The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)
Abstract
Public trust in organizations that are involved in the management and use of new technologies affects lay judgments about the risks and benefits associated with these technologies. In turn, judgments about risks and benefits influence lay attitudes toward these technologies. The validity of this (indirect) effect of trust on lay attitudes toward new technologies, which is referred to as the causal chain account of trust, has up till now only been examined in correlational research. The two studies reported in this article used an experimental approach to more specifically test the causal chain account of trust in the context of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS). Complementing existing literature, the current studies explicitly distinguished between two different types of trust in organizations: competence‐based trust (Study 1) and integrity‐based trust (Study 2). In line with predictions, results showed that the organizational position regarding CCS implementation (pro versus con) more strongly affected people's risk and benefit perceptions and their subsequent acceptance of CCS when competence‐based trust was high rather than low. In contrast, the organizational position had a greater impact on people's level of CCS acceptance when integrity‐based trust was low rather than high.
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
Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models
Sobel, M. E. (1982) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/270723 · Cited by 12,810
Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273170701341316 · Cited by 9,973
A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83 · Cited by 9,406
Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131 · Cited by 1,550 · cited 1×
“ity biases are more likely to occur in the integrity domain.(17,18) In line with the above-mentioned information asymmetry, we predict positive rather than negative information about the competence of an organization to affect lay attitudes toward CCS.”
BackgroundA schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception.
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.86.1.61 · Cited by 723
Cited by
Frederiks, E. R., Stenner, K., & Hobman, E. V. (2015) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.026 · Cited by 926
Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature
Siegrist, M. (2021) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13325 · Cited by 606
Public perception of carbon capture and storage: A state-of-the-art overview
Tcvetkov, P., Cherepovitsyn, A., & Fedoseev, S. (2019) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02845 · Cited by 185
Wu, W., Huang, Y., & Qian, L. (2024) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2023.114115 · Cited by 73
Metadata
- Authors
- Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-07-17
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1129-1140
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2140842586
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 19.54
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01256.x
- The paper
- Terwel, B. W., Harinck, F., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2009). Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS). Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01256.x
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.