IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ifwkwp/1555.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Self-selection, socialization, and risk perception: an empirical study

Author

Listed:
  • Weisenfeld, Ursula
  • Ott, Ingrid

Abstract

We 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Weisenfeld, Ursula & Ott, Ingrid, 2009. "Self-selection, socialization, and risk perception: an empirical study," Kiel Working Papers 1555, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ifwkwp:1555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/28382/1/609217984.PDF
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    3. Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Trajtenberg, M., 1995. "General purpose technologies 'Engines of growth'?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 83-108, January.
    4. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 2000. "Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 123-156, September.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. K. R. Narayanan, 1954. "Freedom in Modern Society," India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, , vol. 10(4), pages 376-381, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Weisenfeld, Ursula & Ott, Ingrid, 2011. "Academic discipline and risk perception of technologies: An empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 487-499, April.
    2. Vardit Landsman & Moshe Givon, 2010. "The diffusion of a new service: Combining service consideration and brand choice," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 91-121, March.
    3. Marshall, Pablo & Dockendorff, Monika & Ibáñez, Soledad, 2013. "A forecasting system for movie attendance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1800-1806.
    4. Inseong Song & Pradeep Chintagunta, 2003. "A Micromodel of New Product Adoption with Heterogeneous and Forward-Looking Consumers: Application to the Digital Camera Category," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 371-407, December.
    5. Chaab, Jafar & Salhab, Rabih & Zaccour, Georges, 2022. "Dynamic pricing and advertising in the presence of strategic consumers and social contagion: A mean-field game approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    6. Lisa De Propris & Carlo Corradini, 2013. "Technological platforms and global opportunities," ERSA conference papers ersa13p867, European Regional Science Association.
    7. Qiu, Ranfeng & Cantwell, John, 2018. "General Purpose Technologies and local knowledge accumulation — A study on MNC subunits and local innovation centers," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 826-837.
    8. Eslami, Hossein & Krishnan, Trichy, 2023. "New sustainable product adoption: The role of economic and social factors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    9. Ott, Ingrid & Papilloud, Christian & Zülsdorf, Torben, 2008. "What drives innovation? Causes of and consequences for nanotechnologies," HWWI Research Papers 1-17, Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI).
    10. Kim, Namwoon & Srivastava, Rajendra K. & Han, Jin K., 2001. "Consumer decision-making in a multi-generational choice set context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 123-136, September.
    11. Zhiling Guo & Jianqing Chen, 2018. "Multigeneration Product Diffusion in the Presence of Strategic Consumers," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 206-224, March.
    12. Mathew B. Chylinski & John H. Roberts & Bruce G. S. Hardie, 2012. "Consumer Learning of New Binary Attribute Importance Accounting for Priors, Bias, and Order Effects," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 549-566, July.
    13. Røpke, Inge, 2012. "The unsustainable directionality of innovation – The example of the broadband transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1631-1642.
    14. Francesco Bogliacino & Giorgio Rampa, 2012. "Quality risk aversion, conjectures, and new product diffusion," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1081-1115, November.
    15. Lisa de Propris & Carlo Corradini, 2013. "Technology Platforms in Europe: An Empirical Investigation. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 34," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46920, April.
    16. Ingrid Ott & Christian Papilloud & Torben Zülsdorf, 2009. "What Drives Innovation? Causes of and Consequences for Nanotechnologies," Managing Global Transitions, University of Primorska, Faculty of Management Koper, vol. 7(1), pages 5-26.
    17. Gustafsson, Robin & Autio, Erkko, 2011. "A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 819-831, July.
    18. Hufbauer, Gary Clyde, 2008. "Global governance: old and new issues," Kiel Working Papers 1460, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    19. Goio Etxebarria & Mikel Gomez-Uranga & Jon Barrutia, 2012. "Tendencies in scientific output on carbon nanotubes and graphene in global centers of excellence for nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(1), pages 253-268, April.
    20. Marcel Bednarz & Tom Broekel, 2020. "Pulled or pushed? The spatial diffusion of wind energy between local demand and supply," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(4), pages 893-916.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technologies; risk perception; self-selection; socialization;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    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:zbw:ifwkwp:1555. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iwkiede.html .

    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.