Social risk amplification as an attribution: the case of zoonotic disease outbreaks
Social risk amplification as an attribution: the case of zoonotic disease outbreaks
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13669877.2012.670130
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-01
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
Duckett, Dominic
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Busby, Jerry;Duckett, Dominic
过去关于社会风险放大的工作集中于研究大规模的、综合的社会对风险问题的反应，这些风险问题是社会进程的结果。本文探讨的另一种方法是将放大视为一种归因。社会风险放大是社会行为者在试图解释他们在反应方面的系统性差异时相互归因的东西，而不是对某种与刺激不成比例的反应的客观描述。这就避免了这样一个问题，即风险的社会放大可以被认为意味着社会系统之外的风险可以在某种程度上被它扭曲，归因观点也有助于说明风险反应的差异和共性。为了探讨风险放大作为一种归因，我们分析了行为者讨论最近人畜共患病爆发时所使用的解释和描述。我们提出了一个接地分析，产生这些解释和描述的分类。从受访者使用的陈词滥调中可以明显看出，社会行为者早在风险框架的社会放大之前就有了一个类似于社会风险放大的概念，如“哭泣的人”、“散布恐慌”和“随大流”。此外，他们以一种强烈的规范性方式使用它：有时说这种放大是可以解释和原谅的，有时不是。这是社会判断的基础。放大作为一种归因的想法提供了一个特别的优势，即它有助于处理社会行为者根据其他社会行为者的风险反应制定自己的风险反应的情况。
Past work on social risk amplification has concentrated on studying large-scale, aggregated societal responses to risk issues as the outcome of social processes. An alternative approach, explored in this article, is to regard amplification as an attribution. Social risk amplification is something that social actors attribute to one another as they try to explain their systematic differences in response, not an objective characterisation of a response that is somehow disproportionate to its stimulus. This avoids the problem that the idea of a social amplification of risk can be taken to imply that a risk external to the social system can somehow be distorted by it. The attributional view also helps illustrate differences in risk response as much as commonalities. In order to explore risk amplification as an attribution we analyse the explanations and descriptions used by actors discussing recent outbreaks of zoonotic disease. We present a grounded analysis that produces a classification of these explanations and descriptions. It is evident from the cliches that informants used - such as 'crying wolf', 'scare-mongering' and 'jumping on the bandwagon' - that social actors have had a concept resembling social risk amplification that long predates the social amplification of risk framework. Moreover, they use it in a strongly normative way: sometimes saying this amplification is explicable and excusable, sometimes not. It is therefore a basis of social judgment. The idea of amplification as an attribution offers the particular advantage that it helps deal with situations where social actors develop their risk responses in reaction to the risk responses of other social actors.