Current discussions on public trust, as well as on risk communication, have a restricted rationalistic bias in which the cognitive-reflexive aspect of trust is emphasized at the expense of its emotional aspect. This article contributes to a substantive theory of trust by exploring its emotional character. Drawing on recent discussions in science and technology studies, social psychology, and general social theory, it argues that trust is a modality of action that is relational, emotional, asymmetrical, and anticipatory. Hence, trust does not develop through information and the uptake of knowledge but through emotional involvement and sense-making. The implications of this conception of trust for public understandings of science and for risk communication are discussed.
BarbaletJ (2009a) A characterization of trust, and its consequences. Theory and Society38(4): 367–382.
4.
BarbaletJ (2009b) Consciousness, emotions, and science. In: HopkinsDKleresJFlamHKuzmicsH (eds) Theorizing Emotions: Sociological Explorations and Applications. Frankfurt: Camus Verlag, pp. 39–71.
5.
BarbaletJ (2011) Emotions beyond regulation: Backgrounded emotions in science and trust. Emotion Review3(1): 36–43.
6.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
7.
BickerstaffKWalkerG (2001) Public understandings of air pollution: The “localisation” of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change11(2): 133–145.
8.
BreakwellGM (2007) The Psychology of Risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ChappellNLOrbachHL (1986) Socialization in old age: A Meadian perspective. In: MarshallVW (ed.) Later Life: The Social Psychology of Aging. London: SAGE, pp. 75–106.
10.
CloreGLPalmerJE (2009) Affective guidance of intelligent agents: How emotion controls cognition. Cognitive Systems Research10(1): 22–30.
11.
CollinsR (2004) Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
CooleyCH ([1902] 1992) Human Nature and the Social Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
13.
CritchleyCR (2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 309–327.
14.
De MarchiBRavetzJ (1999) Risk management and governance: A post-normal science approach. Futures31(7): 743–757.
15.
DunningDFetchenhauerD (2010) Trust as an expressive rather than an instrumental act. Advances in Group Processes27(1): 97–127.
16.
EarleTCvetkovichG (1995) Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
17.
EngdahlE (2005) A Theory of the Emotional Self: From the Standpoint of a Neo-Meadian. Örebro: Örebro University. Örebro studies ni sociology No. 6
18.
FeltUWynneB (2007) Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Expert Group on Science and Governance. EUR 22700. Brussels: European Commission DG Research, Science Economy and Society Directorate.
19.
FinucaneMSlovicPMertzCKFlynnJSatterfieldT (2000) Gender, race and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk and Society2(2): 159–172.
20.
FischerF (2005) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
21.
FischoffB (1999) If trust so good, why isn’t there more of it? In: CvetkovitchGLöfstedtRE (eds) Social Trust and the Management of Risk. London: Earthscan, pp. viii–x.
22.
FrederiksenM (2011) Suspending the Unknown: The Foundations, Limits, and Variability of Intersubjective Trust. Ph.D. No. 64, Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen.
23.
FuntowiczSORavetzJR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures25(7): 739–755.
24.
GambettaD (ed.) (1990) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
25.
GauchatG (2011) The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 751–770.
26.
GiddensA (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
27.
GouldsonALidskogRWester-HerberM (2007) The battle for hearts and minds: Evolutions in organisational approaches to environmental risk communication. Environmental and Planning C25(1): 56–72.
28.
GustafssonKLidskogR (2012) Acknowledging risk, trusting expertise, and coping with uncertainty: Citizens’ deliberations on spraying an insect population. Society & Natural Resources25(6): 587–601.
IrwinAMichaelM (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
31.
IrwinAWynneB (1996) (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
JamesW (1956) The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy. New York: Dover.
33.
JasanoffS (2003) Technologies of humilities: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva41(3): 223–244.
34.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs of Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
JoasH (1997) The Creativity of Action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
36.
JonesK (1996) Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics107(1): 4–25.
37.
KemperTD (1978) A Social Interactional Theory of Emotions. New York: Wiley.
38.
LachDSanfordS (2010) Public understanding of science and technology embedded in complex institutional settings. Public Understanding of Science19(2): 130–146.
39.
LahnoB (2001) On the emotional character of trust. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice4(2): 171–189.
40.
LangeBGouldsonA (2010) Trust-based environmental regulation. Science of the Total Environment408(22): 5235–5243.
41.
LatourB (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
LiberatoreAFuntowiczSO (2003) “Democratising” expertise, “expertising” democracy: What does this mean, and why bother?Science and Public Policy30(1): 146–150.
43.
LidskogR (1996) In science we trust? On the relation between scientific knowledge, risk consciousness and public trust. Acta Sociologica39(1): 31–56.
44.
LidskogR (2008) Scientised citizens and democratised science: Re-assessing the expert-lay divide. Journal of Risk Research11(1–2): 69–86.
45.
LidskogR (2011) Regulating nature: Public understanding and moral reasoning. Nature and Culture6(2): 149–167.
46.
LidskogRSundqvistG (2012) The sociology of risk. In: RoeserSHillerbrandRSandinPPetersonM (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics and Social Implications of Risk. New York: Springer, pp. 1001–1028.
47.
LöfstedtRE (2005) Risk Management in Post-trust Societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
48.
LuhmannN (1979) Trust and Power: Two Works. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
49.
LuhmannN (1993) Risk: A Sociological Theory. Berlin, GE: Walter de Gruyter.
50.
LujánJLTodtO (2007) Precaution in public: The social perception of the role of science and values in policy making. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 97–109.
51.
MarkováIGillespieA (2008) (eds) Trust and Distrust: Sociocultural Perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
52.
MarresN (2007) The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science37(5): 759–778.
53.
MeadGH (1895) A theory of emotions from the physiological viewpoint. Psychological Review2: 162–164.
54.
MeadGH ([1934] 1967) Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55.
MeadGH ([1936] 1972) Movements of Thought in the Nineteenth Century, ed. MooreMH. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
56.
MeadGH ([1903] 1981) The definition of the psychical. In: Selected Writings: George Herbert Mead, ed. ReckAJ. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–59.
57.
MeadGH (1982) The Individual and the Social Self: Unpublished Work of George Herbert Mead, ed. MillerDL. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58.
MisztalBA (1996) Trust in Modern Societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
59.
MölleringG (2001) The nature of trust: From George Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology35(2): 403–420.
NowotnyHScottPGibbonsM (2001) Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
62.
PowerM (2007) Organized Uncertainty: Designing a World of Risk Management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
63.
RennO (2008) Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London, UK: Earthscan.
64.
SantosSChessC (2003) Evaluating citizen advisory boards: The importance of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications. Risk Analysis23(2): 269–279.
65.
SiegristMCvetkovichGRothC (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis20(3): 353–362.
66.
SimmelG ([1907] 1990) The Philosophy of Money. London: Routledge.
67.
SjöbergL (2001) Political decisions and public risk perception. Reliability Engineering and System Safety72(2): 115–123.
68.
SlovicP (1993) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis13(6): 675–682.
69.
SlovicPPetersE (1998) The importance of worldviews in risk perception. Risk Decision and Policy3(2): 165–170.
70.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersEMacGregorDG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis24(2): 311–322.
71.
SztompkaP (1999) Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
72.
Taylor-GoobyPZinnJO (eds) (2006) Risk in Social Sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
73.
TillyC (2005) Trust and Rule. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
74.
VaughanETinkerT (2009) Effective health risk communication about pandemic influenza for vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health99(S2): S324–S332.
75.
WicksonFWynneB (2012) The anglerfish deception. EMBO Reports13(2): 100–105.
76.
WynneB (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science1(3): 281–304.
77.
WynneB (1993) Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science2(4): 321–337.
78.
WynneB (1996) Maythe sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: LashSSzerszynskyBWynneB (eds) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: SAGE, pp. 44–83.
79.
WynneB (2001) Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture10(4): 445–481.
80.
WynneB (2005) Risk as globalizing “democratic” discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: LeachMScoonesIWynneB (eds) Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement. London: ZED Books, pp. 66–82.
81.
WynneB (2008) Elephants in the rooms where public encounter “science”? A response to Darrin Durant, ”Accounting for expertise: Wynne and the autonomy of the lay public”. Public Understanding of Science17(1): 21–33.
82.
ZajoncRB (1980) Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist35(2): 151–175.
