DOI: 10.1111/risa.

13926

EDITORIAL

The social amplification of risk framework: New perspectives

1 THE ANALYSIS OF RISK: is only part of the risk analysis challenge. Who determines
BACKGROUND the definitions of risk and hazard and how those definitions
are used by various parties are also critical.
In the risk analysis field, hazards and risks are still primarily
defined in a technological sense (National Research Council,
1983) although hazards are not only threats to people, but 2 THE SOCIAL AMPLIFICATION OF
what they value as well (Kates et al., 1985). This was also RISK FRAMEWORK
made clear in the Understanding Risk report (NRC, 1996).
Still, a technical definition of risk that focuses on loss of life SARF is a conceptual framework and not a theory. Its founda-
and an analytic approach limited to a sequence of natural and tions are developed in six principal publications (Burns et al.,
technical events leading to loss pervades the discipline. There 1993; Kasperson, 1992; Kasperson et al., 1988; Kasperson,
is limited social science theory to broaden these approaches, & Kasperson, 1996; Pidgeon et al., 2003; Renn, 1991). Its
although several have been suggested such as: goal was to assess the technical issues of risk and their inter-
action with the psychological, sociological, and cultural per-
∙ Psychometric theory and affect heuristics: how individuals spectives of risk perception and risk-related behavior. The
make judgments about risk and hazards and how reliance main premise was that these issues of human behavior can-
on our emotions relates to decision making, respectively not be considered epi-phenomena of technical risk analysis
(Slovic et al., 1986); because hazards interact in multiple social ways with techni-
∙ Media and communication theories: how we communi- cal issues that may result in amplification or attenuation not
cate about risk and uncertainty (Arvai & Rivers, 2014; only of public perceptions and responses, but also of the risk
NRC1989); itself (see Larson et al., 2022, this issue). Thus, SARF was
∙ Cultural theory: how cultural worldviews preference risk not only supposed to bring in social science research, it also
perceptions (Johnson & Swedlow, 2021); was supposed to connect in an integrative manner the social
∙ Organizational theory and political economy: how social science with technical analyses.
forces enter into public policy and decision making The idea for this framework arose out of an attempt to
(Freudenburg & Pastor, 1992; Majone, 1989; Rip, 1986). overcome the fragmented nature of risk perception and risk
communication research by developing an integrative frame-
But integrated analysis, especially in the risk commu- work capable of accounting for findings from a wide range
nity, is still lacking. Fischhoff (1995) made it clear that of studies, including media research; psychometric and cul-
we need to take account of technical risk, but that is not tural schools of risk perception research; and studies of orga-
enough. Although social science work—particularly psycho- nizational and societal responses to risk. The framework also
metric analysis—has been widely circulated, technical anal- serves, more narrowly, to describe the various dynamic social
ysis of risk still dominates and there is an underapprecia- processes underlying risk perception and response. In partic-
tion of the social, political, and cultural dynamics that influ- ular, those processes by which certain hazards and events that
ence risk characterization and risk management. This often experts assess as relatively low in risk can become a particular
leads policymakers and experts to adopt the belief that the focus of concern and sociopolitical activity within a society
solution is not to broaden their understanding of risk, but to (risk amplification), whereas other hazards that experts judge
teach publics and stakeholders to think like they do. Activi- to be more serious receive comparatively less attention from
ties and reports by federal and state governments, and even society (risk attenuation). Attenuation can stem from threats
the National Academy of Science (National Academy of Sci- to deeply held values and the conscious attempts to avoid sys-
ences, 2017), reveals that this so-called “knowledge deficit tematic (or slow) thinking. Examples of significant hazards
model” is still inappropriately influential. At stake is the issue subject to attenuation might include naturally occurring radon
of whose perceptions, values, and beliefs matter? This is not gas, automobile accidents, smoking, and electronic cigarettes.
to say, as Fischhoff points out, that the technology is not a Risk amplification typically occurs at two stages: in the trans-
source of serious risk. It is. But technological risk assessment fer of information about risk and in social responses. Signals
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.

Risk Analysis. 2022;42:1367–1380. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/risa 1367

1368 EDITORIAL

about risk are both transmitted and processed by individu- ent also engages in amplification or attenuation processes,
als and social entities, which are called “amplification sta- thereby acting as an amplification station for risk-related pre-
tions” in the literature. The individual might be a scientist, sentations.
for example, who communicates the risk assessment. A social Originally SARF’s authors imagined ripples in a pond as
entity might be a news media, a cultural group, or an inter- a way to think about how impacts associated with the social
personal network (Hill, 2001). The perceived amplified risk amplification of risk spread outward or stay inward (Pidgeon
may lead to behavioral responses that can result in secondary et al., 2003), but this was prior to global digital communi-
impacts or “ripples.” Ripples include phenomena such as cation platforms. Time and space are both important in such
stigma–negative connotations associated with a community rippling topics (Figure 1).
hosting a radioactive waste management facility, for exam- Now with ubiquitous social media channels, these ripples
ple. have the potential to fan out in minutes to global communi-
Social amplification may qualitatively and quantitatively cation networks. The effects that are involved are diverse and
increase not only signals about the risk but also perceptions diffuse and include such impacts as:
of risk, behaviors related to the risk, as well as the risk itself
and its consequences (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1990; Kasper- ∙ losses in local business sales, lower residential property
son et al., 1988). For this reason, social amplification of risk values, and lower levels of economic activity;
should be included in analyses of public and regulatory reac- ∙ political and social pressure (e.g., political demands,
tions to risk events. The key amplification stages are posited changes in the political climate and culture);
as: ∙ changes in the nature of the risk (e.g., feedback mecha-
nisms that heighten or lower the risk);
∙ filtering signals (only a fraction of all incoming informa- ∙ changes in training, education, or required qualifications
tion is actually processed); for operations and emergency response personnel; changes
∙ decoding and reframing the signals; in risk monitoring and regulation;
∙ processing risk information (e.g., drawing inferences); ∙ higher liability and insurance costs;
∙ attaching social values to information as a basis for draw- ∙ repercussions on other technologies 1 (e.g., lower levels of
ing implications for management and policy; and public acceptance) and on social institutions (e.g., erosion
∙ behavioral change of individuals and institutions. of public trust); and even
∙ social disorder (e.g., protests, riots, sabotage, terrorism).
The societal information system may amplify hazard
events in two major ways: All of these are, of course, examples of “risk ripples” and
are part of the consequences of risk. One of the strengths
∙ by intensifying or weakening signals that are part of the of SARF is anticipating the possibility of multiple feedback
information that individuals and social groups receive loops and that risk management could be affected by histor-
about the hazard or ical perceptions of risks (see Cox et al., 2022, this issue).
∙ by filtering the multitude of signals with respect to the Another strength of the framework is that it accommodates
attributes of the hazard and their importance (Renn, 1991; many types of hazards, for example, in this special issue
Renn et al., 1992). SARF is applied to vaccines, fracking, and opioids.
An extension of the psychometric paradigm led to the def-
Signals arise through direct personal experience with a risk inition of stigma (Figure 2). Stigma refers to the negative
object or through the receipt of information about the hazard imagery associated with undesirable social groups or individ-
from the information ecosystem and/or personal networks. uals (Flynn et. al, 2001; Goffman, 1963). But environments
These signals are processed by social, as well as individual, with heavy pollution (Love Canal, Times Beach, Fukushima,
amplification stations that include: Nevada Test Site, etc.), hazardous technology (hazardous
waste incinerators, chemical weapons disassembly factories),
∙ the scientist who conducts and communicates the technical and other controversial hazards such as radioactive waste dis-
assessment of risk; posal, or even relatively benign technologies (e.g., solar and
∙ risk management institutions; wind sites) may also come to be associated with negative
∙ social media channels and platforms and the traditional images (Slovic et al., 1994). Since the typical response to
print and broadcast news media; stigmatized persons or environments is avoidance, it is rea-
∙ activist social organizations; sonable to assume that risk-induced stigma may have signifi-
∙ opinion leaders within social groups (e.g., influencers); cant social, economic, and policy consequences (Flynn et al.,
∙ personal networks of peer groups; 2001).
∙ public agencies.

Social amplification stations generate and transmit infor- 1

The original SARF analysis applied the case study of the 1989 explosion at the chem-
mation via communication channels (traditional media, social ical plant in Bhopal, India that raised concerns about the possible failure of “fail-safe”
media, and direct conversations). In addition, each recipi- systems at nuclear power plants (Kasperson & Kasperson 1991).
EDITORIAL 1369

FIGURE 1 Social amplification of risk framework. Source: Kasperson and Kasperson (1996)

FIGURE 2 Risk Amplification and stigmatization. Source: Kasperson et al. (2001)

The creation of SARF stemmed from technologies and 3 LITERATURE REVIEW

incidents that were considered “high hazards” (e.g., chemi-
cal explosions and nuclear accidents). Researchers are now Fifteen years after SARF was created, progress in develop-
exploring how SARF can support assessments around tech- ing and employing the framework was reviewed (Pidgeon
nologies with the potential for significant benefits along with et al., 2003). It found that SARF had gained considerable trac-
uncertain hazards (see, e.g., Ram & Webler, 2022 in this spe- tion, despite meeting with criticisms. We identified over 50
cial issue examining an offshore wind power case). research articles on SARF published since 2003 and found
1370 EDITORIAL

it continues to be a popular framework to help interpret the Fellanor et al. (2018, 2020) suggested that social media be
social dimensions of risk. The original article on SARF is the considered an amplification station, and that it blurs the lines
seventh most cited article in Risk Analysis, with 40 citations between journalist and news consumer. One of the qualities
in 2021 alone. In particular, considerable attention is now of social media as an amplification station that Fellanor et al.
being paid to social media and the processes by which mes- highlight is that risk amplification becomes intertwined with
sages alter risk perceptions. Clearly, most of the literature on one’s motive of self-promotion. People attempt to piggyback
SARF concerns amplification, although attenuation has long their personal interests onto the ongoing risk debate. How-
been recognized as important and as prevalent. A recent arti- ever, it remains unclear if this is unique to social media. The
cle focused on strategically including uncertainty information behavior of social media users to share and seek information
in risk characterization to intentionally inject more amplifi- is a growing area of study. A recent study found that Twit-
cation into the process and thus counter the effects of risk ter users were less inclined to share risk information if they
attenuation (Fjaeran & Aven, 2021). were concerned about the presence of misinformation (Zhang
A foundational critique of SARF raised by Rayner (1988) & Cosma, 2022). Another compared traditional and social
and Rip (1988) has been addressed by Busby et al., Duck- media’s role in shaping risk perceptions of forest fire haze and
ett, and others. Rayner claimed that SARF gives preference dengue fever. They found social media was much more effec-
to a “correct” or “objective” expert risk characterization that tive, possibly because it was easier to share images that doc-
is then “distorted” through communicative and societal pro- umented the haze (Ng et al., 2018). Wirz et al. (2018) inves-
cesses. Busby et al. suggest a reorientation to a more rela- tigated how messages about blame and stigma varied across
tivistic approach that draws attention away from questions social media platforms in Spanish, Portuguese, and English.
of epistemological hegemony to questions about how actors Clearly, more research into social media and SARF is needed
can hold views about risks that others, some more numer- (see Section 5.1 below).
ous, knowledgeable, or powerful, contest and how “a soci- Another focus of recent scholarship into SARF has cen-
ety of actors construct each other’s risk responses” (Busby & tered on how different types of messages can activate cog-
Duckett, 2012, pp. 1051; Busby et al., 2009; Busby & Onggo, nitive and emotive responses, promoting certain risk percep-
2013; Duckett & Busby, 2013). Such a perspective has been tions. For example, Crespi and Taibi (2020) looked at how
taken up by others. For instance, Carper (2019) studied vacci- news media in Germany amplified tourists’ perceptions of
nation decisions and found an informational channel (specifi- earthquake risks in Italy when content emphasized uncer-
cally, stories shared among friends) had the largest impact on tainty and dramatic consequences. Chong and Choy (2018)
risk behavior. did something similar, but added social media channels. They
A great deal of the literature citing SARF since 2003 exam- found that Facebook was the most effective channel that stim-
ines media coverage as indicators or influencers of public ulated emotional responses that amplified risk. Popovic et al.
risk perception, although more effort is put into measur- (2020) manipulated subjects’ stress and then asked them to
ing media coverage than is put into clarifying the process share information about a hypothetical risk. They found that
by which media coverage influences risk perceptions. Since people who were stressed reported lower risk concerns and
SARF is not measurable, one could argue that “diffusion” also attenuated risk via social media.
and “retransmission” is amplification (Sutton et al., 2015; Vos This synopsis of SARF-related research published since
et al., 2018). It has been well-documented that SARF origi- 2003 illustrates that the framework retains broad appeal as
nated in a period preceding social media, which offers unique a scaffold to gather and organize data about cultural, soci-
challenges to the framework. An article by Chung (2011) is etal, and psychological forces that shape risk perceptions and
often cited as the first to argue social media demands recon- behaviors (See Appendix for the list of articles reviewed).
sideration of the structure of SARF. In the decade follow-
ing Chung’s article, a modest amount of progress has been
made. Comrie et al. (2019) used system dynamics model- 4 HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS SPECIAL
ing to operationalize how social media contributes to risk ISSUE
amplification about acute health risks. They found that fail-
ure of government health offices to participate in social media The call has long been out in the risk community for more
leads to more misinformation, which can result in lower trust integrated and complete characterization of risks. The contri-
(as Frewer, 2003 also explained) and less institutional con- butions of this special issue respond to this call and demon-
trol over risk management. Importantly, they also examined strate how SARF continues to open up new issues and
the challenges that public health agencies face in participat- approaches to risk analysis. A testament to SARF is the diver-
ing effectively in social media. Hopfer et al. (2021) illus- sity and range of topics that are part of this special issue,
trated how social media can both amplify and attenuate risk including: social trust, the opioid crisis in the United States,
at the same time but among different audiences. Moussaïd vaccine hesitancy, offshore wind power, coastal vulnerabili-
et al. (2015) offered a particularly intriguing explanation of ties, systemic risks, and negative emissions technology and
how social media distorts risk characterizations using the the- fracking in the United Kingdom.
ory of diffusion chains. They reported that messages become Issues of social trust are clearly important components of
shorter, less accurate, and dissimilar as they are passed along the dynamics of social amplification (Earle & Cvetkovich,
a 10-subject chain. 1993). We know that distrust in experts can heighten or
EDITORIAL 1371

reduce risk perceptions, intensify or attenuate public reac- the past decade by the Vaccine Confidence Project (based
tions to risk signals, contribute to the perceived acceptabil- at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine),
ity or unacceptability of risk, and stimulate political activism they describe several recent examples of social amplification
to reduce or ignore risk (Slovic, 1993). A host of questions and hesitancy starting with the notorious false association of
surrounds the interpretation of trust and its effects. There are autism with the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine
many types of trust. The processes that create and destroy complex. The separate examples illustrate different aspects
trust are not well understood. Trust (or distrust) exists at of risk amplification processes. Larson et al. (2022) go on to
multiple levels of the political system, complex attribution consider some aspects of current experience with COVID-19
issues prevail, and policy responses and their effectiveness vaccines; SARF, suitably adjusted to account for the ubiq-
are opaque. From a social amplification perspective, trust is uity and power of social media and the systemic nature of
highly interrelated with other components and mechanisms in the vaccine hesitancy hazard, can shed considerable light on
what we think of as “amplification dynamics.” Understanding that experience. They conclude that an adjusted SARF serves
how trust is shaped, altered, lost, or rebuilt in the processing well to organize descriptions and analysis of vaccine hesi-
of risk by social and individual stations of risk is a priority tancy. They also assert that the SARF shows promise for guid-
need in SARF research. Bearth and Siegrist (2022, this issue) ing practical efforts to ameliorate the occurrence and impact
contribute here by reviewing the literature on the role of trust of vaccine hesitancy. Moreover, the authors of this editorial
in different amplification stations. They then use Fukushima believe that the COVID pandemic will hold new insights and
as a case study to explore the possibility that trust in nuclear lessons about the theories of risk communication meeting
power operators was compromised by perceived competence practice in an emergency. It is likely that SARF was useful
to manage nuclear power stations. Consequences may have in pointing out to the medical communities what some of the
rippled out to Germany and played a role in their decision to social processes they were witnessing really meant.
abandon nuclear power by the end of 2022. They suggest that In their analysis of controversies about offshore wind in
the presumed “death spiral” of trust is empirically unjustified the United States, Ram and Webler (2022, this issue) make
and risk communication suffers if one starts with a defensive two contributions. First, they point out that few studies have
stance. made the point that benefits as well as risks can be amplified
Cantor et al. (2022, this issue) investigate the utility of or attenuated in risk discourses (see, for example, Roberts,
SARF to explain both attenuation and amplification of risks 2019). In the past, SARF has tended to focus entirely on
in the context of the opioid crisis. They draw upon Ortwin risks with negative consequences. Second, they clarify an
Renn’s suggestion that functional resonance and tragedy of important but largely neglected element in SARF: the four
the commons both help explain amplification. Examining var- informational mechanisms. Early and seminal publications of
ious “signals” related to opioid risks, they found that SARF’s SARF introduced four mechanisms—volume of information,
focus on the treatment of risk signals helped to understand extent to which factual information is disputed, dramatiza-
muted public responses to the increasing levels of the risk sig- tion, and symbolic connotations—and suggested these were
nals before 2011, which allowed the opioid crisis to expand the means by which signals about risks were amplified or
and become a national health emergency. Post 2011, they attenuated. These were, until now, never given deeper con-
found SARF highlights information regarding certain risk sideration. Drawing on a wealth of qualitative data from two
perception triggers, media attention, and a growing public case studies of offshore wind in the mid-Atlantic US coast
search for accountability. However, what SARF could not do and guided by an extensive literature review, they reveal the
was to appraise the appropriateness of societal responses to strategies parties use to influence public risk perceptions and
opioid risks. The value of SARF, they found, was as an orga- siting decisions. The paper concludes that SARF is useful for
nizational aid to study historical information rather than as organizing qualitative information and sharpening insights
a predictive tool for determining inappropriate risk manage- on participatory risk governance and the nuances of public
ment responses. The paper also found that economic incen- responses to a relatively new low carbon technology.
tives and opportunities are not well emphasized in the atten- SARF has identified a number of groups and social roles
uation factors and analysis of the role of such economic sig- that participate in the amplification or attenuation of risk,
nals is better addressed directly by socioeconomic theory and but rarely has focused on government actors. Dow and Tuler
empirical study. (2022, this issue) remedy this by pointing to the unique roles
Larson et al. (2022, this issue) explore the implications of played by climate resilience officers in large American cities.
the SARF for the hazard identified as “vaccine hesitancy.” In particular, they examine how these individuals adopt either
They show that vaccine hesitancy, a refusal of or resistance amplifying or attenuating messaging as they strive to reach
to vaccination, fits squarely in SARF. Communication about audiences driven by panic or denial. Resilience officers have
vaccines and their real and imagined risks can affect per- a responsibility to help people take mitigative actions, thus
ceptions that strongly influence behavior to accept or reject need to maintain a focus on how their risk communication
vaccination. Increased rejection can significantly increase the efforts inspire or discourage action. They conclude by point-
technical risk of getting sick, both for the individuals them- ing to several future research directions for SARF. First,
selves and the population around them. They also show that by building on agenda-setting and policy-framing research
altered perceptions and behaviors can open up many fur- to understand political forces at play. Second, they propose
ther possibilities for ripple effects. Using data collected over using arena theory to examine resilience officers’ strategic
1372 EDITORIAL

decision making about amplifying or attenuating risk mes- the knowledge and state of the field in the 1980s, has both
sages. Third, they suggest the idea of “risk work” could new possibilities and new challenges that did not exist at
further inform strategic decisions of resilience officers. the time of writing. Some new issues have called into ques-
Fourth, they recognize value in a deeper understanding of tion the current structure and assumptions of the framework.
what influences people’s interpretation of risk signals. Others provide opportunities for revising and enlarging the
When it was first proposed, SARF focused on techno- framework—ultimately, the social sciences involve evolution
logical risks associated with nuclear power, chemicals, car- and change and so the framework needs to evolve and become
cinogens, and pollutants. Over the decades, the literature has even more robust. Accordingly, we identify a number of these
grown to consider many other types of risk. Schweizer et al. new changes and how analytic and integrated thinking needs
(2022) continue to push this envelope by examining SARF to address such changes in a new world of risk assessments.
in the context of systemic risk (this issue). In particular, they Here we address issues that continue to bedevil risk analysis
explore why systemic risks seem to be generally attenuated in and for which the social amplification framework may pro-
public perception (although they can also be amplified). They vide some useful gains upon which future analyses may build.
show how SARF is useful and suggest ways to strengthen Part of this conversation relates to whether SARF is lim-
the framework by identifying practical tools for assessing the ited as a framework and a metaphor and is not a theory. Some
significance of perceptions of systemic risk. They conclude might argue that this gives utility to the framework for help-
that a number of attributes of systemic risk seem to explain ing to identify hypotheses around opaque or uncertain pub-
the attenuation including; psychological distance, their non- lic views and values that can then be tested—an exploratory
deterministic and ambiguous nature, and lack of trust in the tool. Others state that SARF can only be useful as a post
scientific assessments of systemic risk. Finally, they report hoc approach and is not able to test hypotheses or to be a
that misrepresentation of systemic risk is easily reinforced predictive tool. Do global digital communications and social
by digital communication tools which bolster echo chambers media channels —not considered in the original framework—
in public discourse. Consequently, knowledge camps become make SARF outdated? On the other hand, SARF seems to
polarized and differentiated approaches that are crucial for fit the dynamics of the twitter verse and some researchers
dealing with systemic risks become marginalized. have applied the framework to investigate how these com-
Cox et al. (2022, this issue) focus their contribution on the munication mechanisms amplify risk. We explore this fur-
topic of ripple effects using data from a series of delibera- ther in the section below along with other conundrums related
tive workshops with UK lay publics on novel methods for to uncertainties, risk communication, integrated analysis, and
removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Using sec- systemic risks.
ondary data analysis, they argue that heightened risk per-
ceptions relating to the UK controversy over fracking for
unconventional gas have extended via “ripple effects” across 5.1 Social media
technologies, to negatively impact people’s perceptions of
CO2 removal technologies—novel technologies to directly Written in the 1980s, SARF appropriately focused on the
reduce carbon from the atmosphere and thereby potentially role of the mass media in articulating risk signals to the
help in combating climate change. Such Stage II ripple effects publics and the media articulators as well as conveying sig-
across technologies are an important feature of the original nals from risk analysts and decisionmakers. Mass media, ini-
risk amplification papers, but have garnered less attention or tially limited to local and national print and broadcast news,
empirical verification since. In the workshops, participants’ was the primary channel that delivered risk information to the
attitudes were underpinned by deeper misgivings regarding publics and as well as from risk managers. These dynamics
the actions and motives of experts and policymakers; a per- shaped people’s risk perceptions (Friedman & Sutton, 2020).
vasive discourse of “but they told us it was safe” regarding Over the past two decades, information delivered over social
fracking negatively affected people’s trust in assurances of media channels has increasingly affected the way that indi-
the safety and efficacy of CO2 removal. The authors argue viduals and institutions interact with one another, directly
that this has the potential to undermine attempts to build soci- influencing the patterns of amplification of risk via online
etal agreement around future deployment of CO2 removal networked communication platforms. Van Dijck and Poell
technologies. (2013) describe a new “social media logic,” characterizing
social media as it has contributed to new norms, strategies,
mechanisms, and economies, that underpin how and why
5 CONTINUING RISK ANALYSIS information is shared online.
CONUNDRUMS For example, social media platforms are supported by
sociotechnological architectures that facilitate specific forms
SARF was created over three decades ago; therefore, it is of user practices. Consider, for example, how technologi-
not surprising that the risk analysis field and social change cal affordances allow personal broadcasting that blurs the
have seen a number of new insights and puzzling issues that traditional boundary between mass media and interpersonal
have arisen. Few areas of research and scholarship stand still. communication where the receiver becomes the source of
And so the social amplification framework, drawing upon communication (see Sundar, 2008). Or, the user-generated
EDITORIAL 1373

classification system, known as “folksonomy,” or social tag- done about them, now face new challenges with the advent of
ging (such as hashtags), that makes information easily found a more diffuse social media. Such platforms can enhance the
by others (Pink, 2005). And, consider the social media func- capability to convey needed information, facilitating partici-
tions that facilitate user engagement, such as likes, favorites, pation, and allowing multiple voices to contribute and share,
comments, retweets, and quote tweets. These features allow or it can become a vehicle for promoting biased, untruth-
organizations and commodified individuals to measure the ful, or inaccurate views of reality. There is also opportunity,
electronic reach, or amplification, of their digital material of course. Given that society has changed dramatically, how
and quantify their time and investment (Olsen et al., 2019). do we best adapt, and maybe even exploit, this technologi-
They also stimulate algorithms that promote some material cal transformation in SARF and in risk communication more
to the top of a queue while limiting the visibility of others generally? Risk analysis has work to do.
in a form of algorithmic bias (Brown, 2021). “Echo cham-
bers” are an intrinsic element that emerge as algorithms and
serve up content that aligns with the information preferences 5.2 Uncertainty
of individuals. The networked nature of social media further
limits exposure to alternate perspectives outside of the closed Uncertainty is inescapable in risk and policy analysis, even in
groups. Since social media channels are highly targeted by familiar situations—such as crossing a street or driving a car.
algorithms that continue to push similar preferred content, People rely on existing knowledge and experience to guide
eliciting contrary views may not be possible or even tolerated. future expectations, as Kahneman (2011) has pointed out. But
While one might argue that the role of mass media previously contexts change, and new elements affecting risk unexpect-
had been to provide a “balanced” and “objective” perspective, edly appear. For highly complex systems with extensive con-
social media channels do not make requirements for truth or nectivity and interactions, or novel problems or technology
malice of those who publish their thoughts online. Clearly, for which experience provides little guidance, decisions must
SARF and risk communication are facing a new challenge. often be made quickly and under conditions of high uncer-
When the amplification of content is restricted or promoted tainty, greatly complicating the assessment of risk.
as a result of computational decisions determined by the plat- Uncertainty arises from gaps in data, insufficient mod-
form engineer, one cannot help but consider that the social els, or incomplete scientific understanding of a risk. Indeed,
amplification of risk is far less social on social media. we recognize these types of uncertainty (statistical, model
The socio-technical architectures of social media also parameters, and epistemological). Depending on the type and
make the content of communication, that is the messages source of uncertainty, new information and more data may
themselves, “nonconsensual” in the sense that no global con- not reduce uncertainty. As was noted in Thinking Strategi-
sensus regarding truth, values of empirical claims, behavioral cally, a National Research Council report (NRC, 2005), sci-
or cultural norms, etc., can be enforced. This also means that entific progress may not only reduce some uncertainties but
there is value in misinformation; platforms profit from pro- also uncover new ones.
moting topics that create “moral outrage” (Crockett, 2017), It is not surprising that—in a world of complex systems
resulting in a type of emotional contagion met with increased involving rapid technological change, highly coupled human
online engagement and sharing. Here, the mass media adage and natural systems, and a kaleidoscope of social, economic,
“if it bleeds, it leads” finds its reflection online; where stories and political institutions—high levels of uncertainty chal-
that inspire fear, disgust, and surprise are more likely to be lenge existing assessment methods as well as public consid-
shared than those that do not (Vosoughi et al., 2018). eration and communication of risk decision and management
How might SARF account for the online ecology, affor- procedures (Goble et al., 2017). In Science and Decisions:
dances, and algorithms that promote social behaviors online Advancing Risk Assessment (NRC, 2009), a committee of
and off that are a direct result of the socio-technical design of experts identified core principles for addressing uncertainty
social media communication platforms? One might claim that and variability in risk assessments.
social media logic dictates the interactions, networks of com- Uncertainty is as much a management problem as an
munication, and prioritization of content resulting in a type assessment problem. Much of the literature on uncertainty
of technological determinism. If this is so, is the amplification presumes that, if we just characterize uncertainty properly,
of risk information online truly social? Future SARF research managers will know what to do. But in fact, managers are apt
will benefit from research by those who grapple with the com- to be baffled by and resist ever more those “proper” character-
plexities inherent in social media structures. Drawing from izations of uncertainty. Risk managers need guidance about
scholarship on social networks, diffusion, and contagion is what to do and what not to do when the assessments do not
likely to lead to greater insight about the amplification of risk point to a clear path forward (Goble et al., 2017). Certainly,
than descriptive case studies that detail the changes in vol- risk managers need to communicate about risk, and it is here
ume and attention over time. Researchers have spent a great that SARF offers insights because it is obvious that uncer-
deal of effort learning what content is amplified when impor- tainty can strongly influence social amplification processes.
tant remaining questions are why and how does this influence SARF offers several contributions to more effective uncer-
decision making. tainty analysis. First, since hazards and risk are defined more
Risk communicators who work to identify those risks that broadly, a more diverse set of risks are identified. And so, the
really matter and develop strategies to address what should be uncertainties may be broader and more complex. Inevitably, a
1374 EDITORIAL

greater number of uncertainties are involved. Yet, even more which became the bible of governmental agencies and, in
challenging, hazards to what people value and how values turn, large corporations. Commissioned by the first Adminis-
come into play are inevitably more perplexing. And so the trator of the EPA, William Ruckelshaus, to guide EPA’s deci-
uncertainties are more numerous and greater for the elements sion making about toxic chemicals and contaminated sites,
of risk that are more poorly understood. For managers and the report was influenced, indirectly, by nuclear risk assess-
analysts, the challenges are there. Ordinary people and deci- ments. At the same time, however, studies of the social issues
sionmakers dislike uncertainty—the judgment can be made involved in risk were growing rapidly, particularly psychome-
that the problems are really not understood. And so, the tric and cultural studies of risk perception among lay publics
analyst is confronted with the inextricable challenge—what by Slovic, Fischhoff, and others. And yet, these domains of
uncertainties should be communicated and what do we do analysis remained largely unintegrated and the “Red Book”
about poorly understood risks? remains the primary document in federal and state govern-
ments for how risk issues should be addressed. SARF sur-
vives as the most promising analytic strategy to achieve inte-
5.3 Risk communication grated analysis in which technical and social risk are exam-
ined in their interaction. Interdisciplinary approaches must
Risk communication is a third continuing problem for risk
draw upon psychology, sociology, political science, cultural
analysis. The past 30 years has seen a flood of work on theories, and economics and this requires integration of dif-
risk communication initiatives and analyses (Árvai & Rivers,
ferent vocabularies, literatures, and epistemologies (Neeley,
2014; Rickard, 2021). The earlier works of NRC (1983, 2014).
1989), Granger Morgan (see, for example, Morgan & Lave,
1990), Fischhoff (1995), and Chess et al. (1995) are note-
worthy contributions that should not be lost in the ongoing 5.5 Systemic risk
publications on risk communication. And yet the practice of
risk communication by corporations, federal agencies, and
Risk analysis has suffered from a propensity to analyze issues
ideal government in many respects seem little changed alas, one by one for specific technologies, facilities, or places. A
from practice decades ago—albeit social media has changed major step to a more integrated analysis is to see issues in
the methods drastically. The time is overdue to address some
their systems profile, not only their local or place-based per-
tough questions for the architects and craftsmen who shape spectives. And yet, if risk analysis is viewed over time, it is
and implement the practice of risk communication. Social
quite apparent that the bulk of the risk effort has focused on
amplification thinking can contribute. A retrospective look
individual chemicals, facilities, technologies, or places.
at risk communication proceeds with four major questions SARF made perhaps the earliest attempt to describe the
(Kasperson, 2014)2 :
idea of systemic risk. It introduced the idea of risk ripples as
secondary and tertiary consequences of a hazard event that
∙ What major successes and failures can we point to that
dominoed through interconnected systems. It also explained
shed light on what has been learned and not learned since
that these ripples were carried through human connections as
the 1983 NRC report? ideas about hazards and risks were communicated and shaped
∙ Assessing and communicating uncertainty often befuddles
into perceptions and behaviors (see Larson et al., 2022, this
decisionmakers and risk managers. How are these needs
issue).
handled, and how well, in current practice and analysis? Renn and Klinke (2016) have proposed strategies for get-
How can we do better? ting out of this mold. Renn, also a major author of the social
∙ While risks are an inescapable part of the governance and
amplification framework, has focused on the larger issue of
democratic process the reservoir of social trust is and has risk governance and, to follow, upon the systems properties
been in long-term decline. How successfully is declining that enter into governance, writ broadly, and in decision mak-
trust handled in risk governance processes?
ing on diverse risk problems. And so they have recognized
∙ Can the lessons learned and answers to the above be trans-
the need for integrated analysis of systems, risks, and regions.
lated into a new list of principles for risk communication
Accordingly, they argue that, for risk management to be effec-
going forward?
tive, it must proceed through the stages: preestimation, inter-
disciplinary risk estimation (including risk assessment and
5.4 Integrated analysis concern assessment, integrated risk analysis, and risk man-
agement.
In its early stages, risk analysis was essentially a technical The governance framework will be debated, of course, but
activity. In the 1970s, a contribution shaped the objectives and the need for more integrated and systemic perspectives are
structure of risk analysis for nuclear accidents and eventually recognized and set forth. The intent is to engage three prin-
contributed to the creation of the “Red Book” (NRC, 1983), cipal problems in risk analysis; complexity, uncertainty, and
ambiguity. Systemic risk, in Renn’s (2017) view, seeks four
2
For several responses to Kasperson’s four major questions, see the Journal of Risk major objectives: be global in nature, be interconnected and
Research, (17)10, pp. 1241–1284. intertwined, nonlinear in cause and effect, and be stochastic
EDITORIAL 1375

in effect structure. These are steps that need to be considered Cantor, Rob Goble, Nick Pidgeon, and Seth Tuler and the first
for how best the risk analysis field can move forward. set of anonymous reviewers of this article. Jeannette Sutton
wrote Section 5.1 on the critical aspects of social media chan-
nels. Erica Gaiton was Roger’s administrative assistant and
6 CONCLUSION: PRIORITIES FOR helped keep track of electronic communications and the first
MOVING FORWARD drafts of the articles. And finally, we express our gratitude to
Michael Siegrist (Area Editor), Tony Cox (Editor-in-Chief),
SARF is both a metaphor to refute one dimensional technical and Karen Lowrie (Managing Editor) who deftly supported
risk and an architecture to facilitate the linking of cultural, and helped steer this Special Issue towards publication.
social, and psychological theories of risk. The driving ques- Open access funding provided by the George Perkins
tions that remain are: why and how do some risks undergo Marsh Institute, Clark University.
amplification or attenuation? While not a predictive theory of
social outcomes, SARF has been demonstrated to be a very Roger E. Kasperson1
effective tool for exploring hypotheses around how risk per- Thomas Webler2
ceptions form and it has played important roles in inform- Bonnie Ram3
ing risk communication and collaborative risk governance Jeannette Sutton4
between regulators, experts, and laypeople.
As one of the most cited articles in Risk Analysis, SARF 1 Geography Department and George Perkins Marsh

has stood the test of time, yet there are considerable opportu- Institute, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
nities for development. Notably among those are the impor- 2 Social and Environmental Research Institute, Shelburne,

tance of social media (and multiple feedbacks) in shaping risk Massachusetts, USA
perceptions and the psychometric work focused on the stigma 3 Center for Research in Wind, University of Delaware and

that may develop for particular places. SARF could become Ram Power Consultancy, Washington, District of Columbia,
more effective if it was able to link to a ledger of more social USA
and behavioral theories of risk (e.g., affect heuristic, tragedy 4 College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security

of the commons). and Cybersecurity, University at Albany, SUNY

Social and generalized trust receive a polite nod in most
risk analysis work and not much more. Analysts have shown Correspondence
that trust is complex and multidimensional. What are the Bonnie Ram, Center for Research in Wind, University of
implications for proceeding with risk management when trust Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA.
is low or high? Is there a “trust deficit” and what role would Email: [email protected]
it play in the amplification of risk? Should risk communi-
cation and governance proceed differently if trust is in short REFERENCES
supply or if it exists in abundance? Also needed is in-depth Arvai, J., & Rivers, L. I. I. I. (2014). Effective risk communication. Earthscan.
research in different cultural settings with varied governance Bearth, A., & Siegrist, M. (2022). The social amplification of risk frame-
structures. Perhaps a new framework or a major revision of work: A normative perspective on trust? Risk Analysis, https://doi.org/10.
1111/risa.13757
SARF is needed for how amplification and attenuation occur Brown, A. (2021). Understanding the technical and societal rela-
in different contextual and social settings. More study is also tionship between shadow banning and algorithmic bias. Forbes,
needed on the various types of signals and related ripple https://www.forbes.com/sites/anniebrown/2021/10/27/understanding-
effects, particularly around the attenuation of risk percep- the-technical-and-societal-relationship-between-shadowbanning-and-
tions. And we need additional practical applications of SARF algorithmic-bias
Burns, W. J., Slovic, P., Kasperson, R. E., Kasperson, J. X., Renn, O., &
that can help in the management and governance of risks. Emani, S. (1993). Incorporating structural models into research on the
SARF has evolved into an effective organizational aide for social amplification of risk: Implications for theory construction and deci-
examining different types of qualitative information sources sion making. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 611–624.
around historical public responses. Its utility remains focused Busby, J., & Duckett, D. (2012). Social risk amplification as an attribution:
on how risk language is communicated across social stations, The case of zoonotic disease outbreaks. Journal of Risk Research, 15(9),
1049–1074.
including the role of information and misinformation, and Busby, J. S., Alcock, R. E., & MacGillivray, B. H. (2009). Interrupting the
how this translates to changing risk perceptions and impacts social amplification of risk process: A case study in collective emissions
of the risk on communities. reduction. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(3), 297–308.
Busby, J. S., & Onggo, S. (2013). Managing the social amplification of risk:
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S A simulation of interacting actors. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 64(5), 638–653.
The vision for this special issue and the first draft of this arti- Cantor, R., Bates, H., & MacKoul, C. (2022). Risk attenuation and amplifi-
cle were created by Roger Kasperson who passed away in cation in the US opioid crisis. Risk Analysis, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.
the midst of the publication process. We are grateful to all 13840
the authors—many of whom are students and colleagues of Carper, L. B. (2019). What influences our decision to vaccinate? The social
Roger—in helping to make this Issue a reality. In completing amplification of risk framework. Proceedings of the International Crisis
and Risk Communication Conference, 2, 12–14. https://doi.org/10.30658/
this article, we were helped by in-depth insights from Robin icrcc.2019.3
1376 EDITORIAL

Chess, C., Salomone, K., Hance, B., & Saville, A. (1995). Results of a Johnson, B. B., & Swedlow, B. (2021). Cultural theory’s contributions to
national symposium on risk communication: Next steps for government risk analysis: A thematic review with directions and resources for fur-
agencies. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 115–125. ther research. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 429–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.
Chong, M., & Choy, M. (2018). The social amplification of haze-related risks 13299
on the internet. Health Communication, 33(1), 14–21. Journal of Risk Research. (2014). Comments on Roger Kaspersons’ four
Chung, I. J. (2011). Social amplification of risk in the Internet environment. questions of risk communication. Journal of Risk Research, 17(10),
Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1883–1896. 1241–1284. https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjrr20/17/10
Comrie, E. L., Burns, C., Coulson, A. B., Quigley, J., & Quigley, K. F. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
(2019). Rationalizing the use of Twitter by official organizations dur- Kasperson, R. E. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Progress in devel-
ing risk events: Operationalising the social amplification of risk frame- oping an integrative framework of risk. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding
work through causal loop diagrams. European Journal of Operational (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 153–178). Praeger.
Research, 272(2), 792–801. Kasperson, R. E. (2014). Four questions for risk communication. Journal of
Cox, E., Pidgeon, N., & Spence, E. (2022). But they told us it was safe! Risk Research, 17(10), 1233–1239.
carbon dioxide removal, fracking, and ripple effects in risk perceptions. Kasperson, R. E., Jahveri, N., & Kasperson, J. X. (2001). Stigma and the
Risk Analysis. social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of analysis. In J. Flynn,
Crespi, I., & Taibi, M. (2020). Cultural differences and social amplification P. Slovic & H. Kunreuther, (Eds.), Risk, media and stigma: Understanding
of risk of a tourism destination: Foreign media coverage after 2016/2017 public challenges to modern science and technology (1st ed.). Earthscan.
earthquakes in central Italy. Italian Sociological Review, 10(2), 201–237. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315071695
Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Kasperson, R. E., & Kasperson, J. X. (1991). Hidden hazards. In D. C. Mayo
Behaviour, 1(11), 769–771. & R. Hollander (Eds.), Acceptable evidence: Science and values in hazard
Dow, K., & Tuler, S. (2022). Risk amplification and attenuation as commu- management (pp. 9–28). Oxford University Press.
nication strategies in climate adaptation in urban areas. Risk Analysis. Kasperson, R. E., & Kasperson, J. X. (1996). The social amplification and
Duckett, D., & Busby, J. (2013). Risk amplification as social attribution. Risk attenuation of risk. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Management, 15(2), 132–153. Social Science, 545, 95–105.
Earle, T., & Cvetkovich, G. (1993). Risk communication: The social con- Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R.,
struction of meaning and trust. In B. Brehmer & N.E. Sahlin (Eds.), Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. J. (1988). The social amplification of risk:
Future risks and risk management (pp. 141–181.). Kluwer Academic A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187.
Press. Kates, R. W., Hohenemser, C., & Kasperson, J. X. (1985). Perilous progress:
Fellenor, J., Barnett, J., Potter, C., Urquhart, J., Mumford, J. D., & Quine, Managing the hazards of technology. Westview Press.
C. P. (2018). The social amplification of risk on Twitter: The case of ash Larson, H., Lin, L., & R Goble, R. (2022). Vaccines and the social amplifi-
dieback disease in the United Kingdom. Journal of Risk Research, 21(10), cation of risk. Risk Analysis.
1163–1183. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1281339 Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy pro-
Fellenor, J., Barnett, J., Potter, C., Urquhart, J., Mumford, J. D., & Quine, C. cess. Yale University Press.
P. (2020). ‘Real without being concrete’: The ontology of public concern Morgan, G., & Lave, L. (1990). Ethical considerations in risk communication
and its significance for the social amplification of risk framework (SARF). practice and research. Risk Analysis, 10(3), 355–358.
Journal of Risk Research, 23(1), 20–34. Moussaïd, M., Brighton, H., & Gaissmaier, W. (2015). The amplification
Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and risk communication unplugged: of risk in experimental diffusion chains. Proceedings of the National
Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137–145. Academy of Sciences, 112(18), 5631–5636.
Fjaeran, L., & Aven, T. (2021). Making visible the less visible–how the use National Academies of Sciences. (2017). Communicating science effectively:
of an uncertainty-based risk perspective affects risk attenuation and risk A research agenda. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.
amplification. Journal of Risk Research, 24(6), 673–691. 17226/23674
Flynn, J., P. Slovic & H. Kunreuther. (Eds.). (2001). Risk, media, and Neely, L. (2014). Risk communication in social media. In J. Arvai, J., & L.
stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technol- RiversIII (Eds.), Effective risk communication (1st ed.). Routledge. https:
ogy. Earthscan. //doi.org/10.4324/9780203109861
Freudenburg, W. R., & Pastor, S. K. (1992). Public responses to technologi- Ng, Y. J., Yang, Z. J., & Vishwanath, A. (2018). To fear or not to fear?
cal risks: Toward a sociological perspective. The Sociological Quarterly, Applying the social amplification of risk framework on two environmen-
33(3), 389–412. tal health risks in Singapore. Journal of Risk Research, 21(12), 1487–
Frewer, L. J. (2003). Trust, transparency, and social context: Implications 1501.
for social amplification of risk. In N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, & P. NRC (National Research Council). (1983). Risk assessment in the federal
Slovic (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 123–137). Cambridge government: Managing the process. National Academy Press.
University Press. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing
Friedman, S., & Sutton, J. (2020). Evolving coverage of risk in the mass decisions in a democratic society. National Academies Press.
and social media. In H. D. O’Hair and M. J. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of NRC (National Research Council). (2005). Thinking strategically. National
applied communication research (pp. 397–416). Wiley. Academies Press.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. (1990). Global environmental issues and the NRC (National Research Council). (2009). Science and decisions: Advanc-
emergence of second order science. Council for Science and Society. ing risk assessment. National Academies Press.
Goble, R., Kasperson, R. E., & Ratick, S. (2017). How can we best deal with NRC. (1989). Improving risk communication. National Academies Press.
the unexpected? In R. Kasperson (Ed.) Risk conundrums solving unsolv- Olson, M. K., Sutton, J., Vos, S. C., Prestley, R., Renshaw, S. L., & Butts,
able problems (pp. 47–61). Routledge Earthscan. C. T. (2019). Build community before the storm: The national weather
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. service’s social media engagement. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Simon and Schuster. Management, 27(4), 359–373.
Hill, A. (2001). Media risks: The social amplification of risk and the media Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2003). The social ampli-
debate. Journal of Risk Research, 4(3), 209–225. fication of risk. Cambridge University Press.
Hopfer, S., Fields, E. J., Lu, Y., Ramakrishnan, G., Grover, T., Bai, Q., Pink, D. H. (2005). Folksonomy. The New York Times Magazine. https://
Huang, Y., Li, C., & Mark, G. (2021). The social amplification and www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/folksonomy.html
attenuation of COVID-19 risk perception shaping mask wearing behav- Popovic, N. F., Bentele, U. U., Pruessner, J. C., Moussaïd, M., & Gaissmaier,
ior: A longitudinal twitter analysis. Plos One, 16(9), e0257428. https: W. (2020). Acute stress reduces the social amplification of risk percep-
//doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257428 tion. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–11.
EDITORIAL 1377

Ram, B., & Webler, T. (2022). Social amplification of risk and the clean APPENDIX: ARTICLES ABOUT SARF
energy transformation: Elaborating on the four attributes of information. SINCE 2003
Risk Analysis.
Adekola, J. (2019). A critique of the social amplification of
Rayner, S. (1988). Muddling through metaphors to maturity: A commentary
on Kasperson et al.: The social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis, 8(2), risk framework from the power perspective. Power and risk
201–204. in policy making: Understanding public health debates (pp.
Renn, O. (1991). Risk communication and the social amplification of risk. In 27–41), Cham Switzerland: Palgrave Pivot.
R.E. Kasperson & P. J. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating risks to the public:
International perspectives (pp. 287–324). Kluwer Academic Press. Adekola, J. (2019). The Role of Power and Expertise in
Renn, O. (2017). Risk governance: Concept and application to systemic risk. Social Amplification of Risk. Power and risk in policy mak-
In R.E. Kasperson (Ed.), Risk conundrums: Solving unsolvable problems ing: Understanding public health debates (pp. 103–118).
(pp. 243–259). Earthscan.
Cham Switzerland: Palgrave Pivot.
Renn, O., Burns, W., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (1992).
The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical Adekola, J., Fischbacher-Smith, D. and Fischbacher-Smith,
applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137–160.
M. (2019) Light me up: power and expertise in risk commu-
Renn, O., & Klinke, A. (2016). Complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity in
inclusive risk governance. In J.J. Andersen (Ed.), The Routledge compan- nication and policy-making in the e-cigarette health debates.
ion to strategic risk management (pp. 13–30). Routledge. Journal of Risk Research, 22(10), pp. 1294–1308. (doi: https:
Rickard, L. N. (2021). Pragmatic and (or) constitutive? On the foundations //doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1473463)
of contemporary risk communication research. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 466–
479. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13415 Anyfantis, I., & Karageorgiou, A. (2020). The social ampli-
Rip, A. (1986). The mutual dependence of risk research and political context. fication and attenuation of risk on occupational safety and
Science & Technology Studies, 4(3/4), 3–15. health leveling-the case of Greece. International Journal of
Rip, A. (1988). Should social amplification of risk be counteracted? Risk
Occupational and Environmental Safety, 4(2), 12–21.
Analysis, 8(2), 193–197.
Roberts, A. J. (2019). The social amplification of benefit: Risk, identity and Arvai, J., & Rivers, L. (Eds.). (2014). Effective risk commu-
renewable energy. (PhD Thesis, Cardiff University).
nication. London, UK: Routledge.
Schweizer, P. J., Goble, R., & Renn, O. (2022). Social perception of systemic
risks. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13831 Aula, Pekka. (2010). Social Media, Reputation Risk and
Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6),
Ambient Publicity Management. Strategy & Leadership,
675–682.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1986). The psychometric study 38(6), 43–49.
of risk perception. In V. T.Covello, J.Menkes, & J.Mumpower (Eds.), Risk
Bakir, V. (2005). Greenpeace v. Shell: Media exploitation and
evaluation and management. Contemporary issues in risk analysis. (Vol.
1, pp. 3–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_1 the social amplification of risk framework (SARF). Journal of
Slovic, P., Flynn, J., & Gregory, R. (1994). Stigma happens: Social problems Risk Research, 8(7–8), 679–691.
in the siting of nuclear waste facilities. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 773–777.
Sundar, S. S. (2008). The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understand- Barnett, J., & Breakwell, G. M. (2003). The social amplifica-
ing technology effects on credibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin tion of risk and the hazard sequence: the October 1995 oral
(Eds.), Digital media and learning (pp. 73–100). MacArthur Foundation contraceptive pill scare. Health, risk & society, 5(3), 301–
Digital Media and Learning Initiative. 313.
Sutton, J., Gibson, C. B., Phillips, N. E., Spiro, E. S., League, C., Johnson, B.,
Fitzhugh, S. M., & Butts, C. T. (2015). A cross-hazard analysis of Twit- Bennett, S. (2005). The role of social amplification and news
ter warning messages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, values in the re-presentation of risk research: A case study.
1112(48), 14793–14798.
Risk Management, 7(1), 9–29.
vanDijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media
and Communication, 1(1), 2–14. Binder, A. R., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Gunther, A.
Vos, S. C., Sutton, J., Yu, Y., Renshaw, S. L., Olson, M. K., Gibson, C. B.,
C. (2011). Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discus-
& Butts, C. T. (2018). Retweeting risk communication: The role of threat
and efficacy. Risk Analysis, 38(12), 2580–2598. sions and their impact on perceptions of risks and benefits of
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news a biological research facility. Risk Analysis, 31(2), 324–334.
online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151.
Wirz, C. D., Xenos, M. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D., Chung, J. H., Binder, A. R., Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., &
& Massarani, L. (2018). Rethinking social amplification of risk: Social Brossard, D. (2014). The role of news media in the social
media in Zika in three languages. Risk Analysis, 38(12), 2599–2624. amplification of risk. In H. Cho & T. Reimer (Eds.), The
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13228 SAGE handbook of risk communication (vol. 69), Thousand
Zhang, X. A., & Cozma, R. (2022). Risk sharing on Twitter: Social amplifica-
Oaks, CA: Sage.
tion and attenuation of risk in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106983. Brenkert-Smith, H., Dickinson, K. L., Champ, P. A., & Flo-
res, N. (2013). Social amplification of wildfire risk: the role
of social interactions and information sources. Risk Analysis,
How to cite this article: Kasperson, R. E., Webler, 33(5), 800–817.
T., Ram, B., & Sutton, J. (2022). The social amplifi-
cation of risk framework: new perspectives. Risk Busby, J. S., Alcock, R. E., & MacGillivray, B. H. (2009).
Analysis, 42, 1367–1380. Interrupting the social amplification of risk process: a case
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13926 study in collective emissions reduction. Environmental Sci-
ence & Policy, 12(3), 297–308.
1378 EDITORIAL

Busby, J., & Duckett, D. (2012). Social risk amplification as Fjaeran, L., & Aven, T. (2021). Making visible the less
an attribution: The case of zoonotic disease outbreaks. Jour- visible–how the use of an uncertainty-based risk perspective
nal of Risk Research, 15(9), 1049–1074. affects risk attenuation and risk amplification. Journal of Risk
Research, 24(6), 673–691.
Busby, J. S., & Onggo, S. (2013). Managing the social ampli-
fication of risk: a simulation of interacting actors. Journal of Hart, P. S., Nisbet, E. C., & Shanahan, J. E. (2011). Environ-
the Operational Research Society, 64(5), 638–653. mental values and the social amplification of risk: An exami-
nation of how environmental values and media use influence
Cantrill, J. G. (2011). The role of a sense of self-in-place and
predispositions for public engagement in wildlife manage-
risk amplification in promoting the conservation of wildlife.
ment decision making. Society and Natural Resources, 24(3),
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(2), 73–86.
276–291.
Carper, L. B. (2019). What influences our decision to vacci-
Hopfer, S., Fields, E. J., Lu, Y., Ramakrishnan, G., Grover,
nate? The social amplification of risk framework. Proceed-
T., Bai, Q., … & Mark, G. (2021). The social amplification
ings of the International Crisis and Risk Communication
and attenuation of COVID-19 risk perception shaping mask
Conference, Volume 2 (pp. 12–14). Orlando, FL: Nichol-
wearing behavior: A longitudinal twitter analysis. PloS one,
son School of Communication and Media. https://doi.org/10.
16(9), e0257428.
30658/icrcc.2019.3
Jagiello, R. D., & Hills, T. T. (2018). Bad news has wings:
Chong, M., & Choy, M. (2018). The social amplification of
Dread risk mediates social amplification in risk communica-
haze-related risks on the internet. Health Communication,
tion. Risk Analysis, 38(10), 2193–2207.
33(1), 14–21.
Kandiah, V., Binder, A. R., & Berglund, E. Z. (2017). An
Chung, I. J. (2011). Social amplification of risk in the Internet
empirical agent-based model to simulate the adoption of
environment. Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1883–1896.
water reuse using the social amplification of risk framework.
Chung, J. B., & Yun, G. W. (2013). Media and social ampli- Risk Analysis, 37(10), 2005–2022.
fication of risk: BSE and H1N1 cases in South Korea. Disas-
Kao, S. F. (2008). Social amplification of risk and environ-
ter Prevention and Management: An International Journal,
mental collective activism: a case study of Cobalt-60 contam-
22(2):148–159.
ination incident in Taiwan. International Journal of Global
Comrie, E. L., Burns, C., Coulson, A. B., Quigley, J., & Environmental Issues, 8(1–2), 182–203.
Quigley, K. F. (2019). Rationalizing the use of Twitter by
Kasperson, R. E. (2005). Social contours of risk: Publics, risk
official organisations during risk events: Operationalising
communication and the social amplification of risk. Washing-
the social amplification of risk framework through causal
ton D. C.: Earthscan.
loop diagrams. European Journal of Operational Research,
272(2), 792–801. Kasperson, R. E. (2012). A perspective on the social amplifi-
cation of risk. The Bridge, 42(3), 23–27.
Crespi, I., & Taibi, M. (2020). Cultural Differences and
Social Amplification of Risk of a Tourism Destination: For- Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic, P.
eign Media Coverage after 2016/2017 Earthquakes in Central (2012). The social amplification of risk: Assessing 15 years
Italy. Italian Sociological Review, 10(2), 201–237. of research and theory. In Social contours of risk (pp. 217–
245). New York: Routledge.
Duckett, D., & Busby, J. (2013). Risk amplification as social
attribution. Risk Management, 15(2), 132–153. Kasperson, R. E. (2015). Risk governance and the social
amplification of risk: A commentary. In Risk Governance (pp.
Fan, Y. (2020, October). The social amplification of risk on
485–487). Springer, Dordrecht.
Weibo-Take the COVID-19 epidemic in China as an example.
In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Artificial Intelli- Kasperson, R., Jhaveri, N., & Kasperson, J. X. (2013). Stigma
gence and Healthcare (pp. 91–95). and the social amplification of risk: Toward a framework of
analysis. In Risk, media and stigma (pp. 25–44). New York:
Fellenor, J, Barnett, J., Potter, C., Urquhart, J., Mumford J.
Routledge.
D. & Quine C. P. (2018) The social amplification of risk on
Twitter: the case of ash dieback disease in the United King- Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic,
dom, Journal of Risk Research, 21(10), 1163–1183, DOI: P. (2013). The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen
10.1080/13669877.2017.1281339 years of research and theory. In The feeling of risk (pp. 345–
372). New York: Routledge.
Fellenor, J., Barnett, J., Potter, C., Urquhart, J., Mumford, J.
D., & Quine, C. P. (2020). ‘Real without being concrete’: the Kim, K. H., Choi, J. W., Lee, E., Cho, Y. M., & Ahn, H. R.
ontology of public concern and its significance for the Social (2015). A study on the risk perception of light pollution and
Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF). Journal of Risk the process of social amplification of risk in Korea. Environ-
Research, 23(1), 20–34. mental Science and Pollution Research, 22(10), 7612–7621.
EDITORIAL 1379

Kuentzel, W. F., Daigle, J. J., Chase, L. C., & Brown, T. L. Rickard, L. N., McComas, K. A., Clarke, C. E., Stedman, R.
(2018). The social amplification of risk and landowner liabil- C., & Decker, D. J. (2013). Exploring risk attenuation and
ity fear in the US Northern Forest. Journal of Outdoor Recre- crisis communication after a plague death in Grand Canyon.
ation and Tourism, 21, 51–60. Journal of Risk Research, 16(2), 145–167.
Lee, Y. C., Park, Y. S., Yun, Y. S., & Kim, J. S. (2015). Sacilotto, J., & Loosemore, M. (2018). Chinese investment in
A Study on the Application and Proposals of Safety Cul- the Australian construction industry: the social amplification
ture, New Public Management and Social Amplification of of risk. Construction Management and Economics, 36(9),
Risk Framework via Ship Accidents in Korea. Journal of the 507–520.
Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety, 21(3), 283–
Sato, H., & Webster, A. (2022). Mixed effects of mass media
289.
reports on the social amplification of risk: frequencies and
Lewis, R. E., & Tyshenko, M. G. (2009). The impact of frames of the BSE reports in newspaper media in the UK.
social amplification and attenuation of risk and the public Journal of Risk Research, 25(1), 48–66.
reaction to mad cow disease in Canada. Risk Analysis: An
Schneider, E. J., Boman, C. D., & Akin, H. (2021). The
International Journal, 29(5), 714–728. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-
Amplified Crisis: Assessing Negative Social Amplification
6924.2008.01188.x
and Source of a Crisis Response. Communication Reports,
Mase, A. S., Cho, H., & Prokopy, L. S. (2015). Enhancing the 34(3), 165–178.
Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) by explor-
Shakeela, A., & Becken, S. (2015). Understanding tourism
ing trust, the availability heuristic, and agricultural advisors’
leaders’ perceptions of risks from climate change: An assess-
belief in climate change. Journal of Environmental Psychol-
ment of policy-making processes in the Maldives using the
ogy, 41, 166–176.
social amplification of risk framework (SARF). Journal of
Moussaïd, M., Brighton, H., & Gaissmaier, W. (2015). The Sustainable Tourism, 23(1), 65–84.
amplification of risk in experimental diffusion chains. Pro-
Stanciugelu, I., Frunzaru, V., Armas, I., Duntzer, A., & Stan,
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(18),
S. (2013). Social amplification of risk and crisis communi-
5631–5636.
cation planning-a case study. Scientific Bulletin-Nicolae Bal-
Niu, C., Jiang, Z., Liu, H., Yang, K., Song, X., & Li, Z. cescu Land Forces Academy, 18(2), 197–205.
(2020). The influence of media consumption on public risk
Strekalova, Y. A. (2016). Health risk information engagement
perception: A meta-analysis. Journal of Risk Research, 25(1),
and amplification on social media: News about an emerging
21–47.
pandemic on Facebook. Health Education & Behavior, 44(2),
Ng, Y. J., Yang, Z. J., & Vishwanath, A. (2018). To fear or not 332–339.
to fear? Applying the social amplification of risk framework
Strekalova, Y. A., & Krieger, J. L. (2017). Beyond words:
on two environmental health risks in Singapore. Journal of
amplification of cancer risk communication on social media.
Risk Research, 21(12), 1487–1501.
Journal of Health Communication, 22(10), 849–857.
Onggo, B. S. (2017). Social amplification of risk framework:
Urquhart, J., Potter, C., Barnett, J., Fellenor, J., Mumford,
An agent-based approach. In Advances in Social Simulation
J., & Quine, C. P. (2017). Expert risk perceptions and the
2015, (pp. 335–339). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
social amplification of risk: A case study in invasive tree
Park, S., & Smardon, R. C. (2011). Worldview and social pests and diseases. Environmental Science & Policy, 77,
amplification of risk framework: dioxin risk case in Korea. 172–178.
International Journal Applied Environmental Science 6(2),
van Goudoever, M. J., Mulderij-Jansen, V. I., Duits, A. J.,
173–191.
Tami, A., Gerstenbluth, I. I., & Bailey, A. (2021). The Impact
Pidgeon, Nick, and Julie Barnett. (2013). Chalara and of Health Risk Communication: A Study on the Dengue,
the Social Amplification of Risk. London: DEFRA. Chikungunya, and Zika Epidemics in Curaçao, Analyzed by
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF). Quali-
attachment_data/file/200394/pb13909–chalara-social- tative Health Research, 31(10), 1801–1811.
amplification-risk.pdf
Vijaykumar, S., Jin, Y., & Nowak, G. (2015). Social media
Popovic, N. F., Bentele, U. U., Pruessner, J. C., Moussaïd, and the virality of risk: The risk amplification through media
M., & Gaissmaier, W. (2020). Acute stress reduces the social spread (RAMS) model. Journal of Homeland Security and
amplification of risk perception. Scientific reports, 10(1), 1– Emergency Management, 12(3), 653–677.
11.
Vulpe, S. N., & Rughiniş, C. (2021). Social amplification of
Renn, O. (2011). The social amplification/attenuation of risk risk and “probable vaccine damage”: A typology of vaccina-
framework: Application to climate change. Wiley Interdisci- tion beliefs in 28 European countries. Vaccine, 39(10), 1508–
plinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(2), 154–169. 1515.
1380 EDITORIAL

Wardman, J. K., & Löfstedt, R. (2018). Anticipating or online public response to health emergencies. Asian Journal
accommodating to public concern? Risk amplification and of Communication, 27(3), 322–338.
the politics of precaution reexamined. Risk Analysis, 38(9),
Zhang, X. A., & Cozma, R. (2022). Risk sharing on Twitter:
1802–1819.
Social amplification and attenuation of risk in the early stages
Wirz, C. D., Xenos, M. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D., of the COVID-19 pandemic. Computers in Human Behavior,
Chung, J. H., & Massarani, L. (2018). Rethinking social 126, 106983.
amplification of risk: Social media in Zika in three languages.
Zhao, S., & Wu, X. (2021). From Information Exposure to
Risk Analysis, 38(12), 2599–2624. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Protective Behaviors: Investigating the Underlying Mech-
risa.13228
anism in COVID-19 Outbreak Using Social Amplification
Zhang, L., Xu, L., & Zhang, W. (2017). Social media as Theory and Extended Parallel Process Model. Frontiers in
amplification station: Factors that influence the speed of Psychology, 12, 1351.