IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v7y2017i2p2158244017709324.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Dilshani Sarathchandra
  • Aaron M. McCright

Abstract

Media coverage of scientific studies identifying technological risks generally amplifies public risk perceptions. Yet, if subsequent media coverage reports that those studies have been retracted, are risk perceptions reversed or attenuated? Or, once amplified, do risk perceptions remain elevated? Answering such questions may improve our understanding of risk perceptions of some publicly controversial technologies, for example, childhood vaccines and genetically modified (GM) food. We engage with the social amplification of risk framework, especially scholarship on news media as a risk amplification (or attenuation) station. In a between-subjects experiment, we examine the extent to which perceived risk of GM food is influenced by (a) news of a study reporting that eating GM food causes cancer and/or (b) news of its retraction. Whereas initial news coverage amplified all measured risk perceptions, news of the study’s retraction effectively reversed them to nonamplified levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:7:y:2017:i:2:p:2158244017709324
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244017709324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244017709324
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244017709324?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. Declan Butler, 2012. "Hyped GM maize study faces growing scrutiny," Nature, Nature, vol. 490(7419), pages 158-158, October.
    2. Vilella-Vila, Marta & Costa-Font, Joan, 2008. "Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 2095-2106, October.
    3. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Hallman, William K. & Hebden, W. Carl & Aquino, Helen L. & Cuite, Cara L. & Lang, John T., 2003. "Public Perceptions Of Genetically Modified Foods: A National Study Of American Knowledge And Opinion," Research Reports 18174, Rutgers University, Food Policy Institute.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    8. William R. Freudenburg & Cynthia‐Lou Coleman & James Gonzales & Catherine Helgeland, 1996. "Media Coverage of Hazard Events: Analyzing the Assumptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 31-42, February.
    9. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    10. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    11. R Grant Steen & Arturo Casadevall & Ferric C Fang, 2013. "Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
    12. Nick Allum, 2007. "An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard‐Related Trust: The Case of GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 935-946, August.
    13. Kevin E. Levay & Jeremy Freese & James N. Druckman, 2016. "The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440166, March.
    14. William J. Burns & Paul Slovic & Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Srinivas Emani, 1993. "Incorporating Structural Models into Research on the Social Amplification of Risk: Implications for Theory Construction and Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 611-623, December.
    15. Ganiere, Pierre & Chern, Wen S. & Hahn, David E., 2006. "A Continuum of Consumer Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Foods in the United States," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-21, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. George Chryssochoidis & Anna Strada & Athanasios Krystallis, 2009. "Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 137-185, March.
    3. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    4. Brad Love & Michael Mackert & Kami Silk, 2013. "Consumer Trust in Information Sources," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, June.
    5. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    6. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    7. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    8. 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.
    9. Hannah Brenkert‐Smith & Katherine L. Dickinson & Patricia A. Champ & Nicholas Flores, 2013. "Social Amplification of Wildfire Risk: The Role of Social Interactions and Information Sources," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 800-817, May.
    10. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    11. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    12. Leong, Ching Ching & Jarvis, Darryl & Howlett, Michael & Migone, Andrea, 2011. "Controversial science-based technology public attitude formation and regulation in comparative perspective: The state construction of policy alternatives in Asia," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 128-136.
    13. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    14. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    15. Michael Siegrist & Melanie Connor & Carmen Keller, 2012. "Trust, Confidence, Procedural Fairness, Outcome Fairness, Moral Conviction, and the Acceptance of GM Field Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1394-1403, August.
    16. Yuan, Xiaotong & Zhang, Yu Yvette & Palma, Marco A. & Ribera, Luis A., 2018. "Understanding Consumer response to GMO Information," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266720, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. John T. Lang & William K. Hallman, 2005. "Who Does the Public Trust? The Case of Genetically Modified Food in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1241-1252, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    20. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.

    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:sae:sagope:v:7:y:2017:i:2:p:2158244017709324. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.