We tested whether perceived characteristics of behavioral measures suggested by a public health authority such as uncertainty, complexity, subjective knowledge, and perceived behavioral control would moderate the effect of trust in that authority on compliance intentions. We also tested how other known determinants of behavior such as attitude, subjective norms, perceived risks and benefits, and freedom threat would moderate trust effects. Findings suggest that trust was more strongly associated with behavioral compliance decisions when individuals felt more confident in their understanding of the suggested behavior. In addition, behavioral characteristics involving affective evaluations appeared to enhance the effects of trust.
AceroB.DíazR.BehrJ. G. (2023). Flooding perception and its impact on hurricane evacuation intentions. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 95, 103892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103892
AlhakamiA. S.SlovicP. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085–1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x
AshillN. J.JobberD. (2010). Measuring state, effect, and response uncertainty: Theoretical construct development and empirical validation. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1278–1308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308329968
6.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. (2022). Strategic communication as planned behavior for science and risk communication: A theory-based approach to studying communicator choice. Risk Analysis, 42(11), 2584–2592. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14029
8.
BirkhäuerJ.GaabJ.KossowskyJ.HaslerS.KrummenacherP.WernerC.GergerH. (2017). Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 12(2), Article e0170988. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170988
9.
BleichS.BlendonR.AdamsA. (2007). Trust in scientific experts on obesity: Implications for awareness and behavior change. Obesity, 15(8), 2145–2156. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2007.255
10.
BogertJ. M.BucznyJ.HarveyJ. A.EllersJ. (2023). The effect of trust in science and media use on public belief in anthropogenic climate change: A meta-analysis. Environmental Communication, 18(4), 484–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2280749
BronfmanN. C.VázquezE. L. (2011). A cross-cultural study of perceived benefit versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship. Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1919–1934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01637.x
13.
ChenN.-T. N. (2015). Predicting vaccination intention and benefit and risk perceptions: The incorporation of affect, trust, and television influence in a dual-mode model. Risk Analysis, 35(7), 1268–1280. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12348
14.
ColognaV.SiegristM. (2020). The role of trust for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 101428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101428
15.
CvetkovichG.SiegristM.MurrayR.TragesserS. (2002). New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers. Risk Analysis, 22(2), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00030
16.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815
17.
EarleT. C.CvetkovichG. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Greenwood Publishing Group.
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: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind (pp. 1–50). Earthscan.
19.
EisingaR.te GrotenhuisM.PelzerB. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
20.
GillesI.BangerterA.ClémenceA.GreenE. G. T.KringsF.StaerkléC.Wagner-EggerP. (2011). Trust in medical organizations predicts pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccination behavior and perceived efficacy of protection measures in the Swiss public. European Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-011-9577-2
21.
HammJ. A. (2017). Trust, trustworthiness, and motivation in the natural resource management context. Society & Natural Resources, 30(8), 919–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1273419
22.
JohnsonB. B. (2020). Probing the role of institutional stereotypes in Americans’ evaluations of hazard-managing institutions. Journal of Risk Research, 23(3), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569095
23.
JohnsonB. B.MayorgaM.DieckmannN. F. (2023). How people decide who is correct when groups of scientists disagree. Risk Analysis, 44, 918–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14204
24.
KahanD. M.BramanD.SlovicP.GastilJ.CohenG. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341
25.
KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
28.
LalotF.AbramsD.TravaglinoG. A. (2021). Aversion amplification in the emerging COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of political trust and subjective uncertainty on perceived threat. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 31(2), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2490
29.
LehbergerM.KleihA.-K.SparkeK. (2021). Panic buying in times of coronavirus (COVID-19): Extending the theory of planned behavior to understand the stockpiling of nonperishable food in Germany. Appetite, 161, 105118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105118
30.
LiP. P. (2007). Towards an interdisciplinary conceptualization of trust: A typological approach. Management and Organization Review, 3(3), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00081.x
31.
LiuB. F.MehtaA. M. (2021). From the periphery and toward a centralized model for trust in government risk and disaster communication. Journal of Risk Research, 24(7), 853–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1773516
32.
MalkaA.KrosnickJ. A.LangerG. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29(5), 633–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01220.x
33.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
34.
MillerC. H. (2015). Persuasion and psychological reactance: The effects of explicit, high-controlling language. In SchulzeR.PishwaH. (Eds.), The exercise of power in communication: Devices, reception and reaction (pp. 269–286). Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
NguyenT. T.DangH. Q.Le-AnhT. (2023). Impacts of household norms and trust on organic food purchase behavior under adapted theory of planned behavior. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 14, 1055–1073. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-10-2022-0218
36.
O’MalleyA. S.SheppardV. B.SchwartzM.MandelblattJ. (2004). The role of trust in use of preventive services among low-income African-American women. Preventive Medicine, 38(6), 777–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.018
37.
PetrovskayaI.HaleemF. (2021). Socially responsible consumption in Russia: Testing the theory of planned behavior and the moderating role of trust. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 30(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12322
38.
PlohlN.MusilB. (2023). Trust in science moderates the effects of high/low threat communication on psychological reactance to COVID-19-related public health messages. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 16(4), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2023.2279395
39.
PoortvlietP. M.LokhorstA. M. (2016). The key role of experiential uncertainty when dealing with risks: Its relationships with demand for regulation and institutional trust. Risk Analysis, 36(8), 1615–1629. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12543
40.
QuickB. L.StephensonM. T. (2007). Further evidence that psychological reactance can be modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions. Communication Research, 34(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207300427
41.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.4.1) [Computer Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
42.
ReynaV. F. (2004). How people make decisions that involve risk: A dual-processes approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00275.x
43.
RickardL. N.DelineM. B.SmithN. (2024). The fish scales of justice: The influence of perceived justice on social license to operate for aquaculture development. Journal of Risk Research, 27(2), 185–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2024.2315999
44.
RousseauD. M.SitkinS. B.BurtR. S.CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
45.
SachdevaR. (2022). COVID-19 vaccine perceived risks and benefits: Scale development and initial tests of the psychometric properties. American Journal of Health Education, 53(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/19325037.2021.2019624
46.
SatterthwaiteF. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin, 2(6), 110–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/3002019
47.
SchiavoR.EyalG.ObregonR.QuinnS. C.RiessH.Boston-FisherN. (2022). The science of trust: Future directions, research gaps, and implications for health and risk communication. Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 15(4), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2022.2121199
48.
SiegristM. (2021). Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325
49.
SiegristM.ÁrvaiJ. (2020). Risk perception: Reflections on 40 years of research. Risk Analysis, 40(Suppl. 1), 2191–2206. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13599
50.
SiegristM.CousinM.-E.KastenholzH.WiekA. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49(2), 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002
51.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205064
52.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG.RothC. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.203034
53.
SiegristM.GutscherH.EarleT. C. (2005). Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 145–156.
54.
SiegristM.LuchsingerL.BearthA. (2021). The impact of trust and risk perception on the acceptance of measures to reduce COVID-19 cases. Risk Analysis, 41(5), 787–800. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13675
55.
SongH. (2023). On the strength of trust: The moderating role of certainty in judgments of authorities. Communication Research, 50(6), 745–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221150144
56.
SongH.McComasK. A.SchulerK. L. (2018). Source effects on psychological reactance to regulatory policies: The role of trust and similarity. Science Communication, 40(5), 591–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018791293
57.
SpaccatiniF.RichetinJ.RivaP.PancaniL.AriccioS.SacchiS. (2022). Trust in science and solution aversion: Attitudes toward adaptation measures predict flood risk perception. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 76, 103024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103024
58.
TerwelB. W.HarinckF.EllemersN.DaamenD. D. L. (2009). Competence-based and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Risk Analysis, 29(8), 1129–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01256.x
59.
ThompsonR. R.GarfinD. R.SilverR. C. (2017). Evacuation from natural disasters: A systematic review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 37(4), 812–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12654
60.
Toppenberg-PejcicD.NoyesJ.AllenT.AlexanderN.VanderfordM.GamhewageG. (2019). Emergency risk communication: Lessons learned from a rapid review of recent gray literature on Ebola, Zika, and yellow fever. Health Communication, 34(4), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1405488
VainioA.PaloniemiR.VarhoV. (2017). Weighing the risks of nuclear energy and climate change: Trust in different information sources, perceived risks, and willingness to pay for alternatives to nuclear power. Risk Analysis, 37(3), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12640
63.
VisschersV. H. M.SiegristM. (2013). How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x
64.
XiaoQ.LiuH.FeldmanM. W. (2017). How does trust affect acceptance of a nuclear power plant (NPP): A survey among people living with Qinshan NPP in China. PLOS ONE, 12(11), Article e0187941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187941
65.
ZhuY.HeG.GaoL. (2022). Complementarity or substitution? The interaction effects between knowledge and trust on public attitudes toward genetic modification. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 34(3), Article edac027. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edac027
