The error role in risk perception

Journal title SALUTE E SOCIETÀ
Author/s Cleto Corposanto, Beba Molinari
Publishing Year 2023 Issue 2023/1
Language English Pages 13 P. 45-57 File size 397 KB
DOI 10.3280/SES2023-001004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

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. Ashby W.R. (1940). Adaptiveness and equilibrium. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 86(362):478-483.
  2. Balmer B. (1990). Scientism, science and scientists. Research paper, Science policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Benasayag M. (2017). Cerveau augmenté, homme diminué. Revue Projet, 357(2): 93a-93a.
  6. Bernstein P.L. (1996). Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York: John Wiley.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. Coombs W.T. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  10. Corposanto C. (2022). Questioni di Sociologia pubblica. Metodo, relazioni, emozioni. Rubbettino: Soveria Mannelli.
  11. Corposanto C. (2008). Celiachia e capitale sociale. Uno sguardo sociologico sulle intolleranze alimentari. Salute e Società, 3:26-60.
  12. Covello V.T. (1992). Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication research. In: Deetz S.A.(ed.), Communication yearbook. Newbury Park: Sage.
  13. Douglas M., Wildavsky A. (1983). Risk and Culture. An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  14. Giddens A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press; trad. it. (1994) Le conseguenze della modernità. Bologna: il Mulino.
  15. Horton R. (2020). Covid19 is not a pandemic. The Lancet. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32000-
  16. Lindtner C. (1982). Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna. Denmark: Akademisk Forlag.
  17. Lo Russo M. (2003). Parole come pietre. La comunicazione del rischio. Bologna: Baskerville.
  18. Luhmann N. (1979). Trust and Power. New York: Wiley.
  19. Luhmann N. (1991). Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin-New York de Gruyter. Trad. it. (1996). Sociologia del rischio. Milano: Mondadori.
  20. 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
  21. Palenchar M.J. (2005). Risk communication. In Heath R.L.(ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  22. 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
  23. Reynolds B., Galdo J.H., Sokler L. (2002). Crisis and emergency risk communication. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  24. Reynolds B., Seeger M.W. (2014). Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication 2014 Edition. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
  25. Rooke M. (2021). Alternative media framing of Covid-19 risks. Current Sociology, 69(4): 584-602. DOI: 10.1177/0011392121100611
  26. Rovelli C. (2020). Helgoland. Milano:Adelphi.
  27. Weber M. (1948). Science as a vocation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  28. WHO Europe (2021). COVID-19 weekly surveillance report. Data for the week of 1–7 March 2021 (Epi week 9). -- Available at: (06/03/2021).
  29. 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.
  30. 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_
  31. 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
  32. Zinn J.O., (2021a). Introduction: Towards a sociology of pandemics. Current Sociology, 69(4): 435–452. DOI: 10.1177/0011392121102077
  33. Zinn J.O. (2021b). Conclusions: Towards a sociology of pandemics and beyond. Current Sociology, 69(4): 603–617. DOI: 10.1177/00113921211023518
  34. 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

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