Figuring out #fukushima: An initial look at functions and content of US twitter commentary about nuclear risk

Environmental Communication

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 268-277

  Binder, Andrew R ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Media effects; Nuclear risk; Risk communication; Social media; Uses and gratifications

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861950916     PISSN: 17524032     EISSN: 17524040     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2012.672442     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
2. Binder, A.R., Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., Shaw, B.R., & Corley, E.A. (in press). Measuring risk/benefit perceptions of emerging technologies and their potential impact on communication of public opinion toward science. Public Understanding of Science. doi:10.1177/0963662510390159
3. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
5. Eveland, W.P. (1997). Interactions and nonlinearity in mass communication: Connecting theory and methodology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 400-416.
6. Eveland, W.P. (2003). A "mix of attributes" approach to the study of media effects and new communication technologies. Journal of Communication, 53(3), 395-410.
7. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
8. Freudenburg, W.R. (1992). Heuristics, biases, and the not-so-general publics: Expertise and error in the assessment of risks. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 229-249). Westport, CT: Praeger.
9. 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.
10. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
11. Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51(6), 358-374.
12. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H.S., Emel, J., Goble, R., & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187.
13. Kelly, A.R., & Kittle Autry, M. (2011). A humanistic approach to the study of social media: Combining social network analysis & case study research. In A. Protopsaltis, N. Spyratos, C. Costa & C. Meghini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on design of communication (SIGDOC '11) (pp. 257-260). Pisa, Italy: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/2038476.2038525
14. Knoke, D., & Yang, S. (2008). Social network analysis (2nd ed). London: Sage.
15. Lederman, S.A., Becker, M., Sheets, S., Stein, J., Tang, D., Weiss, L., & Perera, F.P. (2008). Modeling exposure to air pollution from the WTC disaster based on reports of perceived air pollution. Risk Analysis, 28(2), 287-301. (Pubitemid 351550589)
16. Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Nisbet, M.C., & Scheufele, D.A. (2007). The future of public engagement. The Scientist, 21(10), 38-44.
18. Perse, E.M. (2001). Media effects and society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Rubin, A.M. (2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspectives on media effects. In J. Bryant & M.B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 165-184). New York, NY: Routledge.
20. Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.
21. Schudson, M. (1978). Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York, NY: Basic Books.
22. Shoemaker, P.J., & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed). White Plains, NY: Longman.