Premium
Information Specificity and Hazard Risk Potential as Moderators of Trust Asymmetry
Author(s) -
White Mathew P.,
Richard Eiser J.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
risk analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.972
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1539-6924
pISSN - 0272-4332
DOI - 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00659.x
Subject(s) - hazard , information asymmetry , risk analysis (engineering) , risk assessment , asymmetry , actuarial science , psychology , computer science , environmental health , computer security , business , medicine , physics , chemistry , organic chemistry , finance , quantum mechanics
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.