The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework

Abstract

One of the most perplexing problems in risk analysis is why some relatively minor risks or risk events, as assessed by technical experts, often elicit strong public concerns and result in substantial impacts upon society and economy. This article sets forth a conceptual framework that seeks to link systematically the technical assessment of risk with psychological, sociological, and cultural perspectives of risk perception and risk-related behavior. The main thesis is that hazards interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways that may amplify or attenuate public responses to the risk or risk event. A structural description of the social amplification of risk is now possible. Amplification occurs at two stages: in the transfer of information about the risk, and in the response mechanisms of society. Signals about risk are processed by individual and social amplification stations, including the scientist who communicates the risk assessment, the news media, cultural groups, interpersonal networks, and others. Key steps of amplifications can be identified at each stage. The amplified risk leads to behavioral responses, which, in turn, result in secondary impacts. Models are presented that portray the elements and linkages in the proposed conceptual framework.

Trust in medical organizations predicts pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccination behavior and perceived efficacy of protection measures in the Swiss public

“…Washing hands and sneezing in the elbow might be construed as generic hygienic rules not specific to influenza protection, whereas mask wearing and vaccination are specific to influenza. This implies that protective measures differ in their symbolic connotations [21]. For example, wearing a mask might have been seen as stigmatizing; indeed in May 2009, Le Matin, a widely read French-speaking Swiss newspaper published an article titled: ''We have tried the mask: it will not protect you from ridicule''.…”

Reactivity and reactions to regulatory transparency in medicine, psychotherapy and counselling

“…Stories can create self-fulfilling prophecies (Ferraro et al, 2005;Weick, 1995). We suggest that public narratives about clinicians hiding malpractice, amplified (Kasperson et al, 1988) by the media, became 'stories that stick' (Heath and Heath, 2008). These narratives structure the attention of government, regulators and professions on rare but dangerous events and consequently how they develop clinical regulation.…”

“…Consequently reactions to risks made transparent may be technically disproportionate (Kasperson, Renn, Slovic, Brown, Emel, Goble et al, 1988).…”

“…Doctors described being "hammered every week by the press", which was seen to 'amplify' (Kasperson et al, 1988) medical risks beyond their experiences in practice. Consequently, medical interviewees believed regulators were over-reacting.…”

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

“…Communicating risks often involves interpreting available scientific evidence, and describing and summarizing scientific knowledge about exposure and risk issues (NRC, 1989). Risk communication can also be used to influence public opinion or choice, or to arouse or alleviate public concerns about a risk issue (Kasperson et al, 1988;Sandman, 1993). The history of risk communication as applied to environmental and public health risks has not been fully documented, but has clearly evolved through several developmental stages over time (Fischhoff, 1995) and may have been influenced by the desire to gain acceptance for decisions grounded in risk assessment methods (Plough and Krimsky, 1987) or the organizational adaptation of chemical manufacturers to external pressures (Chess, 2001).…”