[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i10p2193-2207.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication

Author

Listed:
  • Robert D. Jagiello
  • Thomas T. Hills
Abstract
Social diffusion of information amplifies risk through processes of birth, death, and distortion of message content. Dread risk—involving uncontrollable, fatal, involuntary, and catastrophic outcomes (e.g., terrorist attacks and nuclear accidents)—may be particularly susceptible to amplification because of the psychological biases inherent in dread risk avoidance. To test this, initially balanced information about high or low dread topics was given to a set of individuals who then communicated this information through diffusion chains, each person passing a message to the next. A subset of these chains were also reexposed to the original information. We measured prior knowledge, perceived risk before and after transmission, and, at each link, number of positive and negative statements. Results showed that the more a message was transmitted the more negative statements it contained. This was highest for the high dread topic. Increased perceived risk and production of negative messages was closely related to the amount of negative information that was received, with domain knowledge mitigating this effect. Reexposure to the initial information was ineffectual in reducing bias, demonstrating the enhanced danger of socially transmitted information.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:10:p:2193-2207
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13117
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13117?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth Lachlan & Patric R. Spence, 2010. "Communicating Risks: Examining Hazard and Outrage in Multiple Contexts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(12), pages 1872-1886, December.
    2. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    3. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "The Function of Credibility in Information Processing for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 343-353, April.
    4. Peter M. Sandman & Paul M. Miller & Branden B. Johnson & Neil D. Weinstein, 1993. "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 585-598, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    2. Yuheng Wu & Lin Zhang & Jilong Wang & Yi Mou, 2021. "Communicating Air Quality Index Information: Effects of Different Styles on Individuals’ Risk Perception and Precaution Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Yongyou Nie & Jinbu Zhao & Yiyi Zhang & Jizhi Zhou, 2020. "Risk Evaluation of “Not-In-My-Back-Yard” Conflict Potential in Facilities Group: A Case Study of Chemical Park in Xuwei New District, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Branden B. Johnson, 2019. "Americans’ Views of Voluntary Protective Actions Against Zika Infection: Conceptual and Measurement Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2694-2717, December.
    5. Steven Buigut and Burcu Kapar, 2022. "Do COVID-19 Incidence and Government Intervention Influence Media Indices?," Bulletin of Applied Economics, Risk Market Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 79-100.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    2. Kenneth Lachlan & Patric R. Spence, 2010. "Communicating Risks: Examining Hazard and Outrage in Multiple Contexts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(12), pages 1872-1886, December.
    3. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    4. Oeystein Kjoersvik & Andrew Bate, 2022. "Black Swan Events and Intelligent Automation for Routine Safety Surveillance," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 419-427, May.
    5. Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1257-1270, December.
    6. Miguel Ángel López-Navarro & Jaume Llorens-Monzonís & Vicente Tortosa-Edo, 2013. "The Effect of Social Trust on Citizens’ Health Risk Perception in the Context of a Petrochemical Industrial Complex," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Michael R. Greenberg & Reya Sinha, 2006. "Government Risk Management Priorities: A Comparison of the Preferences of Asian Indian Americans and Other Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1275-1289, October.
    8. V.H.M. Visschers & P.M. Wiedemann & H. Gutscher & S. Kurzenhäuser & R. Seidl & C.G. Jardine & D.R.M. Timmermans, 2012. "Affect-inducing risk communication: current knowledge and future directions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 257-271, March.
    9. Jia, Ling & Qian, Queena K. & Meijer, Frits & Visscher, Henk, 2021. "How information stimulates homeowners’ cooperation in residential building energy retrofits in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    11. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    12. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    13. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    15. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    16. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    17. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    18. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    19. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    20. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:10:p:2193-2207. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.