IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i12p2580-2598.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retweeting Risk Communication: The Role of Threat and Efficacy

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah C. Vos
  • Jeannette Sutton
  • Yue Yu
  • Scott Leo Renshaw
  • Michele K. Olson
  • C. Ben Gibson
  • Carter T. Butts

Abstract

Social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook provide risk communicators with the opportunity to quickly reach their constituents at the time of an emerging infectious disease. On these platforms, messages gain exposure through message passing (called “sharing” on Facebook and “retweeting” on Twitter). This raises the question of how to optimize risk messages for diffusion across networks and, as a result, increase message exposure. In this study we add to this growing body of research by identifying message‐level strategies to increase message passing during high‐ambiguity events. In addition, we draw on the extended parallel process model to examine how threat and efficacy information influence the passing of Zika risk messages. In August 2016, we collected 1,409 Twitter messages about Zika sent by U.S. public health agencies’ accounts. Using content analysis methods, we identified intrinsic message features and then analyzed the influence of those features, the account sending the message, the network surrounding the account, and the saliency of Zika as a topic, using negative binomial regression. The results suggest that severity and efficacy information increase how frequently messages get passed on to others. Drawing on the results of this study, previous research on message passing, and diffusion theories, we identify a framework for risk communication on social media. This framework includes four key variables that influence message passing and identifies a core set of message strategies, including message timing, to increase exposure to risk messages on social media during high‐ambiguity events.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah C. Vos & Jeannette Sutton & Yue Yu & Scott Leo Renshaw & Michele K. Olson & C. Ben Gibson & Carter T. Butts, 2018. "Retweeting Risk Communication: The Role of Threat and Efficacy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2580-2598, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:12:p:2580-2598
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13140
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13140?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. Bail, C.A., 2016. "Emotional feedback and the viral spread of social media messages about autism spectrum disorders," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(7), pages 1173-1180.
    2. Rajagopal, 2013. "Social Media Metrics," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Managing Social Media and Consumerism, chapter 7, pages 132-151, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Larry G. Epstein, 1999. "A Definition of Uncertainty Aversion," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 579-608.
    4. Seth M. Noar & Benjamin M. Althouse & John W. Ayers & Diane B. Francis & Kurt M. Ribisl, 2015. "Cancer Information Seeking in the Digital Age," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(1), pages 16-21, January.
    5. Harris, J.K. & Mueller, N.L. & Snider, D., 2013. "Social media adoption in local health departments nationwide," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(9), pages 1700-1707.
    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. Ying Lian & Yueting Zhou & Xueying Lian & Xuefan Dong, 2022. "Cyber violence caused by the disclosure of route information during the COVID-19 pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    2. María-Cruz Negreira-Rey & Jorge Vázquez-Herrero & Tania Forja-Pena, 2024. "Radon Risk Communication through News Stories: A Multi-Perspective Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(10), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Han Lv & Xueyan Cao & Shiqi Chen & Liqun Liu, 2022. "Public and Private Information Sharing under “New Normal” of COVID-19: Understanding the Roles of Habit and Outcome Expectation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-26, May.

    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. Ya-Chuan Hsu & Tzeng-Ji Chen & Feng-Yuan Chu & Hao-Yen Liu & Li-Fang Chou & Shinn-Jang Hwang, 2019. "Official Websites of Local Health Centers in Taiwan: A Nationwide Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-10, January.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    3. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    4. Moradi, Homayoon, 2018. "Selfless ignorance: Too good to be true," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2018-208, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    6. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    7. Michèle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2011. "In search of a characterization of the preference for safety under the Choquet model," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 11031, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    8. Yousef Ahmad El Dameh & Hamad AL Ghadeer, 2021. "The Impact of Traditional Direct Marketing on Creating Brand Awareness: Case Study on IKEA in Jordan," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(3), pages 130-130, July.
    9. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    10. Robert Nau, 2001. "De Finetti was Right: Probability Does Not Exist," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 89-124, December.
    11. Stefano Di Lauro & Aizhan Tursunbayeva & Gilda Antonelli & Marcello Martinez, 2021. "Organizational and Corporate Identity on Social Media: A Literature Review," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(4), pages 1-53, July.
    12. Yadav, Manjit S. & de Valck, Kristine & Hennig-Thurau, Thorsten & Hoffman, Donna L. & Spann, Martin, 2013. "Social Commerce: A Contingency Framework for Assessing Marketing Potential," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 311-323.
    13. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 669-677, October.
    14. Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon & Klibanoff, Peter & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2000. "Maxmin expected utility through statewise combinations," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 49-54, January.
    15. Gajdos, T. & Hayashi, T. & Tallon, J.-M. & Vergnaud, J.-C., 2008. "Attitude toward imprecise information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 27-65, May.
    16. Antoniadis, Konstantinos & Grougiou, Vasiliki & Zafiropoulos, Kostas & Vrana, Vasiliki & Theocharidis, Anastasios Ioannis, 2018. "The use of Facebook and Twitter by DMOs in Europe," MPRA Paper 98936, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Carvalho, M., 2012. "Static vs Dynamic Auctions with Ambiguity Averse Bidders," Other publications TiSEM 1f078e67-88ec-46e3-ae18-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    18. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2002. "Coping with imprecise information: a decision theoretic approach," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04056, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised May 2004.
    19. Peter P. Wakker, 2000. "Uncertainty aversion: a discussion of critical issues in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 261-263, April.
    20. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.

    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:38:y:2018:i:12:p:2580-2598. 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.