Credibility and trust in risk communication

  • Ortwin Renn
  • Debra Levine
Part of the Technology, Risk, and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 4)

Abstract

Institutions and social actors involved in managing risk have to cope with the problem of legitimating their decisions and policies in a political arena, in which the major stakeholders are still defining their social role and in which the public is observing a confusing mix of controversial and often contradictory information. Furthermore, in spite of the newness of the new risk paradigm in society, two opposing camps have evolved: one supporting and promoting large technologies and further economic growth, and the other opposing large-scale technologies, supporting conservation efforts, and favoring a zero or low growth economy. In the cultural theory of risk these two groups have been labelled as center and periphery (Douglas and Wildavski 1982) or entrepreneurian and sectarian (Rayner and Cantor 1987). The two camps have formed their own institutions and support groups, and try to convince the general public that their perspective on risk is the one to pursue. The rigidity of their positions has polarized the public debate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, F.W. 1987. Towards a holistic appreciation of risk: The challenge for communicators and policymakers. Science, Technology, and Human Values 12 (Summer/Fall): 138–143.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. 1983. Abstract and concrete data in the perseverance of social theories: When weak data lead to unshakeable beliefs. Environmental Social Psychology 19: 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber, B. 1983. The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. 1986. Die Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt, a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  5. Betz, M. and L. O’Connell. 1983. Changing doctor-patient relations and the rise in concern for accountability. Social Problems 19 (October): 31–42.Google Scholar
  6. Blair, E.H. 1987. Discussion on responsibilities of risk communication. In: J.C. Davies, V.T. Covello, and F.W. Allen (eds), Risk communication. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation, 35–38.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, J. 1987. Biotechnology: public attitudes and policy implications. Paper presented to 6th Environmental Psychology Conference, University of California: Irvine, May 14th-16th.Google Scholar
  8. Burnham, J.C. 1982. American medicine’s golden age: What happened to it? Science 215 (March): 1474–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaiken, S. and C. Stangor. 1987. Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology 38: 575–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaiken, S. 1980. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology 39: 752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cotton, J.L. 1985. Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure. In D. Zillman and J. Byrant (eds), Selective exposure to communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 11–33.Google Scholar
  12. Covello, V.T. 1983. The perception of technological risks: A literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 23: 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Covello, V.T., D. von Winterfeldt and P. Slovic. 1986. Risk communication: A review of the literature. Risk Abstracts 3(4): 171–182.Google Scholar
  14. Covello, V.T. 1987. Risk comparisons, risk communication, and public perceptions of risk: Issues and approaches. Manuscript. Washington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Crawford, M. 1986. Larger public sector role sought on biotech. Science 232 (April): 15–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douglas, M. 1985. Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. Douglas, M. and A. Wildavsky. 1982. Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Deutsch, M. 1973. The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Durkheim, E. 1933 (orig. 1893). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Eagly, A.H., S. Chaiken and W. Wood. 1981. An attribution analysis of persuasion. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes, and R.F. Kidd (eds.), New directions in attribution research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 37–62.Google Scholar
  21. Eagly, A.H. and S. Chaiken. 1984. Cognitive theories of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 17: 268–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Einhorn, H.J. and R.M. Hogarth. 1978. Confidence in judgment: Persistence in the illusion of validity. Psychological Review 85: 395–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fazio, R.H., M.P. Zanna and J. Cooper. 1977. Dissonance and self-perception: An integrative view of each theory’s proper domain of application. Experimental Social Psychology 13: 464–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fishbein, M. and J. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  26. Fischhoff, B., S. Lichtenstein, P. Slovic, S. Derby and R. Keeney. 1982. Acceptable risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Frey, D. 1986. Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19: 41–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Goldoftas, B. 1982. Recombinant DNA: The ups and downs of regulation. Technology Review (May/June): 29–34.Google Scholar
  30. Gricar, B. and A. J. Baratta. 1983. Bridging the information gap at Three Mile Island: Radiation monitoring by citizens. Applied Behavioral Science 19. No. 1 (January): 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hance, B.J., C. Chess and Peter Sandman (eds.). 1988. Improving Dialogue with Communities. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.Google Scholar
  32. Heesacker, M., R.E. Petty and J.T. Cacioppo. 1983. Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. Personality and Social Psychology 51: 401–413.Google Scholar
  33. Hoos, I.1980. Risk assessment in social perspective. In National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (ed), Perceptions of risk. Washington, DC: NCR, 37–85.Google Scholar
  34. Hovland, C.I. and W. Weiss. 1967. The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. In R.L. Rosnow and E.J. Robinson (eds), Experiments in persuasion. New York, NY: Academic Press, 9–24.Google Scholar
  35. Huber, J. 1984. Die verlorene Unschuld der Ökologie. Frankfurt/M.Google Scholar
  36. Jungermann, H. 1982. Zur Wahrnehmung und Akzeptierung des Risikos von Großtechnologien. Psychologische Rundschau 33: 217–238.Google Scholar
  37. Jungermann, H. and R.S. May. 1988. Die psychologische Kognition und Evaluation von Risiko. In G. Bechmann (ed), Risiko und Gesellschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Kahneman, K. and A. Tversky. 1974. Judgement under uncertainty heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kasperson, R.E., O. Renn, P. Slovic et al. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 8(2) (August): 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kasperson, R.E. 1987. Trust and credibility: The central issue? In: J.C. Davies, V.T. Covello, and F.W. Allen (eds), Risk Communication Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 43–46.Google Scholar
  41. Kasperson, R.E. and I. Palmlund. 1987. Evaluating risk communication. Unpublished Manuscript Worcester, MA. Kasperson, R.E. 1986. Six propositions for public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6(3): 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaz, D., B.A. Gatek, R.L. Kahn and E. Barton. 1975. Bureaucratic encounters. Institute for Social Research, Ann Harbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  43. Keeney, R.L. and D. von Winterfeldt. 1986. Improving risk communication. Risk Analysis 6: 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krieger, J.H. 1982. Public acceptance of nuclear power declining. Chemical and Engineering News, 1 (January 18): 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. LaPorte, T.R. and D. Metlay. 1975. Technology observed: Attitudes of a wary public. Science 188 (April): 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lee, T.R. 1986. Effective communication of information about chemical hazards. The Science of the Total Environment 51: 149–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lichter, R.S. and S. Rothman. 1983. Scientists’ attitudes towards nuclear energy. Nature 305 (September).Google Scholar
  48. Lipset, S.M., and W. Schneider. 1983. The confidence gap: business, labor, and government, in the public mind. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  49. Luhmann, N. 1986. Ökologische Kommunikation. Westdeutscher Verlag: Opladen.Google Scholar
  50. Luhmann, N. 1980. Trust and power. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Luhmann, N. 1973. Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität, 2. Edition Enke: Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  52. Lynn, F.M. 1986. The interplay of science and values in assessing and regulating environmental risks. Science, Technology, and Human Values 11 (Spring): 40–50.Google Scholar
  53. Matejko, A.J. 1988. The sociotechnical perspective on trust at work. Speyer er Arbeitshefte 86: 1–251.Google Scholar
  54. Meinefeld, W 1977. Einstellung und soziales Handeln. Reinbek, FRG: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
  55. McCallum, D. 1987. Risk factors for cardiovascular disease: Cholesterol, salt, and high blood pressure. In J.C. Davies, V.T. Covello, and F.W. Allen (eds), Risk communication. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 67–70.Google Scholar
  56. McCormick, D. 1985. What public debate? Biotechnology 3 (November): 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McGuire, W.J. 1985. Attitude and attitude change. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds), Handbook of social psychology, 3rd edition, New York: Random House 2: 223–346.Google Scholar
  58. McKenzie, R.B., and W. F. Shughart II. 1987. Deregulation and air travel safety. Regulation 3/4: 40–51.Google Scholar
  59. Midden, C. 1988, Credibility and risk communication. Paper for the International Workshop on Risk Communication, October 17–20, 1988. Jülich: Nuclear Research Center.Google Scholar
  60. Parker, L. 1988. Safety board hearings focusing public attention rather than solving crisis. Washington Post (July 29): A23.Google Scholar
  61. Parsons, T.E. 1960. Pattern variables revisited. American Sociological Review 25: 467–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Parsons, T.E. and E.A. Shils (eds). 1951. Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Perrow, C. 1984. Normal accidents. New York,: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  64. Peters, H.P., G. Albrecht, L. Hennen and H.U. Stegelmann. 1987. Die Reaktionen der Bevölkerung auf die Ereignisse in Tschernobyl. Ergebnisse einer Befragung. Report of the Nuclear Research Center, Jülich, F.R.G., Jül-Spez-400 (KFA: May 1987).Google Scholar
  65. Petty, R.E. and E. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19:123–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pinsdorf, M. 1987. Communicating when your company is under siege. Lexington, MA, and Toronto, Canada: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  67. Pion, G.M. and M. W. Lipsey. 1981. Public attitudes toward science and technology: What have the surveys told us? Public Opinion Quarterly 45: 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Public attitudes toward nuclear power. Public Opinion Index 10 (October 1983): 1–12.Google Scholar
  69. Rayner, S. 1987. Risk and relativism in science for policy. In B.B. Johnson and V.T. Covello (eds), The social and cultural construction of risk. New York: Reidel.Google Scholar
  70. Rayner, S. and R. Cantor. 1987. How fair is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Analysis 7: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rempel, J.K., J.G. Holmes and M.P. Zanna. 1985. Trust in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology 49: 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rempel, J.K. and J.G. Holmes 1986. How do I trust thee? Psychology Today 2 (February): 28–34.Google Scholar
  73. Renn, O. 1987. Evaluation of risk communication: Concepts, strategies, and guidelines. In Managing environmental risks; Proceedings of an APCA International Speciality Conference in Washington D.C., October 1987. Washington, DC: APCA, 99–127.Google Scholar
  74. Renn, O. 1986. Akzeptanzforschung: Technik in der gesellschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung. Chemie in unserer Zeit 2: 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Renn, O. 1984. Risikowahrnehmung der Kernenergie. New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  76. Rokeach, M. 1969. Beliefs, attitudes, and values. Berkeley: California University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Rosnow, R.L. and E.J. Robinson (eds). 1967. Experiments in persuasion. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  78. Rourke, F.E., L. Free and W. Watts. 1976. Trust and confidence in the American system. Washington, DC: Potomac Assoc.Google Scholar
  79. Rotte, J.B. 1980. Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist 35: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Scanzoni, J. Social exchange and behavioral interdependence. In R.L. Burgess and T.L. Huston (eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  81. Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  82. Sheridan, T.B. 1985. Trustworthiness of command and control systems. Unpublished Manuscript. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ortwin Renn
  • Debra Levine

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations