Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Triangular Relationship Between Trust, Affect, and Risk Perception: A Review of the Literature

  • Article
  • Published:
Risk Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Various incidents in the past, such as the BSE crisis in the UK, have shown that people's perceptions of hazards influence the risk management process. In this literature review, we investigated how people's affective evaluations and their trust in responsible agencies shape risk perception. In addition, we explored the relation between affect and trust, and the implications of these factors for risk management. Affect and trust appear to be important determinants of risk perception. Both factors act as heuristics when people have insufficient time, cognitive capacity, or motivation to evaluate risks deliberately. Trust and affect influence each other but more research is needed to clarify the direction of this relation. Risk managers should consider people's instantaneous responses to risks in addition to their deliberate responses. Additionally, they should focus on compatible values and other trust-enhancing factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The authors acknowledge that different actors are involved in the management of different types of risks. In the management of electromagnetic fields caused by mobile phone base stations, the network providers are among those responsible, whereas governmental organizations and scientists, among others, are involved in managing genetically modified food. The general public perceives these various agencies differently and this may influence their risk perceptions and acceptance.

References

  • Barnett, J. and Breakwell, G.M. (2001). Risk Perception and Experience: Hazard Personality Profiles and Individual Differences. Risk Analysis. Vol. 21, pp 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. and Eagly, A.H. (1989). Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing within and Beyond the Persuasion Context. In Uleman, J.S. and Bargh, J.A. (eds) Unintended Thought. New York: Guilford, pp 212–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cvetkovich, G. and Löfstedt, R. (eds.) (1999). Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, T.C. and Siegrist, M. (2006). Morality Information, Performance Information, and the Distinction between Trust and Confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 36, pp 383–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earle, T.C., Siegrist, M. and Gutscher, H. (2007). Trust, Risk Perception, and the TCC Model of Cooperation. In Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C. and Gutscher, H. (eds) Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. London: Earthscan, pp 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eiser, J.R., Miles, S. and Frewer, L.J. (2002). Trust, Perceived Risk, and Attitudes toward Food Technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 32, pp 2423–2433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. and Johnson, S.M. (2000). The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. Vol. 13, pp 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, M.L., Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (2003). Judgment and Decision Making: The Dance of Affect and Reason. In Schneider, S.L. and Shanteau, J. (eds) Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp 327–364.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. and Combs, B. (1978). How Safe Is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences. Vol. 9, pp 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J., Miles, S. and Marsh, R. (2002). The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk. Risk Analysis. Vol. 22, pp 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L.J., Scholderer, J. and Bredahl, L. (2003). Communicating About the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust. Risk Analysis. Vol. 23, pp 1117–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). A Perspective on Judgment and Choice. Mapping Bounded Rationality. American Psychologist. Vol. 58, pp 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1982). The Simulation Heuristic. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 201–210.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X. and Ratick, S. (1988). The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis. Vol. 8, pp 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Siegrist, M. and Gutscher, H. (2006). The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication. Risk Analysis. Vol. 26, pp 631–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazo, J.K., Kinnell, J.C. and Fisher, A. (2000). Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk. Risk Analysis. Vol. 20, pp 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K. and Welch, N. (2001). Risk as Feelings. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 127, pp 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malenka, D.J., Baron, J.A., Johansen, S., Wahrenberger, J.W. and Ross, J.M. (1993). The Framing Effect of Relative and Absolute Risk. Journal of General Internal Medicine. Vol. 8, pp 543–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijnders, A.L., Midden, C.J.H. and Wilke, H.A.M. (2001). Role of Negative Emotion in Communication About CO2 Risks. Risk Analysis. Vol. 21, pp 955–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, M. (2000). Have Lessons Been Learned from the UK Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Epidemic? International Journal of Epidemiology. Vol. 29, pp 730–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (2003). Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation. Risk Analysis. Vol. 23, pp 961–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. (2005). Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? Risk Analysis. Vol. 25, pp 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2006). Prior Attitudes, Salient Value Similarity, and Dimensionality: Toward an Integrative Model of Trust in Risk Regulation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 36, pp 1674–1700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M. and Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology. Risk Analysis. Vol. 24, pp 1289–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, S.J., Cialdini, R.B., Schwartzman, D.F. and Reynolds, K.D. (1985). Imagining Can Heighten or Lower the Perceived Likelihood of Contracting a Disease: The Mediating Effect of Ease of Imagery. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol. 11, pp 118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (2000). The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology. Risk Analysis. Vol. 20, pp 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H. and Wiek, A. (2007a). Public Acceptance of Nanotechnology Foods and Food Packaging: The Influence of Affect and Trust. Appetite. Vol. 49, pp 459–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. and Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Analysis. Vol. 20, pp 713–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G. and Roth, C. (2000). Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception. Risk Analysis. Vol. 20, pp 353–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C. and Gutscher, H. (2003). Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks. Risk Analysis. Vol. 23, pp 705–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C. and Gutscher, H. (2007b). Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H. and Keller, C. (2007c). Trust and Confidence in Crisis Communication: Three Case Studies. In Siegrist, M., Earle, T.C. and Gutscher, H. (eds) Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind. London: Earthscan, pp 267–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C. and Cousin, M.-E. (2006). Implicit Attitudes toward Nuclear Power and Mobile Phone Base Stations: Support for the Affect Heuristic. Risk Analysis. Vol. 26, pp 1021–1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C. and Kiers, H.A.L. (2005). A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards. Risk Analysis. Vol. 25, pp 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (1999). Perceived Competence and Motivation in Industry and Government in Risk Perception. In Cvetkovich, G. and Löfstedt, R.E. (eds) Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan, pp 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2001). Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust. Risk Analysis. Vol. 21, pp 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2007). Emotions and Risk Perception. Risk Management. Vol. 9, pp 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science. Vol. 236, pp 280–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts About Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality. Risk Analysis. Vol. 24, pp 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starr, C. (1969). Social Benefit vs Technological Risk: What Is Our Society Willing to Pay for Safety? Science. Vol. 165, pp 1232–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strack, F. and Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Vol. 8, pp 220–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trumbo, C.W. (1999). Heuristic-Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment. Risk Analysis. Vol. 19, pp 391–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability. Cognitive Psychology. Vol. 5, pp 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Pligt, J. (2002). Cognition and Affect in Risk Perception and Risky Decision-Making. In Van Hofsten, C. and Bäckman, L. (eds) Psychology at the Turn of the Millennium. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V.H.M., Meertens, R.M., Passchier, W.F. and de Vries, N.K. (2007a). An Associative Approach to Risk Perception: Measuring the Effects of Risk Communications Directly and Indirectly. Journal of Risk Research. Vol. 10, pp 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V.H.M., Meertens, R.M., Passchier, W.F. and de Vries, N.K. (2007b). How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks. Risk Analysis. Vol. 27, pp 715–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V.H.M., Meertens, R.M., Passchier, W.F. and de Vries, N.K. (2008). Audiovisual Risk Communication Unravelled: Effects on Gut Feelings and Cognitive Processes. Journal of Risk Research. Vol. 11, No. 1–2, pp 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, K. (1997). When a 12.86% Mortality Is More Dangerous Than 24.14%: Implications for Risk Communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Vol. 11, pp 495–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist. Vol. 35, pp 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Consumer Behavior, Zurich, Switzerland

    Vivianne HM Visschers & Michael Siegrist

Authors
  1. Vivianne HM Visschers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Siegrist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vivianne HM Visschers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Visschers, V., Siegrist, M. Exploring the Triangular Relationship Between Trust, Affect, and Risk Perception: A Review of the Literature. Risk Manag 10, 156–167 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2008.1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2008.1

Keywords

Search

Navigation