintenance of trust in online transactions, which informs the development of e‐commerce and e‐business platforms and the underpinning information systems, and facilitates the establishment of mechanisms to induce additional institutions to increase trust in online transactions.     

On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management

In this study, we empirically examine the relations between trust, fairness, and cooperation within two environmental risk management contexts, one in which the focal issue is of high personal moral importance and the other in which the focal issue is of low moral importance. Using an experimental design embedded in two parallel survey questionnaires, one mailed to residents of Washington State, the other to German‐speaking residents of Switzerland, we either manipulated or constructed three factors, issue importance (high/low), procedural fairness (fair/unfair), and policy outcome (risk averse/risk accepting). This design enabled us to compare the predictions of the standard account of procedural fairness, that trust and cooperation are determined by judgments of fairness, with the predictions of an alternative account, that trust and cooperation will be determined by judgments of procedural fairness only when the issue involved is not morally important. Results for the American case showed that under conditions of high issue importance, policy outcome affected judged fairness, trust, and cooperation. Under conditions of low issue importance, policy outcome had no effect on judged fairness or trust but did have a moderate impact on cooperation. Analyses also showed that when issue importance was high, procedural fairness had no effects. When issue importance was low, procedural fairness had moderate effects on judged fairness and trust. Results for the Swiss case replicated the main findings for the American case. Together, these results support the alternative model of the relation between trust and fairness, suggesting that the efficacy of fair procedures is strictly limited.     

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.     

Communication About Micropollutants in Drinking Water: Effects of the Presentation and Psychological Processes

This study investigates how people change their risk perception, trust, and behavior as a consequence of being informed about the occurrence of micropollutants in drinking water. Micropollutants are substances present in extremely low concentrations that might be dangerous in higher concentrations. Data were gathered in the city of Zurich, Switzerland in 2013 using a questionnaire in which the information on micropollutants was presented differently to 12 experimental groups. Data of the key constructs were gathered before and after this information, so that causal effects could be quantified by regression analyses. Affective reactions to the information turned out to be the critical mediator of changes in risk perception (operationalized as the perceived change of quality due to pollution), which is an important determinant of changes in behavior and trust. Also, direct effects of affective reactions on behavior and trust were observed. Trust before appraising risks reduces negative affective reactions; however, it also reduces perceived quality (i.e., increases risk perception) and trust after risks are appraised. The different forms of information mainly influenced the participants’ affective reactions, but they also influenced perceived quality. The presentation with the least negative effects was a comparison of the intake of the substance by water with intake by food. The experimental design with repeated measurement that considers trust as a determinant and consequence of risk perception uncovered positive and negative effects of trust before appraising risks on changes of risk perception and trust due to appraising risks.     

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.     

Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model

Residents in the State of Nevada hold strong opinions about the federal government's proposal to site the nation's first high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The model developed in this study is designed to examine the relationship between public perceptions of risk, trust in risk management, and potential economic impacts of the current repository program using a confirmatory multivariate method known as covariance structure analysis. The data used to test the model was collected in a 1989 statewide survey of Nevada residents. The results indicate that, for a statewide sample, perceptions of potential economic benefits do not have a significant role in predicting support or opposition to the repository program. On the other hand, risk perceptions and the level of trust in repository management are closely related to each other and to positions on Yucca Mountain. Trust directly influences risk perceptions which, in turn, have a direct effect on the attitude toward the repository, and an indirect effect through perceived stigma effects.     

Trust, confidence, procedural fairness, outcome fairness, moral conviction, and the acceptance of GM field experiments

In 2005, Swiss citizens endorsed a moratorium on gene technology, resulting in the prohibition of the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops and the growth of genetically modified animals until 2013. However, scientific research was not affected by this moratorium, and in 2008, GMO field experiments were conducted that allowed us to examine the factors that influence their acceptance by the public. In this study, trust and confidence items were analyzed using principal component analysis. The analysis revealed the following three factors: "economy/health and environment" (value similarity based trust), "trust and honesty of industry and scientists" (value similarity based trust), and "competence" (confidence). The results of a regression analysis showed that all the three factors significantly influenced the acceptance of GM field experiments. Furthermore, risk communication scholars have suggested that fairness also plays an important role in the acceptance of environmental hazards. We, therefore, included measures for outcome fairness and procedural fairness in our model. However, the impact of fairness may be moderated by moral conviction. That is, fairness may be significant for people for whom GMO is not an important issue, but not for people for whom GMO is an important issue. The regression analysis showed that, in addition to the trust and confidence factors, moral conviction, outcome fairness, and procedural fairness were significant predictors. The results suggest that the influence of procedural fairness is even stronger for persons having high moral convictions compared with persons having low moral convictions.     

The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk

Empirical examinations of the "social amplification of risk" framework are rare, partly because of the difficulties in predicting when conditions likely to result in amplification effects will occur. This means that it is difficult to examine changes in risk perception that are contemporaneous with increases and/or decreases in social or media discussion of the risks associated with a particular risk event. However, the collection of attitude data before, during, and after the increased reporting of the risks of genetically modified food in the United Kingdom (spring 1999) has demonstrated that people's risk perceptions do increase and decrease in line with what might be expected upon examination of the amplification and attenuation mechanisms integral to the framework. Perceptions of benefit, however, appeared to be permanently depressed by negative reporting about genetically modified food. Trust in regulatory institutions with responsibility for protecting the public was not affected. It was concluded that the social amplification of risk framework is a useful framework for beginning to explain the potential impact on risk perceptions of a risk event, particularly if that risk event is presented to the public as a new hazard occurring in a crisis context.     

How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster

Major nuclear accidents, such as the recent accident in Fukushima, Japan, have been shown to decrease the public's acceptance of nuclear power. However, little is known about how a serious accident affects people's acceptance of nuclear power and the determinants of acceptance. We conducted a longitudinal study (N= 790) in Switzerland: one survey was done five months before and one directly after the accident in Fukushima. We assessed acceptance, perceived risks, perceived benefits, and trust related to nuclear power stations. In our model, we assumed that both benefit and risk perceptions determine acceptance of nuclear power. We further hypothesized that trust influences benefit and risk perceptions and that trust before a disaster relates to trust after a disaster. Results showed that the acceptance and perceptions of nuclear power as well as its trust were more negative after the accident. In our model, perceived benefits and risks determined the acceptance of nuclear power stations both before and after Fukushima. Trust had strong effects on perceived benefits and risks, at both times. People's trust before Fukushima strongly influenced their trust after the accident. In addition, perceived benefits before Fukushima correlated with perceived benefits after the accident. Thus, the nuclear accident did not seem to have changed the relations between the determinants of acceptance. Even after a severe accident, the public may still consider the benefits as relevant, and trust remains important for determining their risk and benefit perceptions. A discussion of the benefits of nuclear power seems most likely to affect the public's acceptance of nuclear power, even after a nuclear accident.     

Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis1

So, we can argue that the lay public are not fools in their attitudes about risk. That nonexperts should show more concern over hazardous waste facilities in their neighborhoods than radon levels in their homes is not a sign of irrationality (because aggregate and individual risks are greater from the radon), but simply a sign that nonexperts are working from a different set of criteria. These criteria are incorporated in what I call the democratic model. The democratic model evaluates risk based on its social and political consequences, such as possible disruption in the social fabric or a loss of communality. Lay criteria for assessing the impact of risk decisions are not explicit, like the those of the risk analyst, but are embedded in cultural values. Similarly, lay evaluations of risk incorporate substantive and procedural democratic values, such as the acceptability of processes for making decisions, the ethics of the distribution of risk, and the capacity to control a source of risk in the community's interests. Finally, the democratic model relates judgments about risks to the competence (Can we trust them?) and the legitimacy (Should we trust them?) of the social institutions that impose and control those risks. The public's judgments about risk are not inferior, but different, and arguably richer than those of the experts.