IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i10p5220-d554588.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capturing the Interplay between Risk Perception and Social Media Posting to Support Risk Response and Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Huiyun Zhu

    (School of Management Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing 210044, China)

  • Kecheng Liu

    (Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Finance Intelligence and Institute of Fintech, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 200434, China
    Informatics Research Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6UD, UK)

Abstract

This research aims to capture the interplay between risk perception and social media posting through a case study of COVID-19 in Wuhan to support risk response and decision making. Dividing users on Sina Weibo into the government, the media, the public, and other users, we address two main research questions: Whose posting affects risk perception and vice versa? How do different categories of social media users’ posts affect risk perception and vice versa? We use Granger causality analysis and impulse response functions to answer the research questions. The results show that from one perspective, the government and the media on Sina Weibo play critical roles in forming and affecting risk perceptions. From another perspective, risk perception promotes the posting of the media and the public on Sina Weibo. Since government’s posting and media’s posting can significantly enhance the public’s perceptions of risk issues, the government and the media must remain vigilant to provide credible risk-related information.

Suggested Citation

  • Huiyun Zhu & Kecheng Liu, 2021. "Capturing the Interplay between Risk Perception and Social Media Posting to Support Risk Response and Decision Making," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:10:p:5220-:d:554588
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5220/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5220/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yu Jie Ng & Z. Janet Yang & Arun Vishwanath, 2018. "To fear or not to fear? Applying the social amplification of risk framework on two environmental health risks in Singapore," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(12), pages 1487-1501, December.
    2. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    3. Massimiliano Scopelliti & Maria Giuseppina Pacilli & Antonio Aquino, 2021. "TV News and COVID-19: Media Influence on Healthy Behavior in Public Spaces," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Chan, Man-pui Sally & Winneg, Kenneth & Hawkins, Lauren & Farhadloo, Mohsen & Jamieson, Kathleen Hall & Albarracín, Dolores, 2018. "Legacy and social media respectively influence risk perceptions and protective behaviors during emerging health threats: A multi-wave analysis of communications on Zika virus cases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 50-59.
    5. Viktor Pekar & Jane Binner & Hossein Najafi & Chris Hale & Vincent Schmidt, 2020. "Early detection of heterogeneous disaster events using social media," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(1), pages 43-54, January.
    6. Son, Jaebong & Lee, Hyung Koo & Jin, Sung & Lee, Jintae, 2019. "Content features of tweets for effective communication during disasters: A media synchronicity theory perspective," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 56-68.
    7. John Fellenor & Julie Barnett & Clive Potter & Julie Urquhart & J.D. Mumford & C.P. Quine, 2018. "The social amplification of risk on Twitter: the case of ash dieback disease in the United Kingdom," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(10), pages 1163-1183, October.
    8. Patrick Cheong-Iao Pang & Qixin Cai & Wenjing Jiang & Kin Sun Chan, 2021. "Engagement of Government Social Media on Facebook during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Macao," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-19, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Ellen M. Peters & Burt Burraston & C. K. Mertz, 2004. "An Emotion‐Based Model of Risk Perception and Stigma Susceptibility: Cognitive Appraisals of Emotion, Affective Reactivity, Worldviews, and Risk Perceptions in the Generation of Technological Stigma," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1349-1367, October.
    11. Mariana Cernicova-Buca & Adina Palea, 2021. "An Appraisal of Communication Practices Demonstrated by Romanian District Public Health Authorities at the Outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, February.
    12. Jedsada Phengsuwan & Tejal Shah & Nipun Balan Thekkummal & Zhenyu Wen & Rui Sun & Divya Pullarkatt & Hemalatha Thirugnanam & Maneesha Vinodini Ramesh & Graham Morgan & Philip James & Rajiv Ranjan, 2021. "Use of Social Media Data in Disaster Management: A Survey," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, February.
    13. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    14. Chun Yang & James Price Dillard & Ruobing Li, 2018. "Understanding Fear of Zika: Personal, Interpersonal, and Media Influences," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2535-2545, December.
    15. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    16. Sungyoon Kim & Wanyun Shao & Jonghun Kam, 2019. "Spatiotemporal patterns of US drought awareness," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, December.
    17. Mengtian Zhao & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2019. "Media Disaster Reporting Effects on Public Risk Perception and Response to Escalating Tornado Warnings: A Natural Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 535-552, March.
    18. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    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. Zhang Yangzi & Kenny S. L. Cheah & Mohd Shahril Nizam Bin Shaharom, 2023. "Enhancing Self-Leadership in Online Fitness Education and Training: Exploring Strategies and Addressing Challenges Among Social Media Influencers in Henan Province, China," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.

    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. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    2. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    4. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    5. Lee, Edmund W.J. & Bao, Huanyu & Wang, Yixi & Lim, Yi Torng, 2023. "From pandemic to Plandemic: Examining the amplification and attenuation of COVID-19 misinformation on social media," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).
    6. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    7. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    8. Yingying Sun & Ziqiang Han, 2018. "Climate Change Risk Perception in Taiwan: Correlation with Individual and Societal Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    9. 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.
    10. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    11. Adriana Galderisi & Giada Limongi, 2024. "Living with Risks: Changes in Risk Perception in the Campi Flegrei Volcanic Area (South Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-22, November.
    12. Lianying Yao & Jinchi Shen & Fuying Zhang & Xinbing Gu & Shuli Jiang, 2021. "Influence of Environmental Values on the Typhoon Risk Perceptions of High School Students: A Case Study in Ningbo, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    13. Daniela Knuth & Doris Kehl & Lynn Hulse & Silke Schmidt, 2014. "Risk Perception, Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1286-1298, July.
    14. Chihiro Nakayama & Osamu Sato & Minoru Sugita & Takeo Nakayama & Yujiro Kuroda & Masatsugu Orui & Hajime Iwasa & Seiji Yasumura & Rima E Rudd, 2019. "Lingering health-related anxiety about radiation among Fukushima residents as correlated with media information following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, May.
    15. Sarah P. Church & Belyna Bentlage & Roberta Weiner & Nicholas Babin & Brian R. Bulla & Katelyn Fagan & Tonya Haigh & J. Stuart Carlton & Linda S. Prokopy, 2020. "National print media vs. agricultural trade publications: communicating the 2012 Midwestern US drought," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 43-63, July.
    16. Yao Lu & Zheng Ji & Xiaoqi Zhang & Yanqiao Zheng & Han Liang, 2020. "Re-Thinking the Role of Government Information Intervention in the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Agent-Based Modeling Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-17, December.
    17. Elizabeth A Albright & Deserai Crow, 2019. "Beliefs about climate change in the aftermath of extreme flooding," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 1-17, July.
    18. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    19. Matthew Billman & Kayode Atoba & Courtney Thompson & Samuel Brody, 2023. "How about Now? Changes in Risk Perception before and after Hurricane Irma," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, May.
    20. Yuriko Suzuki & Yoshitake Takebayashi & Seiji Yasumura & Michio Murakami & Mayumi Harigane & Hirooki Yabe & Tetsuya Ohira & Akira Ohtsuru & Satomi Nakajima & Masaharu Maeda, 2018. "Changes in Risk Perception of the Health Effects of Radiation and Mental Health Status: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-11, June.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:10:p:5220-:d:554588. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.