Медіа-психологічна модель сприйняття екологічних ризиків
Анотація
У статті представлені результати теоретичного аналізу на тему медіа-психологічних аспектів сприйняття екологічних ризиків та презентація медіа-психологічної моделі впливу медійних повідомлень на сприйняття екологічних ризиків, побудованої на її основі. Представлена модель досліджує процеси та етапи, що включаються у початкове знайомство з повідомленнями про екологічні ризики у медіа та подальші наслідки їх обробки, які можуть виявитися в поведінці з пошуку інформації. Згідно з представленою моделлю, зміни у сприйнятті ризиків розглядаються як послідовність етапів, що починаються з уваги до інформації і можуть продовжуватися, коли викликається поведінка з пошуку інформації. Основні моделі, на яких спирається автор цього дослідження – це обмежена модель обробки мотивованих медійних повідомлень для опису обробки медійних повідомлень і Модель пошуку та обробки інформації про ризики для опису аспектів поведінки з пошуку інформації. Також використовувалася ряд додаткових комунікаційних моделей, приділених вивченню інформаційної поведінки та обробки медійних повідомлень, для опису процесів впливу мас-медіа на сприйняття екологічних ризиків. Таким чином, також розглядаються двійкові моделі обробки інформації та переконливої комунікації, включаючи модель евристичного систематичного підходу та модель обґрунтованого шляху, а також додаткові теорії, що вивчають поведінку пошуку інформації: теорія мотивованого керування інформацією та Модель планованого пошуку інформації про ризики
Використані джерела
[1] Afifi, W.A. (2015). Theory of motivated information management. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication, 1-10. doi: 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic168.
[2] Afifi, W.A., & Weiner, J.L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14(2), 167-190. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00310.x.
[3] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
[4] Anderson, B.A., & Britton, M.K. (2019). Selection history in context: Evidence for the role of reinforcement learning in biasing attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(8), 2666-2672. doi: 10.3758/s13414-019-01817-1.
[5] Anderson, B.A., Kim, H., Kim, A.J., Liao, M.-R., Mrkonja, L., Clement, A., & Grégoire, L. (2021). The past, present, and future of selection history. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 130, 326-350. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.09.004.
[6] Awh, E., Belopolsky, A.V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437-443. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010.
[7] Balyuk, N. (2023). “Russian propaganda spreads fake news about the safety of the Kyiv hydroelectric power station – “Ukrhydroenergo”. Retrieved from https://suspilne.media/kyiv/526593-rospropaganda-posirue-fejki-pro-avarijnist-kiivskoi-ges-ukrgidroenergo/.
[8] Berger, C.R., & Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1(2), 99-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x.
[9] Bouvier, B., Susini, P., Marquis-Favre, C., & Misdariis, N. (2023). Revealing the stimulus-driven component of attention through modulations of auditory salience by timbre attributes. Scientific Reports, 13, article number 6842. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-33496-2.
[10] Brandtzæg, P.B. (2010). Towards a unified media-user typology (MUT): A meta-analysis and review of the research literature on media-user typologies. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 940-956. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.008.
[11] Carrasco, M. (2006). Covert attention increases contrast sensitivity: Psychophysical, neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies. Progress in Brain Research, 154(Part A), 33-70. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(06)54003-8.
[12] Chaffee, S.H., & Berger, C.R. (1987). What communication scientists do. In C.R. Berger & S.H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 99-122). Newbury Park: Sage.
[13] Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M.P. Zanna, J. M. Olson & C.P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
[14] Chelazzi, L., & Santandrea, E. (2018). The time constant of attentional control: Short, medium and long (infinite?). Journal of Cognition, 1(1), article number 27. doi: 10.5334/joc.24.
[15] Chun, M.M., Golomb, J.D., & Turk-Browne, N.B. (2011). A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 73-101. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100427.
[16] Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. (2014). The role of channel beliefs in risk information seeking. In J. Arvai & L. Rivers III (Eds.), Effective risk communication (pp. 220-233). London: Routledge.
[17] Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. (2015). Risk information seeking and processing model. In The SAGE handbook of risk communication (pp. 102-116). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483387918.
[18] Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
[19] Eastin, M.S., Kahlor, L., Liang, M., & Ghannam, N.A. (2015). Information-seeking as a precaution behavior: Exploring the role of decision-making stages. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 603-621. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12062.
[20] Evans, J. St.B.T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629.
[21] Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2003). Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. In S.L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 327-364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609978.012.
[22] Fisher, J.T., & Weber, R. (2020). Limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (LC4MP). In J. Van Den Bulck (Ed.), International encyclopedia of media psychology. Wiley Blackwell.
[23] Fisher, J.T., Hopp, F.R., & Weber, R. (2023). Mapping attention across multiple media tasks. Media Psychology, 26(5), 505-529. doi: 10.1080/15213269.2022.2161576.
[24] Fisher, J.T., Huskey, R., Keene, J.R., & Weber, R. (2018a). The limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing: Looking to the future. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42(4), 291-315. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2018.1534551.
[25] Fisher, J.T., Keene, J.R., Huskey, R., & Weber, R. (2018b). The limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing: Taking stock of the past. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42(4), 270-290. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2018.1534552.
[26] Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L.A. (2013). Dual process theories. In D.E. Carlston (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 282-312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[27] Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80(2 Pt 2), S230-S245. doi: 10.1006/enrs.1998.3940.
[28] Griffin, R. J., Yang, Z., ter Huurne, E., Boerner, F., Ortiz, S., & Dunwoody, S. (2008). After the flood: Anger, attribution, and the seeking of information. Science Communication, 29(3), 285-315. doi: 10.1177/1075547007312309.
[29] Griffin, R.J., Dunwoody, S., & Yang, Z.J. (2013). Linking risk messages to information seeking and processing. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 323-362. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2013.11679138.
[30] Griffin, R.J., Neuwirth, K., Dunwoody, S., & Giese, J. (2004). Information sufficiency and risk communication. Media Psychology, 6(1), 23-61. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0601_2.
[31] Hansen, A. (1991). The media and the social construction of the environment. Media, Culture & Society, 13(4), 443-458. doi: 10.1177/016344391013004002.
[32] Hernández, D., Chang, D., Hutchinson, C., Hill, E., Almonte, A., Burns, R., Shepard, P., Gonzalez, I., Reissig, N., & Evans, D. (2018). Public housing on the periphery: Vulnerable residents and depleted resilience reserves post-Hurricane Sandy. Journal of Urban Health, 95(5), 703-715. doi: 10.1007/s11524-018-0280-4.
[33] Ho, S.S., & Yang, X. (2018). Communication, cognitive processing, and public knowledge about climate change. Asian Journal of Communication, 28(5), 449-467. doi: 10.1080/01292986.2018.1453847.
[34] Ho, S.S., Detenber, B.H., Rosenthal, S., & Lee, E.W.J. (2014). Seeking information about climate change: Effects of media use in an extended PRISM. Science Communication, 36(3), 270-295. doi: 10.1177/1075547013520238.
[35] Hopfinger, J., Buonocore, M., & Mangun, G. (2000). The neural mechanisms of top-down attentional control. Nature Neuroscience, 3(3), 284-291. doi: 10.1038/72999.
[36] Hovick, S.R., Bigsby, E., Wilson, S.R., & Thomas, S. (2020). Information seeking behaviors and intentions in response to environmental health risk messages: A test of a reduced risk information seeking model. Health Communication, 36(14), 1889-1897. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1804139.
[37] Huang, H. (2016). Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2206-2212. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.031.
[38] Kahlor, L. (2010). PRISM: A planned risk information seeking model. Health Communication, 25(4), 345-356. doi: 10.1080/10410231003775172.
[39] Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. J. (2004). Predicting knowledge complexity in the wake of an environmental risk. Science Communication, 26(1), 5-30. doi: 10.1177/1075547004267231.
[40] Kahlor, L.A., Wang, W., Olson, H.C., Li, X., & Markman, A.B. (2019). Public perceptions and information seeking intentions related to seismicity in five Texas communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 37, article number 101147. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101147.
[41] Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
[42] Kasperson, R.E., Webler, T., Ram, B., & Sutton, J. (2020). The social amplification of risk framework: New perspectives. Risk Analysis, 42(7), 1367-1380. doi: 10.1111/risa.13926.
[43] Klöckner, C.A. (2015). Traditional and new media – About amplification and negation. In The psychology of pro-environmental communication (pp. 107-125). London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137348326_6.
[44] Kuang, K., & Wilson, S. R. (2021). Theory of motivated information management: A meta-analytic review. Communication Theory, 31(3), 463-490. doi: 10.1093/ct/qtz025.
[45] Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x.
[46] Lang, A. (2006). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl 1), S57-S80. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x.
[47] Lang, A. (2017). Limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing (LC4MP). In J. R.B. Zeigler-Hill & T.K. Shackelford (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media effects. doi: 10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0077.
[48] Lang, A., Bradley, S.D., Park, B., Shin, M., & Chung, Y. (2006). Parsing the resource pie: Using STRTs to measure attention to mediated messages. Media Psychology, 8(4), 369-394. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0804_3.
[49] Lang, A., Sanders-Jackson, A., Wang, Z., & Rubenking, B. (2013). Motivated message processing: How motivational activation influences resource allocation, encoding, and storage of TV messages. Motivation and Emotion, 37(4), 508-517. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9329-y.
[50] Lawrence, M., Homer-Dixon, T., Janzwood, S., Rockstöm, J., Renn, O., & Donges, J.F. (2024). Global polycrisis: The causal mechanisms of crisis entanglement. Global Sustainability, 7, article number e6. doi: 10.1017/sus.2024.1.
[51] Leung, B.T.K. (2020). Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing. Games and Economic Behavior, 120, 345-369. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2020.01.005.
[52] Li, H., Han, Y., Wang, X., & Li, Z. (2024). Risk perception and resilience assessment of flood disasters based on social media big data. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 101(1), article number 104249. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104249.
[53] Li, J. Y., Kim, S. H., & O’Boyle, J. (2017). I believe what I see”: College students’ use of media, issue engagement, and perceived responsibility regarding campus sexual assault. Journal of Health Communication, 22(9), 772-782. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2017.1355419.
[54] Li, S., Zhai, G., Zhou, S., Fan, C., Wu, Y., & Ren, C. (2017). Insight into the earthquake risk information seeking behavior of the victims: Evidence from Songyuan, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3), 267. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14030267.
[55] Li, Y., Huang, S.-K., Wei, J., Brindle, T. R., & Lee, C.-Y. (2023). What captures attention in the risk communication process: Exploring streaming video attractiveness during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 149, article number 107909. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107909.
[56] Liao, Y., Ho, S.S., & Yang, X. (2016). Motivators of pro-environmental behavior: Examining the underlying processes in the influence of presumed media influence model. Science Communication, 38(1), 51-73. doi: 10.1177/1075547015616256.
[57] Lindell, M.K., & Perry, R.W. (2012). The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 616-632. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x.
[58] Lopez, R.B., Salinger, J.M., Heatherton, T.F., & Wagner, D.D. (2018). Media multitasking is associated with altered processing of incidental, irrelevant cues during person perception. BMC Psychology, 6, article number 44. doi: 10.1186/s40359-018-0256-x.
[59] McGuire, W.J. (1989). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In R.E. Rice & C.K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (pp. 43-65). Newbury Park: Sage.
[60] Mrkva, K., Cole, J.C., & Van Boven, L. (2021). Attention increases environmental risk perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(1), 83-102. doi: 10.1037/xge0000772.
[61] Paek, H.-J., & Hove, T. (2017). Risk perceptions and risk characteristics. In Oxford encyclopedia of communication. Oxford: Oxford University Pres. doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.283.
[62] Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1.
[63] Rose, K.M., Toman, E., & Olsen, C.S. (2017). Public use of information about smoke emissions: Application of the risk information seeking and processing (RISP) model. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 47(11), 1527-1537. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2017-0099.
[64] Segijn, C.M., Xiong, S., & Duff, B.R.L. (2018). Manipulating and measuring media multitasking: Implications of previous research and guidelines for future research. Communication Methods and Measures, 13(2), 83-101. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2018.1555797.
[65] Shi, J., Hu, X., Guo, X., & Lian, C. (2020). Risk information seeking behavior in disaster resettlement: A case study of Ankang City, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), article number 7352. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197352.
[66] Slater, M.D., Goodall, C.E., & Hayes, A.F. (2009). Self-reported news attention does assess differential processing of media Content: An experiment on risk perceptions utilizing a random sample of U.S. local crime and accident News. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 117-134. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01407.x.
[67] Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311-322. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x.
[68] Stephens, K.K., Tich, K.P., Carlson, N.H., & Doucet, C.S. (2023). Geographic location or experience: Using PRISM to understand how people seek flood risk information. Risk analysis: An official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 43(9), 1887-1901. doi: 10.1111/risa.14051.
[69] Sutton, J., Olson, M.K., & Waugh, N.A. (2024). The warning lexicon: A multiphased study to identify, design, and develop content for warning messages. Natural Hazards Review, 25(1). doi: 10.1061/NHREFO.NHENG-1900.
[70] ter Huurne, E.F.J., Griffin, R.J., & Gutteling, J.M. (2009). Risk information seeking among U.S. and Dutch residents: An application of the model of risk information seeking and processing. Science Communication, 31(2), 215-237. doi: 10.1177/1075547009332653.
[71] Thompson, C., & Coen, S. (2021). The importance of visual attention and perception in journalism. In S. Coen & P. Bull (Eds.), The psychology of journalism (pp. 53-86). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780190935856.003.0003.
[72] Treue, S. (2003). Visual attention: The where, what, how and why of saliency. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(4), 428-432. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00105-3.
[73] Ukrainians started sending fake messages from the State Emergency Service about evacuation (UPDATED). (2024). Retrieved from https://mvs.gov.ua/en/news/ukrayinciam-pocali-nadsilati-feikovi-povidomlennia-vid-dsns-pro-evakuaciiu.
[74] Verschooren, S., Schindler, S., De Raedt, R., & Pourtois, G. (2019). Switching attention from internal to external information processing: A review of the literature and empirical support of the resource sharing account. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 468-490. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01568-y
[75] Weber, E. U. (2010). What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), 332-342. doi: 10.1002/wcc.41.
[76] Weber, E.U. (2006). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77, 103-120. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9060-3.
[77] Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In Nickerson R.S. (Ed.), Attention & performance (pp. 239-257). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
[78] Wogalter, M. (2018). Communication-human information processing (C-HIP) model. In Forensic human factors and ergonomics (pp. 33-49). doi: 10.1201/9780429462269-3.
[79] Xu, Q. (2017). Dual process models of persuasion. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. doi: 10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0074.
[80] Yang, Z.J., Aloe, A.M., & Feeley, T.H. (2014). Risk information seeking and processing model: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 20-41. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12071.
[81] Zeng, J., Jiang, M., & Yuan, M. (2020). Environmental risk perception, risk culture, and pro-environmental behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), article number 1750. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051750.
[82] Zeng, J., Wei, J., Zhao, D., Zhu, W., & Gu, J. (2017). Information-seeking intentions of residents regarding the risks of nuclear power plant: An empirical study in China. Natural Hazards, 87(3), 739-755. doi: 10.1007/s11069-017-2790-x.