How to trust? The importance of self‐efficacy and social trust in public responses to industrial risks

Abstract

Although a great deal of research has linked both self-efficacy and social trust to risk responses, one overlooked question concerns the association between selfefficacy and institutional trust. The purpose of this study was to investigate the main and combined effects of trust in the self and trust in responsible agencies to affective responses and information sufficiency. Survey respondents in this study were placed into one of four categories based on their levels of self-efficacy (high/ low) and social trust (high/low), including confidence, independence, dependence and insecure groups. Based on survey data (n5466), the accuracy of the fourgroup classification was tested. Indeed, we found that our classification system correlated with responses. Both self-efficacy and institutional trust were found to contribute to emotional risk responses, as well as risk information needs and preferences for risk information.

Analyzing Consumers' Reactions to News Coverage of the 2011 Escherichia coli O104:H4 Outbreak, Using the Extended Parallel Processing Model

“…However, when trust was low, a higher negative affect was found than when trust was high. These results are in line with previous research on risk communication (26,37,43,45,47) and stress the important, moderating role of trust. When trust was high, it mitigated the way the message was being perceived, leading to better message acceptance and the resulting behavioral intentions.…”

“…Breakwell (6) stated that an information source that is believed to be expert, unbiased, and not sensationalizing will be most trusted. Research shows that respondents get confused when there are many different sources, and they need to have one information point providing easily accessible information (3 , 4,27,47).…”

The Effect of Social Trust on Citizens’ Health Risk Perception in the Context of a Petrochemical Industrial Complex

“…Consequently, risk perception is not just a matter of objective risk evaluation (typically based on the demonstrable probability of coming to harm, together with the severity of possible outcomes). The predominant paradigm in risk perception is that people are heavily dependent on industries and on the public institutions responsible for risk management in protecting citizens from possible harm [21]. A general assumption is that most people do not have sufficient knowledge of science and technology to be capable of judging risks, costs and benefits [40].…”

“…For example, ter Huurne and Gutteling [21], when evaluating the responses of citizens towards industrial risks consider “institutional trust”, and include into this construct the trust of individuals in public institutions as well as the trust in the industry. Also Siegrist et al [20], when operationalized “social trust”, they refer to the trust in both kinds of organizations, ultimately responsible for the proper management of risks.…”

“…However research in trust in this context is highly fragmented and it has generated conflicting results and calls for additional examination. When literature refers to the social trust, it is common to include trust in industry and trust in public institutions within the same construct (see, for example [20,21]), although some studies [15,16,22], consider separately both types of trust, as two different variables. Industry and public institutions are organizations that are responsible for risk management and communication although citizens’ trust in each one derives from a different conception.…”