IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i5p1018-1036.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas

Author

Listed:
  • Creed Tumlison
  • Rachael M. Moyer
  • Geoboo Song

Abstract

The debate over an installation of high‐voltage power lines (HVPLs) has been intense, particularly in northwest Arkansas. Detractors claim that the installation will negatively affect both the natural environment and the local economy, which contains a large tourism component. By contrast, those in favor of installing HVPLs claim that the installation is necessary in order to reliably support the increasing demand for electric power. Using original data collected from a recent statewide Internet survey of 420 local policy elites in Arkansas, this article focuses on two key aspects. First, we examine how local policy elites’ perceptions of risks versus benefits of HVPL installation in their communities are influenced by their levels of trust toward information provided by various sources (e.g., energy industry, environmental groups, and government). Second, we utilize cultural theory to explain how the cultural worldviews of policy elites––specifically, egalitarianism, individualism, hierarchism, and fatalism––shape these levels of trust and HVPL benefit‐risk perceptions, while controlling for other factors claimed by previous literature, including levels of knowledge on energy‐related issues and demographic characteristics. In general, our analysis indicates that policy elites’ value‐oriented formation of HVPL benefit‐risk perceptions is partially due to the influence cultural values have on trust in information sources. We conclude this article by discussing broader implications for the origin and role of trust in policy elites’ decisions throughout the policy‐making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:5:p:1018-1036
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12662
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12662?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    2. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    3. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    4. James Flynn & William Burns & C.K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 417-429, September.
    5. Gene Rowe & George Wright, 2001. "Differences in Expert and Lay Judgments of Risk: Myth or Reality?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(2), pages 341-356, April.
    6. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    7. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    8. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    9. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    10. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    11. Susanne Rippl, 2002. "Cultural theory and risk perception: a proposal for a better measurement," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 147-165, April.
    12. Mattias J. Viklund, 2003. "Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross‐National Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 727-738, August.
    13. Branden B. Johnson & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 485-494, August.
    14. Lennart Sjöberg, 2002. "Are Received Risk Perception Models Alive and Well?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 665-669, August.
    15. Joseph T. Ripberger & Geoboo Song & Matthew C. Nowlin & Michael D. Jones & Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, 2012. "Reconsidering the Relationship Between Cultural Theory, Political Ideology, and Political Knowledge," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 93(3), pages 713-731, September.
    16. Brady, Henry E. & Sniderman, Paul M., 1985. "Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1061-1078, December.
    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. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.

    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. Creed Tumlison & Geoboo Song, 2019. "Cultural Values, Trust, and Benefit‐Risk Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Elites and the General Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 511-534, March.
    2. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    3. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    4. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Hans Kastenholz & Silvia Frey & Arnim Wiek, 2007. "Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 59-69, February.
    6. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    7. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    8. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    9. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    10. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    11. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    12. Yi Ge & Guangfei Yang & Xiaotao Wang & Wen Dou & Xueer Lu & Jie Mao, 2021. "Understanding risk perception from floods: a case study from China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(3), pages 3119-3140, February.
    13. Zhou, Lingyi & Dai, Yixin, 2020. "Which is more effective in China? How communication tools influence public acceptance of nuclear power energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    14. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    15. Jinan N. Allan & Joseph T. Ripberger & Wesley Wehde & Makenzie Krocak & Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith, 2020. "Geographic Distributions of Extreme Weather Risk Perceptions in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2498-2508, December.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    17. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    18. Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2016. "Understanding Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions on the Benefits and Risks Associated with High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1983-1999, October.
    19. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    20. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2024. "Scale reliability of alternative cultural theory survey measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 527-557, 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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:5:p:1018-1036. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.