The Role of Trust in the Affective Evaluation of Novel Risks: The Case of CO₂ Storage

Abstract

There is general recognition that trust and affect are closely connected concepts. Usually, affect is modeled as an antecedent of trust. In the present research, we will argue that, particularly in new situations, trust can also evoke affect toward a risky object. Using structural equation modeling, support was found for the hypothesis that trust influences attitudes through this process. In the present study, we analyzed attitudes toward (carbon dioxide) CO(2) storage. The role of affect appears to be moderated by the level of self-relevance. In the case of high self-relevance (storage nearby), people's attitudes appeared to be merely based on affective reactions and trust. This effect is much weaker under low self-relevance (CO(2) storage in general). In such a case, cognitive factors, more particularly beliefs concerning perceived benefits, were also taken into account in attitude formation.

Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea

“…20% of Perception regarding the policy was explained by corresponding experience and Values, and 15% of Perception toward HFCV was explained by related experience and Values regardless of the variance explained by Perception toward the policy, which has an insignificant relationship with Perception toward HFCV. 15-20% of the explained variance is significant considering other possible factors such as trust in managing authorities and developers (Midden and Huijts, 2009;Siegrist, 2000), related knowledge (Siegrist and Cvetkovich, 2000), and social and economic environment surrounding the target product (Siegrist, 2008).…”

“…There are many studies on the acceptance of products and technologies using a unique methodology that is designed to be compatible to each product and technology: public acceptance of the carbon dioxide sequestrations and evaluations of the related novel risks (Kamishiro and Sato, 2009;Midden and Huijts, 2009;Singleton et al, 2009), public perceptions and acceptance of risks and hazards on nanotechnologies and the food production applying them (Siegrist, 2008;Siegrist et al, 2007), and various studies on the acceptance of gene technologies (Pin et al, 2009;Poortinga and Pidgeon, 2006;Rabino, 1994;Siegrist, 1999Siegrist, , 2000.…”

Explaining public preferences for high voltage pylon designs: An empirical study of perceived fit in a rural landscape

“…age, education, feelings of rootedness or place attachments, e.g. Vorkinn & Riese, 2001) and second, project related factors, including trust (Midden & Huijts, 2009), degree of information about the infrastructure (Furby et al, 1988), perceived proximity to the development (Priestley & Evans, 1996), or perceived local impacts (Upham & Shackley, 2006). The analysis integrated these two sets of factors to explain attitudes towards a high voltage power line to be built in South West England.…”

Public beliefs about high-voltage powerlines in Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom: A comparative survey

“…Mainly since the 1990s [14,25], the recognition of the importance of taking into account the 'social side' of low carbon energy technologies has increased and research began to try to understand the factors underlying social acceptance [16,28] ; and, second, project related factors, for instance trust [30], degree of information about the project proposals [4], and perceived fairness and legitimacy of the decision-making processes [31]. In an analysis integrating these two sets of factors to explain local acceptance of a high voltage power line to be constructed in South West England, personal and place related factors were each able to explain only 4% of the attitude towards the power line, while project-related factors (perceived impacts, trust in the developer and procedural justice issues) explained an as much as 31% of the variance in power line acceptance [23].…”