IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v13y1993i6p585-598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Peter M. Sandman
  • Paul M. Miller
  • Branden B. Johnson
  • Neil D. Weinstein

Abstract

Three experimental studies were conducted employing hypothetical news stories to compare the effects on reader risk perceptions of two situations: when agency communication behavior was reported to be responsive to citizens’ risk concerns, vs. when the agency was reported to be unresponsive. In the first two experiments, news stories of public meetings filled with distrust and controversy led to ratings indicating greater perceived risk than news stories reporting no distrust or controversy, even though the risk information was held constant. This effect appeared clearly when the differences in meeting tone were extreme and subjects made their ratings from their recall of the stories, but it was much weaker when the differences were moderate and subjects were allowed to go back over the news stories to help separate risk information from conflict information. In the third experiment, news stories about a spill cleanup systematically varied the seriousness of the spill, the amount of technical information provided in the story, and the agency behavior and resulting community outrage. The outrage manipulation significantly affected affective and cognitive components of perceived risk, but not hypothetical behavioral intentions. Seriousness and technical detail had very little effect on perceived risk.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:13:y:1993:i:6:p:585-598
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01321.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01321.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01321.x?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. Roger E. Kasperson, 1986. "Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 275-281, September.
    2. Richard J. Bord & Robert E. O'Connor, 1992. "Determinants of Risk Perceptions of a Hazardous Waste Site," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 411-416, September.
    3. Richard J. Bord & Robert E. O'Connor, 1990. "Risk Communication, Knowledge, and Attitudes: Explaining Reactions to a Technology Perceived as Risky," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 499-506, December.
    4. Dominic Golding & Sheldon Krimsky & Alonzo Plough, 1992. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Narrative vs. Technical Presentations of Information About Radon," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 27-35, March.
    5. F. Reed Johnson & Ann Fisher, 1989. "Conventional Wisdom on Risk Communication and Evidence from a Field Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 209-213, June.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. SarahAnn M McFadden & Amyn A Malik & Obianuju G Aguolu & Kathryn S Willebrand & Saad B Omer, 2020. "Perceptions of the adult US population regarding the novel coronavirus outbreak," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-6, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Andrea D. Gurmankin & Jonathan Baron & Katrina Armstrong, 2004. "Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1347, October.
    6. Anders A F Wahlberg & Lennart Sjoberg, 2000. "Risk perception and the media," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 31-50, January.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 1999. "Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(4), pages 325-354, October.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    11. Barbara Miller & Janas Sinclair, 2012. "Risk Perceptions in a Resource Community and Communication Implications: Emotion, Stigma, and Identity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 483-495, March.
    12. Paul Lindhout & Genserik Reniers, 2022. "The “Transparency for Safety” Triangle: Developing a Smart Transparency Framework to Achieve a Safety Learning Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-21, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1257-1270, December.
    15. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.

    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. Branden B. Johnson, 1993. "“The Mental Model” Meets “The Planning Process”: Wrestling with Risk Communication Research and Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 5-8, February.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    3. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    4. Dennis S. Mileti & Colleen Fitzpatrick, 1992. "The Causal Sequence of Risk Communication in the Parkfield Earthquake Prediction Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(3), pages 393-400, September.
    5. Gu, Qianxin & Chen, Yang & Pody, Robert & Cheng, Rong & Zheng, Xiang & Zhang, Zhenxing, 2015. "Public perception and acceptability toward reclaimed water in Tianjin," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PA), pages 291-299.
    6. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    7. 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.
    8. George Cvetkovich & Michael Siegrist & Rachel Murray & Sarah Tragesser, 2002. "New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 359-367, April.
    9. Johanna Catherine Maclean & John Buckell & Joachim Marti, 2019. "Information Source and Cigarettes: Experimental Evidence on the Messenger Effect," NBER Working Papers 25632, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Wouter Poortinga & Karin Bronstering & Simon Lannon, 2011. "Awareness and Perceptions of the Risks of Exposure to Indoor Radon: A Population‐Based Approach to Evaluate a Radon Awareness and Testing Campaign in England and Wales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1800-1812, November.
    11. Liliana Cori & Olivia Curzio & Gabriele Donzelli & Elisa Bustaffa & Fabrizio Bianchi, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Radon Risk Perception, Awareness, and Knowledge: Risk Communication Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-27, August.
    12. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    13. José Manuel Palma‐Oliveira & Benjamin D. Trump & Matthew D. Wood & Igor Linkov, 2018. "Community‐Driven Hypothesis Testing: A Solution for the Tragedy of the Anticommons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 620-634, March.
    14. Dewi, Miranti Kartika & Manochin, Melina & Belal, Ataur, 2021. "Towards a conceptual framework of beneficiary accountability by NGOs: An Indonesian case study," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    15. David Fang & Chen-Ling Fang & Bi-Kun Tsai & Li-Chi Lan & Wen-Shan Hsu, 2012. "Relationships among Trust in Messages, Risk Perception, and Risk Reduction Preferences Based upon Avian Influenza in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Thomas Webler & Horst Rakel & Ortwin Renn & Branden Johnson, 1995. "Eliciting and Classifying Concerns: A Methodological Critique," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 421-436, June.
    17. Casado-Aranda, Luis-Alberto & Dimoka, Angelika & Sánchez-Fernández, Juan, 2019. "Consumer Processing of Online Trust Signals: A Neuroimaging Study," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 159-180.
    18. Robert Tobias, 2016. "Communication About Micropollutants in Drinking Water: Effects of the Presentation and Psychological Processes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 2011-2026, October.
    19. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2013. "Helping Individuals to Understand Synergistic Risks: An Assessment of Message Contents Depicting Mechanistic and Probabilistic Concepts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 851-865, May.
    20. Jagannathan, Radha & Camasso, Michael J., 2011. "The crucial role played by social outrage in efforts to reform child protective services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 894-900, June.

    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:13:y:1993:i:6:p:585-598. 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.