Transcript Individualism - Department of Sociology

Public Trust in the
U.S. Food System
When Good Communication Isn’t Good Enough
Steve Sapp
Department of Sociology
Iowa State University
Public Reactions to Agricultural
Technologies

The development and implementation of new
agricultural technologies sometimes engenders
uncertainty, anxiety, fear, concern, and even
organized resistance among the public.

Public reactions to agricultural technologies,
therefore, affect the way that farmers and other
actors within the food system are able to go
about their business.

Thus, public responses to agricultural
technologies affect the structure of agriculture.
Public Reactions to Agricultural
Technologies

Simply put, persons directly involved in
agriculture are not the only ones involved in
determining what its structure will look like.

Nor are they the only ones who will determine
which technologies are developed and used or
the manner in which they will be regulated.

Persons directly involved in agriculture, within a
democratic society (or world system), represent
a minority of those persons who determine what
will be the structure of agriculture.
Public Reactions to Agricultural
Technologies

In this presentation, I want to address just one
feature of this complex issue: communication
about new technologies with the public.

That is, we want to know how to work with the
public regarding new agricultural technologies
for the purpose of improving the structure of
agriculture.

To do this, we need to know the key
determinants of public reactions to new
agricultural technologies.
Risk Assessment and the Public

Logically, one would address the issue of public
reactions to agricultural technologies by asking,
“How does one convince the public to accept a
new technology?”

This might sound like the right place to begin, but
it is not, for several important reasons.
Risk Assessment and the Public

First, asking the question in that way assumes that
the technology is safe and effective.

Most of the time, scientists get it right. But they
get it wrong enough times that the public is
justified in being skeptical.

Second, sometimes business firms and
government agencies make mistakes in the
application and regulation of new technologies.
Risk Assessment and the Public

Third, sometimes scientists, industry
representatives, and government agencies
intentionally lie, cheat, and steal.

Thus, even though the U.S. food system works
very well most of the time, it fails just enough that
one should not automatically assume that a new
technology is safe and effective.
Risk Assessment and the Public

Also, sometimes actors within the food system
have strong disagreements about the efficacy of a
new technology.

Is this the right direction?
 What are the alternatives?
 Who stands to benefit and lose from
implementing this technology?
Risk Assessment and the Public

Therefore, when sociologists ask, “How does one
convince the public to accept a new technology?”,
they already are assuming a great deal:

That the technology is safe and effective.
 That the technology will be adequately
regulated.
 That the technology is the best choice among
alternatives.
The Issue: Risk Communication

Thus, the presumption that the question is a valid
one is fraught with limitations.

We make this presumption here to allow us to
address just one facet of a complex decisionmaking process regarding the development and
implementation of new technologies. We ask,
“How does one gain the trust of others?”

This, essentially, is the task of risk communication:
To convince others either to “look out” or “stop
worrying.”
Risk Communication: Approaches

To convince others to stop worrying, scientists
might choose to provide no communication.
That is, they might take the perspective that
nothing needs to be said because they and risk
managers are the ones who are well educated
and know what they are doing.

To some extent, this is a very good argument!

Unfortunately, scientists and risk managers err
sufficiently that, within democratic societies, the
public demands to become involved in the
decision-making process.
Risk Communication: Approaches

When scientists attempt to explain the facts,
however, they face other problems because
explanations involve subjective evaluations.

Scientists and representatives of groups
concerned about the technology then argue
about whose interpretation is the most correct.

These arguments come to the attention of the
media, who understandably report them.
Risk Communication: The Media

When the media report on a controversy, it
becomes amplified. We notice a “hoopla” effect.

Proponents of the technology then blame the
media for arousing unnecessary anxiety about
the technology.

Assuming the media are responsible in their
actions, this critique is unjustified.

It is more correct to note that negative
information carries disproportionate weight, for
many good reasons.
Risk Communication: Trust

Some scholars argue that this amplification of
risk and reporting of negative information
destroys trust, which is fragile.

Others argue that this downturn in trust is
temporary and can be overcome with risk
communication techniques aimed at restoring
trust.

To make a long story short: Convincing others to
“stop worrying” equates to gaining their trust
because trust explains most of the variance in
adoption of new technologies.
Risk Communication: Trust

Informing scientists and business organizations
about how to gain trust, therefore, is the key to
teaching them how to inform the public about
new technologies.

So, we ask the question, “What influences public
trust in institutions?”

If we know what drives trust, then we can inform
scientists and business organizations about how
to convince the public to stop worrying (again,
under the presumption that the technology
mainly is a good one).
Risk Communication: Trust

Explaining public trust and training scientists and
business leaders to communicate adequately
with the public is easy! 

We simply develop a theoretical model with the
variables shown on the next slide. Then, we
estimate the model, determine which variables
are most effective at explaining trust, define
these variables for scientists and business
leaders, and convince them to listen to our
advice.
Risk Communication: Trust

Here are just some of the variables we will need
to explain public trust in societal institutions:
perceived risks
complexity
age
familiarity
value similarity
anomie
source credibility
observability
income
media attention
stigma
alienation
perceived benefits
relative advantage
sex
compatibility
trialability
race
prior exposure
education…..
Risk Communication: Recreancy


Of course, a simpler model would be preferable!
We seek a model that:
1. explains much of the variance in trust
2. with just a few variables
3. that are easily defined to others
4. and are actionable.
Risk Communication: Recreancy

The solution might lie in the recreancy theorem,
which asserts that public trust in societal
institutions reflects assessments of the
competence and fiduciary responsibilities of
institutional actors.

Where Competence refers to perceptions of
expertise and skill, an Fiduciary Responsibility
refers to perceptions that the source will
behave with in the “right” way (ethically).

Fiduciary Responsibility can also be called
Confidence.
Risk Communication: Recreancy

Our theoretical model can be diagrammed like
this:
Competence
Trust
Compliance
Confidence

Where Compliance refers to willingness to heed
the recommendations of others. This variable is
used to evaluate the external validity of the
measure of trust, as an indicator of commitment
to a source of information.
Risk Communication: Recreancy

Note that, for the most part, scientists,
business leaders, and proponents of new
technologies prefer risk communication
strategies that focus upon establishing
competence.

Proponents want the public to believe that
proponents know what they are doing, that the
scientific findings are accurate and unbiased.

We will therefore be interested in discovering
the relative effects of competence and
confidence in explaining trust.
Recreancy: Empirical Analysis






Examination of trust in the U.S. food system.
Nationwide survey of primary food preparers at
home.
Final sample of 2,008 adults living in 50 states.
Measurements on competence, confidence,
trust, compliance, and some social-demographic
controls (i.e., age, sex, education).
Five areas of the U.S. food system: food safety,
nutrition, worker care, environmental protection,
animal welfare.
7-9 pertinent actors within each area (e.g.,
producers, processors, grocers, regulators,
restaurants, advocacy groups).
Recreancy: Empirical Analysis

This research design yields 41 tests of our
theoretical model. These are the results:
Path
Std. Estimates
Avg.
Low
High
Trust  Compliance
Competence  Trust
Confidence  Trust
.676
.216
.668
.520
.154
.579
.792
.311
.768
R-Square
Avg.
Low
High
Trust
Compliance
.745
.495
.590
.299
.837
.713
Recreancy: Empirical Analysis


The results indicate that the model:
1. explains much of the variance in trust
2. with just a few variables
3. that are easily defined to others.
Also, the results indicate overwhelmingly that
confidence, not competence, is the key driver of
public trust in societal institutions responsible for
the U.S. food system!
Recreancy: Prospects

The question remains, “Do representatives of
the U.S. food system understand the
implications of these results and consider them
to be actionable?

The interest shown in the results, which were
presented at the Food Summit, held in
Indianapolis in October, 2007, indicates that the
model does have potential to affect the risk
communication strategies of organizations and
companies involved in the U.S. food system.
Recreancy: Prospects

Presenting messages aimed at instilling
confidence in the source have been an
important part of advertising and other
promotional activities for many years.

Behaviors that reflect corporate social
responsibility might also be very effective at
gaining confidence

But these approaches are relatively new to
proponents of the complex and sometimes
controversial technologies used in the U.S. food
system.
Soc 415: The Sociology of Technology

In Sociology 415 we learn how to bring about
social change.

We learn how to gain adoption of complex and
controversial new technologies.

We learn the diffusion of innovations approach
to behavior change. This model, developed by
rural sociologists at Iowa State University,
serves as the foundation for every social change
program used in the world today.
Public Trust in the
U.S. Food System
When Good Communication Isn’t Good Enough
Thank You!