![Page 1: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk
J. Richard EiserUniversity of Sheffield, UK
Mathew WhiteFriedrich-Schiller Universität, Jena, Germany
![Page 2: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Structure of this talk How risk depends on human decisions. Decisions and their consequences. Trust as a social judgement about decision-makers
and information sources. ‘Marginal trust’ – changes in trust as a consequence
of specific events. Contributory factors – negativity bias, cognitive
consistency, diagnosticity, decision types Conclusions.
![Page 3: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Risk depends on human decisionsRisk involves uncertainty about the
likelihood of events and the value of their consequences
Risk arises from interactions between people and their social and physical environment.
Risk depends not only on physical conditions but also on human actions and decisions (e.g. Chernobyl, Hurricane Katrina, Kashmir earthquake).
![Page 4: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Risks are socialPoor decisions exacerbate risk for ourselves
and others. We often rely on others to manage and
alleviate risks on our behalf.We often rely on others to inform us about
risks and advise us what to do.Inequality within and between societies
increases vulnerability and limits access to help and information.
![Page 9: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Hence…Understanding risk involves understanding
not only physical conditions but also how people make decisions.
Risk perception implies judgements about the quality of our own and others’ decisions.
Experts should make higher quality decisions and/or give higher quality information (or else they’re not experts).
![Page 10: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
What do we mean by ‘quality’?Within the context of risk management:
Ability to discriminate danger and safety.Use of appropriate criterion for balancing
different costs and benefits.Within the context of risk communication:
These, plus…Avoidance of bias due to personal interest.Use of appropriate criterion for warning about
danger (neither too alarmist nor complacent).
![Page 11: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Decisions and their consequences
In an uncertain environment, we need to differentiate between safety and danger.
Some situations are clearly safe, others are clearly dangerous.
What happens in between?An approach derived from the psychology
of perception: Signal Detection Theory.
![Page 12: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Discriminating danger
Danger
Safety
Risky criterion
Cautiouscriterion
?
![Page 13: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Decision-outcome combinations
When deciding whether something is safe or dangerous, there are four possibilities:
Dangerous – treat as dangerous (“Hit”).Dangerous – treat as safe (“Miss”).Safe – treat as dangerous (“False alarm”).Safe – treat as safe (“Correct all clear”).
![Page 14: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
ConsequencesThese different combinations can have
different costs and benefits.Misses can often appear more costly than
false alarms. An excessively precautionary approach can
deprive users of benefits of a technology, and/or expose them to alternative, perhaps greater, risks (e.g. using cars after a train crash).
![Page 15: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Trust as a social judgementTrust in experts implies a positive judgement
of the quality of their decisions and/or information.
Trust can depend on implicit estimates of the others’ competence, partiality and honesty.
If ‘experts’ are seen as having a vested interest, this may undermine trust.
Decision-makers who share one’s interests and values are more trusted.
![Page 18: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Example 1: Mobile PhonesRespondents rated different sources of
information about possible health risks of mobile phones in terms of:Trust.Knowledge.Warning criterion (how much evidence source
would need before warning).Industry seen as knowledgeable, but
reluctant to warn and therefore distrusted.
![Page 19: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Knowledge0 1 2 3 4 5
Trus
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
Environmentalists
Media
Medics
Government
Scientists
Industry
![Page 20: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Warning criterion0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Trus
t
0
1
2
3
4
5
Environmentalists
Media
Medics
Government
Scientists
Industry
![Page 21: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Example 2: Contaminated land. Local residents rated different sources of
information about possible health risks of contaminated land in terms of:Trust.Expertise at judging how safe or dangerous.Bias in decision-making/communication.Openness.Having residents’ own interests at heart.
Perceived expertise does not guarantee trust without impartiality, openness and shared values.
![Page 22: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
How much would you trust what each of the following might tell you about risks from
contaminated land?
![Page 23: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
If there was contaminated land in your neighbourhood, how able do you think each of the following would be to judge how safe or dangerous
it was?
![Page 24: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Conclusions of surveysBaseline levels of trust only partly reflect
perceived expertise.Perceived self-interest, openness and shared
values are also important.Need for an experimental approach to
unconfound these factors.Need to examine how specific events may
influence marginal trust.
![Page 25: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Marginal trustMany policy makers know public trust is low
But how can they build it & avoid losing it?
Four psychological insights:
1) Negativity bias (prior)
2) Desire for cognitive consistency
3) Information diagnosticity
4) Decision outcome types (Miss, False Alarms etc.)
![Page 26: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
1) Negativity bias "Bad is stronger than good" (Baumeister et al, 2001; Rozin & Royzman, 2001)
Info. valence Effect on trust Positive Small increase Negative Large decrease
Trust = easier to lose than gain (trust asymmetry)
“Trust comes on foot and leaves on horseback”
![Page 27: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Slovic (1993)
Valence Trust
Negative -4.73
Positive +3.07
F(1,102) = 82.64, p<0.001 pη2 = .45.
Terrible News !!!!!! -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Local board authority can close plantResponsive to any sign of problemsLocal advisory board establishedEmployees carefully trainedEmployees rewarded for finding problemsOn-site government inspectorEmployees informed of problemsCommunity has access to recordsNeighbours notified of problemsPublic encouraged to tour plantTry to meet with publicEmployees closely supervisedEPA monitor radioactive emissionsNo problems for five yearsConduct emergency trainingRecord keeping is goodManagers live near plantHold regular public hearingsMandatory drug testingNearby health better than averageEvacuation plan existsEffective emergency action takenNo problems in past yearNo evidence of withholding informationOperates according to regulationsContribute to local charities
Don't contribute to local charitiesSerious accident is controlledOfficials live far awayLittle communication with communityAccident occurs in another stateNo public hearingsEmergency response plans not rehearsedPublic tours not permittedAccused of releasing radiationDelayed safety inspectionsDenied access to recordsPoor record keepingHealth nearby worse than averageEmployees not informed of problemsOfficial lied to the governmentPlant covered up problemNo adequate emergency response planEmployees drunk on jobRecords were falsified
e.g. Keep good records
e.g. Keep bad records
Increase
trust
Decrease
trust
45 "events" in a nuclear power plant
![Page 28: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
2) Desire for cognitive consistency People want stability in their belief structures
We tend to trust good news about things/from people we like but not for things/people we don’t (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953)
People don’t like nuclear power
So greater effect of bad news may be due to a confirmatory bias
What about a less negatively viewed industry?
![Page 29: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Negativity or cognitive consistency?Sample = 68 students
1) Attitudes (-3 to +3): Nuc. = -.47; Phar. = +.50, p < 0.01
2) DV Trust change (Slovic,1993; Cvetkovich et al. 2002)
“How would your level of trust in the management of a particular nuclear power (pharmaceutical) plant be affected by the following information?”
(‘Much less trust–3 to Much more trust +3)
![Page 30: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Negativity or cognitive consistency?
• 12 events (6 positive & 6 negative) either nuclear power or pharmaceuticals
0
1
2
3
Nuclear Pharmaceuticals
Industry
Abso
lute
effe
ct o
n tru
st
Negative
Positive
F(1,66) = 8.16 , p < 0.01, pη2 = .11
![Page 31: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Negativity or cognitive consistency?
So ‘Trust Asymmetry’ isn’t ubiquitous
Replicated in other domains (e.g. additives)
Good news for already trusted sources but doesn’t help distrusted sources build trust
Fortunately there is more to the story
![Page 32: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Slovic (1993)
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Local board authority can close plantResponsive to any sign of problemsLocal advisory board establishedEmployees carefully trainedEmployees rewarded for finding problemsOn-site government inspectorEmployees informed of problemsCommunity has access to recordsNeighbours notified of problemsPublic encouraged to tour plantTry to meet with publicEmployees closely supervisedEPA monitor radioactive emissionsNo problems for five yearsConduct emergency trainingRecord keeping is goodManagers live near plantHold regular public hearingsMandatory drug testingNearby health better than averageEvacuation plan existsEffective emergency action takenNo problems in past yearNo evidence of withholding informationOperates according to regulationsContribute to local charities
Don't contribute to local charitiesSerious accident is controlledOfficials live far awayLittle communication with communityAccident occurs in another stateNo public hearingsEmergency response plans not rehearsedPublic tours not permittedAccused of releasing radiationDelayed safety inspectionsDenied access to recordsPoor record keepingHealth nearby worse than averageEmployees not informed of problemsOfficial lied to the governmentPlant covered up problemNo adequate emergency response planEmployees drunk on jobRecords were falsified
e.g. Keep good records
e.g. Keep bad records
Increase
trust
Decrease
trust
Look at the variance!
Some good news is very good for trust
Some bad news is not so bad for trust
Unpacking why might help us build trust
![Page 33: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
3) Information diagnosticity We make the world simpler by categorising others E.g. Friendly/Unfriendly; Honest/Dishonest etc.
The info. we use varies in terms of diagnosticity i.e. how good is it at differentiating people
One important aspect = information specificity i.e. relate to a single event or many events
Jo took £10 from the till …. a) last Wednesday or b) every day last week
![Page 34: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
3) Information diagnosticity
Slovic info. differed in terms of specificity:
A) High specificity: Events “A plant official is found to have lied about a safety matter.” B) Low specificity: Policies “There is careful selection and training of plant employees.”
Trust should be more affected by policy (low specificity) than event (high specificity) info.
Re-analysed data in terms of events vs policies
![Page 35: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Re-analysis of Slovic (1993)
High specificity info.
(EVENTS)
Low specificity info.
(POLICIES)
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Change in trust-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Change in trust
Negative policies
Positive policies
Negative events
Positive events
![Page 36: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
0
1
2
3
Event Policy Event Policy
Abso
lute
cha
nge
in tr
ust
NegativePositive
Re-analysis of Slovic (1993) + new study
Reanalysis New StudyValence: F(1, 102) = 82.64, p < 0.001 F(1,35) = 7.61, p < 0.01Specificity: F(1, 102) = 3.89 , p = 0.051 F(1,35) = 12.19, p < 0.001V X S: F(1, 102) = 118.17, p < 0.001 F(1,35) = 13.26, p < 0.001
![Page 37: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
0
1
2
3
Event Policy Event Policy
Abso
lute
cha
nge
in tr
ust
NegativePositive
Re-analysis of Slovic (1993) + new study
Reanalysis New StudyValence: F(1, 102) = 82.64, p < 0.001 F(1,35) = 7.61, p < 0.01Specificity: F(1, 102) = 3.89 , p = 0.051 F(1,35) = 12.19, p < 0.001V X S: F(1, 102) = 118.17, p < 0.001 F(1,35) = 13.26, p < 0.001
![Page 38: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
3) Information diagnosticity
Trust asymmetry exists for events (high specificity) but not for policies (low specificity)
a) Bad events have large negative effects on trust
b) Good events have small positive effect
c) Good and bad policies have similar large effects
Conclusion: Promote positive policies not events!
![Page 39: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
4) Event types Our final psychological insight again suggests it‘s a
little more complicated
![Page 40: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
4) Event types Our final psychological insight again suggests it‘s a
little more complicated
Thought reactor operations were
“Dangerous” “Safe” Reactor Dangerous A) HIT B) MISS really was Safe C) FALSE ALARM D) ALL
CLEAR
Which engineer would you trust/distrust most?
![Page 41: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
4) Event types Our final psychological insight again suggests it‘s a
little more complicated
Thought reactor operations were “Dangerous” “Safe” Reactor Dangerous A) HIT B) MISS really was Safe C) FALSE ALARM D) ALL
CLEAR
Which engineer would you trust/distrust most?
Risk communication
What about if you learned that some of them had tried to cover up their mistakes?
![Page 42: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
PredictionsH1) Discrimination ability: Correct > Incorrect Hits & All Clears > False Alarms & Misses
H2) Response bias: Caution > Risk Hits & False Alarms > All Clears & Misses
Benefits of Hit loom larger; Costs of Miss loom larger
H3) Communication bias: Transparency > Reticence Open > Closed
![Page 43: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Dangerous Safe Dangerous Safe
Trus
t cha
nge
Correct
Incorrect
Open Closed
Predictions
FA
FA
H
AC
M
M
AC
H
Communication bias
![Page 44: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
4) Event types 189 Students with three different scenarios : 1) Nuclear power - tank corrosion
2) Vaccine - holiday
3) Computer virus - in uni library
Between Ps design per scenario: 2 (discrimination ability - correct/incorrect)
x2 (response bias - “safe”/”dangerous”)
x 2 (communication bias “open”/”closed”)
DV = Trust change
![Page 45: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Dangerous Safe Dangerous Safe
Trus
t cha
nge
Correct
Incorrect
Open Closed
Nuclear power
H AC
AC
H
Communication bias
![Page 46: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Dangerous Safe Dangerous Safe
Trus
t cha
nge
Correct
Incorrect
Open Closed
Nuclear power
FA
FAH AC
M
M
AC
H
Communication bias
![Page 47: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Dangerous Safe Dangerous Safe
Trus
t cha
nge
Correct
Incorrect
Open Closed
Nuclear power
FA
FAH AC
M
M
AC
H
Communication bias
![Page 48: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Dangerous Safe Dangerous Safe
Trus
t cha
nge
Correct
Incorrect
Open Closed
Travel vaccines
FA
FA
H
ACM
M
AC
H
Communication bias
![Page 49: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Dangerous Safe Dangerous Safe
Trus
t cha
nge
Correct
Incorrect
Open Closed
Computer viruses
FA
FAH
ACM
M
AC
H
Communication bias
![Page 50: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
SummaryCorrect decisions (Hits & All Clears) as predicted „False Alarm effect” - Increases in trustClosed Misses - Big falls in trust!
Trust change generalises from exemplar to category(Specific doctor to doctor in general)
But: 1) Single event (Cry wolf effect?)
2) Might Misses be preferred (e.g. Legal/Rights)
![Page 51: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Suicide bombers (with C. Cohrs)
Increase costs of False Alarm (shooting innocent)
Trust in armed police unit following incident
Busy train station, willing to die for the cause
Person either a) Real armed terrorist
b) Someone with mental illness
Almost identical Miami airport last week where marshals shot Rigoberto Alpizar with Bipolar disorder
Piloting - 50% Shoot, 50% Don’t shoot
![Page 52: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Suicide bombersOnly “open”DV = 3 item trust scale (= .87) N = 172
Moderation analysis: Right Wing Authoritarianism
(14 item scale related to prejudice and civil rights)
H1: High RWA: Usual pattern
H2: Low RWA: Reverse pattern (Sensitive to costs of FA)
![Page 53: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Main analysis
Ability: F(1, 171) = 37.14***Bias: F(1, 171) = 7.07** AxB: F(1, 171) = .38 n.s.
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
"Shoot" "Don't Shoot"
Response bias
Trus
t in
polic
e un
it
Correct Incorrect
FAM
AC
H
![Page 54: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
"Shoot" "Don'tShoot"
"Shoot" "Don'tShoot"
"Shoot" "Don'tShoot"
Right wing authoritarianism
Trus
t in
rele
vant
pol
ice
Correct Incorrect
Moderation Analysis (Bias x RWA F(1,171) = 8.79***)
FAM
AC
HFA
M
AC
H
FA
M
ACH
Very low 0-2.08
(N = 53)Low 2.09-2.75
(N = 64)
Moderate 2.76-4.42
(N = 54)
Right Wing Authoritarianism
![Page 55: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Marginal trust conclusions
1) Trust asymmetry does occur (Bad > Good)
2) In part because of congruency effects
3) But events (rather than polices) still suffer
4) Even some negative events (False Alarms) can lead to increases in trust - but not in all situations and not for all people!
![Page 56: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Marginal trust conclusions If you want to lose trust: Try to cover up Misses (esp. in a high risk context)
If you want to build trust: a) Focus on communicating positive policies
b) If you have to talk about events be open
c) And be sensitive to public’s perceptions of costs of benefits of correct/incorrect decisions
![Page 57: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
General Conclusions (1)Risk depends on human decisions.Perception of risk involves evaluating
decisions. Decisions can be evaluated in terms of:
Competence (discrimination ability)Partiality (response bias)
Communications can be also evaluated in terms of:
Openness
![Page 58: A Psychological Approach to How Trust is Built and Lost in the Context of Risk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062810/56815b7b550346895dc975a3/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
General Conclusions (2)
Trust is an outcome of such evaluations, plus liking for the decision-maker.
Changes in trust depend on how events are interpreted.
Prior attitudes can guide interpretations.Bad news can have more impact than good.But openness/willingness to admit mistakes
may increase trust.