IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v33y2013i8p1489-1499.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Contagion of Risk Perceptions in Environmental Management Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Bret A. Muter
  • Meredith L. Gore
  • Shawn J. Riley

Abstract

An important requisite for improving risk communication practice related to contentious environmental issues is having a better theoretical understanding of how risk perceptions function in real‐world social systems. Our study applied Scherer and Cho's social network contagion theory of risk perception (SNCTRP) to cormorant management (a contentious environmental management issue) in the Great Lakes Basin to: (1) assess contagion effects on cormorant‐related risk perceptions and individual factors believed to influence those perceptions and (2) explore the extent of social contagion in a full network (consisting of interactions between and among experts and laypeople) and three “isolated” models separating different types of interactions from the full network (i.e., expert‐to‐expert, layperson‐to‐layperson, and expert‐to‐layperson). We conducted interviews and administered questionnaires with experts (e.g., natural resource professionals) and laypeople (e.g., recreational and commercial anglers, business owners, bird enthusiasts) engaged in cormorant management in northern Lake Huron (n = 115). Our findings generally support the SNCTRP; however, the scope and scale of social contagion varied considerably based on the variables (e.g., individual risk perception factors), actors (i.e., experts or laypeople), and interactions of interest. Contagion effects were identified more frequently, and were stronger, in the models containing interactions between experts and laypeople than in those models containing only interactions among experts or laypeople.

Suggested Citation

  • Bret A. Muter & Meredith L. Gore & Shawn J. Riley, 2013. "Social Contagion of Risk Perceptions in Environmental Management Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(8), pages 1489-1499, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:8:p:1489-1499
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01936.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01936.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01936.x?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. 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.
    2. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    3. Cynthia G. Jardine & Steve E. Hrudey, 1997. "Mixed Messages in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 489-498, August.
    4. Clifford W. Scherer & Hichang Cho, 2003. "A Social Network Contagion Theory of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 261-267, April.
    5. Jeffrey K. Lazo & Jason C. Kinnell & Ann Fisher, 2000. "Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 179-194, April.
    6. David Dekker & David Krackhardt & Tom Snijders, 2007. "Sensitivity of MRQAP Tests to Collinearity and Autocorrelation Conditions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 563-581, December.
    7. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance, 1995. "Improving Risk Communication in Government: Research Priorities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 127-135, April.
    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. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    2. Venu Kandiah & Andrew R. Binder & Emily Z. Berglund, 2017. "An Empirical Agent‐Based Model to Simulate the Adoption of Water Reuse Using the Social Amplification of Risk Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 2005-2022, October.
    3. Busby, J.S., 2019. "The co-evolution of competition and parasitism in the resource-based view: A risk model of product counterfeiting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 300-313.

    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. Shan Gao & Weimin Li & Shuang Ling & Xin Dou & Xiaozhou Liu, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Influence Path of Environmental Risk Perception on Behavioral Responses In China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    3. 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.
    4. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Lianying Yao & Jinchi Shen & Fuying Zhang & Xinbing Gu & Shuli Jiang, 2021. "Influence of Environmental Values on the Typhoon Risk Perceptions of High School Students: A Case Study in Ningbo, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Jeffrey R. Masuda & Theresa Garvin, 2006. "Place, Culture, and the Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 437-454, April.
    8. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2013. "The Unintended Effects of Risk‐Refuting Information on Anxiety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 80-91, January.
    9. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    10. Venu Kandiah & Andrew R. Binder & Emily Z. Berglund, 2017. "An Empirical Agent‐Based Model to Simulate the Adoption of Water Reuse Using the Social Amplification of Risk Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 2005-2022, October.
    11. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    12. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    13. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    14. Dezhong Duan & Qifan Xia, 2022. "From the United States to China? A trade perspective to reveal the structure and dynamics of global electronic‐telecommunications," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 823-847, June.
    15. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    16. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    19. de Oliveira Maciel, Cristiano & Netto, Raul Zanon Rocha, 2020. "Architectural agency in intra-organizational networks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 489-497.
    20. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.

    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:33:y:2013:i:8:p:1489-1499. 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.