IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhb/hastba/2002_005.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Perceived information technology risks and attitudes

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Risk has been a focal dimension in much of the debate about attitudes toward technology. In the present paper, the development of research on risk perception is reviewed, from its beginnings in the end of the 1960's. The received view on factors in risk perception is that of the psychometric model and social trust. It is pointed out that this approach gives only an incomplete understanding of risk and risk acceptance, and some missing elements are delineated, such as Tampering with Nature, which is an important factor in technology acceptance, and trust (or distrust) in science, and the embracing of alternative views on the nature of the world and knowledge (New Age). Several methodological points are also important. Risks should be studied with regard to one’s own personal (personal risk), and to others (general risk), because these dimensions often differ and they have different implications. It should also be observed that the most important risk aspect is severity of consequences of unwanted events or accidents, not their probability. When it comes to attitudes toward technology it is argued that the replaceability of a technology is an important factor. IT risks have been investigated in a major survey carried out with a representative sample of the Swedish population. The main finding was that IT risks were seen as pertinent mainly to others, implying that people (rightly or wrongly) perceived that they could protect themselves from IT risks. IT risks are finally regarded in the light of Stigma Theory, which has been devised to understand some social and political reactions to risks, and it is held that it is unlikely that IT will become a stigmatized technology, partly because it is seen as irreplaceable. Yet, many IT risks are very real and many people are aware of them. In particular, personal integrity is threatened and the very novelty of the technology involved is probably the cause why ethical and legal developments lag far behind. Initial one-sided positive statements about IT are likely to be followed by more sober assessments of this technology which brings many blessings but also an increasing number of serious risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Sjöberg, Lennart, 2002. "Perceived information technology risks and attitudes," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2002:5, Stockholm School of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhb:hastba:2002_005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://swoba.hhs.se/hastba/papers/hastba2002_005.pdf
    File Function: Complete Rendering
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lennart Sjöberg & Jana Fromm, 2001. "Information Technology Risks as Seen by the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 427-442, June.
    2. William C. Metz, 1994. "Potential Negative Impacts of Nuclear Activities on Local Economies: Rethinking the Issue," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 763-770, October.
    3. Asa Boholm, 1998. "Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 135-163, April.
    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Tsai, Ming-Chih, 2006. "Constructing a logistics tracking system for preventing smuggling risk of transit containers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 526-536, July.
    3. Aven, Terje & Renn, Ortwin, 2018. "Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 230-241.
    4. Shoji Ohtomo & Yukio Hirose & Cees J.H. Midden, 2011. "Cultural differences of a dual-motivation model on health risk behaviour," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 85-96, January.
    5. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    6. Ziyang Li & Qianwei Ying & Yuying Chen & Xuehui Zhang, 2020. "Managerial risk appetite and asymmetry cost behavior: evidence from China," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(5), pages 4651-4692, December.
    7. Kristen Tappenden, 2014. "The district of North Vancouver’s landslide management strategy: role of public involvement for determining tolerable risk and increasing community resilience," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 72(2), pages 481-501, June.
    8. Josephine, Faass & Michael, Lahr, 2007. "Towards a More Holistic Understanding of American Support for Genetically Modified Crops: An Examination of Influential Factors Using a Binomial Dependent Variable," MPRA Paper 6124, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Picchio, Matteo & Santolini, Raffaella, 2022. "The COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on voter turnout," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    10. Ben Brahim-Neji, Hella & Ruiz-Villaverde, Alberto & González-Gómez, Francisco, 2014. "Decision aid supports for evaluating agricultural water reuse practices in Tunisia: The Cebala perimeter," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 113-121.
    11. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    12. Sascha L. Schmidt & Benno Torgler & Verena Jung, 2017. "Perceived trade-off between education and sports career: evidence from professional football," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(29), pages 2829-2850, June.
    13. William C. Metz, 1996. "Historical Application of a Social Amplification of Risk Model: Economic Impacts of Risk Events at Nuclear Weapons Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 185-193, April.
    14. Shi-yu Hu & Miao Yu & Ting Que & Gang Fan & Hui-ge Xing, 2022. "Individual willingness to prepare for disasters in a geological hazard risk area: an empirical study based on the protection motivation theory," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 110(3), pages 2087-2111, February.
    15. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    16. Veronika Villnow & Meike Rombach & Vera Bitsch, 2019. "Examining German Media Coverage of the Re-Evaluation of Glyphosate," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Roya Derakhshan, 2022. "Building Projects on the Local Communities’ Planet: Studying Organizations’ Care-Giving Approaches," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(4), pages 721-740, February.
    18. Shaikh Mohammad Kais & Md Saidul Islam, 2019. "Perception of Climate Change in Shrimp-Farming Communities in Bangladesh: A Critical Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-12, February.
    19. Robert Coles & Gerard P. Hodgkinson, 2008. "A Psychometric Study of Information Technology Risks in the Workplace," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 81-93, February.
    20. Peter Kamstra & Brian Cook & David M. Kennedy & Barbara Brighton, 2018. "Treating risk as relational on shore platforms and implications for public safety on microtidal rocky coasts," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 91(3), pages 1299-1316, 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:hhb:hastba:2002_005. 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: Helena Lundin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/erhhsse.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.