1.3. Context and Individual Control over Risk

But when we are saying that, that much of casualty happened people are more likely to believe the information, ready to accept that this is risky. Importance of message is also very important, okay. Who is sending these informations to them and how important it is?

This chunk discusses how the perception of risk is influenced by the news of casualties. When people hear about significant numbers of casualties from an event, they are more inclined to trust the information and view that event as dangerous. It also emphasizes that the source of this information matters significantly. If the message comes from a credible or significant source, individuals are more likely to regard the information as valid and concerning.

For instance, if a well-respected health organization reports a sudden spike in illnesses due to a flu outbreak, people are likely to take precautions. However, if the same information comes from an unknown or untrustworthy source, individuals may not be as inclined to believe or act on it.

Another one the catastrophic potentials, how people consider the catastrophic potentials in order to judge the risk. When we are saying high probability, low consequence of disasters like you can say the drought compared to low probability high consequences like the 2011 Japan earthquake and Tsunami. Which one you think people considered more risky, accept as risk.

This chunk explores how individuals evaluate risks based on the likelihood of occurrence and the severity of potential consequences. It contrasts disasters that are likely to happen but have relatively low consequences, such as droughts, with those that are less likely but could result in catastrophic outcomes, like the Japan earthquake and tsunami. Generally, people tend to perceive low-probability, high-consequence events as riskier than high-probability, low-consequence events, demonstrating a tendency to fear the unexpected or extreme outcomes.

For example, many might view a rare but devastating hurricane that hits once every century as more terrifying than the frequent occurrence of minor floods that happen every year, even though the cumulative impact of these floods might be more frequent.

Also, the context, the risk situation, the perception of dread having personal control, that I can control the risk over the magnitude and probability, so how it will happen or what extended to happen, I have some control or not. This is one variable, another variable is the familiarity, if I have experienced that one or if I am experiencing that.

This chunk addresses two key factors in risk perception: personal control and familiarity. People often feel less threatened by risks when they believe they have some control over the situation. For example, someone who can take preventative measures feels less at risk compared to someone who feels helpless. Familiarity also plays a role; individuals who regularly encounter certain risks may become desensitized to them, leading to a perception of reduced risk.

Consider a firefighter who regularly deals with fires. They may perceive their risk of harm during a fire as lower than someone who has never encountered one, due to their familiarity and training in handling such situations.

So, this kind of questions like you were running a nuclear power plant but that may cause you were running from that but that may cause someone’s, increase someone’s risk. So, which one people will believe? So, also the potential to blame someone that this risk is happening, this flood is happening because of the municipal authority.

This chunk highlights how the attribution of responsibility affects risk perception. When disasters occur, people often seek to identify who is to blame. If there is a clear party that can be held accountable, such as a government authority, individuals may perceive that risk as greater. The feeling that unfairness is present, such as when certain groups disproportionately benefit while others suffer, can amplify the perception of risk, leading to stronger emotional responses.

For instance, following a major oil spill, communities might feel anger and perceive the risk of environmental disasters as much higher when they can blame the oil company for negligence, even if the company is a significant contributor to employment and local economy.

Okay, alike availability, events that come to people’s mind immediately they can imagine it okay, high and less mentally available or representativeness, singular events that they experience not exactly the same.

This chunk discusses the concept of mental availability in evaluating risks. It suggests that people tend to assess risks based on how easily they can recall similar past events. If a disaster is vivid in their memory, it increases the perceived risk associated with it. The chunk highlights how unique, memorable experiences can skew perception and make certain risks seem more prominent than they might statistically be.

For example, if an individual has recently seen extensive news coverage of a plane crash, they may suddenly perceive airplane travel as more dangerous, despite it statistically being one of the safest modes of transport, simply because that vivid image is fresh in their memory.

Now, the transmitter of risk information, that how the sender is that the transmitter is collecting the informations from the senders and the perceived seriousness of the risk okay.

This chunk explains how mass media serves as a key player in communicating risk information. The media collects and interprets data from various sources, such as scientists, government reports, and eyewitness accounts, before disseminating that information to the public. The way media interprets this information can significantly affect public perception and understanding of the risks involved.

For instance, during a health crisis like a pandemic, how the media reports on the virus—highlighting either the number of cases or the death toll—greatly influences public response and panic levels. Positive or negative framing by the media can lead to vastly different public reactions.

So, factors that determine transmitter attractiveness to pass report risk informations or risk news is, if it is technologically induced hazard then compared to natural hazards they will report more possibility to blame someone.

This chunk discusses the criteria that make certain risk stories more appealing to mass media. Events deemed to have a technological origin, like industrial accidents, are often prioritized because they allow for clear attribution of blame. Additionally, factors like cultural distance from the event, uniqueness of the story, and current political relevance also influence media coverage.

For example, a factory explosion in a small town may receive more media coverage than a widespread agricultural drought due to the immediate human impact and the potential for accountability—therefore, it resonates more with the audience.

--