scholarly journals Acute Stress Reduces the Social Amplification of Risk Perception

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie F. Popovic ◽  
Ulrike U. Bentele ◽  
Jens C. Pruessner ◽  
Mehdi Moussaïd ◽  
Wolfgang Gaissmaier
Author(s):  
Jeanne X. Kasperson ◽  
Roger E. Kasperson ◽  
Nick Pidgeon ◽  
Paul Slovic

Author(s):  
Yulia A. Strekalova ◽  
Janice L. Krieger

Risk is a social construction, and its understanding by information consumers is shaped through interaction with messages, opinions, shared and learned experiences, and interpretations of the characteristics of risk. Social actors and information flows can provide heuristic cues about risks, their relative importance and unimportance, and the attention that an information consumer ought to pay to a particular risk. Social cues can also accentuate particular characteristics of risk, further amplifying or attenuating attention to it and shaping behaviors. This, in turn, can generate secondary and tertiary effects resultant from the public’s reaction to risk. The process of social amplification of risk, therefore, has structural components that include the social elements that get enacted in the process of the translation of risk information. Risk amplification is also affected by message factors, which can dramatize information, increase attention and uncertainty, and generate shared signals and symbols. And finally, social amplification of risks results in reactions that can shape pathways for risk assessment and management, frame views, fuel intergroup dynamics in response to risk, contribute to the accumulation of experiential knowledge and signals of different risk situations, and label and stigmatize some groups or outcomes as undesirable.


Author(s):  
Andrew R. Binder ◽  
Michael A. Cacciatore ◽  
Dietram A. Scheufele ◽  
Dominique Brossard

Author(s):  
Paul B. Thompson

Paul B. Thompson argues that defenders and critics of novel technologies share the same fundamental assumption that technological innovation is the key source of greater efficiency in production. Although they question how social institutions incentivize innovation and distribute benefits, innovation as such is always seen as a good thing -- except when it comes to certain emerging technologies: agricultural biotechnologies, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology. Then public perception is skeptical, negative, even outraged. Thompson turns to risk assessment to figure out what makes some technologies more disturbing than others. He examines the “social amplification of risk,” the cognitive and social phenomena that distort perception and cause people to see a situation as more risky that it is, other times as less risky. Thompson identifies two different approaches to the risk amplification: purification and hybridization. The former excludes irrational social fears, outrage, and distrust from a risk assessment; the latter takes these motivating influences seriously and incorporates them into a risk assessment. Thompson warns that purification can engender the suspicion that powerful actors are indifferent to social perceptions, and suggests that hybridization can be an effective response to the perception of environmental harms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document