Cover des Buchs: Dynamics of Public Risk Perception and Media Coverage
Im Shop erwerben
, um zu prüfen, ob Sie einen Vollzugriff auf diese Publikation haben.
Monographie Kein Zugriff

Dynamics of Public Risk Perception and Media Coverage

The Cases of Climate Change, Terrorism and Demographic Change
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2021

Zusammenfassung

Viele gesellschaftliche Risiken sind nur noch begrenzt persönlich erfahrbar, weshalb Menschen bei der Risikoeinschätzung zunehmend auf die Informationen Dritter angewiesen sind. Die vorliegende Arbeit untersucht die Dynamik der öffentlichen Risikowahrnehmung mit besonderem Fokus auf die Rolle der Medienberichterstattung. Dabei wird ein Vergleich der öffentlichen Meinung zu verschiedenen Risiken, namentlich Klimawandel, Terrorismus und demographischer Wandel über einen Zeitraum von 25 Jahren (1990-2015) vorgenommen. Die Analyse betrachtet die Risikowahrnehmung in den USA und Deutschland und liefert wertvolle Erkenntnisse darüber, wie und warum die Einschätzung von Risiken durch die Öffentlichkeit in diesen Ländern voneinander abweicht.

Schlagworte

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr
2021
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-7872-0
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-2272-8
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
239
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis Kein Zugriff 1 - 16
    1. 1.1 Research Interest Kein Zugriff
    2. 1.2 Conceptual Design Kein Zugriff
    3. 1.3 Structure of the Thesis Kein Zugriff
    4. 1.4 Main Empirical Results Kein Zugriff
    1. 2.1 Definitions of Risk Kein Zugriff
      1. 2.2.1 Heuristics and Cognitive Biases Kein Zugriff
      2. 2.2.2 Influence of the Sociocultural Context Kein Zugriff
      3. 2.2.3 The Role of the News Media Kein Zugriff
    3. 2.3 Summary Kein Zugriff
      1. 3.1.1 Terrorism Kein Zugriff
      2. 3.1.2 Demographic Change Kein Zugriff
      3. 3.1.3 Climate Change Kein Zugriff
    2. 3.2 Empirical Approach Kein Zugriff
    3. 3.3 Measurements of Risk Salience and News Media Coverage Kein Zugriff
    1. 4.1 Applying Topic Modeling Analysis Kein Zugriff
    2. 4.2 Text Corpus and Preprocessing Kein Zugriff
      1. 4.3.1 Key News Topics on Terrorism Kein Zugriff
      2. 4.3.2 Key News Topics on Demographic Change Kein Zugriff
      3. 4.3.3 Key News Topics on Climate Change Kein Zugriff
    4. 4.4 Summary Kein Zugriff
    1. 5.1 Variable Construction Kein Zugriff
    2. 5.2 Descriptive Statistics Kein Zugriff
    3. 5.3 Model Specifications Kein Zugriff
      1. 5.4.1 Terrorism in the Public Perception Kein Zugriff
      2. 5.4.2 Demographic Change in the Public Perception Kein Zugriff
      3. 5.4.3 Climate Change in the Public Perception Kein Zugriff
    5. 5.5 Summary Kein Zugriff
    1. 6.1 Variable Construction Kein Zugriff
    2. 6.2 Descriptive Statistics Kein Zugriff
    3. 6.3 Model Specifications Kein Zugriff
      1. 6.4.1 Terrorism in the Public Perception Kein Zugriff
      2. 6.4.2 Demographic Change in the Public Perception Kein Zugriff
      3. 6.4.3 Climate Change in the Public Perception Kein Zugriff
    5. 6.5 Summary and Comparison to the US Results Kein Zugriff
    1. 7.1 Implemented Research Agenda Kein Zugriff
    2. 7.2 Summary of the Empirical Results Kein Zugriff
    3. 7.3 Contribution and Limitations Kein Zugriff
    1. A.1 Newspaper Data Collection and Preparation Kein Zugriff
    2. A.2 Supplementary Material Topic Models Kein Zugriff
    3. A.3 Time Series Analysis: Robustness Check for German News Coverage Variable Kein Zugriff
  10. References Kein Zugriff 227 - 239

Literaturverzeichnis (183)

  1. Adams, W. C. (1986). Whose Lives Count? TV Coverage of Natural Disasters. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1986.tb01429.x Google Scholar öffnen
  2. Alaszewski, A. (2009). The Future of Risk in Social Science Theory and Research. Health, Risk & Society, 11(6), 487-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570903329508 Google Scholar öffnen
  3. American Society of News Editors - ASNE (2020). ASNE Statement of Principles. Retrieved from https://members.newsleaders.org/asne-principles Google Scholar öffnen
  4. Andrews, K. T. & Caren, N. (2010). Making the News: Movement Organizations, Media Attention, and the Public Agenda. American Sociological Review, 75(6), 841-866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410386689 Google Scholar öffnen
  5. Avdan, N. & Webb, C. (2019). Not in My Back Yard: Public Perceptions and Terrorism. Political Research Quarterly, 72(1), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918776118 Google Scholar öffnen
  6. Aven, T. (2010a). Misconceptions of Risk. Chichester West Sussex U.K.: Wiley. Google Scholar öffnen
  7. Aven, T. (2010b). On How to Define, Understand and Describe Risk. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 95(6), 623-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2010.01.011 Google Scholar öffnen
  8. Aven, T. (2012). The Risk Concept: Historical and Recent Development Trends. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 99, 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.006 Google Scholar öffnen
  9. Aven, T., Renn, O. & Rosa, E. A. (2011). On the Ontological Status of the Concept of Risk. Safety Science, 49(8-9), 1074-1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.015 Google Scholar öffnen
  10. Bakir, V. (2005). Greenpeace v. Shell: Media Exploitation and the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF). Journal of Risk Research, 8(7-8), 679-691. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870500166898 Google Scholar öffnen
  11. Bakir, V. (2006). Policy Agenda Setting and Risk Communication: Greenpeace, Shell, and Issues of Trust. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(3), 67-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06289213 Google Scholar öffnen
  12. Bakir, V. (2010). Media and Risk: Old and New Research Directions. Journal of Risk Research, 13(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903135953 Google Scholar öffnen
  13. Barthel, M. (2019). Newspapers Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/newspapers/ Google Scholar öffnen
  14. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (Eds.) (2002). Policy Dynamics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  15. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. London: Sage. Google Scholar öffnen
  16. Beck, U. (2002). The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(4), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276402019004003 Google Scholar öffnen
  17. Beck, U. (2006). Living in the World Risk Society. Economy and Society, 35(3), 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140600844902 Google Scholar öffnen
  18. Beck, U. (2017). Weltrisikogesellschaft: Auf der Suche nach der verlorenen Sicherheit (5th ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Google Scholar öffnen
  19. Benoit, K., Watanabe, K., Wang, H., Nulty, P., Obeng, A., Müller, S. & Matsuo, A. (2018). Quanteda: An R Package for the Quantitative Analysis of Textual Data. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 774. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00774 Google Scholar öffnen
  20. Bergquist, M., Nilsson, A. & Schultz, P. W. (2019). Experiencing a Severe Weather Event Increases Concern About Climate Change. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00220 Google Scholar öffnen
  21. Bickerstaff, K. (2004). Risk Perception Research: Socio-Cultural Perspectives on the Public Experience of Air Pollution. Environment International, 30(6), 827-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.12.001 Google Scholar öffnen
  22. Blei, D. M. (2012). Probabilistic Topic Models: Surveying a Suite of Algorithms That Offer a Solution to Managing Large Document Archives. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1145/2133806.2133826 Google Scholar öffnen
  23. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y. & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research. (3), 993-1022. Retrieved from https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/944919.944937 Google Scholar öffnen
  24. Boholm, Å. (1996). Risk Perception and Social Anthropology: Critique of Cultural Theory. Ethnos. Journal of Anthropology, 61(1-2), 64-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.1996.9981528 Google Scholar öffnen
  25. Boholm, Å. (1998). Comparative Studies of Risk Perception: A Review of Twenty Years of Research. Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), 135-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377231 Google Scholar öffnen
  26. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Freeman, J. R., Hitt, M. P. & Pevehouse, J. C. W. (2014). Time Series Analysis for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  27. Boykoff, M. T. (2007). Flogging a Dead Norm? Newspaper Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area, 39(4), 470-481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x Google Scholar öffnen
  28. Boykoff, M. T. (2011). Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  29. Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the US Prestige Press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 Google Scholar öffnen
  30. Bradbury, J. A. (1989). The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14(4), 380-399. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398901400404 Google Scholar öffnen
  31. Breakwell, G. M. (2014). The Psychology of Risk (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  32. Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J. & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting Public Opinion on Climate Change: An Empirical Assessment of Factors Influencing Concern over Climate Change in the U.S., 2002-2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y Google Scholar öffnen
  33. Carvalho, A. & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K. Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985-2003. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457-1469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x Google Scholar öffnen
  34. Chang, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., Boyd-Graber, J. L. & Blei, D. M. (2009). Reading Tea Leaves: How Humans Interpret Topic Models (NIPS'09 Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems). Retrieved from http://papers.nips.cc/paper/3700-reading-tea-leaves-how-humans-interpret-topic-models.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  35. Cohen, B. C. (1963). The Press and Foreign Policy. NJ: Princeton: University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  36. Covello, V. T. (1983). The Perception of Technological Risks: A Literature Review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. (23), 285-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(83)90032-X Google Scholar öffnen
  37. Deerwester, S. C., Dumais, S. T., Landauer, T. K., Furnas, G. W. & Harshman, R. A. (1990). Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (JASIS), 41(6), 391-407. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199009)41:6<391::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-9 Google Scholar öffnen
  38. Dillon, M. (2007). Governing Terror: The State of Emergency of Biopolitical Emergence. International Political Sociology. (1), 7-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2007.00002.x Google Scholar öffnen
  39. Douglas, M. (1978). Cultural Bias. Occasional paper - Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: Vol. 35. London: Royal Anthropological Institute. Google Scholar öffnen
  40. Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. (1982a). How Can We Know the Risks We Face? Why Risk Selection is a Social Process. Risk Analysis, 2(2), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01365.x Google Scholar öffnen
  41. Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. (1982b). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers: University of California Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  42. Duckett, D. & Busby, J. (2013). Risk Amplification as Social Attribution. Risk Management, 15(2), 132-153. https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2013.2 Google Scholar öffnen
  43. Dunwoody, S. & Peters, H. P. (1992). Mass Media Coverage of Technological and Environmental Risks: A Survey of Research in the United States and Germany. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 199-230. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/2/004 Google Scholar öffnen
  44. Engels, A., Hüther, O., Schäfer, M. & Held, H. (2013). Public Climate-Change Skepticism, Energy Preferences and Political Participation. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1018-1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.008 Google Scholar öffnen
  45. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x Google Scholar öffnen
  46. Europol (2018). European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2018. https://doi.org/10.2813/00041 Google Scholar öffnen
  47. Firth, J. R. (1957). A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930-1955. In Philological Society (Ed.), Studies in Linguistic Analysis (pp. 1-32). Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar öffnen
  48. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552-564. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552 Google Scholar öffnen
  49. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. & Combs, B. (1978). How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Science. (9), 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739 Google Scholar öffnen
  50. Forschungsgruppe Wahlen, M. (2017). Politbarometer 1977-2016 (Partielle Kumulation) (Datenfile Version 8.0.0. doi:10.4232/1.12824). Köln. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12824 Google Scholar öffnen
  51. Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., Gomez, L. M. & Dumais, S. T. (1983). Human Factors and Behavioral Science: Statistical Semantics: Analysis of the Potential Performance of Key-Word Information Systems. Bell System Technical Journal, 62(6), 1753-1806. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1983.tb03513.x Google Scholar öffnen
  52. Galtung, J. & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian Newspapers. Journal of International Peace Research, 2, 64-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200104 Google Scholar öffnen
  53. German Press Council (2017). German Press Code: Guidelines for Journalistic Work as Recommended by the German Press Council. Retrieved from https://www.presserat.de/en.html Google Scholar öffnen
  54. GESIS Datenarchiv für die Sozialwissenschaften (2017). Politbarometer Partielle Kumulation (1977-2016): Variable Report. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12824 Google Scholar öffnen
  55. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  56. Giddens, A. & Pierson, C. (1998). Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. Standford: Standford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  57. Goerres, A. & Vanhuysse, P. (2012). Mapping the Field: Comparative Generational Politics and Policies in Ageing Democracies. In P. Vanhuysse & A. Goerres (Eds.), Ageing Populations in Post-Industrial Democracies: Comparative Studies of Policies and Politics (pp. 1-22). London: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
  58. Greenberg, M. R., Sachsman, D. B., Sandman, P. M. & Salomone, K. L. (1989). Risk, Drama and Geography in Coverage of Environmental Risk by Network TV. Journalism Quarterly, 66, 267-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908906600201 Google Scholar öffnen
  59. Gustafson, A., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. (2019). Americans are Increasingly “Alarmed” About Global Warming. Retrieved from https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-are-increasingly-alarmed-about-global-warming/ Google Scholar öffnen
  60. Hansen, A. (1991). The Media and the Social Construction of the Environment. Media, Culture and Society. (13), 443-458. https://doi.org/10.1177/016344391013004002 Google Scholar öffnen
  61. Hansen, A. (2011). Communication, Media and Environment: Towards Reconnecting Research on the Production, Content and Social Implications of Environmental Communication. International Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 7-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048510386739 Google Scholar öffnen
  62. Harcup, T. & O’Neill, D. (2001). What is News? Galtung and Ruge Revisited. Journalism Studies, 2, 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700118449 Google Scholar öffnen
  63. Harcup, T. & O’Neill, D. (2017). What is News? News Values Revisited (Again). Journalism Studies, 18(12), 1470-1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2016.1150193 Google Scholar öffnen
  64. Harris, Z. (1954). Distributional Structure. Word, 10(2-3), 146-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659520 Google Scholar öffnen
  65. He, W., Goodkind, D. & Kowal, P. (2016). An Aging World: 2015 (International Population Reports No. P95/16-1). Washington. Retrieved from U.S. Government Publishing Office website: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p95-16-1.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  66. Heffington, C., Park, B. B. & Williams, L. K. (2017a). The 'Most Important Problem' Aggregate Dataset (MIDP) Codebook: Release 1.0. Retrieved from University of Missouri website: https://faculty.missouri.edu/~williamslaro/MIPD%20Aggregate%20Codebook--Release%201.0.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  67. Heffington, C., Park, B. B. & Williams, L. K. (2017b). The “Most Important Problem” Dataset (MIPD): A New Dataset on American Issue Importance. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/073889421769146⁠3eng Google Scholar öffnen
  68. Heffington, C., Park, B. B. & Williams, L. K. (2017c). The 'Most Important Problem' Dataset (MIPD) Codebook: Release 1.0. Retrieved from University of Missouri website: https://faculty.missouri.edu/~williamslaro/MIPD%20Codebook--Release%201.0.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  69. Hofstede, G. [Geert], Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Revised and expanded third edition). New York, NY: Mc-Graw-Hill. Google Scholar öffnen
  70. Horstmann, J. (2018). Topic Modeling: forText. Literatur digital erforschen. Retrieved from https://fortext.net/routinen/methoden/topic-modeling Google Scholar öffnen
  71. Howe, P. D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R. & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Geographic Variation in Opinions on Climate Change at State and Local Scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 596-603. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2583 Google Scholar öffnen
  72. Hughes, E., Kitzinger, J. & Murdock, G. (2006). The Media and Risk. In P. Taylor-Gooby & J. O. Zinn (Eds.), Risk in Social Science (pp. 250-270). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  73. Institute for Economics and Peace (2016). Global Terrorism Index 2016: Measuring and Understanding the Impact of Terrorism (IEP Report 43). Google Scholar öffnen
  74. Iyengar, S. & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  75. Johnson, B. B., & Covello, V. T. (Eds.) (1987). The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3395-8 Google Scholar öffnen
  76. Kaiser, J. & Rhomberg, M. (2015). Questioning the Doubt: Climate Skepticism in German Newspaper Reporting on COP17. Environmental Communication, 10(5), 556-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1050435 Google Scholar öffnen
  77. Kasperson, R. E. & Kasperson, J. X. (1996). The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716296545001010 Google Scholar öffnen
  78. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X. & Ratick, S. (1988). The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x Google Scholar öffnen
  79. Kates, R. W., Hohenemser, C. & Kasperson, J. X. (1985). Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Boulder: Westview Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  80. Kitzinger, J. (1999). Researching Risk and the Media. Health, Risk & Society, 1(1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698579908407007 Google Scholar öffnen
  81. Kitzinger, J. & Reilly, J. (1997). The Rise and Fall of Risk Reporting: Media Coverage of Human Genetics Research, `False Memory Syndrome' and `Mad Cow Disease'. European Journal of Communication, 12(3), 319-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323197012003002 Google Scholar öffnen
  82. Köcher, R. (2016). Beunruhigt, aber gefasst: Eine Dokumentation des Beitrags von Prof. Dr. Renate Köcher in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung. Retrieved from https://www.ifd-allensbach.de/fileadmin/kurzberichte_dokumentationen/FAZ_August_01.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  83. Langer, R., Fischer, A.‑K., Fischbach, B. & Goerres, A. (2016). Overcoming Theoretical Divisions in Risk Analysis: Expanding the Idea of Integration in the Social Amplification of Risk Framework. Big Risks Working Paper 1. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2876528 Google Scholar öffnen
  84. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E. & Roser-Renouf, C. (2009). Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis. Retrieved from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication website: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2009_05_Global-Warmings-Six-Americas.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  85. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C. & Feinberg, G., Howe, P. (2013). Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2298705 Google Scholar öffnen
  86. Lichtenberg, J. & MacLean, D. (1991). The Role of the Media in Risk Communication. In R. E. Kasperson & P. J. M. Stallen (Eds.), Technology, Risk, and Society: Vol. 4. Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives (pp. 157-173). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar öffnen
  87. Lin, D. & Pantel, P. (2001). DIRT – Discovery of Inference Rules from Text. In ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Google Scholar öffnen
  88. Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Public Views on Climate Change: European and USA Perspectives. Climatic Change, 77(1-2), 73-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9072-z Google Scholar öffnen
  89. Lowrance, W. W. (1976). Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann Inc. Google Scholar öffnen
  90. Luedecke, G. & Boykoff, M. T. (2017). Environment and the Media. In D. Richardson, N. Castree, M. F. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, & R. A. Marston (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment, and Technology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar öffnen
  91. Lupton, D. & Tulloch, J. (2002). Risk is Part of Your Life: Risk Epistemologies Among a Group of Australians. Sociology, 36(2), 317-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038502036002005 Google Scholar öffnen
  92. Marlon, J. R., van der Linden, S., Howe, P. D., Leiserowitz, A., Woo, S. H. L. & Broad, K. (2019). Detecting Local Environmental Change: The Role of Experience in Shaping Risk Judgments About Global Warming. Journal of Risk Research, 112, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1430051 Google Scholar öffnen
  93. Mazur, A. (1981). Media Coverage and Public Opinion on Scientific Controversies. Journal of Communication, 31(2), 106-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01234.x Google Scholar öffnen
  94. Mazur, A. (1990). Nuclear Power, Chemical Hazards, and the Quantity of Reporting. Minerva, 28(3), 294-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01096293 Google Scholar öffnen
  95. Mazur, A. (1998). Global Environmental Change in the News: 1987-90 vs 1992-6. International Sociology, 13(4), 457-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/026858098013004003 Google Scholar öffnen
  96. Mazur, A. (2009). American Generation of Environmental Warnings: Avian Influenza and Global Warming. Research in Human Ecology, 16(1), 17-26. Retrieved from https://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her161/mazur.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  97. Mazur, A. & Lee, J. (1993). Sounding the Global Alarm: Environmental Issues in the US National News. Social Studies of Science, 23(4), 681-720. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023004003 Google Scholar öffnen
  98. McCombs, M. & Ghanem, S. I. (2001). The Convergence of Agenda Setting and Framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World (pp. 67-81). New York: Taylor and Francis. Google Scholar öffnen
  99. McCombs, M. E. & Guo, L. (2014). Agenda-Setting Influence of the Media in the Public Sphere. In R. S. Fortner & P. M. Fackler (Eds.), The Handbook of Media and Mass Communication Theory (pp. 251-268). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Google Scholar öffnen
  100. McCombs, M. E. & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990 Google Scholar öffnen
  101. Metag, J., Füchslin, T. & Schäfer, M. S. (2017). Global Warming's Five Germanys: A Typology of Germans' Views on Climate Change and Patterns of Media Use and Information. Public Understanding of Science, 26(4), 434-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515592558 Google Scholar öffnen
  102. Mitchell, A. (2018). Americans Still Prefer Watching to Reading the News – and Mostly Still Through Television. Retrieved from https://www.journalism.org/2018/12/03/americans-still-prefer-watching-to-reading-the-news-and-mostly-still-through-television/ Google Scholar öffnen
  103. Morales, L. (2011). Americans Regain Some Confidence in Newspapers, TV News: Confidence still lags behind levels of trust seen through much of the 1990s and into 2003. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/148250/Americans-Regain- Google Scholar öffnen
  104. Moser, S. C. (2010). Communicating Climate Change: History, Challenges, Process and Future Directions. WIREs Climate Change. (1), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.11 Google Scholar öffnen
  105. Murdock, G., Petts, J. & Horlick-Jones, T. (2003). After Amplification: Rethinking the Role of the Media in Risk Communication. In N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, & P. Slovic (Eds.), The Social Amplification of Risk (pp. 156-178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550461.008 Google Scholar öffnen
  106. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism - START (2018a). Global Terrorism Database: [Datafile]. Retrieved from https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd Google Scholar öffnen
  107. National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism - START (2018b). GTD Global Terrorism Database: Codebook: Inclusion Criteria and Variables. Retrieved from https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd Google Scholar öffnen
  108. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23 Google Scholar öffnen
  109. OECD (2003). Emerging Systemic Risks in the 21st Century: An Agenda for Action. Paris. Retrieved from OECD website: https://www.oecd.org/futures/globalprospects/37944611.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  110. Oltedal, S., Moen, B.‑E., Klempe, H. & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining Risk Perception: An Evaluation of Cultural Theory. Trondheim: Rotunde publikasjoner. Google Scholar öffnen
  111. Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. (2010). Defeating the Merchants of Doubt. Nature. (465), 686-687. https://doi.org/10.1038/465686a Google Scholar öffnen
  112. Palfreman, J. (2006). A Tale of Two Fears: Exploring Media Depictions of Nuclear Power and Global Warming. Review of Policy Research, 23(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2006.00184.x Google Scholar öffnen
  113. Pasquay, A. (2013). Die deutschen Zeitungen in Zahlen und Daten: Auszug aus dem Jahrbuch „Zeitungen 2011/12“. Retrieved from https://www.bdzv.de/fileadmin/bdzv_hauptseite/markttrends_daten/wirtschaftliche_lage/2011/assets/ZahlenDaten_2011.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  114. Pasquay, A. (2016). Die deutschen Zeitungen in Zahlen und Daten 2015. Retrieved from https://www.bdzv.de/fileadmin/bdzv_hauptseite/markttrends_daten/wirtschaftliche_lage/2015/assets/Zahlen_Daten_2015.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  115. Pasquay, A. (2017). The Economic Situation of Newspapers in Germany 2017. Retrieved from https://www.bdzv.de/maerkte-und-daten/marktdaten/artikel/detail/the-economic-situation-of-newspapers-in-germany-2017/ Google Scholar öffnen
  116. Pasquay, A. (2018). Die deutschen Zeitungen in Zahlen und Daten 2017. Retrieved from https://www.bdzv.de/fileadmin/bdzv_hauptseite/aktuell/publikationen/2016/ZDF_2017__002_.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  117. Pew Research Center (2014). Attitudes About Aging: A Global Perspective. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2014/01/30/attitudes-about-aging-a-global-perspective/ Google Scholar öffnen
  118. Pew Research Center (2015). Global Concern About Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/ Google Scholar öffnen
  119. Pezzullo, P. C. & Cox, R. (2018). Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere (5th). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Google Scholar öffnen
  120. Pidgeon, N. F. [Nicholas Frank], Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B. & Gibson, R. (1992). Risk Perception. In The Royal Risk Society (Ed.), Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management: Report of a Royal Society Study Group (pp. 89-134). London. Google Scholar öffnen
  121. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (Eds.) (2003). The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550461 Google Scholar öffnen
  122. Rashid, S. & Olofsson, A. (2020). Worried in Sweden: The Effects of Terrorism Abroad and News Media at Home on Terror-related Worry. Journal of Risk Research, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1738528 Google Scholar öffnen
  123. Rayner, S. (1988). Muddling Through Metaphors to Maturity: A Commentary on Kasperson et al., The Social Amplification of Risk. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 201-204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01172.x Google Scholar öffnen
  124. Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 83-115). Westport: CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Google Scholar öffnen
  125. Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of Risk: A Classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 53-79). Westport: CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Google Scholar öffnen
  126. Renn, O. (2004). Perception of Risks. Toxicology Letters, 149(1-3), 405-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.12.051 Google Scholar öffnen
  127. Renn, O. (2008). Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World (Reprinted.). Earthscan Risk in Society Series. London: Earthscan. Google Scholar öffnen
  128. Renn, O. (2011). The Social Amplification/Attenuation of Risk Framework: Application to Climate Change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(2), 154-169. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.99 Google Scholar öffnen
  129. Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E. & Slovic, P. (1992). The Social Amplification of Risk: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01949.x Google Scholar öffnen
  130. Renn, O., & Rohrmann, B. (Eds.) (2000). Technology, Risk, and Society: Vol. 13. Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar öffnen
  131. Renn, O., Schweizer, P.‑J., Dreyer, M. & Klinke, A. (2007). Risiko: Über den gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit Unsicherheit. München: oekom. Google Scholar öffnen
  132. Rip, A. (1988). Should Social Amplification of Risk Be Counteracted? Risk Analysis, 8(2), 193-197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01170.x Google Scholar öffnen
  133. Rohrmann, B. & Renn, O. (2000). Risk Perception Research - An Introduction. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Technology, Risk, and Society: Vol. 13. Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar öffnen
  134. Roser-Renouf, C., Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A. & Rosenthal, S. Global Warming’s Six Americas and the Election, 2016. New Haven, CT. Retrieved from https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/six-americas-2016-election/ Google Scholar öffnen
  135. Saad, L. (2016). Americans' Confidence in Newspapers at New Low. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/192665/americans-confidence-newspapers-new-low.aspx Google Scholar öffnen
  136. Salton, G., Wong, A. & Yang, C. (1975). A Vector Space Model for Automatic Indexing. Communications of the ACM, 18(11), 613-620. https://doi.org/10.1145/361219.361220 Google Scholar öffnen
  137. Sandman, P. M., Weinstein, N. D. & Klotz, M. L. (1987). Public Response to the Risk from Geological Radon. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1987.tb00997.x Google Scholar öffnen
  138. Schäfer, M. S. (2016). Climate Change Communication in Germany. In S. Ho, E. M. Markowitz, S. O'Neill, M. C. Nisbet, J. Thaker, & M. S. Schäfer (Eds.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford University Press USA. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.448 Google Scholar öffnen
  139. Schäfer, M. S. & O'Neill, S. (2017). Frame Analysis in Climate Change Communication - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science (Vol. 1): Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.487 Google Scholar öffnen
  140. Scheufele, B. (2004a). Framing-Effects Approach: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique. The European Journal of Communication Research, 29, 401-428. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2004.29.4.401 Google Scholar öffnen
  141. Scheufele, B. (2004b). Framing-Effekte auf dem Prüfstand: Eine theoretische, methodische und empirische Auseinandersetzung mit der Wirkungsperspektive des Framing-Ansatzes. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 52(1), 30-55. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2004-1-30 Google Scholar öffnen
  142. Scheufele, D. A. & Iyengar, S. (2017). The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions. In K. Kenski & K. H. Jamieson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication (pp. 619-633). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  143. Simpson, R. H. (1974). The Hurricane Disaster-Potential Scale. Weatherwise, American Meteorological Society, 27(4), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00431672.1974.9931702 Google Scholar öffnen
  144. Singer, E. & Endreny, P. (1987). Reporting Hazards: Their Benefits and Costs. Journal of Communication, 37(3), 10-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1987.tb00991.x Google Scholar öffnen
  145. Singer, M. M. (2011). Who Says “It’s the Economy”? Cross-National and Cross-Individual Variation in the Salience of Economic Performance. Comparative Political Studies, 44(3), 284-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010384371 Google Scholar öffnen
  146. Sjöberg, L. (1996). A Discussion of the Limitations of the Psychometric and Cultural Theory Approaches to Risk Perception. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68(3/4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a031868 Google Scholar öffnen
  147. Sjöberg, L. (1997). Explaining Risk Perception: An Empirical Evaluation of Cultural Theory. Risk Decision and Policy, 2(2), 113-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/135753097348447 Google Scholar öffnen
  148. Sjöberg, L. (2005). The Perceived Risk of Terrorism. Risk Management: An International Journal, 7(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240204 Google Scholar öffnen
  149. Sjöberg, L., Moen, B.‑E. & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining Risk Perception: An Evaluation of the Psychometric Paradigm in Risk Perception Research. Rotunde: Vol. 84. Trondheim: Rotunde publikasjoner. Google Scholar öffnen
  150. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507 Google Scholar öffnen
  151. Slovic, P. (2000). Introduction and Overview. In P. Slovic (Ed.), Risk, Society, and Policy Series. The Perception of Risk (pp. xxi-xxxvii). London, England: Earthscan. Google Scholar öffnen
  152. Slovic, P. (2002). Terrorism as Hazard: A New Species of Trouble. Risk Analysis, 22(3), 425-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00053 Google Scholar öffnen
  153. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? (pp. 181-216). New York: Plenum Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  154. Slovic, P. & Weber, E. U. (2002). Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2293086 Google Scholar öffnen
  155. Soroka, S. N. (2003). Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(1), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X02238783 Google Scholar öffnen
  156. Soroka, S. N. & Wlezien, C. (2010). Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  157. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Terrorism and Probability Neglect. The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2-3), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024111006336 Google Scholar öffnen
  158. Taylor-Gooby, P. & Zinn, J. O. (2006). Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 26(2), 397-411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00746.x Google Scholar öffnen
  159. Thomas, W. I. & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. Oxford: Knopf. Google Scholar öffnen
  160. Thompson, M., Ellis, R. & Wildavsky, A. (1990). Cultural Theory. Political Cultures Series. Boulder: Westview Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  161. Turney, P. D. & Littman, M. L. (2003). Measuring Praise and Criticism: Inference of Semantic Orientation from Association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 21(4), 315-346. https://doi.org/10.1145/944012.944013 Google Scholar öffnen
  162. Turney, P. D. & Pantel, P. (2010). From Frequency to Meaning: Vector Space Models of Semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37, 141-188. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.2934 Google Scholar öffnen
  163. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 Google Scholar öffnen
  164. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in Judgments Reveal Some Heuristics of Thinking Under Uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 Google Scholar öffnen
  165. Van der Linden, S. (2015). The Social-Psychological Determinants of Climate Change Risk Perceptions: Towards a Comprehensive Model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012 Google Scholar öffnen
  166. Vanhuysse, P., & Goerres, A. (Eds.) (2012). Ageing Populations in Post-Industrial Democracies: Comparative Studies of Policies and Politics. London: Routledge. Google Scholar öffnen
  167. Volkens, A., Bara, J., Budge, I., McDonald, M. D., & Klingemann, H.‑D. (Eds.) (2014). Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  168. Wåhlberg, A. A. F. & Sjöberg, L. (2000). Risk Perception and the Media. Journal of Risk Research, 3(1), 31-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698700376699 Google Scholar öffnen
  169. Ward, S. J. A. (2014). Classical Liberal Theory in a Digital World. In R. S. Fortner & P. M. Fackler (Eds.), The Handbook of Media and Mass Communication Theory (pp. 3-21). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Google Scholar öffnen
  170. Weaver, W. (1955). Translation. In A. D. Booth & W. N. Locke (Eds.), Machine Translation of Languages: Fourteen Essays (pp. 15-22). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar öffnen
  171. Whitmarsh, L. (2008). Are Flood Victims More Concerned about Climate Change than other People?: The Role of Direct Experience in Risk Perception and Behavioural Response. Journal of Risk Research, 11(3), 351-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870701552235 Google Scholar öffnen
  172. Wiedemann, G. (2016). Text Mining for Qualitative Data Analysis in the Social Sciences: A Study on Democratic Discourse in Germany. Kritische Studien zur Demokratie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978­3­658­15309­0 Google Scholar öffnen
  173. Wildavsky, A. & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of Risk Perception: Who Fears What and Why? Daedalus, 119(4), 41-60. Google Scholar öffnen
  174. Wlezien, C. (2005). On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with ‘Most Important Problem’. Electoral Studies, 24(4), 555-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2005.01.009 Google Scholar öffnen
  175. Wolling, J. & Arlt, D. (2017). Media Coverage on International Climate Summits and Negotiations. In Oxford University Press (Ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Science (pp. 1-26). https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.362 Google Scholar öffnen
  176. Woods, J. (2007). What We Talk About When We Talk About Terrorism: Elite Press Coverage of Terrorism Risk from 1997 to 2005. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(3), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X07302064 Google Scholar öffnen
  177. World Economic Forum (2006). Global Risks 2006. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2006.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  178. World Economic Forum (2011). Global Risks 2011: Sixth Edition. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2011.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  179. World Economic Forum (2018). The Global Risks Report 2018: 13th Edition. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRR18_Report.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  180. World Economic Forum (2019). The Global Risks Report 2019: 14th Edition. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2019.pdf Google Scholar öffnen
  181. Zhao, X. (2009). Media Use and Global Warming Perceptions. Communication Research, 36(5), 698-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209338911 Google Scholar öffnen
  182. Zinn, J. O. (2008a). A Comparison of Sociological Theorizing on Risk and Uncertainty. In J. O. Zinn (Ed.), Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty: An Introduction (pp. 158-210). Malden MA: Blackwell Pub. Google Scholar öffnen
  183. Zinn, J. O. (2008b). Introduction: The Contribution of Sociology to the Discourse on Risk and Uncertainty. In J. O. Zinn (Ed.), Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty: An Introduction (pp. 1-17). Malden MA: Blackwell Pub. Google Scholar öffnen

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus dem Schwerpunkt "Medienpolitik & Medienethik", "Politische Kommunikation", "Terrorismus & Genozid"
Cover des Buchs: Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Sammelband Vollzugriff
Greta Olson, Christian Schmidt, Benno Zabel, Jochen Bung, Franziska Martinsen, Hanna Meißner
Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Cover des Buchs: Israel in deutschen Medien
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Jonas Hessenauer, Lukas Uwira
Israel in deutschen Medien
Cover des Buchs: Verhängnisvolle Antizipationen
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Carina Schatten
Verhängnisvolle Antizipationen
Cover des Buchs: Die Verwaltung der inneren Sicherheit
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Eckhard Schröter, Michael Ibrahim
Die Verwaltung der inneren Sicherheit
Cover des Buchs: Media Literacy
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Guido Keel, Wibke Weber
Media Literacy

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login via Open Athens
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex