Self-selection, socialization, and risk perception of technologies: An empirical study
AbstractWe analyze students’ knowledge and risk perception of four technologies. The aim is to find out whether there is a relationship between area of study (self-selection) and progress of study (socialization) on the one hand and risk perception of technologies regarding health, environment and society on the other. The four technology fields under study are renewable energies, genetic engineering, nanotechnology and information and communication technologies (ICT). Key results are: Irrespective of study area, study progress and gender, genetic engineering has the highest perceived risk and renewable energies has the lowest. This holds for all the risks studied (environmental, health, societal risks). For most risk perception variables, advanced students perceive lower risks than beginners, and students in a technical study area perceive lower risks than students in a non-technical area. Factor analyses show that common dimensions of risk are the technological areas and not the type of risk. Regression analyses show that the variables influencing perceived risks vary between the technological fields
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Kiel Institute for the World Economy in its series Kiel Working Papers with number 1555.
Length: 39 pages
Date of creation: Sep 2009
Date of revision:
technologies; risk perception; self-selection; socialization;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- O33 - Economic Development, Technological Change, and Growth - - Technological Change; Research and Development; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2009-09-26 (All new papers)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995.
"General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?,"
Journal of Econometrics,
Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
- Robinson, D.K.R. & Rip, A. & Mangematin, V., 2006.
"Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology,"
200603, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
- Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Rip, Arie & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007. "Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 871-879, July.
- John H. Roberts & Glen L. Urban, 1988. "Modeling Multiattribute Utility, Risk, and Belief Dynamics for New Consumer Durable Brand Choice," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 167-185, February.
- Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 2000. " Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 123-56, September.
- Kim, Jerry W. & Higgins, Monica C., 2007. "Where do alliances come from?: The effects of upper echelons on alliance formation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 499-514, May.
- Rabik Ar Chatterjee & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 1990. "The Innovation Diffusion Process in a Heterogeneous Population: A Micromodeling Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(9), pages 1057-1079, September.
- Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dieter Stribny).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.