Trust in the Safety of Tourist Destinations: Hard to Gain, Easy to Lose? New Insights on the Asymmetry Principle

Abstract

According to the asymmetry principle of trust, negative events decrease trust to a much higher extent than positive events increase trust. The study at hand intended to verify whether this notion of asymmetry holds true with respect to trust in the safety of tourist destinations. Thus, in contrast to previous research that analyzed trust asymmetry in the context of involuntary technological risks, the present study evaluates the validity of the asymmetry principle of trust in the context of voluntary tourism risks. The hypothesis that negative or risky information on destination safety (absence of proper safety measures and conditions) has a higher impact on distrust than, conversely, positive or nonrisk information on destination safety (provision of proper safety measures and conditions) has on trust was tested in an online survey (N= 640). In contrast to the asymmetry pattern found by Slovic (1993), results of the current work suggest symmetry rather than asymmetry of trust. The presence of proper safety measures and conditions (positive or nonrisk information) was found to have at least the same-and in some cases an even higher-impact on trust than the absence of such measures and conditions (negative or risky information) had on distrust. Findings provide empirical evidence for the thesis that the prevalence of trust asymmetry is dependent on the risk source and demonstrate that trust is symmetric rather than asymmetric in the context of voluntary tourism risks. Furthermore, results imply an influence of positive versus negative expectations as well as of prior trusting relationships on the occurrence of the asymmetry principle.

Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research

“…( 93,94 ) As for types of hazards, White and Eiser contrasted a high‐risk hazard to a low‐risk hazard, ( 92 ) and Eitzinger and Wiedemann compared involuntary with voluntary hazards. ( 95 ) In each of these distinctions, one element is taken to be susceptible to trust asymmetry (events, performance, abilities; high‐risk, voluntary), while the other is resistant to it (policies, morality, intentions; low‐risk, voluntary). The consensus model of trust does not accommodate types of hazards as moderators; their effects are simply empirical matters.…”

Maintaining leisure values in adventure recreation events: the role of trust

“…As Eitzinger and Wiedemann (2008) found, contexts of voluntary exposure to risk are not well explained by theories of trust developed in non-voluntary 196 P. Lynch and M. Dibben…”

“…Neither these studies nor those focusing on smallerscale events (Reid and Ritchie 2011;Soderman and Dolles 2013) address trust as an aspect of risk management. However, one recent study from the tourism literature (Eitzinger and Wiedemann 2008) investigated patterns of trust in the safety management of alpine tourist destinations, finding that in the context of 'voluntary and at least partly controllable risks' (851), trust processes diverge from the main body of trust theory. Contrary to research on trust in the context of involuntary exposure to risk, Eitzinger and Wiedemann found that:…”

The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers

“…Establishing and maintaining public trust is considered an important constituent of successful risk management. ( 1,2 ) As a result, there has been considerable debate about aspects of risk managers ( 3‐9 ) and of risk management events ( 10‐15 ) upon which citizens base their trust judgments. The recently developed intuitive detection theorist (IDT) model addresses both issues.…”