IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i2p324-334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew R. Binder
  • 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew R. Binder & Dietram A. Scheufele & Dominique Brossard & Albert C. Gunther, 2011. "Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 324-334, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:2:p:324-334
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01516.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01516.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01516.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. Huckfeldt, Robert & Sprague, John, 1987. "Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1197-1216, December.
    2. 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.
    3. William C. Metz, 1996. "Historical Application of a Social Amplification of Risk Model: Economic Impacts of Risk Events at Nuclear Weapons Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 185-193, April.
    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. Wadley, David A. & Han, Jung Hoon & Elliott, Peter G., 2019. "Risk hidden in plain sight: Explaining homeowner perceptions of electricity transmission infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 744-753.
    2. Ruixia Song & Shuzhuo Li & Marcus W. Feldman, 2021. "Public Participation and Governance Performance in Gender-Imbalanced Central Rural China: The Roles of Trust and Risk Perception," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Takashi Kusumi & Rumi Hirayama & Yoshihisa Kashima, 2017. "Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2305-2320, December.
    7. Lingnan He & Kaisheng Lai & Zhongxuan Lin & Zhihao Ma, 2018. "Media Exposure and General Trust as Predictors of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: Ten Years after the 5.12 Wenchuan Earthquake in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, October.
    8. Venu Kandiah & Andrew R. Binder & Emily Z. Berglund, 2017. "An Empirical Agent‐Based Model to Simulate the Adoption of Water Reuse Using the Social Amplification of Risk Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 2005-2022, October.

    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. 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. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    3. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    4. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    7. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    8. Finan, Frederico & Seira, Enrique & Simpser, Alberto, 2021. "Voting with one’s neighbors: Evidence from migration within Mexico," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    9. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," 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. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    12. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    13. 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.
    14. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    15. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    16. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    17. 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).
    18. Kévin Nadarajah & Laurent Brun & Stéphanie Bordel & Emeline Ah-Tchine & Anissa Dumesnil & Antoine Marques Mourato & Jacques Py & Laurent Jammes & Xavier Arnauld De Sartre & Alain Somat, 2024. "A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO 2 Geological Storage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, February.
    19. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    20. Yosef Bhatti & Kasper M. Hansen, 2016. "The Effect of Residential Concentration on Voter Turnout among Ethnic Minorities," International Migration Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(4), pages 977-1004, December.

    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:31:y:2011:i:2:p:324-334. 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.