Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
risk
exam 2
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Information Attributes | Volume, Dispute, Dramatization and symbolic connotation |
| Amplification Stations | Amplified Nuclear energy after three-mile island Attenuated: Random, smoking, Driving |
| Response mechanism | Heuristics and value, Signal value, social group relationship, Stigmatization: love canal |
| Group relationship: : | ideological polarization |
| Volume: | availability heuristic; |
| Dispute: | increase unknown and uncertainty; |
| Dramatization: | increase fear and dread factor; Opera and Mad Cow Disease. |
| Symbolic connotation: | mushroom clouds for nuclear energy, dumps for waste disposal facilities, thugs for illegal immigrants, etc. |
| Media coverage on air pollution was scarce in China until 2013 | At the peak of this media attention was the release of a documentary titled Under the Dome produced by a famous journalist, Chai Jing, in 2015. |
| Impersonal Impact Hypothesis | Media reports influence judgments about societal risks but not personal risks |
| Internal certainty | balanced condition less than all other conditions except for prolink article |
| External certainty: | only balanced less than antilink |
| Divide: | balanced condition more than antilink condition |
| Optimistic Bias | Consistent optimistic bias exists concerning personal risk when asked about their own chances of experiencing negative consequences, people claim that they are less likely to be affected than others |
| Risk examples | Almost all newlyweds in a US study expected their marriage to last a lifetime, even while aware of the divorce statistics |
| Why do biases occur? | High-risk groups downplay the risk, Desire to be better than, Simple cognitive error |
| Event Characteristics Testing the limits of Optimistic Bias | Frequency (less bias) Controllability (more bias) Stereotype salience (more bias) |
| Testing the limits of Optimistic Bias Individual Differences | Trait Anxiety – higher self-risk (less bias) Anxious people are more sensitive to threatening events and see themselves as similar to a typical victim Self-Esteem – strong main effects, lower self-risk (more bias) |
| H1N1 Vaccination Example | Older populations develop stronger immune defense systems from the seasonal flu virus mutation, people between 20 and 40 were at higher risk for infection |
| Over-confidence or collective optimism? | Current knowledge leads to lower information sufficiency threshold Higher perceived gathering capacity led to less seeking intention Higher perceived efficacy led to lower behavioral intention |
| Pleasantness: | Valence |
| Effort & Attention: | evaluations of the coping potential of the stimulus – post-appraisal in nature |
| Certainty: | how likely the appraised event will exert influences on the individual |
| Control: | situational control vs human control – agency |
| Responsibility: | attribution of the causal responsibility of the event being appraised – Self or other |
| Election as Risk | Risk as uncertainty Appraisal dimensions Information seeking |
| Fear | Low certainty – information seeking (Tiedens & Linton, 2001) High situational control Concrete and sudden danger |
| Anger | High certainty Strong human control Optimistic risk judgment |
| Fear Appeals | Designed to scare people by describing what will happen if they do not follow the message’s recommendation. |
| Threat Appraisal | Perceived Susceptibility (is it likely to happen to you?) Perceived Severity (if it happens to you, how serious will it be?) Think about the text while driving example again. |
| Efficacy Appraisal | How effective is the recommended action to prevent/minimize the threat? Response efficacy (effectiveness of the recommended action) Self-efficacy (feasibility, ease of adoption - can you do it?) |
| Possible Outcomes | No Response Fear Control - Defense Motivation – Maladaptive Changes Danger Control – Protection Motivation – Adaptive Changes Boomerang Effect |
| Fear control process | (unable to deal with threat – reduce fear internally) |
| Danger control process | (able to deal with threat – follow the recommended action) |
| Nabi and Myrick | Findings: hopeful feelings generated by fear appeals may enhance message effectiveness, especially for those who believe they can perform the target behavior |
| Gain-frame ; | leads to risk averse decisions |
| Loss-frame leads | to risk seeking decisions. |
| to an epidemic, for example, most respondents | found sure loss of 75 lives" more aversive than “80% chance to lose 100 lives" but preferred “chance to lose 75 lives" over “8% chance to lose 100 lives”. |
| The difference in subjective value | between gains of $10 and $20 is greater than the subjective difference between gains of $110 and $120 (similar for losses); |
| The difference in subjective value | Response to losses is more extreme than responses to gains |
| Framing Effect | * Certainty exaggerates the aversiveness of losses |
| Key components of a narrative | Character Temporality Causality |
Created by:
leanamar
Popular Miscellaneous sets