5.2.3. Analysis of the Mediation Effect of Information Processing
We test the mediation model again. The results revealed that government
trust significantly associated with heuristic processing (b =
0.18, t = 1.79, 95% CI = [-0.02, 0.38], p = .08),
supporting Hypothesis 2. However, government trust did not predict
system processing (b = 0.06, t = 0.32, 95% CI = [-0.33,
0.46], p = .75); thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. When
information processing methods and government trust were both entered
into the regression equation, heuristic processing significantly
negatively associated with risk perception (b = -0.22, t =
2.78, 95% CI = [-0.38, -0.06], p = .006), and the mediating
effect of heuristic processing in government trust and risk perception
was significant; thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported. Systematic processing
did not predict risk perception (b = 0.02, t = 0.44, 95%
CI = [-0.06, 0.10], p = .66), and the mediating effect was
not significant; thus, Hypothesis 5 was not supported.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Flood hazards occur very frequently, and how individuals perceive flood
hazards is a critical component for formulating risk communication.
People’s trust in the government has a great influence on risk
perception. In the past, scholars have shared different opinions on
whether trust can affect people’s risk perception. Siegrist and
Cvetkovich (2000) emphasized that trust has an important influence on
risk perception; however, this point has been strongly questioned by
Sjöberg (2000). Notably, all prior research was conducted in Western
countries.
Our research makes at least three key contributions. First, we
identified whether trust affects risk perception. Although, according to
cultural theory, different cultural groups worry about distinct issues
(Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982; Kahan, Braman, Cohen, Gastil, & Slovic,
2010), risk perceptions vary with cultural biases (i.e., worldviews;
Wildavsky & Dake 1990) and experience with previous hazards (Kellens,
Zaalberg, Neutens, Vanneuville, & De Maeyer, 2011; Lindell & Hwang
2008; Terpstra 2011). Researchers suggest that considering peoples’
perceptions, social factors, psychological factors, and culture is
essential (Bempah & Øyhus, 2017). Study 1 utilized a real, urban
waterlogging risk event as the backdrop and examined the relationship
between people’s trust in the government and their risk perception. We
revealed that the more people believe in the government, the lower their
risk perception.
Second, we explored the mechanism between trust and risk perception
using flood risk as the backdrop. Studies 2 and 3 used two different
methods to jointly test the negative relationship between trust and risk
perception using information processing; that is, to answer the
question, “How does trust work?”, we clarified the importance of trust
in risk perception and elucidated the key influential mechanisms.
Studies 2 and 3 showed that the negative correlation between trust in
government and risk perception could be explained by information
processing methods. During floods, the higher the public’s trust in the
government, the more they will use heuristics to process risk
information; their risk perception will also lower. This result is
partly consistent with previous results (Trumbo & McComas, 2003, 2008).
Trust is a state of mind, which refers to the possibility of accepting
vulnerability (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer,1998) under the
premise of making positive expectations of the intentions or actions of
others. This mental state of trust makes it possible to reduce the
complexity of things and prevent people from thinking too much about
potential risks (Siegrist & Cvetkovich, 2000). People tend to use
heuristic processing when they have a high level of trust in the
government, thus leading to a lower risk perception (Trumbo & McComas,
2008).
Third, this research found that when government trust is low, people
have a higher risk perception; however, this relationship cannot be
explained by information processing. Contrary to the conclusion drawn by
Tortosa-Edo et al. (2014), which was based on chemical pollution risk.
Heuristic processing is more dependent on people’s experiences: compared
with chemical pollution and nuclear pollution risks, people have more
experience with flood risks (Ge et al., 2011); thus, people may have
more heuristic processing when facing flood risks. Future research can
focus on how different risk events affect people’s psychological
processing mechanisms.
This study also has some limitations. First, the sample
representativeness was limited. Although adult participants were
employed in Study 1, the sampling scope was still limited to young
populations, the findings cannot be generalized to older populations.
Second, this research utilized self-reported information processing
methods, which are prone to key biases (e.g., social approval), this may
lead very low reliabilities. Future research needs to explore more
effective tools to capture participants’ information processing.
Finally, we did not did not measure trust in information but trust in
government. Future research can examine how the trust in information
influence information processing and risk perception.
CONCLUSIONS
Government trust can influence risk perception of flood, the higher the
public’s trust in the government, the more they will use heuristics to
process risk information; their risk perception will also lower.