The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence
Abstract
The influence of trust and confidence as personality traits on the perception of various hazards was examined. The distinction between trust and confidence is a key element of certain theories of co‐operation, but this dual‐mode approach has had little impact on empirical studies. General trust is the belief that other people can be relied on. General confidence is the conviction that everything is under control, and uncertainty is low. It was hypothesized that general trust and general confidence negatively influence risk perception. The hypothesis was tested using data from a random sample of 388 persons living in Switzerland. High levels of trust and confidence reduced perceived risks, compared with low levels of trust and confidence. Age was positively correlated with perceived risk. Gender was a significant predictor for technological hazards, but not for non‐technological hazards. Females perceived more risks than males. Results provide strong evidence for the hypothesis that general trust and general confidence have an impact on the perception of new technologies. Practical implications of the results are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Slovic, P. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3563507 · Cited by 9,271
Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219 · Cited by 6,690 · cited 2×
“It is expected, furthermore, that optimism (Scheier and Carver, 1985) is correlated with general trust and general confidence.”
BackgroundTrust and commitment in the United States and Japan
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/bf02249397 · Cited by 2,392
Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: a UK study
Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., & Frewer, L. J. (1994) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/bf01534445 · Cited by 142
Cited by
Consumer acceptance of internet banking: The influence of internet trust
Grabner‐Kräuter, S., & Faullant, R. (2008) · International Journal of Bank Marketing · doi:10.1108/02652320810913855 · Cited by 316
How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence
Zerilli, J., Bhatt, U., & Weller, A. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455 · Cited by 257
Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220500484419 · Cited by 179
Adopting AI: how familiarity breeds both trust and contempt
Horowitz, M. C., Kahn, L., Macdonald, J., & Schneider, J. (2024) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-023-01666-5 · Cited by 135
Bowe, M., Wakefield, J. R. H., Kellezi, B., Stevenson, C., McNamara, N., Jones, B. A., Sumich, A., & Heym, N. (2022) · Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/casp.2520 · Cited by 119
Metadata
- Authors
- Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., & Earle, T. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Risk Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-156
- ISSN
- 1366-9877 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4461
- OpenAlex
- W2094697343
- Cited by
- 638
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 36.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1366987032000105315
- The paper
- Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., & Earle, T. C. (2005). Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000105315
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
