This blog post examines how intensive media coverage amplifies risk perceptions surrounding science and technology incidents, and what changes it brings to public trust and image formation in the process.
Science and technology reporting typically involves specialized content that is difficult for the public to access in daily life. The public primarily relies on media reports to learn about new facts or events in science and technology, and their reception of the reported content varies depending on the media’s framing and the public’s level of understanding. This phenomenon becomes particularly pronounced when the reported content involves risk factors such as health or safety. This is explained through various theoretical models such as the ‘negativity bias hypothesis’, ‘priming effect’, and ‘risk communication amplification model’.
According to the ‘negativity bias hypothesis’, when the frame set in a report is negative rather than positive, the public is more likely to pay attention to that report and tends to perceive its informational value as higher. Because of this tendency, it can be predicted that the greater the risk inherent in the news, the more amplified the effect of the negativity bias will be. The ‘priming effect’ is fundamentally based on the association effect. The brain, as the human information processing network, triggers associations with related images already stored within it when exposed to specific sounds or images provided by mass media. The result of this triggering is the priming effect. A prime example is how reports on tainted food naturally evoke associations with the ‘melamine scandal,’ which caused significant social repercussions.
The ‘Risk Communication Amplification Model’ is a theory demonstrating how reports on specific risk events materialize and exert influence within society. Two representative models can be cited. One is the Renn model, based on the classical communication model where information flows from the source through channels to the receiver. According to this model, a risk event is first communicated to the source, and simultaneously or sequentially to the communicator. The source includes scientists, stakeholders, and witnesses, while the communicator includes the media, relevant agencies, and opinion leaders. During the process of conveying such risk events to the public as the receiver, the interests or demands of the source and messenger can intervene, amplifying risk perception and exerting a stronger influence on the receiver.
The Slovic model is a theory that focuses more on the social amplification aspect of science and technology reporting. This model demonstrates how media coverage of science and technology performs a role of social amplification and how its effects can be socially expanded and reproduced. When a specific science and technology incident occurs, it leads to news coverage. At this point, intensive media coverage amplifies individual recipients’ risk perception. Subsequently, the public, as recipients, moves to the ‘information interpretation stage,’ where they judge the magnitude of the risk and the appropriateness of risk management based on this amplified risk perception. At this stage, the already amplified risk perception influences interpretations of the reported risk event, leading to undermined trust in the subject of the report and reinforced negative perceptions. The resulting negative impact extends beyond perceptions of the risk event itself, affecting evaluations of related institutions, associated companies, and the science and technology field as a whole. This, in turn, leads to various social repercussions, including decreased sales for related companies, lawsuits, and strengthened legal regulations.
