信任对风险认知的影响是知识、控制和时间的问题吗?Siegrist 和 Cvetkovich(2000 年)的扩展和直接复制尝试

IF 4.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social Psychological and Personality Science Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1177/19485506241263884
Shiva Pauer, Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Cameron Brick, Aaron B. Lob, Benjamin Buttlar, Marret K. Noordewier, Iris K. Schneider, Frenk van Harreveld
{"title":"信任对风险认知的影响是知识、控制和时间的问题吗?Siegrist 和 Cvetkovich(2000 年)的扩展和直接复制尝试","authors":"Shiva Pauer, Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Cameron Brick, Aaron B. Lob, Benjamin Buttlar, Marret K. Noordewier, Iris K. Schneider, Frenk van Harreveld","doi":"10.1177/19485506241263884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The complexity of societal risks such as pandemics, artificial intelligence, and climate change may lead laypeople to rely on experts and authorities when evaluating these threats. While Siegrist and Cvetkovich showed that competence-based trust in authorities correlates with perceived societal risks and benefits only when people feel unknowledgeable, recent research has yielded mixed support for this foundational work. To address this discrepancy, we conducted a direct-replication study (preregistered; 1,070 participants, 33 risks, 35,310 observations). The results contradict the original findings. However, additional non-preregistered analyses indicate an alternative perspective aligning with compensatory control theory and the description-experience framework: experiences with insufficient personal control over a threat may amplify individuals’ dependency on powerful others for risk mitigation. These findings highlight the need to reevaluate how trust shapes risk perceptions. Recent societal and technological shifts might have heightened the desire for control compared to subjective knowledge in why people resort to trust.","PeriodicalId":21853,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological and Personality Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the Effect of Trust on Risk Perceptions a Matter of Knowledge, Control, and Time? An Extension and Direct-Replication Attempt of Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2000)\",\"authors\":\"Shiva Pauer, Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Cameron Brick, Aaron B. Lob, Benjamin Buttlar, Marret K. Noordewier, Iris K. Schneider, Frenk van Harreveld\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19485506241263884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The complexity of societal risks such as pandemics, artificial intelligence, and climate change may lead laypeople to rely on experts and authorities when evaluating these threats. While Siegrist and Cvetkovich showed that competence-based trust in authorities correlates with perceived societal risks and benefits only when people feel unknowledgeable, recent research has yielded mixed support for this foundational work. To address this discrepancy, we conducted a direct-replication study (preregistered; 1,070 participants, 33 risks, 35,310 observations). The results contradict the original findings. However, additional non-preregistered analyses indicate an alternative perspective aligning with compensatory control theory and the description-experience framework: experiences with insufficient personal control over a threat may amplify individuals’ dependency on powerful others for risk mitigation. These findings highlight the need to reevaluate how trust shapes risk perceptions. Recent societal and technological shifts might have heightened the desire for control compared to subjective knowledge in why people resort to trust.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Psychological and Personality Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Psychological and Personality Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241263884\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychological and Personality Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241263884","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大流行病、人工智能和气候变化等社会风险的复杂性可能会导致普通人在评估这些威胁时依赖专家和权威。Siegrist 和 Cvetkovich 的研究表明,只有当人们感到不了解情况时,基于能力的权威信任才会与感知到的社会风险和利益相关,但最近的研究对这一基础性工作的支持程度却参差不齐。为了解决这一差异,我们进行了一项直接复制研究(预先登记;1,070 名参与者,33 项风险,35,310 次观察)。结果与最初的发现相矛盾。然而,额外的非预先登记分析表明了与补偿控制理论和描述-体验框架相一致的另一种观点:个人对威胁控制不足的经历可能会放大个人对强大他人的依赖,从而降低风险。这些发现凸显了重新评估信任如何影响风险认知的必要性。与主观知识相比,最近的社会和技术变革可能会增强人们对控制的渴望,这也是人们诉诸信任的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is the Effect of Trust on Risk Perceptions a Matter of Knowledge, Control, and Time? An Extension and Direct-Replication Attempt of Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2000)
The complexity of societal risks such as pandemics, artificial intelligence, and climate change may lead laypeople to rely on experts and authorities when evaluating these threats. While Siegrist and Cvetkovich showed that competence-based trust in authorities correlates with perceived societal risks and benefits only when people feel unknowledgeable, recent research has yielded mixed support for this foundational work. To address this discrepancy, we conducted a direct-replication study (preregistered; 1,070 participants, 33 risks, 35,310 observations). The results contradict the original findings. However, additional non-preregistered analyses indicate an alternative perspective aligning with compensatory control theory and the description-experience framework: experiences with insufficient personal control over a threat may amplify individuals’ dependency on powerful others for risk mitigation. These findings highlight the need to reevaluate how trust shapes risk perceptions. Recent societal and technological shifts might have heightened the desire for control compared to subjective knowledge in why people resort to trust.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
1.80%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Social Psychological and Personality Science (SPPS) is a distinctive journal in the fields of social and personality psychology that focuses on publishing brief empirical study reports, typically limited to 5000 words. The journal's mission is to disseminate research that significantly contributes to the advancement of social psychological and personality science. It welcomes submissions that introduce new theories, present empirical data, propose innovative methods, or offer a combination of these elements. SPPS also places a high value on replication studies, giving them serious consideration regardless of whether they confirm or challenge the original findings, with a particular emphasis on replications of studies initially published in SPPS. The journal is committed to a rapid review and publication process, ensuring that research can swiftly enter the scientific discourse and become an integral part of ongoing academic conversations.
期刊最新文献
Perceived Naturalness Biases Objective Behavior in Both Trivial and Meaningful Contexts Corrigendum to a Potential Pitfall of Passion: Passion is Associated with Performance Overconfidence The Game Within the Game: The Potential Influence of Demand Characteristics and Participant Beliefs in Violent Video Game Studies An Improved Scoring Algorithm for Indirect Evaluation Measurement With the Evaluative Priming Task Is the Effect of Trust on Risk Perceptions a Matter of Knowledge, Control, and Time? An Extension and Direct-Replication Attempt of Siegrist and Cvetkovich (2000)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1