IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v30y2010i9p1328-1340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trust and Terrorism: Citizen Responses to Anti‐Terrorism Performance History

Author

Listed:
  • Branden B. Johnson

Abstract

The “intuitive detection theorists” model of trust posits greater trust for correctly distinguishing danger from safety and an activist response under uncertainty about danger. An American sample evaluated U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) performance after two possible terrorism events in which DHS has the same activist or nonactivist response bias. Outcomes were two successes (bombing prevented or lack of threat accurately foretold), two failures (bombing or DHS action against high school prank leads to student deaths), or a mix. Hindsight empathy (a belief one would have made the same decision) differed across treatments but trust less so; contrary to a similar one‐event experiment in Germany, an active but incorrect response did not raise trust relative to passive incorrect action. Political conservatives were much more trusting and empathetic than liberals, and all ideological groups (including moderates) exhibited little internal variation reflecting experimental conditions. Consistently accurate outcomes rated significantly higher in empathy than either inconsistent results or consistent inaccuracy (the lowest rated); trust exhibited no significant differences. Results in this study show actual (experimentally manipulated) performance being trumped by the interpretive screen of political ideology, but this seemed less the case in the earlier German study, despite its finding of a strong moderating effect of right‐wing authoritarianism. Trust scholars need to attend more to effects of performance history (i.e., a sequence of events) and their limiting factors. More systematic testing of effects of ideology and performance history would enhance future research on trust.

Suggested Citation

  • Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "Trust and Terrorism: Citizen Responses to Anti‐Terrorism Performance History," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1328-1340, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:9:p:1328-1340
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01422.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01422.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01422.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. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    3. James Flynn & William Burns & C.K. Mertz & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 417-429, September.
    4. Mathew P. White & Sabine Pahl & Marc Buehner & Andres Haye, 2003. "Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 717-726, August.
    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. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2005. "Information Specificity and Hazard Risk Potential as Moderators of Trust Asymmetry," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1187-1198, October.
    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. Mathew P. White & J. Christopher Cohrs & Anja S. Göritz, 2011. "Dynamics of Trust in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 710-720, September.
    2. Robin L. Dillon & Genevieve Lester & Richard S. John & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2012. "Differentiating Conflicts in Beliefs Versus Value Tradeoffs in the Domestic Intelligence Policy Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 713-728, April.

    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. 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.
    2. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    3. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    4. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    5. Stacey M. Conchie & Calvin Burns, 2008. "Trust and Risk Communication in High‐Risk Organizations: A Test of Principles from Social Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 141-149, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Stacey M. Conchie & Ian J. Donald, 2006. "The Role of Distrust in Offshore Safety Performance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1151-1159, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Mathew P. White & J. Christopher Cohrs & Anja S. Göritz, 2011. "Dynamics of Trust in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 710-720, September.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Claudia Eitzinger & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2008. "Trust in the Safety of Tourist Destinations: Hard to Gain, Easy to Lose? New Insights on the Asymmetry Principle," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 843-853, August.
    16. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    17. Dan Venables & Nick Pidgeon & Peter Simmons & Karen Henwood & Karen Parkhill, 2009. "Living with Nuclear Power: A Q‐Method Study of Local Community Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1089-1104, August.
    18. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2004. "Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1475-1486, December.
    19. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2005. "Information Specificity and Hazard Risk Potential as Moderators of Trust Asymmetry," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1187-1198, October.
    20. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.

    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:30:y:2010:i:9:p:1328-1340. 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.