IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v15y2012i9p1049-1074.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social risk amplification as an attribution: the case of zoonotic disease outbreaks

Author

Listed:
  • Jerry Busby
  • Dominic Duckett

Abstract

Past work on social risk amplification has concentrated on studying large-scale, aggregated societal responses to risk issues as the outcome of social processes. An alternative approach, explored in this article, is to regard amplification as an attribution. Social risk amplification is something that social actors attribute to one another as they try to explain their systematic differences in response, not an objective characterisation of a response that is somehow disproportionate to its stimulus. This avoids the problem that the idea of a social amplification of risk can be taken to imply that a risk external to the social system can somehow be distorted by it. The attributional view also helps illustrate differences in risk response as much as commonalities. In order to explore risk amplification as an attribution we analyse the explanations and descriptions used by actors discussing recent outbreaks of zoonotic disease. We present a grounded analysis that produces a classification of these explanations and descriptions. It is evident from the clichés that informants used -- such as 'crying wolf', 'scare-mongering' and 'jumping on the bandwagon' -- that social actors have had a concept resembling social risk amplification that long predates the social amplification of risk framework. Moreover, they use it in a strongly normative way: sometimes saying this amplification is explicable and excusable, sometimes not. It is therefore a basis of social judgment. The idea of amplification as an attribution offers the particular advantage that it helps deal with situations where social actors develop their risk responses in reaction to the risk responses of other social actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Jerry Busby & Dominic Duckett, 2012. "Social risk amplification as an attribution: the case of zoonotic disease outbreaks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(9), pages 1049-1074, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:15:y:2012:i:9:p:1049-1074
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2012.670130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2012.670130
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2012.670130?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.
    2. Shan Gao & Weimin Li & Shuang Ling & Xin Dou & Xiaozhou Liu, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Influence Path of Environmental Risk Perception on Behavioral Responses In China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
    3. B Ding & M Stevenson & J.S. Busby, 2017. "The relationship between risk control imperative and perceived causation: the case of product counterfeiting in China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(6), pages 800-826, June.
    4. Busby, J.S. & Onggo, B.S.S. & Liu, Y., 2016. "Agent-based computational modelling of social risk responses," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 1029-1042.
    5. T. Anderson & J. S. Busby & M. Rouncefield, 2020. "Understanding the Ecological Validity of Relying Practice as a Basis for Risk Identification," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1383-1398, July.

    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:taf:jriskr:v:15:y:2012:i:9:p:1049-1074. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.