The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy
Abstract
Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and overt conflict have become pervasive. Risk‐perception research has recently begun to provide a new perspective on this problem. Distrust in risk analysis and risk management plays a central role in this perspective. According to this view, the conflicts and controversies surrounding risk management are not due to public ignorance or irrationality but, instead, are seen as a side effect of our remarkable form of participatory democracy, amplified by powerful technological and social changes that systematically destroy trust. Recognizing the importance of trust and understanding the “dynamics of the system” that destroys trust has vast implications for how we approach risk management in the future.
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
Cited by
Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1006/enrs.1998.3940 · Cited by 1,187
Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205064 · Cited by 1,111
Hengstler, M., Enkel, E., & Duelli, S. (2016) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.014 · Cited by 661
Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.
de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A. B., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000092 · Cited by 614
Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science
van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. J., Mitchell, J., Galvao, A. B., Zaval, L., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2019) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.181870 · Cited by 456
The Role of Public Trust During Pandemics: Implications for Crisis Communication
Siegrist, M., & Zingg, A. (2014) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000169 · Cited by 420
Repairing and Enhancing Trust: Approaches to Reducing Organizational Trust Deficits
Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.1080/19416520.2010.487403 · Cited by 398
Beck, U. (1996) · Theory, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0263276496013004001 · Cited by 397
Johnson, B. B., & Slovic, P. (1995) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00341.x · Cited by 374
Self-citationWhat, Me Worry? The Role of Affect in Information Seeking and Avoidance
Yang, Z. J., & Kahlor, L. (2013) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547012441873 · Cited by 346
Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology
Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x · Cited by 341
Self-citationRobinson, S. C. (2020) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101421 · Cited by 338
Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220500484419 · Cited by 179
Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004 · Cited by 177
Consumer perceptions of healthy cereal products and production methods
Dean, M., Shepherd, R., Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Winkelmann, M., Claupein, E., Lähteenmäki, L., Raats, M. M., & Saba, A. (2007) · Journal of Cereal Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcs.2007.06.007 · Cited by 137
Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1998) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1023/a:1007465730039 · Cited by 131
A Battle against the Bottles: Building, Claiming, and Regaining Tap-Water Trustworthiness
Parag, Y., & Roberts, J. T. (2009) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920802017248 · Cited by 84
Arvai, J. L., & Froschauer, A. (2010) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669871003660767 · Cited by 47
Anticipating Safety Issues in E2E Conversational AI: Framework and Tooling
Dinan, E., Abercrombie, G., Bergman, A. S., Spruit, S., Hovy, D., Boureau, Y.-L., & Rieser, V. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.03451 · Cited by 44
Trust no more? The impact of fraud victimization on generalized trust in China
Xia, Y., Xu, S., Tan, S., Tan, J., & Huang, L. (2025) · Victims & Offenders · doi:10.1080/15564886.2025.2467888 · Cited by 5
Trust Mechanisms in the Sharing Economy
Alvi, T. H., Tariq, S., Rashid, A., & Khan, M. Q. (2025) · Pakistan Business Review · doi:10.22555/pbr.v26i3.1284 · Cited by 3
Huurne, E. F. J. T. (2022) · doi:10.3990/1.9789036526814 · Cited by 1
Chen, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.14923 · Cited by 2
“Trust games show people extend and reciprocate trust at personal cost [4] and pay to punish defectors to sustain cooperation [7, 2]; trust is asymmetric, with bad impressions weighing more than good [3, 16] and violations far easier to inflict than to repair [15, 9].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Slovic, P.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 675-682
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2112035579
- Cited by
- 1,870
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 61.54
- 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
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.
