Content uploaded by Hyunyi Cho
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hyunyi Cho on Aug 03, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
117
Introduction
Preventing and controlling risk frequently
requires changes in not only individual behaviors
but also societal conditions. Extant risk commu-
nication theory and research, however, have
focused on motivations for individual behavior
change; substantially less risk communication
theory and research have paid attention to moti-
vations for changing the societal, political, and
economic conditions and the contexts and cir-
cumstances of risk.
While a main predictor of individual behavior
change is personal risk perception, the judgment
that one is facing a threat (e.g., Rimal & Real,
2003; Rogers, 1975; Witte, 1992), a main predic-
tor of societal condition change may be societal
risk perception, the judgment that society at large
is facing a danger. While it has been documented
that the media are a primary source of societal
risk perception, little theory and research have
investigated how the media-influenced societal
risk perception can be channeled for changes in
the societal conditions and contexts of risk. Risk
perception and risk reduction action at the soci-
etal level may comprise another route to risk
prevention and control, complementing the path
from personal risk perception to personal risk
reduction action that has frequently been studied
in the extant literature.
Thus, the goal of this chapter is to introduce
an initial, rudimentary version of the societal risk
reduction motivation model (SRRM) that
describes the pathways from societal risk percep-
tion to societal risk reduction actions (see Figure
8.1). Building on the theory and research on
media effects, social processes, and collective
behavior, the SRRM posits the mediators and
moderators of the path from societal risk percep-
tion to societal risk reduction action.
This chapter begins by distinguishing societal
risk perception from personal risk perception
and by delineating the role of the media in influ-
encing these perceptions. Next, the parameters
and functions of societal risk perception and
societal risk reduction action are discussed. On
this foundation, the relationships between vari-
ables of the model are explained. This chapter
concludes by summarizing key contribution of
the model, suggesting areas of application of the
model, and outlining directions for further
model development.
CHAPTER 8
The Societal Risk Reduction
Motivation Model
Hyunyi Cho and Kai Kuang
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
118—— SECTION 3 Models of Risk Communication
Media and Risk Perceptions at
Societal and Personal Levels
The sociality of risk perception has been recog-
nized by various intellectual traditions in social
sciences. From the symbolic interaction perspec-
tive, Blumer (1971) characterized social prob-
lems as collective definitions, not as objective
social existences. The social representation the-
ory (Moscovici, 1984) posits a similar perspec-
tive in which reality is constructed through
communication, interaction, and shared mem-
ory. The social amplification of risk framework
(Kasperson et al., 1988) proposes that risk per-
ception may rise or fall through psychological,
social, organizational, and cultural processes.
A key conduit of the social processes postu-
lated in these perspectives may be mass media.
Among different modalities of communication,
the media are distinguished for their capacity to
create a broad reach and pervasive exposure
(Gunther, 1998). Consequently, the media may be
able to shape shared and collective perceptions
about risk, about what is risky, and about how
risky it is, in society.
That media shape judgments about the social
world is postulated in the media effects theories
of cultivation theory, agenda-setting theory, and
the impersonal impact hypothesis. Importantly, a
commonality among these models is that they
posit the main outcome of media effects as soci-
etal-level judgments rather than as personal-level
judgments.
Cultivation theory (Gerbner & Gross, 1976)
predicts that repeated exposure to the media
generates beliefs about society consistent with
the media content. Gerbner and Gross (1976), for
example, found that repeated exposure to vio-
lence on television induced the belief that vio-
lence is frequent in society, which is a societal-level
risk perception. On the other hand, research did
not find a significant direct association between
exposure to media violence and fear of becoming
a victim of crime, which is a personal-level risk
judgment; instead, cultivation effect was found
only among survey respondents who resided in
Figure 8.1 The Societal Risk Reduction Motivation Model
External
variables
Demographics
Individual
differences
Prior
experience
Media
exposure
Societal risk
perception
Cognitive
involvement
Emotional
involvement
Adaptive
actions
Maladaptive
actions
Action
efficacy
Institutional
efficacy
Collective
efficacy
Self-efficacy
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
Chapter 8 The Societal Risk Reduction Motivation Model—— 119
high-crime areas or have personally experienced
a crime before (Doob & McDonald, 1979; Shrum
& Bischak, 2001).
Other studies on cultivation theory illustrate
the distinctiveness of societal risk perception and
personal risk perception and their sources. For
example, on one hand, news exposure predicted
societal importance of the issue of crime but not
personal fear of becoming a victim of crime; on
the other hand, while personal experience of
crime predicted fear, it did not predict perceived
societal importance of crime (Gross & Aday,
2003). Television viewing predicted fear of crime
in distant urban settings but not in one’s own
neighborhood (Heath & Petraitis, 1987).
Similar to cultivation theory, agenda-setting
theory predicts media effects on societal-level
judgments. According to agenda-setting theory
(McCombs & Shaw, 1972), people learn about
important social issues through mass media.
Specifically, it is through the media that people
learn what issues are important in society and
how important they are. For example, after expo-
sure to news media focusing on pollution,
national defense, and fiscal inflation, people
assigned a greater importance to these social
issues than other issues that were not focused on
in the news (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987).
Impersonal Impact Hypothesis
The impersonal impact hypothesis (Tyler &
Cook, 1984) extends these media effects theories
by distinguishing media effects on societal and
personal levels of judgments and by positing
media effects on risk judgments specifically.
1
The
hypothesis predicts that societal and personal
risk perceptions are distinct and that the media
influence societal risk perception but not per-
sonal risk perception. Societal risk perception
refers to the beliefs about the importance of a risk
issue to the society at large; personal risk percep-
tion refers to the beliefs about an individual’s
likelihood of experiencing harm (Tyler & Cook,
1984). The postulation of differential effects of
the media on personal and societal levels is con-
sistent with evidence observed for the agenda-
setting and cultivation effects of the media on
societal-level perception (e.g., issue importance
in society, event frequency in society) but not on
personal-level perception (e.g., fear of becoming
a victim of crime).
Support for the impersonal impact hypothesis
has been obtained. For example, Coleman (1993)
found that among New York state residents,
exposure to the media, including newspapers
and magazines, predicted the belief that issues
such as HIV/AIDS, heart disease, water contami-
nation, and radon would be a serious problem of
the country. The same exposure, however, did
not predict the residents’ beliefs about personally
being affected by these problems. Similarly,
Morton and Duck (2001) found that among
Australian college students, media exposure was
associated primarily with the judgments about
other Australians’ risk of skin cancer but not with
personal worry about and vulnerability to skin
cancer.
While research has found that the effects of
mass media on personal risk perception are lim-
ited, theories of behavior change predict that
personal risk perception determines individuals’
motivations to perform behavior to reduce the
risk (e.g., Rogers, 1975; Rosenstock, 1974; Witte,
1992). Consequently, investigations have focused
on identifying the conditions under which the
media can influence personal risk perception.
Generally, this stream of research has identified
the kind of content and channels of the media
and their interactions with the audience that
influence personal risk perception.
For example, Brown and Basil (1995) found
that identification with a media celebrity can
overcome the impersonal nature of media effects
on risk perception. Specifically, after hearing
about the basketball player Magic Johnson’s HIV
infection, college males who identified with
Johnson increased their perceived personal vul-
nerability to HIV. Snyder and Rouse (1995)
found that when mass media were differentiated
to informational and entertainment media,
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
120—— SECTION 3 Models of Risk Communication
exposure to entertainment media predicted per-
sonal risk perception about HIV. A study extend-
ing Snyder and Rouse (1995) found that
genre-specific exposure to the media differen-
tially predicted South Korean college students’
smoking-related risk perceptions at the personal
and societal levels (So, Cho, & Lee, 2011).
Together, these studies inform how the media
can be utilized to influence personal risk percep-
tion. Meta-analyses have reported that personal
risk perception influences individuals’ attitudes
and actions to reduce personal risk (e.g., Floyd,
Prentice-Dunn, & Rogers, 2000; Witte &
Allen, 2000).
Beyond Personal: Two Routes
to Risk Reduction
In contrast to the wealth of research accumu-
lated for personal risk perception, there is a pau-
city of research that has investigated societal risk
perception and its effects. In preventing and
controlling risk, changing societal conditions is
important in addition to changing individual
behaviors because risk may be caused by societal
conditions as well as individual behaviors (see
Cohen et al., 2000; Sampson, Raudenbush, &
Earls, 1997). Furthermore, individual behavior
change can be contingent on societal conditions
that facilitate or hinder it (e.g., Fishbein &
Yzer, 2003).
Distinct judgments of personal risk and soci-
etal risk may predict distinct yet complementary
routes to risk reduction, comprising personal
risk reduction and societal risk reduction action
routes. While personal risk perception motivates
individual behavior change, societal risk may
stimulate societal processes and practices that
can generate changes in political, economic, and
social conditions surrounding risk. Changes in
societal conditions triggered by societal risk per-
ception may facilitate changes in individual
behavior as well.
In the existing risk communication literature,
however, societal risk perception has been viewed
as an end outcome of media exposure and of
limited utility in motivating personal risk reduc-
tion behavior. Since Tyler and Cook (1984),
sparse theory and research have been advanced
for the construct of societal risk perception and
its role in risk prevention and control. The SRRM
attempts to address this void in the current litera-
ture by describing the pathways from societal
risk perception to societal risk reduction action.
This effort first requires laying the conceptual
grounds of societal risk perception and societal
risk reduction action, the two essential building
blocks of the model.
Societal Risk Perception and
Societal Risk Reduction Action
Societal Risk Perception
At the societal level, the etiology of risk and
approaches to addressing the risk are likely to be
outside the control of any one individual. Instead,
societal risks are likely to be a product of the
conflicts, negotiations, decisions, and actions of
individuals, groups, and institutions and interac-
tions between and among them. The causes and
control of pollution and contamination of the
environment, for example, may involve individu-
als, groups, and institutions of society operating
in multiple sectors. Concurrently, there may be
shared consequences of not addressing the risk,
as well as shared benefits of addressing the risk,
at the societal level.
More than 40 years ago, Hardin (1968) pre-
dicted the “tragedy of the commons” in which all
shared resources, such as air, water, soil, and cli-
mate, are exploited and degraded. These
resources comprise public goods, which are
properties in the commons, and the outcomes of
using them are shared (Marwell & Oliver, 1993;
Olson, 1965). Reducing risk in public goods,
such as the environment, requires society’s col-
lective action (Marwell & Oliver, 1993; Olson,
1965), and a motivator of societal actions may be
societal risk perception.
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
Chapter 8 The Societal Risk Reduction Motivation Model—— 121
Drawing on Tyler and Cook (1984), societal-
level risk perception is defined as judgments
about the larger society or collective and about
the condition of its members. As an outcome of
media exposure, societal risk perception may
represent a subtle yet powerful effect of the
media (see Katz, 1983, for discussion on this
nature of media effects). This effect may stem
from the nature of media content and messages,
prominent among which are the situations of
larger collectives (Mutz, 1998). By presenting
phenomena in the larger society, the media influ-
ence perceptions about collective conditions,
which in turn influence political attitudes
(Mutz, 1998).
The effect of societal risk perception may be
subtle because it may not have an immediate or
direct effect on personal risk reduction behavior;
yet it may be powerful because it may influence
motivations to change the political, economic,
and sociocultural conditions surrounding risk.
For example, societal risk perception about the
possible or actual “tragedy of the commons”
(Hardin, 1968) may spur social processes leading
to the establishment of rules and regulations,
codification of acceptable conduct, construction
of norms, and willingness to comply to the rules,
codes, and norms against degradation of the
commons or public goods (see Feeny, Berkes,
McCay, & Acheson, 1990).
Of note, the distinction between societal and
personal risk may not parallel the commonly
made differentiation between environmental risk
(societal) and health risk (personal) and their
respective treatments. Reducing risk in individu-
als’ health, such as heart disease, requires not
only personal behavior changes, such as diet,
physical activity, and smoking cessation, but also
societal actions to change the conditions sur-
rounding the risk, such as labeling of cholesterol
content in food packages, providing easy access
to physical activity facilities, indoor smoking
bans, and so on, which require policy changes. As
such, addressing individual health risk can be
facilitated by societal-level actions. Consider also
the case of HIV. Although condom use is the
direct and immediate action that individuals can
take to prevent HIV risk, individuals’ and soci-
ety’s risk of HIV may be more efficiently reduced
through societal actions rather than individual
actions alone. Condom use is advocated because
of the unavailability of an HIV vaccine; and
research, development, and dissemination of an
HIV vaccine require a policy commitment that is
predicated on support by public opinion, which,
in turn, is likely to correlate with societal risk
perception about HIV.
Societal Risk Reduction Action
Societal risk reduction action concerns the
conditions and contexts surrounding risk.
Attitudes and actions to reduce societal risk
include willingness to support changes in poli-
cies regarding risk, to sign a petition, to join and
engage in interest groups, to voice opposition or
support for social changes over various avenues,
and to vote. SRRM may also activate willingness
to donate time, money, and other resources that
can be utilized in efforts to facilitate changes and
to lower barriers to changes in social, political,
and economic environments. Overall, these atti-
tudes and actions seek to directly address the
societal contexts of risk rather than to directly
address the individual behaviors associated
with risk.
Of note, societal risk reduction action is dis-
similar to collective action in that the former may
subsume the latter. Collective action is frequently
defined on the basis of in- and out-group distinc-
tions. For example, collective action “involves
behaviors on behalf of the ingroup that are
directed at improving the conditions of the entire
group” (Becker & Wright, 2011, p. 63; see also
Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). The goal
of collective action is to benefit an in-group that
is typically disadvantaged relative to out-groups
(Gamson, 1992; Wright et al., 1990). A theoreti-
cal foundation of this line of research is inter-
group relationships (Gamson, 1992; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979).
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
122—— SECTION 3 Models of Risk Communication
In comparison, the theoretical foundation of
societal risk perception is mass media effects. A
unique capacity of the media is their diffusive
effects over a wide spectrum of society (Gunther,
1998; Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1949; Mutz, 1998). In
contrast, intergroup relationships utilize inter-
personal and group communication, which are
relatively narrower in scope. Overall, societal
actions may subsume collective actions that are
based on group distinctions in that groups are
important units of the larger society and may
have upstream influences on society.
Furthermore, societal risk reduction actions
may include those that do not directly benefit
the actor. Societal risk reduction actions can
include out-group’s actions to benefit members
of in-groups and other groups. For example,
those who participate in actions to remove dis-
crimination against minority groups may not be
only the members of the groups that are dis-
criminated; rather, they will include those who
value social justice, fairness, and equality and
those who expect shared benefit of ensuring
these values in society. Connecting people of in-
and out-groups through sympathy, empathy, and
higher level identities, values, and goals, societal
risk reduction actions may hover over the
boundaries of in- and out-groups and unite dis-
parate groups.
From Societal Risk Perception to
Societal Risk Reduction Action
In previous research, societal risk perception
showed sparse effects on individual behaviors
that directly reduce risk. For example, a survey
of residents of Alberta, Canada, found only a
very small correlation between concern for the
environment and recycling behavior (Derksen
& Gartrell, 1993). This may be because the pri-
mary locus in which the effects of societal risk
perception occur is societal rather than per-
sonal. May the concern better predict support
for the increase and wider availability of struc-
tured recycling programs, which in turn predict
recycling behavior? In a survey of Connecticut
residents, perceived societal significance of the
issue of AIDS was not associated with inten-
tions to use condoms to prevent personal AIDS
risk (Snyder & Rouse, 1995). May the perceived
societal risk of AIDS, however, predict willing-
ness to take societal risk reduction actions, such
as donating money and time for AIDS preven-
tion, and to support governmental policies for
AIDS research? These questions are based on
the postulation that the principal domain of
societal risk perception’s impact is societal,
including societal risk reduction actions that
seek to alter the contexts of risk occurrence or
risk behavior.
Research on civic and political participation
provides evidence supportive of these postula-
tions. For example, those who were more con-
cerned about the federal budget deficit issue in
1988 were more likely to engage in various
actions to influence the approaches to addressing
the issue, including attendance to public meet-
ings, signing petitions, writing letters, and inten-
tions to vote in the upcoming presidential
election (Weaver, 1991). Those who were more
concerned about the issues of the state, including
crime, drugs, and environment, were more likely
to have voted in the 1990 gubernatorial election
in Texas (Roberts, 1992). Concern about U.S.
involvement in Iraq influenced youth’s first vot-
ing behavior in the 2004 presidential election
(Kiousis & McDevitt, 2008). Across these studies,
the actions taken by individuals may not directly
address the concern. Rather, these actions may
indirectly address the concern by directly influ-
encing the decisions relevant to the concern and
the makers of the decisions.
Furthermore, motivations to act on societal
risk may be mediated and moderated. The path
between societal risk perception and societal risk
reduction action may be mediated by cognitive
involvement and emotional involvement. Societal
risk perception may prime cognitions and emo-
tions that emanate from the societal issue’s rele-
vance to self, which then activate willingness to
engage in action to reduce the societal risk. The
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
Chapter 8 The Societal Risk Reduction Motivation Model—— 123
path from cognitive and emotional involvement
to societal risk reduction actions may be moder-
ated by efficacy beliefs, which include action
efficacy, institutional efficacy, collective efficacy,
and self-efficacy. While cognitive and emotional
involvement motivates action consistent with the
cognition and/or emotion primed, the kind of
action to be actualized may be determined by
efficacy beliefs. High involvement and high effi-
cacy beliefs may result in the intended actions;
high involvement accompanied by low efficacy
beliefs actualization may result in inaction or
maladaptive reactions, such as fatalistic attitudes
or nonnormative actions. Figure 8.1 depicts these
posited relationships.
Mediators
Cognitive Involvement
Broadly, cognitive involvement refers to the
issue’s perceived personal relevance. It is “a moti-
vational state induced by an association between
an activated attitude and the self-concept”
(Johnson & Eagly, 1989, p. 290). Because society
comprises individuals who share the common
and public goods, societal risk may have ramifi-
cations for individuals. For example, societal risk
perception about gun violence may motivate
individuals to think about the societal risk issue’s
implications for their personal lives.
Because cognitive involvement elevates the
perceived personal relevance of a societal risk
issue, increased cognitive involvement may in
turn create a greater motivation to engage in
actions to reduce the societal risk. For example,
in a French study, people with high cognitive
involvement in earthquakes were more likely to
exhibit a thought structure for earthquakes that
was more practical and more action oriented
than people with low cognitive involvement in
earthquakes (Gruev-Vintila & Rouquette, 2007).
Cognitive involvement in a societal risk issue
may stem from its relevance to a person’s value,
outcome, or impression. Research found that
cognitive involvement activated by these different
kinds of relevance are distinct and are differen-
tially associated with attitudes and actions (Cho &
Boster, 2005; Johnson & Eagly, 1989). Values are
“mode of conduct and end-state of existence”
(Rokeach, 1968, p. 160), while outcomes have
consequences for goals and gains. Impression is
important to managing one’s social life. Thus,
depending on the kind of societal risk issue and
its personal relevance, different kinds and magni-
tudes of cognitive involvement may be activated.
For example, whereas the more other-focused
issues such as organ and tissue donation were
associated with value-relevant involvement, the
more self-focused issues such as sunscreen use
and nutrition were more strongly associated
with outcome-relevant involvement (Marshall,
Reinhart, Feeley, Tutzauer, & Anker, 2008). People
with high other-directedness were more con-
cerned about issues’ implications for their social
life management (Cho & Boster, 2005).
The kinds and magnitudes of cognitive
involvement primed may also influence the
direction and strength of attitudes and actions.
Research, for example, found that centrality of
the issue to one’s values predicted extreme atti-
tudes, while the centrality of the issue to one’s
outcomes predicted greater willingness to seek
information (e.g., Cho & Boster, 2005). In a study
about Belgian public’s opinions about biofuels,
the segment of the public with high outcome-
relevant involvement with the issue was more
likely to express that greater information about
biofuels should be available as compared with the
segments with high value-relevant involvement
or high impression-relevant involvement
(Van de Velde, Vandermeulen, Huylenbroeck, &
Verbeke, 2011).
Emotional Involvement
In addition to the cognitive involvement in
the issue primed through value, outcome, and
impression relevance, emotional involvement
may also mediate the relationship between
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
124—— SECTION 3 Models of Risk Communication
societal risk perception and societal risk reduc-
tion action. Emotional involvement may come in
the form of sympathy or empathy for social
groups directly affected by the risk issue, as well
as specific discrete emotions evoked for the risk
issue itself.
Societal risk perception induced by media
exposure may elicit sympathy or empathy for
those who are immediately affected. Sympathy
and empathy refer to emotional responses arising
from the understanding of the emotional states
of others. As such, both are other-focused emo-
tional conditions. There are also differences
between the two. While sympathy comprises
emotional responses that may not be identical
with those that others experience, empathy com-
prises those that others feel; consequently, while
sympathy may frequently take the form of con-
cern or sorrows, empathy may take a wider range
of emotions (Wispe, 1986). Sympathy and empa-
thy for others who are affected by a risk issue may
bolster the willingness to address the risk issue.
Eisenberg and Miller (1987), for example, found
that empathy promotes prosocial and socially
cooperative behavior.
Generally, current research suggests that neg-
ative rather than positive emotions may be a
stronger mediator of the path from societal risk
perception to societal risk reduction action.
Negative emotions have been found to increase
action tendencies to address risk, as detailed
below. In contrast, positive emotions were found
to decrease action tendencies. For example,
exposure to hostile sexism provoked negative
emotions, which increased intentions to distrib-
ute flyers and to sign petitions for gender equal-
ity, but exposure to benevolent sexism evoked
positive emotions, which decreased intentions to
perform the same behaviors (Becker & Wright,
2011). While the experience of participation in
societal risk reduction actions elicited positive
emotions about self, this self-directed positive
emotion was a weaker predictor of intentions to
participate in future actions than other-directed
negative emotions such as anger or fear (Becker,
Tausch, & Wagner, 2011).
Although earlier research relied on the dual-
emotion perspective of distinguishing positive and
negative emotions, more recent research utilizes
the discrete emotions perspective (Frijda, 1986;
Lazarus, 1991; for reviews, see also Chapter 3,
this volume). Briefly, the discrete emotions
perspective posits that emotions vary in dimen-
sions, including certainty, attention, effort, and
responsibility (for a review, see Lerner &
Keltner, 2000).
Depending on the specific negative emotions
that it evokes, societal risk perception may indi-
rectly activate differential attitudes and course of
actions to reduce societal risk. While fear caused
by societal risk perception may motivate actions
to avoid the cause of the emotion, anger caused
by societal risk perception may motivate actions
to approach it (Lerner & Keltner, 2000). After
9/11, Americans who had stronger feelings of
anger rather than fear were more likely to
endorse punitive policy measures, whereas those
who had stronger feelings of fear rather than
anger were more likely to support conciliatory
policy measures to reduce future terrorism
against America (Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, &
Fischhoff, 2003).
Guilt and shame may be elicited when societal
risk perception produces negative evaluation of
self. Guilt is the recognition that one has breached
an accepted personal or social principle, while
shame concerns failing to meet implicit, as well
as explicit, social expectations (Goffman, 1956).
Conceptually closer to the public domain of life
than guilt, shame promotes social cohesion and
consensus, while it can also serve as a means to
social control (Cho, 2000).
The experience of guilt and shame may gener-
ate motivations to avoid these aversive feelings in
future situations (Tangney, Miller, Flicker, &
Barlow, 1996). Consequently, the direction of
future actions to avoid guilt and shame is likely to
be in alignment with perceived norms and expec-
tations in society. For example, guilt has been
found to be an important mediator of the asso-
ciation between concern over the environment
and intentions to recycle (e.g., Furguson &
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
Chapter 8 The Societal Risk Reduction Motivation Model—— 125
Branscombe, 2010; Kaiser, Schultz, Berenguer,
Corral-Verdugo, & Tankha, 2008).
Moderators
Efficacy Beliefs
The influence of cognitive and affective
involvement on societal risk reduction action
may be amplified or attenuated by the levels of
efficacy beliefs. Overall, four types of efficacy
beliefs may be relevant to societal risk reduction
actions: action efficacy, institutional efficacy, col-
lective efficacy, and self-efficacy.
Action efficacy refers to the belief in the
action’s effectiveness and efficiency in reducing
the societal risk under consideration (e.g., “How
much will my recycling behavior help in
preventing climate change?”). Action efficacy, as
a societal-level concept, may differ from response
efficacy (Rogers, 1975), which is a personal-level
concept. Whereas the appraisal of response effi-
cacy concerns the outcome of adopting a per-
sonal risk-reducing action, the appraisal of action
efficacy concerns the outcome of adopting a
societal risk-reducing action. Compared with the
former, the latter may require one to consider a
larger set of contingency factors. For example,
some societal actions may influence third parties’
reactions, while others may not; some may galva-
nize alliances, while others may prompt opposi-
tion movements (Hornsey et al., 2006). In
comparison, the outcomes of personal risk-
reducing actions (e.g., physical activity and
healthy diet) may be less influenced by others’
reactions and actions.
Institutional efficacy refers to the citizenry’s
belief that large societal institutions are fair, just,
uncorrupt, trustworthy, and predictable
(Rothstein, 2003). Direct and immediate actions
to reduce societal risk are frequently not accessi-
ble to individual citizens. Rather, individuals
engage in actions to influence the institutional
decisions and decision makers. Consequently,
trust in institutions and institutional decision
makers who will act on the public’s expressed
attitudes may be a key contingent variable in the
public’s willingness to voice their attitudes. A
survey of citizens of 22 different countries found
that perceived institutional quality was a signifi-
cant predictor of the participation in actions for
reducing environmental risk (Duit, 2010). An
important predictor of environmental activism
was the belief in the competence of national and
international agencies, which was operational-
ized as their openness and responsiveness to citi-
zen voices and capabilities (Lubell, 2002; Lubell,
Zahran, & Vedlitz, 2007). This concept of institu-
tional efficacy may be related to social trust
(Siegrist, Cvetkovich, & Roth, 2000), which is
predicted by perceived similarity between the
values held by a member of the public and those
held by the institution under consideration.
Collective efficacy refers to individuals’ belief
that the larger group, organization, or community
that they belong to is capable of carrying out a
chosen course of action (Bandura, 1986). Societal
risk is rarely under one citizens’ control, and
reducing societal risk frequently requires con-
certed efforts of citizens. Consequently, collective
efficacy can moderate the effect of perceived soci-
etal risk on willingness to engage in actions to
reduce the societal risk. Indirect evidence of the
importance of collective efficacy for societal risk
control actions has been obtained as variables
akin to collective efficacy have been found to pre-
dict actions pertinent to reducing societal risk.
For example, the density of social ties tends to
predict willingness to engage in collective actions
(Marwell, Oliver, & Prahl, 1988). Expected reci-
procity, that is, the belief that other members of
the collective will return one’s own efforts, was a
significant predictor of willingness to engage in
recycling behavior to reduce the risk of global
warming and climate change (Lubell et al., 2007).
Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ belief that
they themselves are capable of carrying out a cho-
sen course of action (Bandura, 1986). Actions to
reduce societal risk frequently require participa-
tion by a large number of individuals, and such
aggregated individual actions can then influence
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
126—— SECTION 3 Models of Risk Communication
institutions and policymakers. While individuals
may first consider action efficacy and institu-
tional efficacy to choose a particular course of
action and then consider self-efficacy, self- efficacy
may be a more direct and immediate determinant
of whether individuals will actually engage in the
chosen course of action or not. That is, the
appraisal of action and institutional efficacy may
initially determine the decision whether to vote
or not for a policy measure. The actual occur-
rence of voting may then be determined by self-
efficacy in voting behavior (e.g., ability to take
time out of work to vote, ability to stand in line).
Belief in one’s own ability, thus, may be one of the
elements influencing the occurrence of societal
risk reduction action, along with action, institu-
tional, and collective efficacy beliefs.
The relative contribution of these efficacy
beliefs toward societal risk control action may be
contingent on the kind of risk reduction action
under consideration. For example, certain kinds
of societal risk reduction may require more col-
laboration with others (collective efficacy), while
others may require more effort of self (self-
efficacy). Yet other kinds of societal risk reduc-
tion actions are contingent on societal institutions’
openness to responding to expressed public
opinion (institutional efficacy).
Together, efficacy beliefs may amplify or
attenuate the influence of involvement on will-
ingness to engage in action. High efficacy cou-
pled with high involvement may produce actions
consistent with the cognition/emotion activated.
Low efficacy beliefs coupled with high societal
risk may result in inaction or maladaptive reac-
tions to societal risk such as fatalistic attitudes or
nonnormative actions. For example, Martin,
Brickman, and Murray (1984) found that avail-
ability of mobilization resource is an important
determinant of collective action against social
injustice. Deficiency in efficacy beliefs may
engender a range of maladaptive actions. These
reactions may range from fatalistic attitudes and
inaction (Cho & Salmon, 2006; Rippetoe &
Rogers, 1987) to nonnormatively prescribed
actions such as violence (Tausch et al., 2011).
Propositions
The discussion above leads to the following
propositions:
Proposition 1: Media exposure predicts soci-
etal risk perception.
Proposition 2: Societal risk perception predicts
willingness to engage in societal risk reduc-
tion action.
Proposition 3: The path between societal risk
perception and societal risk reduction action
is mediated by cognitive involvement and
emotional involvement.
Proposition 4: The path between cognitive and
affective involvement and societal risk reduc-
tion action is moderated by efficacy beliefs.
Proposition 5: High involvement and high
efficacy beliefs predict adaptive actions; high
involvement and low efficacy beliefs predict
maladaptive actions (e.g., fatalism, inaction,
and violence).
Proposition 6: Societal risk reduction actions
influence political, economic, and sociocul-
tural contexts of risk.
Proposition 7: Changes in political, economic,
and sociocultural contexts of risk influence
changes in individual behaviors.
Reflections for Theory
and Research
The SRRM builds on the unique capacity of the
media, which is their influence on societal-level
judgments. The SRRM, however, differs from
existing theory and research in the following
primary ways. Whereas in existing research,
societal risk perception has been the end point of
the effect of media exposure, the SRRM contends
that societal risk perception is the beginning
point of the causal process influencing societal
risk reduction action (see Figure 8.1). Next,
drawing from literatures on social processes and
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
Chapter 8 The Societal Risk Reduction Motivation Model—— 127
collective behavior, the SRRM proposes the
mediating and moderating mechanisms underly-
ing the path between societal risk perception and
societal risk control action. Conceptualized this
way, societal risk perception is not an example of
the limited effect of the media any more. Instead,
the SRRM conceives societal risk perception as
an indicator of what Katz (1983) termed as subtle
yet powerful effect of the media. The effects of the
media may be subtle in that they often do not
directly or immediately affect personal-level
motivation. The primary outcome of the media,
according to the SRRM, may be societal-level
motivation, rather than personal-level motiva-
tion. This postulation draws from Mutz (1998):
With their coverage of circumstances of larger
collectives, the media may shape perceptions
about society and its conditions, which in turn
influence motivations to address the social
conditions.
First, the SRRM has implications on theory
and research of new media and social media. On
the one hand, the Internet, an increasingly influ-
ential source of information, has the potential to
influence societal risk perception and personal
risk perception in ways distinctive from the tele-
vision or the print media. Specifically, new media
and social media have their unique characteris-
tics, such as interactivity, user-generated content,
and easy accessibility. Research should examine
the effects of these features on risk perceptions at
the personal and societal levels. Might such char-
acteristics exert differential influence on societal
risk perception and personal risk perception?
Theory and research that address such questions
can expand understanding about the utility of
new media and social media on risk communica-
tion that targets risk perceptions at differential
levels.
Second, the SRRM provides opportunities for
theory and research at the intersection of risk
communication literature and social network
literature. Organizational and community social
network studies have examined the relational
aspects of individuals and network structures in
organizational settings. Recently, social network
approach has been applied to risk communica-
tion efforts (e.g., the social network contagion
theory of risk perception, Scherer & Cho, 2003),
yet it has not been widely researched. The SRRM
approach may be adopted in conjunction with
social network approach to examine the relation-
ship among social network, risk perception, and
risk reduction action at the community and soci-
etal levels, thus filling this void in the literature.
For example, how does social network structure
influence and/or potentially moderate media’s
effect on one’s societal risk perceptions? Would
network characteristics mediate or moderate
societal risk perception’s impact on societal risk
reduction actions? Future studies that examine
such research questions may help explain how
and why risk perceptions and actions may vary in
different networks.
Third, delineating the mechanisms underly-
ing the path between societal risk perception and
societal risk reduction action, the SRRM encour-
ages holistic and systematic examinations of the
personal and societal routes to risk reduction.
Risk prevention and reduction may require both
individual behavior change and societal condi-
tion change. Therefore, it is necessary to distin-
guish the societal and the personal routes, to
identify the mechanisms underlying them, and
to understand how the two routes could comple-
ment each other. Therefore, the relationship
between the two routes requires further explica-
tion. Substantial individual behavior change may
lead to motivations for societal risk reduction
action, while societal conditions may facilitate or
hinder individual behavior change. Future
research that explores the potential interactions
between the two pathways may offer more com-
prehensive understandings on risk prevention
and reduction.
Furthermore, the propositions of the SRRM
may apply to various cultural settings, since the
SRRM encompasses constructs that address
potential variability across cultures. For example,
cultural attributes such as norms and values
about collective group and society may be rele-
vant to individuals’ cognitive involvement
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
128—— SECTION 3 Models of Risk Communication
(e.g., value involvement and impression involve-
ment), which mediates societal risk perception’s
effect on societal risk reduction action.
Additionally, perceived collective efficacy and
institutional efficacy in different cultures may
vary depending on the cultural and political con-
texts of risk. Future research can test the SRRM
cross-culturally and identify the contextual fac-
tors that may influence the propositions of the
model.
Recommendations for Practice
That media shape societal risk perceptions,
rather than personal-level judgments, has practi-
cal implications for risk prevention and control.
Risk messages and campaigns that aim at influ-
encing societal risk perceptions should take
advantage of mass media’s unique capacity. For
example, increased media exposure, including
both quantity and quality, may contribute to
stronger societal risk perceptions.
Another implication for those who communi-
cate risk is that increased societal risk percep-
tions may or may not necessarily lead to societal
risk reduction actions, as the effects are moder-
ated and mediated by cognitive and emotional
involvement as well as various efficacy beliefs.
Risk messages may need to cognitively and emo-
tionally engage recipients and address various
efficacy beliefs in order to motivate actions. Risk
communicators need to address these moderat-
ing and mediating constructs so that societal risk
perceptions can motivate actions.
Viewing the societal route to be distinct from
and complementary to the personal route, the
SRRM considers societal, political, and eco-
nomic conditions to be important for risk pre-
vention and control. The SRRM calls for
concerted risk communication efforts at both
the personal and societal levels. Finally, it should
be noted that societal risk reduction action is an
outcome of social processes at a certain time and
a location, just as societal risk perception is an
outcome of social construction. Consequently,
the objective validity of societal risk action may
remain elusive, just as societal risk perception
may be independent of objective conditions of
society.
Conclusions
Preventing and controlling risk requires actions
not only at the individual level but also at the
societal level. In contrast to the wealth of theory
and research on the mechanisms for motivating
actions to reduce personal risk, little theory and
research have explicated a framework describ-
ing the motivational mechanisms for societal
risk reduction actions. The SRRM presented in
this chapter is an attempt to address this void in
the existing literature. SRRM provides a frame-
work for understanding the motivational mech-
anisms for societal risk reduction actions.
Proposing the social and psychological mecha-
nisms through which media influence risk per-
ception and risk reduction action at the societal
level, the SRRM provides an innovative approach
to addressing the limitations of current theory
and research and provides guidance for har-
nessing the power of the media for addressing
collective risk through collective action. Future
research can refine the proposed model and
empirically test it in cross-cultural contexts;
examine the effects of message content, chan-
nel, and their interaction on societal risk per-
ceptions; apply the model to risk communication
via new media and social media platforms; and
explore social network’s impact on societal risk
perception and actions.
Note
1. The indicators of societal risk perception that
Tyler and Cook (1984) used were the perceived impor-
tance of societal issues and the importance of govern-
mental actions to address the issues. Notice that the
first item in this index is akin to the measure of agenda
setting (McCombs & Shaw, 1972), and this measure
has been used in subsequent studies of impersonal
impact hypothesis (e.g., Coleman, 1993; Park, Scherer,
& Glynn, 2001; So et al., 2011).
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
Chapter 8 The Societal Risk Reduction Motivation Model—— 129
Suggested Additional Readings
Cho, H., So, J., & Lee, J. (2009). Personal, social, and
cultural correlates of self-efficacy beliefs among
South Korean college smokers. Health
Communication, 24, 337–345.
Choi, J., Park, H. S., & Chang, J. (2011). Hostile media
perception, involvement types, and advocacy
behaviors. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 88, 23–39.
McLeod, J., & Reeves, B. (1980). On the nature of mass
media effects. B. Whithey & R. Abeles (Eds.),
Television and social behavior: Beyond violence
and children . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory . Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Becker, J. C., Tausch, N., & Wagner, U. (2011).
Emotional consequences of collective action par-
ticipation: Differentiating self-directed and out-
group-directed emotions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1587–1598.
Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark
side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines
and hostile sexism motivates collective action for
social change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101, 62–77.
Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behav-
ior. Social Problems, 18, 298–306.
Brown, W. J., & Basil, M. D. (1995). Media celebrities
and public health: Responses to “Magic” Johnson’s
HIV disclosure and its impact on AIDS risk and
high risk behaviors. Health Communication, 7,
345–370.
Cho, H. (2000). Public opinion as personal cultivation:
A normative notion and source of social control
in traditional China. International Journal of
Public Opinion Research, 12, 299–323.
Cho, H., & Boster, F. J. (2005). Development and vali-
dation of value-, outcome-, and impression-rele-
vant involvement scales. Communication
Research, 35, 235–264.
Cho, H., & Salmon, C. T. (2006). Fear appeals for indi-
viduals in different stages of change: Intended
and unintended effects and implications on pub-
lic health campaigns. Health Communication, 20,
91–99.
Cohen, D., Spear, S., Scribner, R., Kissinger, P., Mason, K., &
Wildgen, J. (2000). “Broken windows” and the risk of
gonorrhea. American Journal of Public Health, 90,
230–236.
Coleman, C. (1993). The influence of mass media and
interpersonal communication on societal and
personal judgments. Communication Research,
20, 611–628.
Derksen, L., & Gartrell, J. (1993). The social context
of recycling. American Sociological Review, 58,
434–452.
Doob, A. N., & MacDonald, G. E. (1979). Television
viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relation-
ship causal? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 170–179.
Duit, A. (2010). Patterns of environmental collective
action: Some cross-national findings. Political
Studies, 59, 900–920.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of
empathy to prosocial and related behaviors.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101,
91–119.
Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., & Acheson, J. M.
(1990). The tragedy of the commons: Twenty two
years later. Human Ecology, 18, 1–19.
Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to
design effective health behavior interventions.
Communication Theory, 13, 164–183.
Floyd, D. L., Prentice‐Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W.
(2000). A meta‐analysis of research on protection
motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 30, 407–429.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Furguson, M. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010).
Collective guilt mediates the effect of beliefs
about global warming on willingness to engage in
mitigation behavior. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30, 135–142.
Gamson, W. A. (1992). The social psychology of collec-
tive action. In A. D. Morris & C. M. Muller (Eds.),
Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 53–76).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, M. (1976). Living with television:
The violence profile. Journal of Communication,
26, 172–194.
Goffman, E. (1956). Embarrassment and social
organization. American Journal of Sociology, 62,
264–271.
Gross, K., & Aday, S. (2003). The scary world in your
living room and neighborhood: Using local
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
130—— SECTION 3 Models of Risk Communication
broadcast news, neighborhood crime rates, and
personal experience to test agenda setting and
cultivation. Journal of Communication, 53,
411–426.
Gruev-Vintila, A., & Rouquette, M. (2007). Social
thinking about collective risk: How do risk-
related practice and personal involvement impact
its social representations? Journal of Risk Research,
10, 555–581.
Gunther, A. (1998). The persuasive press inference:
Effects of mass media on perceived public opin-
ion. Communication Research, 25, 486–504.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons.
Science, 162, 1243–1248.
Heath, L., & Petraitis, J. (1987). Television viewing and
fear of crime: Where is the mean world? Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 8, 97–123.
Hornsey, M. J., Blackwood, L., Louis, W., Fielding, K.,
Mavor, K., Morton, T., . . . White, K. M. (2006).
Why do people engage in collective action?
Revisiting the role of perceived effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36,
1701–1722.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters .
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of
involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290–314.
Kaiser, F. G., Schultz, P. W., Berenguer, J., Corral-
Verdugo, V., & Tankha, G. (2008). Extending
planning environmentalism: Anticipated guilt
and embarrassment across cultures. European
Psychologist, 13, 288–297.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S.,
Emel, J., Goble, R., . . . Ratick, S. (1988). The
social amplification of risk: A conceptual frame-
work. Risk Analysis, 8, 177–187.
Katz, E. (1983). Publicity and pluralistic ignorance:
Notes on “The Spiral of Silence.” In E. Wartella, D.
C. Whitney, & S. Windahl (Eds.), Mass communi-
cation review yearbook 4 (pp. 89–100). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Kiousis, S., & McDevitt, M. (2008). Agenda setting in
civic development: Effects of curricula and issue
importance on youth voter turnout.
Communication Research, 35, 481–502.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1949). Mass commu-
nication, popular taste and organized social action.
In W. Schramm (Ed.), Mass communications
(pp. 459–480). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B.
(2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks
of terrorism: A national field experiment.
Psychological Science, 14, 144–150.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence:
Toward a model of emotion-specific influences
on judgment and choice. Cognition & Emotion,
14, 473–493.
Lubell, M. (2002). Environmental activism as collective
action. Environment and Behavior, 34, 431–454.
Lubell, M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2007). Collective
action and citizen responses to global warming.
Political Behavior, 29, 391–413.
Marshall, H. M., Reinhart, A. M., Feeley, T., Tutzauer,
F., & Anker, A. (2008). Comparing college stu-
dents’ value, outcome, and impression-relevant
involvement in health-related issues. Health
Communication, 23, 171–183.
Martin, J., Brickman, P., & Murray, A. (1984). Moral
outrage and pragmatism: Explanations for collec-
tive action. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 20, 484–496.
Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. E. (1993). The critical mass in
collective action: A micro-social theory . New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Marwell, G., Oliver, P. E., & Prahl, R. (1988). Social net-
works and collective action: A theory of the critical
mass. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 502–534.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-
setting function of mass media. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 36, 176–187.
Morton, T. A., & Duck, J. M. (2001). Communication
and health beliefs: Mass and interpersonal influ-
ences on perceptions of risk to self and others.
Communication Research, 28, 602–626.
Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social repre-
sentations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.),
Social representations (pp. 3–69). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Mutz, D. (1998). Impersonal influence . New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public
goods and the theory of groups . Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Park, E., Scherer, C. W., & Glynn, C. J. (2001).
Community involvement and risk perception at
personal and societal levels. Health, Risk &
Society, 3, 281–292.
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
Chapter 8 The Societal Risk Reduction Motivation Model—— 131
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Perceived risk and
efficacy beliefs as motivators of change. Human
Communication Research, 29, 370–399.
Rippetoe, P. A., & Rogers, R. W. (1987). Effects of com-
ponents of protection-motivation theory on
adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health
threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 596–604.
Roberts, M. S. (1992). Predicting voting behavior via the
agenda-setting tradition. Journalism Quarterly, 69,
878–892.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory
of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of
Psychology, 91, 93–114.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A
theory of organization and change . San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). The health belief model:
Origins and correlates. Health Education
Monographs, 2, 336–353.
Rothstein, B. (2003). Social capital, economic growth
and quality of government: The causal mecha-
nism. New Political Economy, 8, 49–71.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997).
Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel
study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
Scherer, C. W., & Cho, H. (2003). A social network
contagion theory of risk perception. Risk Analysis,
23, 261–267.
Shrum, L. J., & Bischak, V. D. (2001). Mainstreaming,
resonance, and impersonal impact: Testing modera-
tors of the cultivation effect for estimates of crime
risk. Human Communication Research, 27, 187–215.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient
value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit per-
ception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353–362.
Snyder, L. B., & Rouse, R. A. (1995). The media can
have more than an impersonal impact: The case
of AIDS risk perceptions and behavior. Health
Communication, 7, 125–145.
So, J., Cho, H., & Lee, J. (2011). Examining contribu-
tions of genre-specific media toward perceptions
of personal and social risk of smoking among
South Korean college students. Journal of Health
Communication, 16, 533–549.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrated theory
of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-
group relations (2nd ed., pp. 33–47). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H.
(1996). Are shame, guilt, embarrassment distinct
emotions? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 1256–1269.
Tausch, N., Becker, J. C., Spears, R., Christ, O., Saab, R.,
Singh, P., & Siddiqui, R. N. (2011). Explaining
radical group behavior: Developing emotion and
efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative
collective action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101, 129–148.
Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media
and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact
on personal and societal level judgments.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,
691–708.
Van de Velde, L., Vandermeulen, V., Van Huylenbroeck, G., &
Verbeke, W. (2011). Consumer information (in)
sufficiency in relation to biofuels: Determinants
and impact. Biofuels, Bioproducts, & Biorefining, 5,
125–131.
Weaver, D. (1991). Issue salience and public opinion:
Are there consequences of agenda-setting?
International Journal of Public Opinion Research,
3, 53–68.
Wispe, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy
and empathy: To call forth a concept, a word is
needed. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 314–321.
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear
appeals: The extended parallel process model.
Communication Monographs, 59,
330–349.
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear
appeals: Implications for effective public health
campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27,
591–615.
Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M.
(1990). Responding to membership in a disad-
vantaged group: From acceptance to collective
protest. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 994–1003.
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, edited by Hyunyi Cho, et al., SAGE Publications, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ohiostate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1995994.
Created from ohiostate-ebooks on 2020-12-22 14:30:30.
Copyright © 2014. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.
