Creating conditions for critical trust – How an uncertainty-based risk perspective relates to dimensions and types of trust

Fjæran, Lisbet; Aven, Terje

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105008

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The third strategy involves shifting trust over time depending on the attractiveness of communication sources (Fjaeran & Aven, 2021). This strategy has been termed reliance on vagabond trust (Renn, 2005; 2019).…”

Section: Perceptions Of Systemic Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Perception of Systemic Risks

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article distinguishes between two types of risks: conventional and systemic risks. Conventional risks can be contained in space and time, follow linear cause–effect relationships and can be addressed with effective and pointed interventions into the cause–effect chain. Systemic risks, however, are characterized by high complexity, transboundary effects, stochastic relationships, nonlinear cause–effect patterns with tipping points, and are often associated with less public attention than they require. The article addresses the reasons why systemic risks seem to be attenuated in public perception. The article goes on to consider how the social amplification of risk framework is useful in the context of systemic risks and describes needed extensions of that framework. It identifies practical tools for assessing the significance of perceptions for systemic risk situations. Finally, it argues that a graphic representation and simulation of evolving systemic risks and potential countermeasures as well as a participatory deliberative approach of inclusive risk governance are suitable governance strategies for preventing, mitigating, or managing systemic risks.

show abstract

Section: Perceptions Of Systemic Risksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Perception of Systemic Risks

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Transparency is important in risk assessment and even more in RBA, which entails a higher level of complexity. Under this respect, it is worthwhile to mention the paper by Fjaeran and Aven ( 76 ): pivoting on a FEEDAP opinion as a case study, the authors highlight the importance of the “trust” and “distrust” components in the role of risk assessment. Assessors can act to improve conditions of trust by adopting an understanding of risk, stressing uncertainty and knowledge aspects when conceptualizing and characterizing risk; according to the authors, acknowledging the existence of societal “distrust” toward risk assessment and responding to it, can become a resource in order to build a “critical trust.”…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk-Benefit Assessment of Feed Additives in the One Health Perspective

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safety and sustainability of animal feeds is a pillar of the safety of the entire food chain. Feed additive assessment incorporates consumer safety as well as animal health and welfare, which, in turn, can affect productivity and hence food security. The safety of feed users and the environment are other important components of the assessment process which, therefore, builds on a One Health perspective. In several instances the assessment entails a balanced assessment of benefits and risks for humans, animals and/or the environment. Three case studies are selected to discuss issues for a consistent framework on Risk-Benefit Assessment (RBA) of feed additives, based on EFSA opinions and literature: (a) Supplementation of feeds with trace elements with recognized human toxicity (cobalt, iodine) - RBA question: can use levels, hence human exposure, be reduced without increasing the risk of deficiency in animals?; (b) Aflatoxin binders in dairy animals - RBA question: can the use reduce the risk for human health due to aflatoxin M1, without unexpected adverse effects for animals or humans?; (c) Use of formaldehyde as preservative in feedstuffs to prevent microbial contamination - RBA question: is the reduction of microbiological risks outweighed by risks for the consumers, farmed animals or the workers? The case studies indicate that the safety of use of feed additives can involve RBA considerations which fit into a One Health perspective. As in other RBA circumstances, the main issues are defining the question and finding “metrics” that allow a R/B comparison; in the case of feed additives, R and B may concern different species (farm animals and humans). A robust assessment of animal requirements, together with sustainability considerations, might be a significant driving force for a RBA leading to a safe and effective use.

show abstract

“…Rai, Reeves, and Margolis (2016, p. 504) found that more than 50% of prospective PV customers considered the installer's opinion very important or even extremely important. Since trust presupposes a risk situation (Fjaeran & Aven, 2021; Luhmann, 1988), the study also inquired about perceived risk in the context of trust in people involved. A meta‐analysis conducted by Li et al (2020, p. 90) found a direct negative relationship between perceived risk and purchase behavior.…”

Section: Literature Review and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How higher‐order personal values affect the purchase of electricity storage—Evidence from the German photovoltaic market

Poier

Nikodemska‐Wołowik

Suchanek

2022

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do consumers make different decisions even when socioeconomic conditions are similar? The present article examines the effects of human values-as formulations of motivational goals-on the decision to purchase electricity storage for a photovoltaic system, a phenomenon hardly explored in prior research regarding highpriced household investments. About 50 percent of photovoltaic-system owners in Germany are also owners of an electricity storage. This study aims to explore the more deeply rooted motivational factors behind these different decisions to extend our understanding of consumers' decision-making processes regarding energyefficiency investments. It is based on an online survey of 460 owners of residential photovoltaic systems in Germany in 2019 and focuses on the interplay between higher-order values, purchase decisions, perceived risk, and environmental concern.The analysis of the higher-order values showed direct effects of conservation and self-transcendence and indirect effects of openness to change and self-enhancement, both mediated by perceived risk.

show abstract

Creating conditions for critical trust – How an uncertainty-based risk perspective relates to dimensions and types of trust

Cited by 28 publications

References 60 publications

Social Perception of Systemic Risks

Social Perception of Systemic Risks

Risk-Benefit Assessment of Feed Additives in the One Health Perspective

How higher‐order personal values affect the purchase of electricity storage—Evidence from the German photovoltaic market

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About