Sjoberg (2002). Attitudes toward technology and risk: Going beyind what is immediately given

Prof. Sjoberg of Center of Risk Research in Sweden wrote an article about risk perception and the factors shaping it. He mainly focused on two technologies: gene technology and nuclear power.

As indicated by the title, this study goes beyond the properties of risks, which most scholars took as the essence of risk research. Specifically, he looked at other factors, such as the relationship between nature and technology as well as various types of trust with respect to their ability in accounting for public risk perception. In addition, he also examined how utility (benefit), risk, trust, and active risk denial accounted for general attitudes toward technology.

He found that the traditional "psychometric model," in which dread and novelty were considered as the main determinants of public risk perception, accounted for only limited proportion of variance. The addition of the variable--tampering with nature--increased the model's explanatory power. Furthermore, he contends that worldviews were not a good predictor of risk perception.

His result also indicated a less strong relationship between trust and risk perception than that of Siegrist (The influence of trust...on the acceptance of gene technology, 2000, Risk Analysis). He attributed this difference to measurement. Whereas Siegrist used the Likert scale for his measure of trust and risk, Sjoberg used ratings. Sjoberg demonstrated in this study how the "common response factor" may heighten the relationship between trust and risk, a very interesting methodological point.

In general, attitudes toward technology were accounted for mostly by perception of the benefits, followed by risks and, sometimes, the technology's "replacibility." The consequence of a risk was also found to exert more impact on public attitudes than the size of the risk itself.

This study overall laid out a bunch of important factors shaping public perception of risks and attitudes toward technology. However, it seems to me that too many variables were examined without a coherent theme explicating why these factors should be explored together with each other. Furthermore, as with other risk research, this study ask its respondents how "risky" a technology is without exploring the specific risks associated with these technologies. For example, people may consider nuclear power as risky because of the risks in relation to radiation, waste management, and safety, but not other areas. Of course, the 109 college student sample also posed questions for the generalizability of his results.