Because research indicates that people’s value orientations significantly affect their opinions about advanced technologies some risk scholars argue that technology policy should reflect the recommendations of experts rather than the opinions of a value-driven public. This suggested approach might be bolstered to the extent that people use substantive (value-driven) rather than formal (reason-driven) rationality when assessing the recommendations of experts. We found evidence that people’s opinions are indeed influenced strongly by their substantive rationality. We nevertheless argue that technology policy formation should rely more rather than less upon public opinions, thereby encouraging further efforts at improving science communication theory and practice.
AckermanF. (1997). Consumed in theory: Alternative perspectives on the economics of consumption. Journal of Economic Issues, 31, 651-664.
2.
AlarioM.FreudenburgW. (2003). The paradoxes of modernity: Scientific advances, environmental problems, and risks to the social fabric. Sociological Forum, 18, 193-214.
3.
AnandP. (1993). Foundations of rational choice under risk. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
4.
AuldM. E. (1990). Food risk communication: Lessons from the Alar controversy. Health Education Research, 5, 535-543.
5.
BarberB. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
6.
BollenK. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
7.
BoudonR. (1981). The logic of social action. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
8.
CarterC. A.GruereG. P. (2003). International approaches to the labeling of genetically modified food. Choices, 18, 1-4.
9.
CohenW. R.(1985). Criteria for technology acceptability. Risk Analysis, 5, 1-3.
10.
ColemanJ. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
DietzT.SternP. C. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
14.
DouglasM. T.WildavskyA. B. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
EarleT. C. (2010). Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis, 30, 541-574.
16.
EarleT. C.CvetkovichG. T. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
17.
EarleT. C.SiegristM. (2006). Morality information, performance information, and the distinction between trust and confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 383-416.
18.
EarleT. C.SiegristM.GutscherH. (2007). Trust, risk perception, and the TCC model of cooperation. In SiegristM.EarleT. C.GutscherH. (Eds.), Trust in cooperative risk management (pp. 1-49). London, England: Earthscan.
19.
ElsterJ. (1989). Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
20.
FischhoffB. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of progress. Risk Analysis, 15, 137-145.
21.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22.
FreudenburgW. R. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44-49.
23.
FreudenburgW. R. (1993). Risk and recreancy: Weber, the division of labor, and the rationality of risk perceptions. Social Forces, 71, 909-932.
24.
FreudenburgW. R.PastorS. K. (1992). Public responses to technological risks: Toward a sociological perspective. Sociological Quarterly, 33, 389-412.
25.
FrewerL. J.HowardC.HedderleyD.ShepherdR. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks?Risk Analysis, 17, 473-500.
26.
GoklanvI. M. (2001). The precautionary principle: A critical appraisal of environmental risk assessment. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
27.
GollierC. (2004). The economics of risk and time. Cambridge: MIT Press.
28.
GrahamJ. D. (2004). The perils of the precautionary principle: Lessons from the American and European experience (Report No. 118). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
29.
HanekampJ. C. (2006). The precautionary principle: A critique in the context of the EU food supplements directive. Environmental Liability, 2, 43-51.
KahanD. M.SlovicP. (2006). Cultural evaluations of risk: Values or blunders?Harvard Law Review, 119, 166-172.
36.
KahanD. M.SlovicP.BramanD.GastilJ. (2006). Fear of democracy: A cultural evaluation of Sunstein on risk. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1071-1109.
37.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
38.
LovvornJ. R.PerryN. V. (2009). California Proposition 2: A watershed moment for animal law. Journal of Animal Law, 15, 149-169.
39.
LuhmannN. (1979). Trust and power. New York, NY: Wiley.
40.
LulkaD. (2011). California’s Proposition 2: Science, ethics, and the boundaries of authority in agriculture. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment, 33, 29-44.
41.
PowellR. (2010). What’s the harm? An evolutionary theoretical critique of the precautionary principle. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 20, 181-206.
42.
RennO. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London, England: Earthscan.
43.
RitzerG. (2010). Sociological theory (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
44.
RogersE. R. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
45.
RosaE. A.FreudenburgW. R. (1984). Nuclear power at the crossroads. In FreudenburgW. R.RosaE. A. (Eds.), Public reactions to nuclear power: Are there critical masses? (pp. 3-37). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
46.
SappS. G.ArnotC.FallonJ.FleckT.SoorholtzD.Sutton-VermeulenM.WilsonJ. J. H. (2009). Consumer trust in the U.S. food system: An examination of the recreancy theorem. Rural Sociology, 74, 525-545.
47.
SappS. G.Downing-MatibagT. (2009). Consumer acceptance of food irradiation: A test of the recreancy theorem. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 417-424.
48.
SappS. G.KorschingP. F. (2004). The social fabric and innovation diffusion: Symbolic adoption of food irradiation. Rural Sociology, 69, 347-369.
49.
SarkarS.PfeiferJ. (2006). The philosophy of science: Vol. 1. A-M. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
50.
SenA. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6, 317-344.
51.
Shrader-FrechetteK. S. (1991). Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
52.
SiegristM.EarleT. C.GutscherH. (2003). Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Analysis, 23, 705-716.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Reported internet usage for households, by selected householder characteristics: 2009. Washington, DC: Current Population Survey.
62.
WeberM. (1968). Economy and society (RothG.WittichC., Eds., Vol. 1). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1921)
63.
ZafirovskiM. (2005). Is sociology the science of the irrational? Conceptions of rationality in sociological theory. American Sociologist, 36, 85-110.
