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

Abstract

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 Zurich 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.

Consumer’s stated trust in the food industry and meat purchases

“…Two important characteristics of trust are a consumer's willingness to accept personal vulnerability (Rousseau et al 1998), and -linked to this -to rely upon others (Cvetkovich et al 2002). Siegrist, Cvetkovich and Roth (2000) defined trust as "the willingness to rely on those who have the responsibility for making decisions and taking actions related to the management of [...] public health and safety". Although trust consists of multiple dimensions, such as competence, openness, honesty, care, or fairness (Frewer et al 1996;Johnson 1999;Poortinga and Pidgeon 2003;Renn and Levine 1991), a distinction can be made between two main trust concepts: relational and calculative trust (Earle 2010).…”

Societal Risk Perception in Present Day Russia

“…The only marked differences between men and women concerned the risks associated with domestic activities and public transportation (see also Barke et al 1997;, and the only differences between artists and scientists concerned health risks. Among the other personal dimensions considered one can cite income (e .g., Flynn et al 1994;Palmer 2003), religious orientation (e .g., af Wahlberg 2002), political preferences (e .g., Sjöberg 2000), risk attitude (e .g., Vollrath et al 1999;Sjöberg 2003), values (e .g., Sjöberg 2000), social trust (e .g., Vicklund 2003Siegrist et al 2000), anxiety (e .g., Bouyer et al 2001;Källmén 2000), self-efficacy (e .g., Kouabenan 1998;Källmén 2000), locus of control (e .g., Källmén 2000), worldviews (e .g., Bouyer et al 2001;Brenot et al 1998), and classical personality factors (e .g., Sjöberg 2003). Typically, the part of the variance in risk assessment explained by all these personal factors has proven to be low (Sjöberg 2003).…”

The Multidimensionality of Trust: Applications in Collaborative Natural Resource Management

“…Trust has repeatedly been identified as an important element of multiple forms of natural resource management processes and outcomes (Beierle and Konisky 2000;Davenport et al 2007;Siegrist et al 2000;Smith et al 2013). For example, in a study of national parks in the United States and Ecuador, trust in protected areas authorities proved to be a key predictor of compliance with park regulations, with distrust predicting noncompliance (Stern 2008a).…”

“…For example, Stern (2008b) distinguishes between social trust and rational trust, defining social trust as that based upon perceptions of shared values, identities, and experiences with a potential trustee, and rational trust as that based on evaluations of expected outcomes of a relationship. Meanwhile, others define social trust as a more general willingness to rely on those who have the responsibility for making decisions (Cvetkovich and Winter 2003;Siegrist et al 2000;Vaske et al 2007), regardless of how it comes about. Still others refer to trust as a singular concept without clear definition or explanation of its multiple potential dimensions (e.g., Beierle and Konisky 2000).…”