Premium
Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research
Author(s) -
Earle Timothy C.
Publication year - 2010
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.1539-6924.2010.01398.x
Subject(s) - risk management , field (mathematics) , empirical research , knowledge management , function (biology) , trust management (information system) , psychology , management science , computer science , epistemology , business , engineering , computer security , philosophy , mathematics , finance , evolutionary biology , pure mathematics , biology
This review of studies of trust in risk management was designed, in part, to examine the relations between the reviewed research and the consensus model of trust that has recently emerged in other fields of study. The review begins by briefly elaborating the consensus views on the dimensionality and function of trust. It then describes the various models of trust that have been developed in the field of risk management, comparing them with the consensus approach. The findings of previous reviews are outlined, followed by a delineation of the open questions addressed by the present review, the method used, and the results. Finally, the findings of the review are discussed in relation to the important issue of trust asymmetry, the role of trust in risk management, and directions for future research. The consensus model specifies two conceptualizations of trust, each linked to particular types of antecedents. Relational trust, which is called trust in this review, is based on the relations between the trusting person and the other. Calculative trust, which is called confidence , is based on past behavior of the other and/or on constraints on future behavior. Results of this review showed that most studies of trust in risk management, while exploring matters of particular concern to the risk management community, were at least in part consistent with the consensus model. The review concludes by urging greater integration between the concerns of the former and the insights of the latter.