The Influence of Outrage Factors on Journalists’ Gatekeeping of Health Risks

Abstract

Public risk perception is critical in understanding the modern “risk society,” and news media can be a significant influence on the perception. Based on Peter Sandman’s concept of “outrage factors” of risk, this study investigated whether these factors influence journalistic risk gatekeeping. A survey of 200 Korean journalists was conducted and results showed that the average outrage factors perceived by the reporters were influential in determining the degree of newsworthiness in all the cases across the five hazards. In particular, “catastrophic potential” was the most salient influence in that it was influential in three of the five hazards.

Keywords

outrage factors risk perception gatekeeping news coverage food risk

We are living in a “risk society,” where hazards and insecurities induced by industrialization are important influences to be dealt with systemically (Beck, 1992). Maintaining an appropriate level of risk perception is a critical issue in coping with risks that we face in everyday life. Consequently, public perception of various risks has been studied by researchers in various fields (Siegrist, Keller, & Kiers, 2005; Slovic, 1987; Sparks & Shepherd, 1994).

In particular, efforts have been made to understand the dynamic of risk perception. For example, British respondents were asked to rate multiple characteristics of various food hazards, and a principal components analysis revealed that the components of “severity,” “unknown,” and large “number of people exposed” explained most of the variance in the perception of risk characteristics studied (Sparks & Shepherd, 1994).

Previous studies in the psychometric paradigm have assumed that certain characteristics of risks influence nonexperts’ risk perception in light of magnitude and focus. Sandman (1993) coined the term “outrage factor” to refer to these risk characteristics. Outrage is a negative emotional response to a hazard, which leads to greater concern about a certain risk. The outrage factor, therefore, is a risk characteristic that is likely to elicit emotive responses of individuals and, in turn, influences the level of risk perception regardless of the actual degree of hazard.

Although Sandman’s concept of outrage has provided an important theoretical background for studies of risk perception and risk communication, there has been little investigation of outrage factors with solid empirical findings. In the present study, we considered one notable aspect of outrage factors: If outrage factors as risk characteristics are the object of perception, then these factors can also be perceived by journalists who select particular risks as news items to cover; thus the hypothetical influence by outrage factors can be expected not only on individual risk perception, but also on journalistic gatekeeping of risks. We additionally studied journalism itself, rather than the individuals who are responsive to outrage factors. Thus, a journalist survey was conducted to investigate whether a risk with more outrage factors leads to journalists’ perception of greater newsworthiness for the risk. In terms of the type of risk, outrage factors in food risk were examined, considering that food safety has been “such an emotive issue with universal interest” (Anderson, 2000).

We were specifically interested to see if outrage factors play a role not only at an individual level, but also at the aggregate level in journalists’ news gatherings. We considered that the outrage factors’ impact on journalism is an influence at a more aggregate level as it is likely to affect readers and audience of news coverage through individual reporters’ gatekeeping, which could specify part of the mechanism underlying social amplification of risks (Kasperson et al., 1988) and the role of news media.

Literature Review

Risk Perception and the Outrage Factor

According to Sjöberg (2000), studies of risk perception can be traced back to the 1960s when the introduction of nuclear energy system was under social debate, and public risk perception was considered a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy. Studies of risk perception can be grouped by key determinants of risk perception. On one hand, individual perceivers’ traits, such as risk attitude (Roosen, Thiele, & Hansen, 2005; Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002) and affect (Chaudhuri, 1998; Slovic, Peters, Finucane, & MacGregor, 2005), have been studied as influences on risk perception.

On the other hand, characteristics of risks are examined in a psychometric paradigm (Grobe, Douthitt, & Zepeda, 1999; Mullet, Lazreg, Candela, & Neto, 2005; Siegrist et al., 2005; Sjöberg, Moen, & Rundmo, 2004). Researchers commonly assume that the public’s view of risk is different from an expert’s view, which is a technical assessment of actual hazard. In the case of public risk perception, a certain set of risk characteristics perceived by the public elicit negative emotions such as fear and anger, which in turn result in a higher risk perception. The interest in the psychometric paradigm is to identify risk characteristics that actually influence risk perception.

Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read, and Combs’s (1978) study is considered the initiating work in this line of studies. They examined nine risk characteristics expected to affect nonexpert individuals’ risk perceptions: whether a risk is voluntary, chronic, catastrophic, common, fatal, immediate, ascertainable, controllable, or novel. As a result, two key dimensions of risk characteristics—dreadfulness and newness—were identified from a factor analysis.

Although psychometric studies examining multiple risk characteristics assume that public’s risk perception depends on certain characteristics that may or may not be actually related to the magnitude of hazard, they do not conceptualize these risk characteristics by grouping them into a particular name of category. To this respect, Sandman (1993) advanced the study of risk perception by coining “outrage factors” which refers to risk characteristics “that people are worried about that the experts ignore” (p. 7). Furthermore, Covello and Sandman (2001) specified 20 outrage factors, which may provoke the public’s outrage that could then lead to higher risk perception. Risks from involuntary activities or uncontrollable ones are thus likely to elicit a greater level of outrage and a higher risk perception. They also suggest that risks from unfamiliar activities, those with unclear benefits, and those poorly understood or unknown, can be subject to an outrage response as well. Similarly, when a risk has a catastrophic potential, dread image, delayed effect, effects on children/future generations, or is under high media attention, higher risk perception may develop. When a risk involves activities perceived as being unfair, damaging to public trust, or when a similar accident has previously occurred, higher risk perception can be expected as well. Last, the likelihood of public outrage becomes higher when the identity of a victim of risk is known, if the aftermath of a risk is irreversible, if personal stake is concerned with a risk, or when a risk originates from human activities rather than natural causes.

Empirical studies have reported the influences of particular outrage factors. Grobe et al. (1999), for example, investigated several outrage factors applicable to milk from recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) in the United States: involuntariness, unfamiliarity, lack of trust, and no tangible consumer benefits. As a result, they found that consumers’ lack of trust of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and perception of no visible benefits to consumers were significant individual predictors of risk perceptions. In regard to biotechnological hazards (e.g., genetically modified food, processed food, additives, irradiation), risk perception was associated with lack of control, unknown consequences, threat to future generations, and unnatural/human-origin causes (McCarthy, Brennan, Ritson, & De Boer, 2006).

Outrage Factors and the News Media

The aforementioned studies have shown that risk perception by the public is affected by risk characteristics that elicit a nonexpert’s emotional response. The findings of outrage factors’ influence, however, inform us of the individuals’ psychological mechanism for risk perception without considering how they obtain information regarding risk characteristics. In everyday life, people are exposed to risk information mostly via mass media, especially by news coverage that conveys information concerning many hazards, such that these particular risk characteristics should be studied.

When taking this aspect of mass communication into account, the original research question of how outrage factors as risk characteristics affect risk perception can be further elaborated: How does news coverage of risk involve outrage factors? We posit that the relationship between outrage factors and news coverage of risk can be examined in two respects. In one way, the news media’s representation of relevant outrage factors of a risk can be investigated as the representation is likely to be connected to the public’s perceived risk characteristics. In another way, one can examine if outrage factors influence journalistic gatekeeping of risks as reporters’ selection of which risk to cover and how to cover it can influence the public risk perception.

Swain (2007) conducted a study that investigated the representation of outrage factors in news coverage of the 2001 anthrax attack. Swain suggested several features of news coverage that can elicit public outrage: “outrage rhetoric,” as the language that describes a negative public reaction; “speculation,” mentioning various pathways of exposure to anthrax; “conflicting reports,” which contain statements conflicting each other; “hoaxes and false alarms,” referring to an incident that was either a deliberate hoax or a negative test result; “vague advice,” with little practical tips; and “off-record attribution,” which did not identify the name of interview source. Based on the content analysis of 833 stories by major U.S. newspapers, news agencies, and network TVs, it was found that the most frequent outrage factor in the news coverage of anthrax was outrage rhetoric, followed by speculation, and hoaxes/false alarms. The most frequently mentioned outrage rhetoric themes were terrorism and fear, although the top speculation themes were a 9/11 link.

In seeking a better understanding on the dynamics of risk perception, we took a different approach to outrage factors from previous studies and focused on how the news media is involved in outrage factors. Although Swain’s (2007) study provided some information on how the news media is involved in outrage factors, it focused solely on the media presentation of outrage factors. We suggest that outrage factors may be involved in news coverage by the way news media present outrage factors or the effect of outrage factors on reporters’ selection of risk news. Swain’s study did not look at how outrage factor as risk characteristics can influence journalists themselves, especially in their gatekeeping of risks to cover in their news stories.

We expect that journalists as nonexperts in specific domains of hazards can also be influenced by outrage factors in their selection and coverage of news items, as individual nonexperts are affected by outrage factors of risk characteristics. We attempted to obtain additional information on how the news media is affected by outrage factors by investigating the influence of outrage factors on journalists’ risk gatekeeping. This aspect has recently been studied with content analyses. Ju, Lim, Shim, and You (2015) analyzed public-relation messages in terms of outrage factors, and quantified the amount of relevant news stores. As a result, they reported a significant association between outrage factors and the amount of relevant news stories.

Rather than relying on a content analysis, we investigated whether journalists who face a risk with outrage factors would be more likely to select the risk as their news item based on a higher risk perception, which would imply a positive relationship between outrage factors and reporters’ perceived newsworthiness. This study examines the first research question collecting data from surveying journalists:

RQ1: Is there a significant association between outrage factors and journalists’ gatekeeping of food risk such that a risk with more outrage factors will lead to journalists’ higher perception of “newsworthiness” for risk items?

The first research question is based on an approach taken by previous studies of the psychometric paradigm except that perceived “newsworthiness,” rather than individual risk perception, is compared with outrage factors. We examined food risk, as it represents risk that we face every day. The individual outrage factor is another matter of interest, and thereby the following research question is investigated:

RQ2: Which outrage factor is associated with greater “newsworthiness” perceived by journalists?

Method

Surveying Korean Journalists

To identify the impact of outrage factors on journalism behavior directly from journalists themselves, 200 Korean newspaper reporters and television news reporters were surveyed. In the survey conducted by Gallup Korea, a professional survey agent in South Korea, risks were assessed in terms of five outrage factors and perceived news value.

The outrage factors examined were familiarity, effects on children, trust, catastrophic potential, and dread. Covello and Sandman (2001) suggested 20 outrage factors, but it was not practical to have reporters rate particular risks for all the 20 factors. Even in the content analysis of the governmental press releases to identify outrage factors, only 15 outrage factors were examined after considering similarities among the factors (Ju et al., 2015). Considering the nature of risk around food consumption, we selected the 5 outrage factors described. The reporters’ perception of these outrage factors were measured by asking them to rate the degree of their agreement with the following five statements: “the hazard is unfamiliar and hard to understand with jargons or other specialized information”; “the hazard is caused by abnormal activities violating any rule, standard, common sense, etc. by food providers, distributors or others involved in the process of food consumption”; “the risk can damage multiple people at once”; “infants, children, or teenagers can be damaged by the risk”; and “the hazard elicits emotions such as fear, dread, or worry.” The 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 7 = very likely) was utilized.

The carcinogenic substance benzopyrene in the Korean famous instant noodles, norovirus detected in the foods at school restaurants of elementary schools, salmonella found in infant foods, misuse of packing materials for instant coffee as a spoon, and side effects of cosmetics were investigated. These risks were selected from news releases issued by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Reporters were given a few sentences of 30 to 50 words that summarize happenings that involve each of the five risks. After reading the summaries, the reporters were asked to decide the newsworthiness of the item and rate it in terms of the five outrage factors. For measuring newsworthiness, the respondents rated the statement, “this news item is newsworthy” based on the 7-point Likert-type scale.

Analyses

The intensity of outrage factors of a risk can be captured in two respects. In one way, a risk is likely to elicit the public outrage when it has many different kinds of outrage factors. In another way, a great intensity of a particular outrage factor can elicit the public outrage as well. In the content analysis by Ju et al. (2015), the former case was analyzed using a simple linear regression model where the amount of news coverage is expected by outrage scores of risks; the outrage score here refers to the number of outrage factors marked to be exist in a risk. Also, the influence of individual outrage factor was compared by a multiple linear regression model where the 15 outrage factors were entered as independent variables.

In a similar way to the content-analysis study (Ju et al., 2015), a simple regression model and a multiple regression model were also used in the current study for the survey data. In the former case, the mean outrage score was the independent variable expecting perceived newsworthiness, while the five outrage factors were entered into the multiple regression model as explaining variables.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

In the survey of the Korean reporters’ perception of outrage factors and newsworthiness, the carcinogenic substance in the instant noodle was perceived as a risk with the greatest outrage factor; its mean outrage score was 5.02 and its catastrophic potential (M = 5.64) was rated the highest of all the five factors for the risk (Table 1). Its newsworthiness was also the greatest (M = 5.59). The next level of mean outrage score was found in salmonella in infant foods (M = 4.82) and its perceived newsworthiness was the second as well (M = 5.28). Side effect by the misuse of cosmetics was a risk with the least outrage factor and its newsworthiness was also the least.

Table 1.

Outrage Factors and Newsworthiness of the Five Hazards Perceived by Korean Journalists.

	Familiarity	Catastrophic potential	Effects on children	Trust	Dread	M	Newsworthiness
Carcinogenic substance	3.47	5.64	5.58	5.09	5.30	5.02	5.59
Norovirus at school restaurant	3.56	4.95	5.33	3.94	4.48	4.45	4.19
Salmonella in infant foods	3.36	5.20	5.74	4.75	5.09	4.82	5.28
Coffee packing material	2.80	4.41	3.80	3.42	4.01	3.69	5.08
Cosmetics side effect	2.60	3.73	3.31	3.03	3.16	3.16	4.14

Note. 1 = not at all to 7 = very likely; the higher value for familiarity and trust indicates the more unfamiliar and less trustful characteristics involved in the risk under investigation.

The Influence of Outrage Score on News Reporting of Risk

The influence of outrage factors on the quantitative aspect of news coverage of risk observed in the content analysis (Ju et al., 2015) was also demonstrated by the survey of the Korean reporters. In all the cases across the five hazards, the average outrage factors perceived by the reporters were influential in determining the degree of newsworthiness (Table 2).

Table 2.

The Newsworthiness of the Five Hazards Regressed on the Average Outrage Factors Perceived by the 200 Korean Reporters.

Hazards	M (SD)	Β (SE)	t value	Adjusted R²
Carcinogenic substance	5.590 (1.003)	0.380 (.102)	3.729**	.066
Norovirus at school restaurant	4.190 (1.161)	0.460 (.107)	4.284**	.085
Salmonella in infant foods	5.280 (1.038)	0.574 (.081)	7.063**	.201
Instant coffee sachets	5.080 (1.160)	0.420 (.085)	4.919**	.109
Cosmetics side effect	4.140 (1.252)	0.461 (.080)	5.759**	.143

Note. The mean of newsworthiness were from the value on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all to 7 = very newsworthy).

p < .01.

For example, the magnitude of outrage factors of salmonella in infant food felt by the reporters (M = 5.28, SD = 1.04) significantly influenced the degree of newsworthiness that the reporters perceived (B = 0.57, t = 7.06, p < .01). Therefore, the result substantiated the influence of outrage factors on reporters’ perception of newsworthiness, which was addressed in the first research question.

Significant Outrage Factors Associated With Risk Gatekeeping

Although we found that outrage factors influence journalistic risk gatekeeping, the effect was an aggregate-level influence measured by outrage scores, which does not inform us of the magnitude of each outrage factor’s unique influences. A regression equation including the five outrage factors that predicted the reporters’ perceive newsworthiness was tested using a multiple regression analysis.

As a result, the influence of catastrophic potential was the most salient in the survey of the Korean reporters. This finding is similar to the content-analysis study by Ju et al. (in press). When the perceived “newsworthiness” of the five hazards was tested by separate multiple regression models where the five outrage factors perceived were explaining factors, hazards with catastrophic potential were significantly connected to a higher perception of “newsworthiness” in three of the five cases: salmonella in infant foods, misuse of instant coffee sachets, and side effects of cosmetics (Table 3).

Table 3.

The Korean Reporters’ Perception of Newsworthiness Expected by Their Perceived Outrage Factors.

Hazards	Outrage factors	Β	t value
Carcinogenic substance (R² = .127)	Familiarity	−0.117	−1.746
	Catastrophic potential	0.151	1.720
	Effects on children	0.057	0.642
	Trust	0.179	2.264*
	Dread	0.031	0.392
Norovirus at school restaurant (R² = .103)	Familiarity	0.005	0.070
	Catastrophic potential	0.205	1.849
	Effects on children	0.012	0.109
	Trust	0.062	0.841
	Dread	0.119	1.444
Salmonella in infant foods (R² = .258)	Familiarity	−0.078	−1.193
	Catastrophic potential	0.277	3.049**
	Effects on children	0.076	0.832
	Trust	0.152	2.043*
	Dread	0.105	1.214
Misuse of instant coffee sachets (R² = .246)	Familiarity	−0.048	−0.712
	Catastrophic potential	0.223	2.691**
	Effects on children	−0.069	−0.870
	Trust	−0.074	−1.042
	Dread	0.394	5.119**
Cosmetics side effect (R² = .165)	Familiarity	0.158	1.995*
	Catastrophic potential	0.197	2.020*
	Effects on children	−0.056	−0.610
	Trust	−0.002	−0.025
	Dread	0.207	2.051*

p < .05. **p < .01.

In the case of trust, which was the second-most influential in the content-analysis study (Ju et al., 2015), the outrage factor showed significant impact on the reporters’ perception of “newsworthiness” in two cases: carcinogenic substances in the flavoring of instant noodles and salmonella in infant foods. The risks eliciting dread were connected to greater “newsworthiness” in cases of misuse of instant coffee sachets and side effects of cosmetics. Finally, risk that women may encounter in daily life was also perceived as newsworthy because it is unfamiliar to the journalists (Table 3). With respect to the second research question, catastrophic potential and trust were both salient influences on the journalistic risk gatekeeping. Unfamiliar risks and dread ones were significant influences on journalists’ perception of newsworthiness as well.

Discussion

Outrage factors in risk communication were examined in light of their impact on journalists’ risk gatekeeping. For this purpose, newspaper reporters and TV reporters were surveyed. This is a new approach given that prior studies tended to deal with individual’s rating of outrage factors, not considering the role of journalists.

Consequently, the findings provided new insights on the risk perception phenomena. Catastrophic potential was the most powerful outrage factor affecting the gatekeeping of the risks studied; it was connected to a higher perception of “newsworthiness” in three of the five cases: salmonella in infant foods, misuse of instant coffee sachets, and side effects of cosmetics. The factor of losing trust in food makers or distributors was also a significant influence on the journalists’ risk gatekeeping in terms of the reporters’ perception of newsworthiness, implying that indignation from ethical consideration is a significant outrage factor in risks from consuming foods commodities.

Not only particular outrage factors, but also those at an aggregate level, were significant factors for journalists’ perceived newsworthiness: a risk with greater outrage scores was perceived significantly more newsworthy than the one with less outrage factors. However, the R² value for the regression model with outrage scores as the explaining factor was rather small. It is not highly likely that journalists calculate the exact number of outrage factors involved in a health risk to determine whether it should be reported, and this may partially explain the small power of explanation of the model. No matter how small the explaining power is, the significant associations between outrage scores and the amount of relevant news stories/perceived “newsworthiness” imply that the emotive factors do play a role at the aggregate level as well.

The dynamics of risk perception was informed by investigating journalists’ risk gatekeeping. The role of outrage factors observed in reporters’ journalistic thinking signifies a possible mechanism through which social amplification of health risks occurs (Kasperson et al., 1988). Also, particular outrage factors’ influence can be used for public health communication specialists to develop a risk message in a way to make it more or less newsworthy. Some risks may be outrageous or others may be subject to the public’s indifference regardless of their actual hazards; the findings on the impact of outrage factors on perceived newsworthiness may inform message developers as to which aspect should be discussed.

This study did have some limitations. In the real world of journalism, risk gatekeeping involves various factors, including traditional criteria for newsworthiness. Various levels of influence suggested by Shoemaker and Reese (1996) must also play a role. This study did not control for any influences that could have affected the risk gatekeeping. Also, only five risk characteristics were investigated in surveying journalists. Different risks are subject to different types of outrage factors, and identifying outrage factors for individual risks would be the most likely agenda to be developed. Therefore, further studies with additional outrage factors with different types of risk seem to be in order.

“Risk society” faces different types of risk problems. Slovic (2000) asked, “why seemingly minor risks or risk events often produce extraordinary public concern and social and economic impacts with rippling effects across time, space and social institutions” (p. 245). However, there are also health issues in which public risk perception should be escalated. To this respect, more factors that can calm down or stimulate outrage are worth examining within various types of risks. Also, a more comprehensive study that compares news coverage, journalistic assessment, and ordinary people’s response would be worthwhile.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS, 13162-830) and Hallym University (HRF-201403-006) in Republic of Korea.

Author Biographies

Myoungsoon You is an assistant professor in the Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea. Her research interests include public perception of health and environmental risks, integrating health service research and communication, and the measurement of health literacy.

Youngkee Ju is an associate professor in the School of Communication, Hallym University, Republic of Korea. He has researched the nature of health journalism and its effects.

References

Anderson

W. A.

(2000). The future relationship between the media, the food industry and the consumer. British Medical Bulletin, 56, 254-268. Retrieved from http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/1/254.full.pdf

Beck

(1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, England: SAGE.

Chaudhuri

(1998). Product class effects on perceived risk: The role of emotion. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 157-168. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(97)00039-6

Covello

Sandman

P. M.

(2001). Risk communication: Evolution and revolution. In Wolbarst

(Ed.), Solutions to an environment in peril (pp. 164-178). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fischhoff

Slovic

Lichtenstein

Read

Combs

(1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Science, 9, 127-152. doi:10.1007/BF00143739

Grobe

Douthitt

Zepeda

(1999). A model of consumers’ risk perceptions toward recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH): The impact of risk characteristics. Risk Analysis, 19, 661-673. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00436.x

Lim

Shim

You

(2015). Outrage factors in government press releases of food risk and their influence on news media coverage. Journal of Health Communication, 20, 879-887. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1018602

Kasperson

R. E.

Renn

Slovic

Brown

H. S.

Emel

Goble

. . . Ratick

(1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x

McCarthy

Brennan

Ritson

De Boer

(2006). Food hazard characteristics and risk reduction behaviour: The view of consumers on the island of Ireland. British Food Journal, 108, 875-891. doi:10.1108/00070700610702127

10.

Mullet

Lazreg

Candela

Neto

(2005). The Scandinavian way of perceiving societal risks. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 19-30. doi:10.1080/13669870210158571

11.

Roosen

Thiele

Hansen

(2005). Food risk perceptions by different consumer groups in Germany. Food Economics—Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C, 2, 13-26. doi:10.1080/16507540510033433

12.

Sandman

P. M.

(1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association. Retrieved from http://www.psandman.com/media/RespondingtoCommunityOutrage.pdf

13.

Shoemaker

P. J.

Reese

S. D.

(1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. White Plains, NY: Longman.

14.

Siegrist

Keller

Kiers

H. A. L.

(2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25, 209-220. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x

15.

Sjöberg

(2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 1-11. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.00001

16.

Sjöberg

Moen

B. E.

Rundmo

(2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm. Trondheim, Norway: Rotunde Publikasjoner.

17.

Slovic

(1987). Perception of risk. Nature, 236, 280-285.

18.

Slovic

(2000). The perception of risk. London, England: Earthscan. doi:10.1126/science.3563507

19.

Slovic

Peters

Finucane

M. L.

MacGregor

D. G.

(2005). Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology, 24, 35-40. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S35

20.

Sparks

Shepherd

(1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14, 799-806. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00291.x

21.

Swain

K. A.

(2007). Outrage factors and explanations in news coverage of the Anthrax attacks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 335-352. doi:10.1177/107769900708400209

22.

Weber

E. U.

Blais

Betz

N. E.

(2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviours. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263-290. doi:10.1002/bdm.414