Self-selection, socialization, and risk perception of technologies: An empirical study
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
|Date of creation:||Sep 2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Kiellinie 66, D-24105 Kiel|
Phone: +49 431 8814-1
Fax: +49 431 85853
Web page: http://www.ifw-kiel.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Trajtenberg, M. & Bresnahan, T.F., 1992.
"General Purpose Technologies: "Engines of Growth","
16-92, Tel Aviv.
- Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 2000. " Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 123-56, September.
- Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Rip, Arie & Mangematin, Vincent, 2007.
"Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology,"
Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 871-879, July.
- Robinson, D.K.R. & Rip, A. & Mangematin, V., 2006. "Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology," Working Papers 200603, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
- Douglas Robinson & Arie Rip & Vincent Mangematin, 2007. "Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-00424519, HAL.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kie:kieliw:1555. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dieter Stribny)The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Dieter Stribny to update the entry or send us the correct email address
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.