IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v10y2021i2p76-d503690.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distrust of Authorities: Experiences of Outcome and Processes of People Who Had Their Driving License Withdrawn Due to Visual Field Loss

Author

Listed:
  • Jonna Nyberg

    (The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), SE-581 95 Linköping, Sweden
    The Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden)

  • Lena Levin

    (The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), SE-581 95 Linköping, Sweden)

  • Katarina Larsson

    (Swedish Transport Agency, SE-703 46 Örebro, Sweden)

  • Thomas Strandberg

    (The Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden
    School of Law, Psychology and Social Work, Örebro University, SE-702 81 Örebro, Sweden
    School of Education, Health and Social Studies, Dalarna University, SE-791 88 Falun, Sweden)

Abstract

Citizens’ trust of authorities is of general importance, as it can affect trust in society as a whole. The Swedish Transport Agency is a state administrative authority responsible for driving license withdrawal. If withdrawals are experienced as unfair by those affected, this might lead to decreased trust in the agency and in other actors involved. This study accordingly examines how the experiences of people who have had their driving license for a private car withdrawn due to visual field loss might affect their distrust of the authorities, as related to outcomes and processes. Follow-up interviews were conducted with nine people from a previous study. Content analysis revealed one overarching theme, struggling for justice within a system perceived as unfair , which comprised four identified categories: preparedness for and understanding of the withdrawn driving license (WDL) ; perceptions of assessment methods , reactions and actions regarding the decision , and perceptions of the authorities’ performance . In sum, the vision tests on which withdrawals are based were perceived as unfair, as they did not measure individual driving ability. Furthermore, rejections of appeals led to feelings of hopelessness. Distrust regarding outcomes and processes related to the withdrawals was also fueled by experiences of deficiencies regarding, for example, performance and information.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonna Nyberg & Lena Levin & Katarina Larsson & Thomas Strandberg, 2021. "Distrust of Authorities: Experiences of Outcome and Processes of People Who Had Their Driving License Withdrawn Due to Visual Field Loss," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:76-:d:503690
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/2/76/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/2/76/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    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. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    2. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    3. Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2020. "Collectivism and commonality in liquidity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-162.
    4. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    5. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    6. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    7. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    8. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    11. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    12. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Fernanda Bethlem Tigre & Paulo Lopes Henriques & Carla Curado, 2022. "Building trustworthiness: Leadership self-portraits," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 3971-3991, December.
    14. Justin Baker & W. Douglass Shaw & Mary Riddel & Richard T. Woodward, 2009. "Changes in subjective risks of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina evacuees," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 59-74, January.
    15. George Cvetkovich & Michael Siegrist & Rachel Murray & Sarah Tragesser, 2002. "New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 359-367, April.
    16. Costa-Font, Joan & Vilaplana-Prieto, Cristina, 2023. "Health System Trust and Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions," IZA Discussion Papers 15961, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Donald G. MacGregor & Raymond Fleming, 1996. "Risk Perception and Symptom Reporting," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 773-783, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    20. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:76-:d:503690. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.