IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i6p1539-1552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risky Business: Perceived Behavior of Local Scientists and Community Support for Their Research

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine A. McComas
  • John C. Besley
  • Zheng Yang

Abstract

Attracting new technologies to a region can mean significant economic growth, so understanding why some communities may not favor becoming “the next Silicon Valley” merits consideration. This study investigates the relationship among the perceived behavior of local scientists and community members' attitudes toward their research. Drawing on theories from organizational justice, it hypothesizes that when local residents consider scientists as more just in their behavior, they will also have more favorable attitudes toward the scientists and their research. Just, in this sense, refers to whether scientists are perceived as fair in terms of outcomes, procedures, interpersonal treatment, and explanations in their dealings with the community. Favorable attitudes are measured in terms of concern about new technologies and satisfaction with research. Data were collected via a mail survey of residents in two upstate New York counties (N= 1,306) that host substantial technology research facilities. Controlling for demographics, media use, basic science knowledge, and technology awareness, the results show that distributive justice (i.e., fairness of outcomes) had a consistent, negative relationship with technology concern. In comparison, all four justice variables were positively related with research satisfaction. The findings suggest that the perceived behavior of local scientists may indeed impact community support for their research.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine A. McComas & John C. Besley & Zheng Yang, 2008. "Risky Business: Perceived Behavior of Local Scientists and Community Support for Their Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1539-1552, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:6:p:1539-1552
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01129.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01129.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01129.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    2. Joseph L. Arvai, 2003. "Using Risk Communication to Disclose the Outcome of a Participatory Decision‐Making Process: Effects on the Perceived Acceptability of Risk‐Policy Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 281-289, April.
    3. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    4. Katherine A. McComas & Craig W. Trumbo, 2001. "Source Credibility in Environmental Health – Risk Controversies: Application of Meyer's Credibility Index," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 467-480, June.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    6. Susan L. Santos & Caron Chess, 2003. "Evaluating Citizen Advisory Boards: The Importance of Theory and Participant‐Based Criteria and Practical Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 269-279, April.
    7. Susanna Hornig Priest & Heinz Bonfadelli & Maria Rusanen, 2003. "The “Trust Gap” Hypothesis: Predicting Support for Biotechnology Across National Cultures as a Function of Trust in Actors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 751-766, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wei Le & Po-Ya Chang & Yu-Wei Chang & Jiahe Chen, 2019. "Why Do Patients Move from Online Health Platforms to Hospitals? The Perspectives of Fairness Theory and Brand Extension Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Lu, Hang & Song, Hwanseok & McComas, Katherine, 2021. "Seeking information about enhanced geothermal systems: The role of fairness, uncertainty, systematic processing, and information engagement intentions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 855-864.
    3. John C Besley & Aaron M McCright & Nagwan R Zahry & Kevin C Elliott & Norbert E Kaminski & Joseph D Martin, 2017. "Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Muhammad Rafiq & Ahsan Akbar & Saif Maqbool & Marcela Sokolová & Syed Arslan Haider & Shumaila Naz & Syed Muhammad Danish, 2022. "Corporate Risk Tolerance and Acceptability towards Sustainable Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leong, Ching Ching & Jarvis, Darryl & Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea, 2011. "Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 128-136.
    2. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    3. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Branden B. Johnson & Mathew P. White, 2010. "The Importance of Multiple Performance Criteria for Understanding Trust in Risk Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1099-1115, July.
    5. Karen Lewis DeLong & Carola Grebitus, 2018. "Genetically modified labeling: The role of consumers’ trust and personality," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 266-282, March.
    6. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    7. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    8. Guanghua Han & Simin Yan, 2019. "Does Food Safety Risk Perception Affect the Public’s Trust in Their Government? An Empirical Study on a National Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    10. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    11. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    12. Katherine A McComas & John C. Besley, 2011. "Fairness and Nanotechnology Concern," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1749-1761, November.
    13. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    14. Annukka Vainio & Riikka Paloniemi & Vilja Varho, 2017. "Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources, Perceived Risks, and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 557-569, March.
    15. Yuan, Xiaotong & Zhang, Yu Yvette & Palma, Marco A. & Ribera, Luis A., 2018. "Understanding Consumer response to GMO Information," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266720, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Longji Hu & Rongjin Liu & Wei Zhang & Tian Zhang, 2020. "The Effects of Epistemic Trust and Social Trust on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: An Empirical Study from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    18. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    19. Karavolias, Joanna & House, Lisa A., "undated". "Impact of Producer and Use of Biotechnology on Consumer Willingness to Pay: Discounts Required for Oranges Produced with Biotechnology," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259981, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2006. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1707-1719, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:6:p:1539-1552. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.