Literature DB >> 21039705

Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discussions and their impact on perceptions of risks and benefits of a biological research facility.

Andrew R Binder1, Dietram A Scheufele, Dominique Brossard, Albert C Gunther.   

Abstract

Much risk communication research has demonstrated how mass media can influence individual risk perceptions, but lacks a comprehensive conceptual understanding of another key channel of communication: interpersonal discussion. Using the social amplification of risk as a theoretical framework, we consider the potential for discussions to function as amplification stations. We explore this possibility using data from a public opinion survey of residents living in potential locations for a new biological research facility in the United States. Controlling for a variety of key information variables, our results show that two dimensions of discussion-frequency and valence-have impacts on residents' perceptions of the facility's benefits and its risks. We also explore the possibility that an individual's overall attitude moderates the effect of discussion on their perceptions of risks and benefits. Our results demonstrate the potential for discussions to operate as amplifiers or attenuators of perceptions of both risks and benefits.
© 2010 Society for Risk Analysis.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21039705     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01516.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  11 in total

1.  The complexity of public engagement.

Authors:  Craig Cormick
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2012-02-06       Impact factor: 39.213

2.  The amplification of risk in experimental diffusion chains.

Authors:  Mehdi Moussaïd; Henry Brighton; Wolfgang Gaissmaier
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-04-20       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Defining hazard from the mine worker's perspective.

Authors:  B M Eiter; C L Kosmoski; B P Connor
Journal:  Min Eng       Date:  2016-11

4.  What we know about effective public engagement on CRISPR and beyond.

Authors:  Dietram A Scheufele; Nicole M Krause; Isabelle Freiling; Dominique Brossard
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-04-30       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Reviews on common objectives and evaluation indicators for risk communication activities from 2011 to 2017.

Authors:  Akiko Sato; Kaori Honda; Kyoko Ono; Reiko Kanda; Takehiko I Hayashi; Yoshihito Takeda; Yoshitake Takebayashi; Tomoyuki Kobayashi; Michio Murakami
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Opinion formation and the collective dynamics of risk perception.

Authors:  Mehdi Moussaïd
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Is exposure to e-cigarette communication associated with perceived harms of e-cigarette secondhand vapour? Results from a national survey of US adults.

Authors:  Andy S L Tan; Cabral A Bigman; Susan Mello; Ashley Sanders-Jackson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  From warning messages to preparedness behavior: The role of risk perception and information interaction in the Covid-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Yanan Guo; Shi An; Tina Comes
Journal:  Int J Disaster Risk Reduct       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 4.842

9.  Risk sharing on Twitter: Social amplification and attenuation of risk in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Xiaochen Angela Zhang; Raluca Cozma
Journal:  Comput Human Behav       Date:  2021-08-14

10.  Media Exposure and General Trust as Predictors of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Ten Years after the 5.12 Wenchuan Earthquake in China.

Authors:  Lingnan He; Kaisheng Lai; Zhongxuan Lin; Zhihao Ma
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-10-27       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.