Transcript Determinants of trust in environmental risk

The Determinants of Environmental
Risk Perception and Trust
in Environmental Risk Regulation
Bo-Kyeong Kim
[email protected]
Contents
 Introduction
 Definition of risk communication
 Background of the research
 Motivation & Overview
 Literature review








Determinants of trust in environmental risk communication
Two factor model of trust
Salient Value Similarity
Associationist view
Mass communication and interpersonal communication
Information Amount | knowledge deficit model
Perceived efficacy
Media exposure
 Hypothesis
 Future work
2
Introduction
Risk communication
 Risk communication has been defined as a purposeful exchange of
information and opinion among individuals, groups, or organizations
regarding health or environmental hazards. (Lundgren, 1994)
 The contemporary approach to risk communication goes beyond
alerting or reassuring the public about potential environmental hazards.
 It involves stimulating interest in environmental health issues,
increasing public knowledge, and involving citizens in decision making.
(Trettin et al. 2000)
4
Background
 We are living in a flood of information and as the IT technology
developed, we get a lot of information from many sources.
Environmental risk information is the one.
 Level of risks that a person perceive about environmental risk issues,
can be different by the information source(media channel), quality and
the amount of information received and for many other reasons.
 After the perceived risk about environmental risk issue set in one’s
mind, a person’s reaction toward the government’s regulation on that
issue can be different.
Motivation
 Risk communication area has been studied for more than 30 years. The
factors that influence risk perceptions, and the determinants of trust in
risk communication and also risk regulation had been studied by many
scholars.
 There are not enough previous risk communication researches that
include recent new media channels such as SNSs, internet news
articles.
 Also, previous risk communication studies that include SNS as media
channels, those studies did not dealt with various kinds of
environmental risk issues. Most of the studies focused on the one
specific environmental risk issues.
 Therefore in this study, efforts to reflect the influence of the new media
channels and by dealing with different kinds of environmental risk
issues, more in-depth research will be expected.
 1) Reflect the influence of the new media channels to the environmental
risk communication
 2) Include different kinds of environmental risk issues
6
Overview
 Objective of this research is to find the factors that determine the risk
perception on certain environmental issues and later on intention to
accept government regulations.
 The determinants of risk perception will be primarily based on the
information channels, information amount and media exposure.
 And mechanism to trust in government regulation will be based on the
associationist view and SVS theory.
7
Literature review
Literature review (1)
 Determinants of trust in environmental risk communication
 During the late 1980s, Kasperson first suggested three factors underlying trust in
risk managers: perceptions of competence, absence of bias, and caring and
commitment to due process. (R.E.Kasperson, 1986) Later Kasperson et al. added
to this list “predictability” as a fourth factor.
 Renn and Levine proposed five components of trust relevant to risk perception:
competence, objectivity, fairness, consistency and faith. (Renn, O., &Levine, D.,
1991)
 Covello proposed four components: caring and empathy, dedication and
commitment, competence and expertise, and honesty and oppenness. (Covello, V.,
1993)
 Trust was thought of as complex and multifaceted. (R.E.Kasperson, 1992)
 Perceptions of trust are dependent on ‘knowledge and expertise’, ‘openness and
honesty’, and the ‘concern and care’. (Richard et al., 1997)
9
Literature review (2)
 Two-Factor Model of trust
 Trust is a two-dimensional concept; general trust worthiness and
competence/vested interests . (Frewer et al., 1996 Metlay ,1999)
 Metlay is rather critical of the notion that there are a large number of generalizable
dimensions of trust in risk management actors. (Metlay,D., 1999)
 Using exploratory factor analysis, Metlay’s results indicate that one factor means
caring factors-an affective dimension of general trustworthiness. One other factor
means competence or expertise.
 Frewer et al. asked respondents to generate reasons for trusting or distrusting
sources of information about food risks. (Frewer et al., 1995)
 Two factors were found. The first one combined competence and care aspects of
trust, and the second one was not easily interpreted.
10
Literature review (3)
 Associationist view
 Trust is an expression or indicator of a more general attitude toward the
environmental risk issues. People with strong preconceived ideas may not change
their existing attitudes and attributions of trust easily. (Poortinga, 2005)
 The importance of prior attitudes for people’s expressed trust is recognized
increasingly in the field of risk research.
 For example, Frewer, Howard, and Shepherd(1998) found that respondents with a
more positive attitude toward genetic engineering not only evaluated information
about the benefits of genetic engineering more favorably, but also viewed the
information sources as more knowledgeable and trustworthy than did people with
less favourable attitudes.
11
Literature review (4)
 Salient value similarity
 According to Earle and Cvetkovich, social trust is particularly critical where complex
socio technical systems generate risks that are remote from everyday experience.
 However, most people will not have resources or interest to make a detailed
assessment of whether or not it is worthwhile to trust a particular institution.
 Under complex circumstances, people base their trust judgments on whether they
feel that the other person or organization has the similar values. (Earle and
Cvetkovich, 1995)
12
Literature review (4)
 Mass communication vs. interpersonal communication
 Mass communication and interpersonal communication exert distinct influence on
personal and societal level judgments of risk. (Tyler 1984)
 Indirect experience through mass communication influences the societal level
judgments of risk however, direct experience through interpersonal
communication(family, friends, neighborhoods) influences the personal level
judgments of risk.
 Internet plays an important role to amplify the perceptions of risks
 Unlike the traditional media internet is easily accessible, two-way communication
channel therefore, one’s opinion and information can be exchanged very easily.
 Also in the risk perception process, characteristics of internet interacts with other
media channels and plays an important role to amplify the perceptions of risks. (정
익재, 2010)
13
Literature review (5)
 Amount of Information & optimistic bias
 Individual depends on the information to reduce the uncertainty and to overcome
the feeling of the fear.
 As the individual things that he or she has more knowledge about risk issues, their
perceptions of risk decreases, and other people are more exposed to the risk than
themselves. (Chapin, Alas & Coleman, 2005)
 General research stream suggests that as the knowledge increases, optimistic bias
decreases. However, there are other researches that show that as the knowledge
increases, optimistic bias increases. (손영곤, 이진우&장지영, 2011; Radcliffe &
Klein, 2002)
14
Literature review (6)
 Knowledge-deficit model
 Dominant media storyline of conflict and debate between opposing sides does not
accurately reflect the scientific consensus to the topic, a condition Boykoff and
Boykoff refer to as “balance as bias.” (Boykoff, 2004)
 From this perspective, one might not expect to see increasing degrees of
information related to efficacy for and risk-assessments of global warming because
it is likely that the information that most people receive about global warming does
not come from scientific journals, but from CNN and from Fox News, where the
issue of global warming is treated just like any other political issue. (Paul M.
Kellstedt, 2008)
 The knowledge-deficit model-as well as the behavior of global warming activistsleads us to suspect that increasing levels of information will heighten risk
perceptions. But, on the other hand, the media’s framing of the global warming
issue as an unsettled controversy leads us to expect that information levels will not
produce increasing concern for global warming. (Paul M. Kellstedt, 2008)
15
Literature review (7)
 Perceived efficacy
 Perceived efficacy is a perceived ability of a respondent to influence certain
environmental risk issues change outcomes, to induce others to behave in ways
that mitigate the environmental risk issues, and whether a respondent accepts that
issue as a human responsibility.
 For example, ‘I believe my actions have an influence on global warming and climate
change.’ ‘My actions to reduce the effects of global warming and climate change in
my community will encourage others to reduce the effects of global warming
through their own actions.’ ‘Human beings are responsible for global warming and
climate change.’ ((Paul M. Kellstedt, 2008)
16
Literature review (8)
 Media exposure
 Media delivers the interests of the civil people on specific policy issues quickly.
(Hobbs et al. 2004; Kittler et al 2004; McComas, 2006)
 However, media also can deliver the wrong, biased, twisted messages. (Althaus,
2003; Rodrigue, 2003)
 Media hype is a media-generated, wall-to-wall news wave, triggered by one specific
event and enlarged by the self-reinforcing processes. (Vasterman, 2005)
 Characteristics of media hype is that the strength and the number of reports of the
mass media is much higher than the actual occurrence and severity.
 Issue-attention cycle
 People’s interest on societal issue does not last forever, it goes through the ‘rise
and fall’, ‘pre-problem interest, post-problem disinterest’.
 Specifically, social problems goes through 1) pre-problem stage, 2) alarmed
discovery and euphoric enthusiasm, 3) realizing the cost of significant progress, 4)
gradual decline of intense public interest and 5) the post-problem stage. (Down,
1972)
 However, if the media reports the specific issues intensely, it delivers the actual
contents on that issue and also indirectly related issues more comprehensively. (정
익재, 2013)
17
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1
 Interpersonal communication is more effective to increase the person’s
risk perception on the certain issue than mass communication. And
internet also plays an important role to amplify the risks.
 In this research, interpersonal communication will be operated as SNS
channels(facebook, twitter etc) and mass communication channel will
be operated as TV, newspaper, and internet news articles.
 H1) In the interpersonal communication channels, the level of
individual risk perception will be high compared to the mass
communication channels.
19
Hypothesis 2
 According to previous literatures, there are debates on the relationship
between the information and the risk perception.
 General belief is that if a person thinks that he or she is well aware of
the certain environmental risk issues, then their risk perception level
will be lower.
 In other words, it does not matter that one truly knows well about the
environmental issue, but rather than that, one’s own judgment that he
or she knows well about the environmental issue will bring them a
personal sense of superiority.
 Therefore, subjective self-reporting judgments on one’s own knowledge
level of the environmental issue will be desirable.
 H2) As a person thinks that he or she is well aware of the certain
environmental risk issues, then their risk perception will be
lower.
20
Hypothesis 3
 Self efficacy which means that one’s perceived ability to influence
environmental risk issue outcomes, to induce others to behave in ways
to mitigate and reduce the risk, and whether a person accepts that
environmental risk issue as a human responsibility.
 Since one difference of this research is including various kinds of
environmental risk issues, self efficacy is an important factor that will
influence risk perception.
 If a person has a higher level of perceived efficacy, then one’s risk
perception level will be lower, and if a person has a low level of
perceived efficacy, then one’s risk perception level will be higher.
 H3) As a person’s level of perceived efficacy increases, one’s
risk perception level will decrease.
21
Hypothesis 4
 As the number of media exposure of the environmental risk issue
increases, people feel that they are more vulnerable and considers
more serious on that issue. (최명일, 김경환&주지혁, 2009)
 Media exposure and the information amount that one perceived both
will contribute to increase one’s knowledge on that issue. Which means
that hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 4 are counterintuitive.
Media
exposure
Information
amount
Knowledge
?
Risk
perception
 However, in hypothesis 2 information amount is the person’s selfreporting knowledge, which means it is more related to one’s subjective
judgment in individual level.
 In hypothesis 4, media exposure is less related to increase one’s
knowledge but rather than, it is more related to building one’s fear to
the issue through repeated reporting.
 H4) As the number of media exposure on the environmental risk
issue increases, the level of risk perception will increase.
22
Future Work
Model
Information
channel
H1
Information
amount
H2
H3
Risk
Perception
H5
Value
Similarity
H6
Trust in
regulation
H7
Intention
to accept
Self efficacy
H4
Media
exposure
Future Work
24
Future work
 Until now, I investigated the factors that influence risk perception level.
 I would like to see the effect of the risk perception level on the eventual
intention to accept a certain government regulation.
 Therefore, based on the SVS theory and associationist view (from
precious literatures), I constructed the path to the eventual intention to
accept regulation.
 However, more in-depth consideration is needed to construct the full
path from the risk perception to the intention to accept.
25
Hypothesis 5
 According to the associationist view, person’s risk perception about
certain environmental risk issue will influence one’s attitude about that
issue.
 According to Salient value similarity, if a person’s view on the
environmental risk issue is the same as the direction of the regulation,
one’s trust on the regulation will increase.
 H5) Value similarity will be depend on prior risk perception.
26
Hypothesis 6
 If one’s view about the environmental risk issue is same as the direction
of regulation about the same issue, then one’s trust in regulation will
increase.
 H6) High value similarity will result in higher level of trust in a
specific environmental risk issue regulation.
Hypothesis 7
 If one’s trust in regulation is set, then their intention to accept the
environmental risk regulation from the government will be determined.
 If one’s trust in regulation is high, then their intention to accept the
regulation will be high and if one’s trust in regulation is low, then their
intention to accept the regulation will be low.
 H7) As the one’s trust in regulation increases, intention to accept
the environmental risk regulation from government on that issue
will be high.
Reference
























Lundgren, Regina E., and Andrea H. McMakin. Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks.
John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
Trettin, Lillian, and Catherine Musham. "Is trust a realistic goal of environmental risk communication?." Environment and Behavior 32.3 (2000): 410-426.
Kasperson, Roger E. "Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication." Risk analysis 6.3 (1986): 275-281.
Renn, Ortwin, and Debra Levine. "Credibility and trust in risk communication." (1989).
Covello, Vincent T. "Risk communication and occupational medicine." Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 35.1 (1993): 18-19.
Kasperson, Roger E., Dominic Golding, and Seth Tuler. "Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating
risks." Journal of social issues 48.4 (1992): 161-187.
Peters, Richard G., Vincent T. Covello, and David B. McCallum. "The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication:
An empirical study." Risk analysis 17.1 (1997): 43-54.
Frewer, Lynn J., et al. "What determines trust in information about food‐related risks? Underlying psychological constructs." Risk analysis 16.4
(1996): 473-486.
Frewer, Lynn. "Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: Implications for emerging
technologies." Ambio (1999): 569-574.
Metlay, Daniel. "Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into a conceptual quagmire." Social trust and the management of risk (1999): 100116.
Poortinga, Wouter, and Nick F. Pidgeon. "Prior Attitudes, Salient Value Similarity, and Dimensionality: Toward an Integrative Model of Trust in
Risk Regulation1." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36.7 (2006): 1674-1700.
Frewer, Lynn J., et al. "What determines trust in information about food‐related risks? Underlying psychological constructs." Risk analysis 16.4
(1996): 473-486.
Earle, Timothy C., and George Cvetkovich. Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1995.
Tyler, Tom R., and Fay L. Cook. "The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level
judgments." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47.4 (1984): 693.
정익재 (2010). 인터넷 환경에서 사회 이슈 증폭 현상의 정책적 의미: 천성산원효터널공사 사례 분석. 『한국정책학회보』, 19권 4호, 327∼543.
Chapin, J., Alas, S., & Coleman, G. (2005). Optimistic bias among potential perpetrators and victims of youth violence. Adolescence, 40(160),
749∼761.
손영곤․이진우․장지영 (2011). 자궁경부암 조기 검진 캠페인의 설득효과에 관한 연구. 『광고연구』, 90호, 99∼131.
Boykoff, M., & Boykoff, J. (2004). Bias as balance: Global warming and the U.S. prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136.
Kellstedt, Paul M., Sammy Zahran, and Arnold Vedlitz. "Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and
climate change in the United States." Risk Analysis 28.1 (2008): 113-126.
Besley, John C., Katherine A. McComas, and Leah Waks. "Media use and the perceived justice of local science uthorities." Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 83.4 (2006): 801-818.
Althaus, Scott L. (2003). Collective Preferences in Democratic Polities. Cambridge.
Vasterman, Peter L. M. (2005). Media-Hype: Self-reinforcing news waves, journalistic standards and the construction of social problems.
European Journal of
Communication, 20(4): 508-530.
정익재. "미디어의 과잉보도, 위험 커뮤니케이션 그리고 정책변화." 한국거버넌스학회보 20.3 (2013): 331-349.
30