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

Binder, Andrew R.; Scheufele, Dietram A.; Brossard, Dominique; Günther, Albert C. L. G.

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01516.x

Cited by 76 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another study points in the same direction. Andrew Binder and his research group have found that more discussion only amplifies initial perceptions of the debaters (Binder, Scheufele, Brossard & Gunther 2011). In a news report on ScienceDaily, Binder is quoted saying:…”

Section: Is Climate Change Denial Useful In Society?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change denial, freedom of speech and global justice

Lavik

2016

Etikk Praksis - Nord J Appl Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p><em>In this paper I claim that there are moral reasons for making climate denialism illegal . First I define climate denialism, and then I discuss its impact on society and its reception in the media. I build my philosophical arguments mainly on John Stuart Mill and Thomas M. Scanlon. According to Mill’s utilitarian justification of free speech, even untrue opinions are valuable in society’s pursuit of more truth. Consequently one might think that Mill’s philosophy would justify climate denialists’ right to free speech. A major section of the paper argues against that view. The main arguments are: Climate denialism is not beneficial because its main goal is to produce doubt, and not truth. Climate denialism is not sincerely meant, which is a necessary condition for Mill to accept utterances. Climate denialists bring harm, by blocking necessary action on climate change. Primarily they harm future generations and people in developing countries. Hence the case can be made in terms of global justice: Would future generations and people in developing countries support my claim? I think so, or so I argue. My argument from global justice is built on Scanlon’s distinction between the interests of participants, the interests of audiences, and the interests of bystanders. The climate denialists have participant interests ‘in being able to call something to the attention of a wide audience’. Audience interests consist in ‘having access to expressions that we wish to hear or read, and even in being exposed to some degree to expressions we have not chosen’. Future generations and people in poor countries are bystanders to the climate debate. If the debate postpones necessary actions, it is the bystanders who must pay the price. I argue that bystanders’ costs outweigh participants’ and audiences’ interests, and that this is an argument for a statutory ban on climate denialism. </em></p>

show abstract

Section: Is Climate Change Denial Useful In Society?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change denial, freedom of speech and global justice

Lavik

2016

Etikk Praksis - Nord J Appl Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different people can see the same situation in different ways (Binder et al, 2011; Bahn, 2013). Perlman, Sacks and Barak (2014) observed differences in the levels of risk assessed for construction hazards, with the more experienced groups of workers, including superintendents and safety directors, assessing risk levels higher than inexperienced students.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining hazard from the mine worker�s perspective

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the recent past, the mining industry has witnessed a substantial increase in the numbers of fatalities occurring at metal and nonmetal mine sites, but it is unclear why this is occurring. One possible explanation is that workers struggle with identifying worksite hazards and accurately assessing the associated risk. The purpose of this research was to explore this possibility within the mining industry and to more fully understand stone, sand and gravel (SSG) mine workers' thoughts, understandings and perceptions of worksite hazards and risks. Eight mine workers were interviewed and asked to identify common hazards they come across when doing their jobs and to then discuss their perceptions of the risks associated with those identified hazards. The results of this exploratory study indicate the importance of workers' job-related experience as it applies to hazard identification and risk perception, particularly their knowledge of or familiarity with a task, whether or not they had personal control over that task, and the frequency with which they perform that task.

show abstract

“…Surveys have generally been analysed by regressing risk perceptions, and sometimes amplified risk perceptions, against expected correlates. These include types of information source and social interaction (BrenkertSmith et al, 2013), attitudes of support or hostility toward a technology (Binder et al, 2011), engagement in public meetings (McComas, 2003) and the volume of reporting (Frewer et al, 2002). Occasional studies have also looked at the covariation of behavioural changes, such as consumption of foods thought to carry disease, with risk perception (Raude et al, 2004).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Quantitative studies have occasionally used economic measures of risk responses, such as property values and business activity (Metz, 1996), and there has been some content analysis of the news media (Lewis and Tyshenko, 2009). But most quantitative work has been based on public surveys (for example Brenkert-Smith et al, 2013;Binder et al, 2011, Frewer et al, 2002. These are generally directed at the public, but some involve surveying the specific groups involved in a particular risk issue, such as physicians…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been used in a wide variety of contexts, including wildfire risk (Brenkert-Smith et al, 2013), the siting of potentially hazardous installations (Binder et al, 2011), environmental risk from tunneling (Chung, 2011), disease outbreaks (Lewis and Tyshenko, 2009, Raude et al, 2004, Busby and Duckett, 2012, genetically modified foods (Frewer et al, 2002), the dismantling of hazardous installations (Bakir, 2005), chemical accidents (Porto and de Freitas, 1996), climate change (Renn, 2011), nuclear weapons facility accidents (Metz, 1996), inoculation risks (Petts and Niemeyer, 2004) and general levels of violence in society (Hill, 2001). In such situations, the framework has provided a way of describing how discrepancies between the risk beliefs of different groups, and between experts and lay communities especially, can arise.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agent-based computational modelling of social risk responses

Busby

Onggo

Liu

2016

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Please cite this article as: J.S. Busby , B.S.S. Onggo , Y. Liu , Agent-based computational modelling of social risk responses, European Journal of Operational Research (2015Research ( ), doi: 10.1016Research ( /j.ejor.2015 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. One of the main approaches we have for analysing the emergent public response, the social amplification of risk framework, has been the subject of little modelling. The purpose of this paper is to explore how social risk amplification can be represented and simulated. The importance of heterogeneity among risk perceivers, and the role of their social networks in shaping risk perceptions, makes it natural to take an agent-based approach. We look in particular at how to model some central aspects of many risk events: the way actors come to observe other actors more than external events in forming their risk perceptions; the way in which behaviour both follows risk perception and shapes it; and the way risk communications are fashioned in the light of responses to previous communications. We show how such aspects can be represented by availability cascades, but also how this creates further problems of how to represent the contrasting effects of informational and reputational elements, and the differentiation of private and public risk beliefs. Simulation of the resulting model shows how certain qualitative aspects of risk response time series found empirically -such as endogenously-produced peaks in risk concern -can be explained by this model.

show abstract

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

Cited by 76 publications

References 34 publications

Climate change denial, freedom of speech and global justice

Climate change denial, freedom of speech and global justice

Defining hazard from the mine worker�s perspective

Agent-based computational modelling of social risk responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About