Understanding causality is a critical part of developing preventive and treatment actions against cancer. Three main causality models—necessary, sufficient-component, and probabilistic causality have been commonly used to explain the causation between causal factors and risks in health science. However, news media do not usually follow a strict protocol to report the causality of health risks. The purpose of this study was to describe and understand how the causation of cancer was articulated on news media. A content analysis of 471 newspaper articles published in the United States during two time-frames (2007–2008 and 2017–2018) was conducted. The analysis showed that probabilistic causality was most frequently used to explain the causal relationship between risk factors and cancer. The findings also uncovered other important details of news framing, including types and characteristics of risk factors, intervention measures, and sources of evidence. The results provided theoretical and practical implications for public understanding and assessment of cancer risks.
AllmarkPTodA (2006) How should public health professionals engage with lay epidemiology?Journal of Medical Ethics32(8): 460–463.
2.
BaylinSBJonesPA (2011) A decade of exploring the cancer epigenome—Biological and translational implications. Nature Reviews Cancer11(10): 726–734.
3.
BernardC (1957) An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. New York, NY: Courier Corporation.
4.
BernardsRJaffeeEJoyceJALoweSWMardisERMorrisonSJ, et al. (2020) A roadmap for the next decade in cancer research. Nature Cancer1(1): 12–17.
5.
BerryTRWharf-HigginsJNaylorPJ (2007) SARS wars: An examination of the quantity and construction of health information in the news media. Health Communication21(1): 35–44.
6.
BohrN (1950) On the notions of causality and complementarity. Science111(2873): 51–54.
7.
BrashersDE (2001) Communication and uncertainty management. The Journal of Communication51(3): 477–497.
8.
BrayFFerlayJSoerjomataramISiegelRTorreLAJemalA (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians68(6): 394–424.
9.
BreakwellGM (2007) The Psychology of Risk. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BroadbentA (2009) Causation and models of disease in epidemiology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences40(4): 302–311.
11.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19(1): 24–52.
12.
BungeM (1979) Causality and Modern Science, 3rd rev edn. New York, NY: Dover Publications.
13.
BylundCLFisherCLBrashersDEdgersonSGlogowskiEABoyarSR, et al. (2012) Sources of uncertainty about daughters’ breast cancer risk that emerge during genetic counseling consultations. Journal of Genetic Counseling21(2): 292–304.
14.
ChyiHIYangMJLewisSCZhengN (2010) Use of and satisfaction with newspaper sites in the local market: Exploring differences between hybrid and online-only users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly87(1): 62–83.
15.
ClarkeJNEverestMM (2006) Cancer in the mass print media: Fear, uncertainty and the medical model. Social Science & Medicine62(10): 2591–2600.
16.
CoxDR (1992) Causality: Some statistical aspects. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A155(2): 291–301.
17.
DavisonCFrankelSSmithGD (1992) The limits of lifestyle: Re-assessing “fatalism” in the popular culture of illness prevention. Social Science & Medicine34(6): 675–685.
18.
DavisonCSmithGDFrankelS (1991) Lay epidemiology and the prevention paradox: The implications of coronary candidacy for health education. Sociology of Health & Illness13(1): 1–19.
19.
DudoADDahlstromMFBrossardD (2007) Reporting a potential pandemic: A risk-related assessment of avian influenza coverage in U.S. newspapers. Science Communication28(4): 429–454.
20.
EellsE (1991) Probabilistic Causality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
ElwoodJM (1992) Causal Relationships in Medicine: A Practical System for Critical Appraisal. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. The Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
23.
EscobarMPDemerittD (2014) Flooding and the framing of risk in British broadsheets, 1985–2010. Public Understanding of Science23(4): 454–471.
24.
EvelandWPSeoMMartonK (2002) Learning from the news in campaign 2000: An experimental comparison of TV news, newspapers, and online news. Media Psychology4(4): 353–378.
25.
EzzatiMLopezADRodgersAHoornSVMurrayCJL (2002) Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. The Lancet360(9343): 1347–1360.
26.
FischhoffB (2012) Communicating uncertainty fulfilling the duty to inform. Issues in Science and Technology28(4): 63–70.
27.
FisherRA (1934) Indeterminism and natural selection. Philosophy of Science1(1): 99–117.
28.
FrewerLJHuntSBrennanMKuznesofSNessMRitsonC (2003) The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research6(1): 75–85.
29.
FrewerLJMilesSMarshR (2002) The media and genetically modified foods: Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis22(4): 701–711.
30.
GiffordSM (1986) The meaning of lumps: A case study of the ambiguities of risk. In: JanesCRStallRGiffordSM (eds) Anthropology and Epidemiology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing, pp. 213–246.
31.
GordonJ (2003) Risk communication and foodborne illness: Message sponsorship and attempts to stimulate perceptions of risk. Risk Analysis23(6): 1287–1296.
32.
GreenwoodKJenkinsJ (2015) Visual framing of the Syrian conflict in news and public affairs magazines. Journalism Studies16(2): 207–227.
33.
HackingI (1990) The Taming of Chance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Hoffman-GoetzLFriedmanDB (2005) Disparities in the coverage of cancer information in ethnic minority and mainstream mass print media. Ethnicity & Disease15(2): 332–340.
35.
HollandPW (1986) Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association81(396): 945–960.
36.
HughesEKitzingerJMurdockG (2006) The media and risk. In: Taylor-GoobyPZinnJ (eds) Risk in Social Science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 250–270.
37.
HumeD (2000 [1748]) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: A Critical Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
38.
HumphreysP (2014) The Chances of Explanation: Causal Explanation in the Social, Medical, and Physical Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
HuntKEmslieC (2001) Commentary: The prevention paradox in lay epidemiology—Rose revisited. International Journal of Epidemiology30: 442–446.
40.
IyengarS (1994) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
JangSM (2013) Framing responsibility in climate change discourse: Ethnocentric attribution bias, perceived causes, and policy attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology36: 27–36.
42.
JensenJD (2008) Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research34(3): 347–369.
43.
JensenJDMoriartyCMHurleyRJStrykerJE (2010) Making sense of cancer news coverage trends: A comparison of three comprehensive content analyses. Journal of Health Communication15(2): 136–151.
44.
JensenJDPokharelMScherrCLKingAJBrownNJonesC (2017) Communicating uncertain science to the public: How amount and source of uncertainty impact fatalism, backlash, and overload. Risk Analysis37(1): 40–51.
45.
JohnsonBBSlovicP (1995) Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis15(4): 485–494.
46.
JohnsonJDMeischkeH (1993) A comprehensive model of cancer-related information seeking applied to magazines. Human Communication Research19(3): 343–367.
47.
KaspersonRERennOSlovicPBrownHSEmelJGobleR, et al. (1988) The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis8(2): 177–187.
48.
KitzingerJ (1999) Researching risk and the media. Health, Risk & Society1(1): 55–69.
49.
KochR (1933) The aetiology of tuberculosis. Archives of Internal Medicine51(5): 818–818.
50.
KriegerN (1994) Epidemiology and the web of causation: Has anyone seen the spider?Social Science & Medicine39(7): 887–903.
KrippendorffK (2012) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
53.
LagiouPAdamiH-OTrichopoulosD (2005) Causality in cancer epidemiology. European Journal of Epidemiology20(7): 565–574.
54.
LewisD (1974) Causation. The Journal of Philosophy70(17): 556–567.
55.
LewisRETyshenkoMG (2009) The impact of social amplification and attenuation of risk and the public reaction to mad cow disease in Canada. Risk Analysis29: 714–728.
56.
LimSSVosTFlaxmanADDanaeiGShibuyaKAdair-RohaniH, et al. (2012) A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet380(9859): 2224–2260.
57.
LombardMSnyder-DuchJBrackenCC (2002) Content analysis in mass communication assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research28(4): 587–604.
58.
McConnachieAHuntKEmslieCHartCWattG (2001) “Unwarranted survivals” and “anomalous deaths” from coronary heart disease: Prospective survey of general population. BMJ323(7327): 1487–1491.
59.
McCroskeyJCYoungTJ (1981) Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal32(1): 24–34.
MackieJL (1965) Causes and conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly2(4): 245–264.
62.
MaierS (2010) All the news fit to post? Comparing news content on the web to newspapers, television, and radio. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly87(3–4): 548–562.
63.
MaximLMansierPGrabarN (2013) Public reception of scientific uncertainty in the endocrine disrupter controversy: The case of male fertility. Journal of Risk Research16(6): 677–695.
64.
MazurA (1990) Nuclear power, chemical hazards, and the quantity of reporting. Minerva28(3): 294–323.
65.
MelloSHornikRC (2016) Media coverage of pediatric environmental health risks and its effects on mothers’ protective behaviors. Risk Analysis36(3): 605–622.
66.
MellorDH (1998) The Facts of Causation. New York, NY: Routledge.
67.
MenziesP (1989) Probabilistic causation and causal processes: A critique of Lewis. Philosophy of Science56(4): 642–663.
ParascandolaM (2011) Causes, risks, and probabilities: Probabilistic concepts of causation in chronic disease epidemiology. Preventive Medicine53(4–5): 232–234.
71.
ParascandolaMWeedDL (2001) Causation in epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health55(12): 905–912.
72.
PetersHPDunwoodyS (2016) Scientific uncertainty in media content: Introduction to this special issue. Public Understanding of Science25(8): 893–908.
73.
PopperKR (1961 [1934]) The Logic of Scientific Discovery (trans. PopperKR). New York, NY: Science Editions.
74.
PostSMaierM (2016) Stakeholders’ rationales for representing uncertainties of biotechnological research. Public Understanding of Science25(8): 944–960.
75.
PriorL (2003) Belief, knowledge and expertise: The emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociology of Health & Illness25: 41–57.
76.
PuddephattAJPrusR (2007) Causality, agency, and reality: Plato and Aristotle meet George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer. Sociological Focus40(3): 265–286.
77.
RothmanKJ (1976) Causes. American Journal of Epidemiology104(6): 587–592.
78.
RothmanKJGreenlandS (2005) Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. American Journal of Public Health 95(Suppl. 1): S144–S150.
79.
RussellB (1929) On the notion of cause. In: RussellB (ed.) Mysticism and Logic. New York, NY: W. W. Norton, pp. 180–205.
80.
RussoFWilliamsonJ (2007) Interpreting causality in the health sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science21(2): 157–170.
81.
SalmonW (1984) Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/SALSEA
82.
SiegelRLMillerKDJemalA (2020) Cancer statistics, 2020. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians70(1): 7–30.
83.
SiegristM (2021) Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis41: 480–490.
84.
SimpkinALSchwartzsteinRM (2016) Tolerating uncertainty—The next medical revolution?The New England Journal of Medicine375(18): 1713–1715.
85.
SlaterMDLongMBettinghausEPReinekeJB (2008) News coverage of cancer in the United States: A national sample of newspapers, television, and magazines. Journal of Health Communication13(6): 523–537.
86.
StrykerJESolkyBAEmmonsKM (2005) A content analysis of news coverage of skin cancer prevention and detection, 1979 to 2003. Archives of Dermatology141(4): 491–496.
87.
SumnerDE (2012) American magazine winners and losers: 2001 to 2010. Journal of Magazine and New Media Research13(2): 1–11.
88.
SuppesP (1970) A Probabilistic Theory of Causality. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
89.
TopperMJVazMMarroneKABrahmerJRBaylinSB (2020) The emerging role of epigenetic therapeutics in immuno-oncology. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology17(2): 75–90.
90.
U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2020) U.S. Cancer Statistics data visualizations tool, based on 2019 submission data (1999-2017). Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/dataviz/index.htm (accessed 29 September 2020).
91.
VenkatapuramSMarmotM (2009) Epidemiology and social justice in light of social determinants of health research. Bioethics23(2): 79–89.
92.
VineisPWildCP (2014) Global cancer patterns: Causes and prevention. The Lancet383(9916): 549–557.
93.
WilliamsonJ (2009) Probabilistic theories of causality. In: BeebeeHHitchcockCMenziesPC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Causation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–212.
94.
ZehrSC (2000) Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science9(2): 85–103.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
