Author
Listed:
- Yue Dai
- Yi-Hui Christine Huang
- Wufan Jia
- Qinxian Cai
Abstract
Adopting the theoretical lenses of social amplification of risk framework and trust paradox, this study examines how people’s attention to media information influences their risk perception and risk management behaviors (i.e. vaccination intention) in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic in three Chinese societies (i.e. Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Mainland China). A total of 9,575 valid samples were obtained via online survey panels. The results revealed that media attention significantly influenced risk perception and risk management across the three societies. Institutional trust, however, could amplify or attenuate risk perception and risk management in different societies: While institutional trust was found to have a positive impact on people’s risk perception in Taiwan and Mainland China, a negative impact was discovered in Hong Kong. Moreover, different dimensions of institutional trust, which we term ability-based trust and benevolence-based trust, were found to mediate the effect of media attention on risk perception and risk management in different societies: While both dimensions were significant mediators for Taiwan, benevolence-based trust and ability-based trust was the only mediator for Mainland China and Hong Kong, respectively. The paradoxical impact of institutional trust on risk perception and risk management is explained with contextual factors specific to each of the three societies, supplemented with post-hoc analysis on how publics assign risk management responsibility to risk management institutions in different societies. Overall, the results provide empirical support to the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) by highlighting the roles of media and institutions as social stations that shape risk perception.
Suggested Citation
Yue Dai & Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Wufan Jia & Qinxian Cai, 2022.
"The paradoxical effects of institutional trust on risk perception and risk management in the Covid-19 pandemic: evidence from three societies,"
Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(11-12), pages 1337-1355, December.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:25:y:2022:i:11-12:p:1337-1355
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2108122
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:25:y:2022:i:11-12:p:1337-1355. 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.