IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v10y2007i2p223-237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trust in a High-concern Risk Controversy: A Comparison of Three Concepts

Author

Listed:
  • George Cvetkovich
  • Kazuya Nakayachi-super-1

Abstract

A community survey examined factors affecting the trust of four groups involved in a high concern controversy over the risks posed by motor boats to the quality of a municipal water supply. In an effort at conceptual integration the survey results were used to examine the relationships between three concepts of trust. Perceived agreement in values between self and four controversy-involved groups was found to be the most powerful predictor of trust of all four groups, as expected by the salient value similarity perspective. "Fairness" and "competency," as expected by the "dimensions" of trust perspective were also found to be significant predictors of trust. However, judgments of "fairness" and "competency" were context specific as indicated by significant correlations with judgments of salient value similarity and self interests. This violates the assumption of universality of the "dimensions" of trust perspective. Judgments of similarity of values between self and the controversy-involved groups were significantly correlated to self interests. This indicates a conceptual overlap between the salient values similarities perspective and the encapsulated trust perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • George Cvetkovich & Kazuya Nakayachi-super-1, 2007. "Trust in a High-concern Risk Controversy: A Comparison of Three Concepts," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 223-237, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:10:y:2007:i:2:p:223-237
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870601122519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870601122519
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870601122519?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Stoutenborough, James W. & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2016. "The role of scientific knowledge in the public's perceptions of energy technology risks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 206-216.
    2. Stacey M. Conchie & Calvin Burns, 2009. "Improving occupational safety: using a trusted information source to communicate about risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 13-25, January.
    3. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:jriskr:v:10:y:2007:i:2:p:223-237. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.