Literature DB >> 20522197

Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research.

Timothy C Earle1.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 20522197     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01398.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  15 in total

1.  Public acceptance of wildland fire and fuel management: panel responses in seven locations.

Authors:  Eric Toman; Bruce Shindler; Sarah McCaffrey; James Bennett
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Reputation offsets trust judgments based on social biases among Airbnb users.

Authors:  Bruno Abrahao; Paolo Parigi; Alok Gupta; Karen S Cook
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Trust in Whom? Dioxin, Organizations, Risk Perception, and Fish Consumption in Michigan's Saginaw Bay Watershed.

Authors:  Joseph A Hamm; J Cox; G Zwickle; J Zhuang; S Cruz; B L Upham; M Chung; J W Dearing
Journal:  J Risk Res       Date:  2018-10-11

4.  Social capital and health-protective behavior intentions in an influenza pandemic.

Authors:  Ying-Chih Chuang; Ya-Li Huang; Kuo-Chien Tseng; Chia-Hsin Yen; Lin-hui Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: a cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes.

Authors:  Adam Capon; James Gillespie; Margaret Rolfe; Wayne Smith
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2015-04-26       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Avian influenza A/H7N9 risk perception, information trust and adoption of protective behaviours among poultry farmers in Jiangsu Province, China.

Authors:  Bin Cui; Qiuyan Liao; Wendy Wing Tak Lam; Zong Ping Liu; Richard Fielding
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.295

7.  Psychological Factors Affecting Risk Perception of COVID-19: Evidence from Peru and China.

Authors:  Fredy S Monge-Rodríguez; He Jiang; Liwei Zhang; Andy Alvarado-Yepez; Anahí Cardona-Rivero; Enma Huaman-Chulluncuy; Analy Torres-Mejía
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  The effect of social trust on citizens’ health risk perception in the context of a petrochemical industrial complex.

Authors:  Miguel Angel López-Navarro; Jaume Llorens-Monzonís; Vicente Tortosa-Edo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Consumer adoption of personalised nutrition services from the perspective of a risk-benefit trade-off.

Authors:  Aleksandra Berezowska; Arnout R H Fischer; Amber Ronteltap; Ivo A van der Lans; Hans C M van Trijp
Journal:  Genes Nutr       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 5.523

10.  Risk communication and trust in decision-maker action: a case study of the Giant Mine Remediation Plan.

Authors:  Cynthia G Jardine; Laura Banfield; S Michelle Driedger; Christopher M Furgal
Journal:  Int J Circumpolar Health       Date:  2013-08-05       Impact factor: 1.228

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.