IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v50y2017i4d10.1007_s11077-017-9298-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the sustained importance of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits in policy studies

Author

Listed:
  • Jale Tosun

    (Heidelberg University)

Abstract

This is a summary of the study by Baruch Fischhoff, Paul Slovic, Sarah Lichtenstein, Stephen Read and Barbara Combs, as well as a reflection on why the study has attracted sustained interest since its publication in Policy Sciences in 1978. The article’s contribution to the study of policy approaches to (new) technologies is threefold. First, it drew attention to the importance of public attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Second, the study has been crucial for the emergence of empirical investigations on decision-making. Third, the types of risks identified by the authors continue to be discussed in contemporary studies. The article demonstrates how issues relating to risk and risky decisions are able to stimulate a truly multi- and even interdisciplinary scientific discourse in which policy sciences play an important role. In terms of policy implications, Fischhoff and his collaborators have compellingly argued that citizens are more likely to accept a technological risk when they realize the benefit of the corresponding technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Jale Tosun, 2017. "On the sustained importance of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits in policy studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 563-572, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:50:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-017-9298-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-017-9298-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-017-9298-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-017-9298-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. MÃ¥ns Nilsson, 2005. "The Role of Assessments and Institutions for Policy Learning: A Study on Swedish Climate and Nuclear Policy Formation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 38(4), pages 225-249, December.
    2. Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible, 2017. "Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: a study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 179-193, June.
    3. Grace Skogstad, 2011. "Contested Accountability Claims and GMO Regulation in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(4), pages 895-915, July.
    4. Michael Howlett, 2014. "From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(3), pages 187-207, September.
    5. Ronald Herring & Robert Paarlberg, 2016. "The Political Economy of Biotechnology," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 397-416, October.
    6. Jale Tosun & Simon Schaub, 2017. "Mobilization in the European Public Sphere: The Struggle Over Genetically Modified Organisms," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(3), pages 310-330, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicole Lemke & Philipp Trein & Frédéric Varone, 2023. "Agenda-setting in nascent policy subsystems: issue and instrument priorities across venues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(4), pages 633-655, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ulrich Hartung, 2020. "Inside Lobbying on the Regulation of New Plant Breeding Techniques in the European Union: Determinants of Venue Choices," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 92-114, January.
    2. Jale Tosun & Herman Lelieveldt & Trevelyan S. Wing, 2019. "A Case of ‘Muddling Through’? The Politics of Renewing Glyphosate Authorization in the European Union," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    3. Vincent Smith & Justus H. H. Wesseler & David Zilberman, 2021. "New Plant Breeding Technologies: An Assessment of the Political Economy of the Regulatory Environment and Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Petia Kostadinova, 2015. "Improving the Transparency and Accountability of EU Institutions: The Impact of the Office of the European Ombudsman," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 1077-1093, September.
    5. Michael Howlett & Ishani Mukherjee, 2014. "Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(2), pages 57-71.
    6. Castellari, Elena & Soregaroli, Claudio & Venus, Thomas J. & Wesseler, Justus, 2018. "Food processor and retailer non-GMO standards in the US and EU and the driving role of regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 26-37.
    7. Kaidi Nõmmela & Kati Kõrbe Kaare, 2022. "Maritime Policy Design Framework with ESG Performance Approach: Case of Estonia," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Colebatch H.K., 2017. "Policy, learning and regime change: Western concepts and CEE experience," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 11(2), pages 2-10, December.
    9. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin & Zhonghua Li, 2020. "Determinants of Firm‐Level Lobbying and Government Responsiveness in Agricultural Biotechnology in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(2), pages 201-220, March.
    10. Elena Rosculete & Elena Bonciu & Catalin Aurelian Rosculete & Elena Teleanu, 2018. "Detection and Quantification of Genetically Modified Soybean in Some Food and Feed Products. A Case Study on Products Available on Romanian Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Andrea K. Gerlak & Tanya Heikkila & Sharon L. Smolinski & Dave Huitema & Derek Armitage, 2018. "Learning our way out of environmental policy problems: a review of the scholarship," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 335-371, September.
    12. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee, 2020. "Stakeholder framing, communicative interaction, and policy legitimacy: anti-smoking policy in South Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(4), pages 637-665, December.
    13. Araz Taeihagh, 2017. "Network-centric policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 317-338, June.
    14. Haiyan Deng & Ruifa Hu & Carl Pray & Yanhong Jin, 2019. "Perception and Attitude toward GM Technology among Agribusiness Managers in China as Producers and as Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, March.
    15. Polzin, Friedemann & Egli, Florian & Steffen, Bjarne & Schmidt, Tobias S., 2019. "How do policies mobilize private finance for renewable energy?—A systematic review with an investor perspective," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1249-1268.
    16. Grace Skogstad, 2020. "Mixed feedback dynamics and the USA renewable fuel standard: the roles of policy design and administrative agency," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 349-369, June.
    17. José Nederhand & Erik-Hans Klijn & Martijn Steen & Mark Twist, 2019. "The governance of self-organization: Which governance strategy do policy officials and citizens prefer?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 233-253, June.
    18. Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky & Michael K Adjemian, 2021. "Not All Thin Markets Are Alike: The Case of Organic and Non‐genetically Engineered Corn and Soybeans," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 117-133, February.
    19. Jain, Rekha, 2015. "A Model for Internet Governance and Implications for India," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-03-23, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    20. Matthew Retallack, 2020. "Paradigmatic policy change or unintended subordination of rural autonomy: the case of source water protection in Ontario, Canada," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(1), pages 85-100, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:50:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-017-9298-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.