Reading risk: public response to print media accounts of technological risk

Abstract

Two clearly defined positions on the evaluation of technological risks have emerged in the scholarly literature in a variety of disciplines: a `rationalist' perspective and a `subjectivist' perspective. This paper argues from a subjectivist position that differences between scientific and lay responses to risk information (as presented in media accounts) are not necessarily generally attributable to `misinterpretations' by nonscientific readers, and that the process through which lay publics interpret mass media accounts of risk is worthy of more study. Data are presented from twenty focus group discussions, involving 114 student respondents, of a range of print media articles about risky technologies. The results suggest that lay publics work with an `expanded vocabulary of risk' that takes into account a variety of issues having to do with information, implementation, regulation, and ethical considerations, as well as the cost and benefit factors traditionally weighed by risk assessors. The scientific community needs to recognize that the public expects this kind of broader accountability, and media accounts need to be written to respond to needs in these areas.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Lang, G. E. , and Lang, K. , 1983, The Battle for Public Opinion: the President, the Press, and the Polls During Watergate (New York: Columbia University Press).

Dickson, D. , 1984, The New Politics of Science (New York: Pantheon Books).

Zeckhauser, R. J. , and Viscusi, W. K. , 1990, Risk within reason. Science, 248 (4 May), 559-564.

Slovic, P. , Fischoff, B. , and Lichtenstein, S. , 1979, Rating the risks. Environment, 21(3), 14-20, 36-39.

Bradbury, J. A. , 1989, The policy implications of differing concepts of risk. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14(4), 380-399.

Stalling, R. A. , 1990, Construction of risk. Social Problems, 37(1), 80-95.

Plein, L. C. , 1991, Popularizing biotechnology: the influence of issue definition. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(4), 474-490.

Wildavsky, A. , and Dake K. , 1990, Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41-60.

Gans, H. , 1979, Deciding What's News (New York: Random House).

10.

Nelkin, D. , 1987, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman).

11.

Turner, R. H. , Nigg, J. M. , and Paz, D. H. , 1986, Waiting for Disaster: Earthquake Watch in California (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

12.

Hovland, C. I. , Janis, I. L. , and Kelley, H. H. , 1953, Communication and Persuasion (New Haven, C onn.: Yale University Press).

13.

Mazur, A. , 1981, Media coverage and public opinion on scientific controversies. Journal of Communication, 21(2), 106-115.

14.

Wiegman, O. , Gutteling, J. M. , Boer, H. , and Houwen, R. J. , 1989, Newspaper coverage of hazards and the reactions of readers. Journalism Quarterly, 66(4), 846-852.

15.

Iyengar, S. , and Kinder, D. R. , 1987, News That Matters: Television and American Opinion (University of Chicago Press).

16.

Lasswell, H. , 1948, The structure and function of communication in society. The Communication of Ideas, edited by L. Bryson (New York: Institute for Religious and Social Studies).

17.

DeFleur, M. , and Ball-Rokeatch, S. , 1989, Theories of Mass Communication (White Plains, NY: Longman).

18.

Lowery, S. , and DeFleur, M. , 1988, Milestones in Mass Communication Research (New York: Longman).

19.

Gandy, O. , 1982, Beyond Agenda-Setting: Information Subsidies and Public Policy (Norwood, NJ: Ablex).

20.

Tuchman, G. , 1978, Making News: A Study in the Construction of Reality (New York: Free Press).

21.

Gerbner, G. , and Gross, L. P. , 1976, Living with television: the violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172-199.

22.

Graber, D. A. , 1988, Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide (New York: Longman).

23.

Rogers, E. , 1983, Diffusion of Innovations (3rd edn) (New York: Free Press).

24.

This study thus `brackets' or sets aside, as the phenomenologists would say, the issue of absolute truth, and approaches instead the issue of how relative truths emerge, or are constructed, in social interaction. The approach of this study is thus parallel in theory, although not necessarily in method, to that of ethnomethodology or interpretive sociology. See Pollner, M. , 1974, Sociological and common-sense models of the labelling process. Ethnomethodology, edited by R. Turner (Baltimore, MD: Penguin), pp. 27-40. The results should be as useful for those embracing a rationalist conception of risk as for those embracing a subjectivist conception, however, since rationalist approaches to public education need to be grounded in how people actually think.

25.

For a general introduction to focus group methodology in media studies, see Wimmer, R. D. , and Dominik, J. R. , 1991, Mass Media Research: An Introduction (3rd edn) (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth).

26.

Hornig, S. , 1990, News frames and the nature of truth: the effects of quotation use and controversy in stories about science. Southwest Mass Communication Journal, 5(2), 41-49.

27.

Glaser, B. , and Strauss, A. , 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Chicago: Aldine).

28.

Fisher, A. , 1991, Risk communication challenges. Risk Analysis, 11(2), 173-179.

29.

Hornig, S. , 1992, Framing risk: audience and reader factors. Journalism Quarterly, 69(3), 679-690.

30.

Cantril, H. , 1940, The Invasion from Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic (Princeton University Press).

31.

Wynne, B. , 1989, Frameworks of rationality in risk management: towards the testing of naive sociology. Environmental Threats: Perception, Analysis and Management, edited by Jennifer Brown (London: Belhaven), pp. 33-47.

32.

Johnson, B. B. , and Covello, V. T. , 1987, The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk: Essays on Risk Selection and Perception (Dordrecht: Reidel).