IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v9y2006i6p605-622.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Comparative Ratings and Constituent Facets of Public Trust in Risk Regulatory Bodies and Related Stakeholder Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Weyman
  • Nicholas Pidgeon
  • John Walls
  • Tom Horlick‐Jones

Abstract

This paper reports on two comparative ranking tasks performed by a sample of the British citizens (N = 304). The first was designed to compare levels of relative trust vested in a sample of UK risk regulatory bodies and associated stakeholder groups. The second sought to elicit a ranking of a range of previously identified facets of social trust referenced to their desirability as attributes of a government funded risk regulatory body. The ranking tasks were embedded within a broader programme of research focused on “Evaluating public understandings of and trust in the Health and Safety Executive” (Pidgeon et al., 2003). It is argued that deriving rankings of multi‐faceted phenomena using the method of paired comparisons offers a more robust approach to rating social trust entities than the direct ranking techniques used in previous studies in this area. Results are discussed with reference to qualitative findings from the broader programme of work on public trust in HSE (Pidgeon et al., 2003) and the wider literature on public trust in risk regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Weyman & Nicholas Pidgeon & John Walls & Tom Horlick‐Jones, 2006. "Exploring Comparative Ratings and Constituent Facets of Public Trust in Risk Regulatory Bodies and Related Stakeholder Groups," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 605-622.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:9:y:2006:i:6:p:605-622
    DOI: 10.1080/13669870600799812
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669870600799812
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669870600799812?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. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    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. Jianghe Niu & Ziqiang Xin & Nico Martins, 2010. "Trust Discrimination Tendency in Average Citizens at In-nation and Out-nation Levels in Canada, China and the United States," International Journal of Psychological Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 2(1), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    5. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    6. Kevin Fox Gotham & Richard Campanella & Katie Lauve‐Moon & Bradford Powers, 2018. "Hazard Experience, Geophysical Vulnerability, and Flood Risk Perceptions in a Postdisaster City, the Case of New Orleans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 345-356, February.

    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:9:y:2006:i:6:p:605-622. 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.