The role of trust in effective risk communication is critical (Kasperson, 2014). But what is meant by trust? Some interesting work delving into the nature of trust and its relationship to risk perception and risk communication is explored by Heinz Gutscher and Tim Earle and discussed on the blog, Understanding Social Trust. The authors discuss the difference between confidence and trust in their blog post, Trust and Climate Policy. For a more complete discussion, see Earle, 2010.
“…the goal of trust is solidarity, while the goal of confidence is accuracy.”
“The major implication for risk management practice can be summed up as follows: First establish solidarity, then pursue accuracy.
- In the case of normalized hazards of low moral importance, solidarity is pre-established. The main concern is accuracy. Risk communication is a technical process of education.
- For controversial hazards of high moral importance, solidarity is non-existent. The main concern is establishing solidarity. Risk communication is a political process requiring leadership to demonstrate ways in which new, more inclusive groups can be formed so that people can work together on their common problems.
- In between these extremes lies a broad middle ground of hazards about which there is disagreement on how to proceed, but that disagreement isn’t rooted in deep moral convictions. The main concern is pragmatic problem solving, and both confidence and trust are in play. Risk communication makes use of both technical analysis and political deliberation.”
This conception of trust, confidence, and their relationship with risk communication might be helpful in that it provides guidance as to when trust, confidence, or both, need to be paramount, for meaningful risk communications.
Comments and thoughts are welcome!
Earle, T. C. (2010). Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 541–574. https://understandingsocialtrust.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/trust-review-article2.pdf.
Kasperson, R. (2014). Four questions for risk communication. Journal of Risk Research, 17(10), 1233–1239. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.900207