Focusing on fairness in science and risk communication

Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 68-87

  Besley, John C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954566382     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203867631     Document Type: Chapter

References (81)

1. Adams, J. S., & Freedman, S. (1976). Equity theory revisited: Comments and an annotated bibliography. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 43-90.
2. Allum, N. C. (2007). An empirical test of competing theories of hazard-related trust: The case of GM food. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 935-946.
3. Besley, J. C., Kramer, V. L., Yao, Q., & Toumey, C. P. (2008). Interpersonal discussion following citizen engagement on emerging technology. Science Communication, 30(4), 209-235.
4. Besley, J. C., & McComas, K. A. (2005). Framing justice: Using the concept of procedural justice to advance political communication research. Communication Theory, 15(4), 414-436.
5. Besley, J. C., & McComas, K. A. (2007). Reporting on fairness in civic life: Interviews with journalists about writing on local political leaders. Journalism Practice, 1(3), 339-355.
6. Besley, J. C., McComas, K. A., & Trumbo, C. W. (2007). Local newspaper coverage of health authority fairness during cancer cluster investigations. Science Communication, 29(4), 498-521.
7. Besley, J. C., McComas, K. A., & Waks, L. (2006). Media use and the perceived justice of local science authorities. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 801-818.
8. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
9. Chaffee, S. H., & Schleuder, J. (1986). Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research, 13(1), 76-107.
10. Chess, C., & Purcell, K. (1999). Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Environmental Science & Technology, 33(16), 2685-2692.
11. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
12. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
13. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113-152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
17. de Waal, F. B. M. (2006). Joint ventures require joint payoffs: Fairness among primates. Social Research, 73(2), 349-364.
18. Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
19. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A Survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226-243.
20. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of "voice" and improvement on experience equity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(1), 108-119.
21. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D., Grove, J., & Corkan, L. (1979). Effects of "voice" and peer opinions on responses to inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(12), 2253-2261.
22. Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 473-486.
23. Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & Bredahl, L. (2003). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 23(6), 1117-1133.
24. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
25. Gangl, A. (2003). Procedural justice theory and evaluations of the lawmaking process. Political Behavior, 25(2), 119-149.
26. Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27. Gorss, J. B., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The salience of small: Nanotechnology coverage in the American press, 1986-2004. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association.
28. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Greenberg, M. R., & Williams, B. (1999). Geographical dimensions and correlates of trust. Risk Analysis, 19(2), 159-169.
30. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans' beliefs about how government should work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Humphrey, N. (2006). Introduction: Science looks at fairness. Social Research, 73(2), 345-347.
33. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; Is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science, 7(1), 40-45.
34. Johnson, B. B. (1999). Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust. Journal of Risk Research, 2(4), 325-354.
35. Joss, S., & Brownlea, A. (1999). Procedural justice: Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy and decision-making in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 26(5), 321-330.
36. Jungermann, H., Pfister, H. R., & Fischer, K. (1996). Credibility, information preferences, and information interests. Risk Analysis, 16(2), 251-261.
37. Kramer, V. L., & Besley, J. C. (2008). Assessment of a university-based program of citizen engagement on emerging technologies. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL.
38. Lang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1241-1252.
39. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211-239). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
40. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum Press.
41. Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M. L., & Deverapark, M. V. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 224-251.
42. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
43. McComas, K. A. (2001). Theory and practice of public meetings. Communication Theory, 11(1), 36-55.
44. McComas, K. A. (2003). Public meetings and risk amplification: A longitudinal study. Risk Analysis, 23(6), 1257-1270.
45. McComas, K. A., Besley, J. C., & Trumbo, C. W. (2006). Why citizens do and don't attend public meetings about possible local cancer clusters. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 671-698.
46. McComas, K. A., Besley, J. C., & Yang, Z. (2007). The perceived justice of local scientists and community support for their research. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
47. McComas, K. A., Besley, J. C., & Yang, Z. (2008). Risky business: The perceived justice of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Analysis, 28(6), 1539-1552.
48. McComas, K. A., & Trumbo, C. W. (2001). Source credibility in environmental health-risk controversies: Application of Meyer's credibility index. Risk Analysis, 21(3), 467-480.
49. McComas, K. A., Trumbo, C. W., & Besley, J. C. (2007). Public meetings about suspected cancer clusters: The impact of voice, interactional justice, and risk perception on attendees' attitudes in six communities. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 527-549.
50. Metlay, D. (1999). Institutional trust and confidence: A journey into a conceptual quagmire. In G. Cvetkovich & R. E. Lofstedt (Eds.), Social trust and the management of risk (pp. 100-161, 180-181). London: Earthscan Publishers.
51. Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 567-574, 588.
52. Nisbet, M. C., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23(4), 359-391.
53. Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54. Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23(5), 961-972.
55. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
56. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. M. (1995). A need for objective discourse on citizen participation: Objectives and structure of the book. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. M. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 1-15). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
58. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
59. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29.
60. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science Technology & Human Values, 29(4), 512-557.
61. Ryan, A. (2006). Fairness and philosophy. Social Research, 73(2), 597-606.
62. Scheufele, D. A., & Nisbet, M. C. (2002). Being a citizen online: New opportunities and dead ends. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics, 7(3), 55-75.
63. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362.
64. Sjoberg, L. (1999). Perceived competence and motivation in industry and government as factors in risk perception. In G. Cvetkovich & R. E. Lofstedt (Eds.), Social trust and the management of risk (pp. 89-99, 179-180). London: Earthscan Publishers.
65. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
66. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield (Reprinted from Environment, ethics, and behavior (1997), pp. 277-313). Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701.
67. Stouffer, S. A., Schuman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, R. M. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustments during army life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
68. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
69. Toumey, C. (2007). Rules of engagement. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(7), 386-387.
70. Toumey, C., & Baird, D. (2006). Building nanoliteracy in the university and beyond. Nature Biotechnology, 24(6), 721-722.
71. Trumbo, C. W., & McComas, K. A. (2003). The function of credibility in information processing for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 23(2), 343-353.
72. Trumbo, C. W., McComas, K. A., & Besley, J. C. (2008, May 22-26). A multilevel analysis of cancer risk perception. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, QC.
73. Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 117-125.
74. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349-361.
75. Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.
76. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York: Academic Press.
77. van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 931-941.
78. van den Bos, K., & Miedema, J. (2000). Toward understanding why fairness matters: The influence of mortality salience on reactions to procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 355-366.
79. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
80. Viklund, M. J. (2003). Trust and risk perception in Western Europe: A cross-national study. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 727-738.
81. Webler, T. (1995). "Right" discourse in citizen participation: An evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. M. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 35-86). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.