The error role in risk perception

Titolo Rivista SALUTE E SOCIETÀ
Autori/Curatori Cleto Corposanto, Beba Molinari
Anno di pubblicazione 2023 Fascicolo 2023/1 Lingua Inglese
Numero pagine 13 P. 45-57 Dimensione file 397 KB
DOI 10.3280/SES2023-001004
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

After some time since the onset of the Covid19 pandemic, we believe it is now possible to reflect on how the global response to the worldwide spread of the virus has been organized, and at the same time reflect on the emergency approach that has characterized the responses on the health front but also the public communication of the same pandemic. The hypothesis around which we work is that the term of emergency itself is not appropriate except to designate a sit-uation that is strictly related to a reductionist approach to understanding and explaining phenomena. An event becomes an emergency only if we reason in terms of a linear explanation, avoiding paying attention to the real complexity of the phenomena, with a comprehensive look at systemic interrelationships. In this perspective, Horton correctly proposed the term syndemic to characterize the set of events related to Covid19 (Horton, 2020). Because the unexpected, which is experienced and managed as an emergency, arises from an obvious interpretative error if the problem is not addressed with a systemic logic. And it can perhaps also be hypothe-sized that as such - that is, as unexpected and emerging - any phenomenon legitimizes proce-dural and communicative errors, thus exonerating in some way whoever is responsible for facing them.

Keywords:error; risk; Covid-19; syndemia; emergency; perception.

  1. Rooke M. (2021). Alternative media framing of Covid-19 risks. Current Sociology, 69(4): 584-602. DOI: 10.1177/0011392121100611
  2. Rovelli C. (2020). Helgoland. Milano:Adelphi.
  3. Weber M. (1948). Science as a vocation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  4. WHO Europe (2021). COVID-19 weekly surveillance report. Data for the week of 1–7 March 2021 (Epi week 9). -- Available at: www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/weekly-surveillance-report/weekly-surveillance-report-alt (06/03/2021).
  5. Wynne B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S., Markle G, Peterson J.C., Pinch T.J. ( a cura di), Science Technology and Society. SAGE Publications.
  6. Zinn J.O., Brown P.R (2022). COVID-19 Risks: Dynamics of Culture and Inequality Across Six Continents. Covid-19 and the Sociology of Risk and Uncertainty, 1-26. Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-95167-2_
  7. Zinn J.O. (2016). “In-between” and other reasonable ways to deal with risk and uncertainty: A review article. Health, Risk & Society, 18(7–8): 348–366. DOI: 10.1080/13698575.2016.126987
  8. Zinn J.O., (2021a). Introduction: Towards a sociology of pandemics. Current Sociology, 69(4): 435–452. DOI: 10.1177/0011392121102077
  9. Zinn J.O. (2021b). Conclusions: Towards a sociology of pandemics and beyond. Current Sociology, 69(4): 603–617. DOI: 10.1177/00113921211023518
  10. Wardman J.K. (2020). Recalibrating Pandemic Risk Leadership: thirteen crisis ready strategies for covid-19. Journal of Risk research, 23(7-8): 1092-1120. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2020.184298
  11. Reynolds B., Seeger M.W. (2014). Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication 2014 Edition. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  12. Reynolds B., Galdo J.H., Sokler L. (2002). Crisis and emergency risk communication. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  13. Peters H.P. (1995). The interaction of journalists and scientific eperts: Co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture and Society, 17:31-48. DOI: 10.1177/01634439501700100
  14. Palenchar M.J. (2005). Risk communication. In Heath R.L.(ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  15. Nerlich B., Rusi J. (2021). Social representations of “social distancing” in response to Covid-19 in the UK Media. Current Sociology, 69(4):566-583. DOI: 10.1177/001139212199003
  16. Luhmann N. (1991). Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin-New York de Gruyter. Trad. it. (1996). Sociologia del rischio. Milano: Mondadori.
  17. Luhmann N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York: Wiley.
  18. Lo Russo M. (2003). Parole come pietre. La comunicazione del rischio. Bologna: Baskerville.
  19. Lindtner C. (1982). Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna. Denmark: Akademisk Forlag.
  20. Horton R. (2020). Covid19 is not a pandemic. The Lancet. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32000-
  21. Giddens A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press; trad. it. (1994) Le conseguenze della modernità. Bologna: il Mulino.
  22. Douglas M., Wildavsky A. (1983). Risk and Culture. An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  23. Covello V.T. (1992). Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication research. In: Deetz S.A.(ed.), Communication yearbook. Newbury Park: Sage.
  24. Corposanto C. (2008). Celiachia e capitale sociale. Uno sguardo sociologico sulle intolleranze alimentari. Salute e Società, 3:26-60.
  25. Corposanto C. (2022). Questioni di Sociologia pubblica. Metodo, relazioni, emozioni. Rubbettino: Soveria Mannelli.
  26. Coombs W.T. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  27. Cloitre M., Shinn T. (1985). Expository practice: Social, cognitive and epistemological linkages. In: Shinn T., Whitley R. (a cura di), Expository Science. Forms and Functions of Popularization. Dordrecht-Boston: Reidel Publishing Company.
  28. Chan R.K.H. (2021). Tackling Covid-19 risk in Hong Kong: Examining distrust, compliance anche risk management. Current Sociology, 69(4):547-565. DOI: 10.1177/0011392121990026
  29. Bernstein P.L. (1996). Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York: John Wiley.
  30. Benasayag M. (2017). Cerveau augmenté, homme diminué. Revue Projet, 357(2): 93a-93a.
  31. Beck U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp; trad. it. (2000), La società del rischio. Verso una seconda modernità. Roma: Carocci.
  32. Bauer M. (2008). Public understanding of science. The survey research. In: Bucchi M., Trench B., (a cura di), Handbook of Public communication of Science and Technology. London-New York: Routledge.
  33. Balmer B. (1990). Scientism, science and scientists. Research paper, Science policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.
  34. Ashby W.R. (1940). Adaptiveness and equilibrium. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 86(362):478-483.

Cleto Corposanto, Beba Molinari, The error role in risk perception in "SALUTE E SOCIETÀ" 1/2023, pp 45-57, DOI: 10.3280/SES2023-001004