<%BANNER%>

Communicating Cultural Risks

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024495/00001

Material Information

Title: Communicating Cultural Risks A Content Analysis of the Save Ellis Island Inc. and Friends of the Hunley Inc. Historic Preservation Campaigns
Physical Description: 1 online resource (62 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ofarrill, Kaitlin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: amplification, communication, cultural, ellis, historic, hunley, island, preservation, risk, social
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study explored the concept of the social definition of risk, proposing that if current social risk literature is correct, non-physical risks, like cultural risks, can be treated the same as physical risks benefiting from the same risk communication, specifically risk amplification, strategies used to communicate physical risks. Using historic preservation campaigns to represent cultural risk campaigns, this study investigated the presence of risk messaging and/or amplification in the campaigns as well as media framing of the preservation effort. A literature review examined risk communication research, specifically the theory of the social amplification of risk, and framing research. Both a checklist for risk message content and the social amplification of risk framework were used to create a coding structure to identify risk communication elements, risk amplification elements and media frames in the tactics and media coverage of the preservation effort. A content analysis of the campaigns of Save Ellis Island Inc. and Friends of the Hunley Inc. revealed that the threat of losing a historic site or artifact not only is communicated as a risk by the preservation organizations but also is viewed as a risk by the media. However, the strength of the risk amplification attempt and its success at influencing media framing depends on the overall state of the preservation campaign.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kaitlin Ofarrill.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Kiousis, Spiro K.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024495:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024495/00001

Material Information

Title: Communicating Cultural Risks A Content Analysis of the Save Ellis Island Inc. and Friends of the Hunley Inc. Historic Preservation Campaigns
Physical Description: 1 online resource (62 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Ofarrill, Kaitlin
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: amplification, communication, cultural, ellis, historic, hunley, island, preservation, risk, social
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: This study explored the concept of the social definition of risk, proposing that if current social risk literature is correct, non-physical risks, like cultural risks, can be treated the same as physical risks benefiting from the same risk communication, specifically risk amplification, strategies used to communicate physical risks. Using historic preservation campaigns to represent cultural risk campaigns, this study investigated the presence of risk messaging and/or amplification in the campaigns as well as media framing of the preservation effort. A literature review examined risk communication research, specifically the theory of the social amplification of risk, and framing research. Both a checklist for risk message content and the social amplification of risk framework were used to create a coding structure to identify risk communication elements, risk amplification elements and media frames in the tactics and media coverage of the preservation effort. A content analysis of the campaigns of Save Ellis Island Inc. and Friends of the Hunley Inc. revealed that the threat of losing a historic site or artifact not only is communicated as a risk by the preservation organizations but also is viewed as a risk by the media. However, the strength of the risk amplification attempt and its success at influencing media framing depends on the overall state of the preservation campaign.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Kaitlin Ofarrill.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Kiousis, Spiro K.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024495:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

COMMUNICATING CULTURAL RISKS: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF THE S AVE ELLIS ISLAND INC. AND FRIENDS OF THE HUNLEY INC. HI STORIC PRESERVATION CAMPAIGNS By KAITLIN OFARRILL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009 1

PAGE 2

2009 Kaitlin OFarrill 2

PAGE 3

To my mother and father 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Foremost, I thank my family for all of their love and support. I thank Florida Power & Light Company for introducing me to the fi eld of public relations, specifically risk communication. At the University of Florida, I thank my thesis committee chair, Dr. Spiro Kiousis, and committee members, Dr. Debbie M. Tr eise and Dr. Youjin Choi, for all of their expertise and guidance. Finall y, I thank my classmates for their advice and friendship. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .10 Research Problem...................................................................................................................12 Definitions..............................................................................................................................13 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................15 Risk Communication Basics...................................................................................................15 The Social Amplification of Risk...........................................................................................18 Framing...................................................................................................................................22 Historic Preservation Campaigns...........................................................................................23 Save Ellis Island Inc........................................................................................................25 Friends of the Hunley Inc................................................................................................27 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....28 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................3 1 Sample....................................................................................................................................31 Save Ellis Island Inc. Sample..........................................................................................32 Friends of the Hunley Inc. Sample..................................................................................33 Measurement.................................................................................................................... .......33 Validity and Reliability...........................................................................................................34 Analysis....................................................................................................................... ...........35 4 FINDINGS..................................................................................................................... .........38 Save Ellis Island Inc.......................................................................................................... .....38 Answer to RQ1 on Messaging.........................................................................................38 Answer to RQ2 on Framing............................................................................................40 Use of the Word Save..................................................................................................42 Friends of the Hunley Inc.......................................................................................................42 Answer to RQ1 on Messaging.........................................................................................43 Answer to RQ2 on Framing............................................................................................45 Use of the Word Save..................................................................................................46 5

PAGE 6

5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......51 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ..........54 Suggestions for Future Research............................................................................................54 APPENDIX A CODING GUIDE................................................................................................................. ..55 B BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY....................................................................................................58 REFERENCE LIST.......................................................................................................................59 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................62 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Content analysis coding structure......................................................................................36 3-2 Reliability test results.........................................................................................................37 4-1 Findings for Save Ellis Island Inc......................................................................................47 4-2 Save Ellis Island Inc.s use of save................................................................................48 4-3 Findings for Friends of the Hunley Inc..............................................................................49 4-4 Friends of the Hunley Inc.s use of save........................................................................50 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Checklist for written risk messages...................................................................................30 2-2 The social amplification of risk framework.......................................................................30 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Mast er of Arts in Mass Communication COMMUNICATING CULTURAL RISKS: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF THE S AVE ELLIS ISLAND INC. AND FRIENDS OF THE HUNLEY INC. HI STORIC PRESERVATION CAMPAIGNS By Kaitlin OFarrill May 2009 Chair: Spiro K. Kiousis Major: Mass Communication This study explored the concept of the social definition of risk, propos ing that if current social risk literature is correct non-physical risks, like cultural risks, can be treated the same as physical risks benefiting from the same risk communication, specifically risk amplification, strategies used to communicate physical risks. Using historic preservation campaigns to represent cultural risk campaigns, this study inves tigated the presence of risk messaging and/or amplification in the campaigns as well as media framing of the preservation effort. A literature review examined risk communicati on research, specifically the theory of the social amplification of risk, and framing research. Both a checkli st for risk message c ontent and the social amplification of risk framework were used to create a coding structure to identify risk communication elements, risk amplification elemen ts and media frames in the tactics and media coverage of the preservation effort. A content anal ysis of the campaigns of Save Ellis Island Inc. and Friends of the Hunley Inc. revealed that the th reat of losing a historic site or artifact not only is communicated as a risk by the preservation orga nizations but also is viewed as a risk by the media. However, the strength of the risk amp lification attempt and it s success at influencing media framing depends on the overall st ate of the preservation campaign. 9

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Traditionally, risk was defined as the simple and objective threat of physical harm to a public or environment. Risk management a nd communication, therefore, traditionally focused on the technical aspects of a risk, such as the statistical probability of occurrence and how many people could be affected. But as innovation pr oduced more complex and more contradictory risks to compete for societys limited amount of attention, public demand for greater risk management to evaluate and rank each new risk increased. From a sociological perspective, the need for risk management has defined todays modern/post-development society so much that German social theorist Ulrich Beck coined th e term risk society to describe it (1992). Complex technological advances changed the nature of risk from being understandable, knowable and controllable such as a hurricane in historic/pre-d evelopment society to incomprehensible, unknowable and uncontrollable such as mad cow disease today (Beck, 1992). Accordingly, the challenge pr esented to risk communicators is to meet the rising public expectations for risk containment and reduction in the face of the growing pace and complexity of risk generation (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996, p. 105). In world of risks, people need to define criteria that allow them to prioritize thei r actions and to neglect those risks that appear trivial (Renn, 1992, p. 54). As a result, a multidisciplinary field of risk study has developed that broadens the debate about risk beyond the technical considerati ons to explain the divergence between public and expert view s of risk (Krimsky & Golding, 1992, p. 355). In other words, why do some people view something as a risk, while others do not? The study of risk draws upon contributions fr om both the natural a nd social sciences (Krimsky, 1992, p. 6). Most risk re searchers today agree that in a world full of potential risks, the definition of risk is based on perception. Ther efore, risks are subjective. They are socially 10

PAGE 11

and not technically defined. Socio-political stru ctures and processes can alter the perception of risk to be different than the technical or scientific understanding of experts (Slovic, 1992). Furthermore, social and cultural constructs can amplify or increase th e perception of a risk (Slovic, 1992). The theory of the social amplification of risk was developed in the late 1980s by Roger E. Kasperson and researchers at Clark University and Decision Research (Kasperson et al., 1988). The theory established a framework that integrates the different dimensions of risk, such as technical, social, cultural and psychologi cal dimensions, into a single model of risk construction. Since then, the framework has been widely shared in the risk community as well as with other social scientis ts (Kasperson, 1992, p. 154). The so cial amplification of risk framework is viewed as the most promising effort to date for in tegrating cognitive and sociological approaches to risk (Krimsky & Golding, 1992, p. 359). The social construct of risk implies that ri sk communicators must work to define risk by their own standards favorable to their cause. To achieve their orga nizations goals, risk communicators can heighten or attenuate perceptions of risk and shape risk behavior (Kasperson, 1992, p. 158). For example, public hea lth campaigns often attempt to amplify the risk of a health issue to mo tivate target publics to take proper precautionary measures. Environmentalists also amplify the risk of global warming to raise support for environmental protection legislation. In general, communicators working for an issue that is not perceived as a risk by the target public can amplify the target publics perception of the risk to encourage specific behavior. The social construct of risk al so implies that risk can involve threats of harm to people and nature but also to other things or ends th at people value, such as community or political freedom (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996, p. 96). Ther efore, threats to cu ltural values can be 11

PAGE 12

perceived as risks just like phys ical risks and, accordingly, can be appropriate subjects for risk management and communication. Furthermore, risk amplification strategies theoretically can be used beyond physical risk campaigns, like nuclear power or health communication campaigns, to more culturally based issue campaigns. Research Problem Although risk researchers agree that risks are socially define d concepts that do not have to be physical threats to a peopl e or environment, there is prac tically no research examining the construct and management of a risk that threatens solely a cultural value. Most risk communication research has been conducted with phys ical risks as subjects. Even the social amplification of risk framework was created using physical risks, like nuclear power, as examples (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996). If the theory of the social amplification of risk holds true, threats to values, just like physical threats, should be able to be perceived as risks by target publics and should benefit from risk management and communication strategies. Risk scholars need to expand the body of knowledge, examined in the following literature review, concerning the communication and amplifica tion of non-physical risks. Study of historic preservation campaigns is an ideal starting point to advance this area of research. Historic preservation ca mpaigns work to preserve cultura lly relevant sites or artifacts that hold some kind of value to society. Therefore, the loss of the item in question should be deemed as a cultural risk. A l ook at historic preservation campai gns in the U.S. reveals that these campaigns may try to heighten public concer n over the cultural threat s of losing historical sites and artifacts in order to ra ise funds and support for the pres ervation efforts. This strategy, although probably not intentional, is a prime example of amplifying risk to shape the desired risk behavior. This study investigat ed to what extent risk comm unication and/or amplification messages are used in historic preservation camp aigns and the media framing of the preservation 12

PAGE 13

efforts by conducting a content analysis of the work of two prominent historic preservation organizations. The first organization is Save Ellis Isla nd Inc., a nonprofit organization implementing a national campaign to raise funds to preserve historic buildings on Ellis Island in New York City. This campaigns tactics can include risk strategies that amplify th e risk of losing the historical buildings by emphasizing the poten tial loss of cultural identity, as illustrated by the campaigns We Are Ellis Island ads (We Are Ellis Island, 2008). The second organization is Friends of the Hunley Inc., a nonprofit in South Carolina implementing a campaign to raise funds to preserve and exhibit the H.L. Hunley, the world s first successful combat submarine, which sank during the United States Civil War. This campai gns tactics can include st rategies that amplify the risk of losing a piece of South Carolina culture (Friends of the Hunley Inc., 2008). Definitions Before any review of the literature, clarity calls for definitions of the ke y research terms. The original, technical definition of risk focused narrowly on the probability of events and the magnitude of the consequences (Kasperson, 1992, p. 155). The current social definition of risk states that risk is made up of undesirable ou tcomes, probability of occurrence, and state of reality, and all risk perspectiv es provide different conceptualiz ations of these three elements (Renn, 1992, p.58). For example, Kasperson defines risk as in part the threat of direct harm that happens to people and their environments regardle ss of their social constructs, and in part the threat associated with the social conceptions and structures that shape the nature of other harms (1992, p. 161). Risk communication is defined as p art of the science of risk assessment and the process of risk management (Lundgren, 1994, p. 1). Risk assessment is determining the nature of the risk, and risk management is creating and implementing solutions to mitigate the risk. The theory of the social amplification of risk is defined as the cultural, social, and individual 13

PAGE 14

structures and processes that shape the social experience with risk (Kasperson, 1992, p. 161). Amplification is the enlargement and attenuation th e reduction of the risk burden to society or the threat to society (Kasperson, 1992, p. 161). Medi a framing will be considered as a result of an organizations attempts to pos ition the risk and shape the medias frame of the risk. Finally, historic preservation can be schol arly defined as an effort to preserve the ability of places, buildings or objects to communicat e a cultural or social meaning. 14

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review aims to provide a context in which to analyze the communication and social amplification of a cultural risk, specifically the risk of losing historic sites or artifacts. First, the review looks at the basics of risk communication to determine what constitutes a risk communication message, with Regina Lundgrens (1994) checklist for written risk messages as the main reference. Second, the review consider s the social amplificatio n of risk, specifically Kasperson and Kaspersons (1996) framework, to de termine what factors and agents explain the construct of risk and the outcomes of risk amplif ication. Third, the review examines framing to analyze how risk communication is used to position risk and shape the media frame. Fourth, the review briefly summarizes the history of histor ic preservation campaigns in the United States and highlights the two organiza tions for study. Finally, this studys research questions are presented. Risk Communication Basics Renowned risk communication consultant Lundgren states that ri sk communication in professional practice begins with the risk assessmen t, which is the process that characterizes the risk and assesses the probability of occurrence and outcomes (1994, p. 5). Next, the information from the risk assessment is used to create a risk management plan that is then communicated to target publics, t hose people who could be affected both directly and indirectly by the risk. The purpose of risk communication can be to simply inform and build a consensus or to motivate a target public to action (L undgren, 1994). Lundgren divi des risk communication into three types according to function: care comm unication, to deal with risks for which the danger and the way to manage it have already been well determined; consensus communication, 15

PAGE 16

to inform and encourage groups to work together to reach a decision about how the risk will be managed; and crisis communication, to deal with extreme, sudden danger (2004, p. 4). Risk communicators must work to get thei r message out about a risk before any competitors because whoever controls the definiti on of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand (Slovic, 1999, p. 1). Palmlund stat es that societal evalua tion of risk must be seen as a contest, where the participants offe r competing views of reality (1992, p. 199). To produce an effective message, Lundgren (1994) pr ovides a checklist, Figu re 2.1, for information that should be included in a ba sic risk communication message. The nature of the risk refers to what the risk is and who is affected (Lundgre n, 1994, p. 109). Alternatives refers to possible alternative actions that could be taken instead of the action that is causing the risk (Lundgren, 1994, p. 109). Uncertainties refers to the a ccuracy of the risk assessment (Lundgren, 1994, p. 110). Risk management refers to how the risk will be managed (Lundgren, 1994, p. 110). Risk benefits refers to any pos itive effects of the presence of the risk (Lundgren, 1994, p. 110). Audience actions refers to the actions the audience can take to manage the risk (Lundgren, 1994, p. 111). Goals and content, contact in formation, glossary, metric conversion table, helpful hints, inde x, and list of related information all refer to the basic informative content about the risk and the or ganization producing the message (Lundgren, 1994, p. 111). As with any communications message, risk communication messages must fit the target publics, so risk communicators mu st research the target audien ce before creating any messaging. Risk messages will be more effective if they address the audiences needs, but they will fail if they do not address key audience concerns or account for existing beliefs, no matter how factually inaccurate they may be (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, p. 17). As Slovic states, The 16

PAGE 17

issue is not whether these are legitimate, rational considerations, but how to integrate them into risk analyses and policy decisions (1992, p. 150) Through their studies on risk messages, White et al. found that trust was greatest for me ssages congruent with peoples prior attitudes (2003, p. 724). Therefore, if something is not pe rceived as being partic ularly risky to begin with, then risky messages tend to be trusted less because they are incongruent with the prior attitudes (White et al., 2003, p. 724). Risk co mmunicators must remember that perception is reality (Lundgren, 1994, p.54). Risk communicators also must fit a credible, as defined by the target public, source for the message to the audience. As Perloff explains, credibility is a complex psychological or interpersonal communication construct, with e xpertise and trustworth iness as the two key attributes (2003, p. 159). Covello is credited with idea that when people perceive themselves to be at risk, they understand and put into practice only those messages that come from sources they perceive as trustworthy and credible (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, p. 25). Kasperson states that membership in social groups shape the sele ction of information that the individual regards as significant (1992, p. 159). Lundgren and Mc Makin propose that the single biggest contributor to increasing trust and credibility is the organiza tions ability to care or show empathy (2004, p. 25). When selecting a s pokesperson for risk communication, Lundgren (1994) suggests three types and their situations: an expert wh en the audience is technically minded and not hostile, a risk manager when the audience is interested in accountability and is hostile, and a communications specialist when th e audience is interested in relaying the information to others and is not hostile. Other factors that influence the effectiveness of a risk message are the nature of the risk and the risk management. Risk communications fail to persuade target publics to act if there is 17

PAGE 18

no clear message, no perceived benefits to the audience, no specific call for action, and too much emphasis on the organization instead of th e audience (Wilcox, 2005). Studying emergency response planning, Heath and Palenchar (2000) found that when people believe that a risk event is likely to occur, they are more willing to seek and accept information about risk management to create a greater sense of cont rol. In addition to poorly designed communication messages, audience outrage and disagreements on the magnitude of the risk can also constrain effective risk communication (Lundgren, 1994). To help make sure that risk messages will be accepted, the audience must be allowed to participate in the risk mana gement development process (Lundgren, 1994, p. 51). The Social Amplif ication of Risk All communication occurs as a structured process within evolving systems of related components and activities (Cutlip et al., 2006, p. 202). Accordingly, risk is in part an objective threat of harm to people and in part a produc t of culture and social experience (Kasperson, 1992, p. 158). As Slovic states, dange r is real, but risk is social ly constructed (1999, p. 1). The theory of the social amplification of risk is based on the thesis th at events pertaining to hazards interact with psychological, social, instit utional, and cultural processes in ways that can heighten or attenuate percepti on of risk and shape risk behavior (Kasperson, 1992, p. 157-158). Social groups need to define criteria that allow them to prioritize thei r actions and to neglect those risks that appear trivial (Renn, 1992, p. 54). The social amplification of risk framework is based on the definition that risks are interactive phenomena that i nvolve both the biophysical and social worlds (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996, p. 96). This study used the revised 1996 version of the framework by Kasperson and Kasperson, shown in Figure 22. The framework shows how sources of information; information channels; social stations or major agents; indivi dual stations or personal 18

PAGE 19

considerations; and institutional, group, and indivi dual behavior or actions interact to either amplify or attenuate a risk (Kasperson & Kasp erson, 1996). Then, the degree of amplification or attenuation will affect the extent to which risk ripple effects accompany the risk (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996, p. 99). The ripple effects show that the social c onstruct of risk enables risks to affect more groups than just those traditionally considered to be directly affected by the risk. The implication of this ripple effect for risk communicators is to actively plan for and respond to such ripples (Lundgren & McMakin, 2004, p. 24). Finally, the framework shows how risk amplification is manifested through different impacts. Many researchers have used this framework to explore ideas about the social amplification of risk, showing the frameworks value. For exam ple, renowned risk researcher and consultant Peter Sandman (1987) defines risk as the sum of hazard and outrage. The hazard is how much harm the risk can do, and the outrage is how ups et people the risk can make people. Sandman argues that the public responds more to outrage th an to hazard, or, in other words, outrage has a more substantial impact on peop les perception of risk than the does the technical detail of the hazard (Sandman, 1987 & Sandman et al. 1993). Therefore, as social theories of risk suggest, the definition of risk depends more on pe oples perception of the risk than the actual risk itself. Experimental studies show that when the risks are identical, subjects report much higher perceived threat and action intentions in the high-outrage, low-risk situation than in the low-outrage, low-risk situati on (Sandman et al. 1998). The main factors of outrage are voluntariness, control, fairness, familiarity, memorability, and dread (Sandman, 1987). A person will consider a risk to be more accep table if the risk is voluntary, if he or she has control over the risk prevention, if the risk is spread equally among the population, if the risk is familiar, if there is no memorable incident of the risk occurring, and if 19

PAGE 20

there is no stigma attached to the risk (Sa ndman, 1987). Lundgren al so addresses audience control over the risk when talk ing about the appropriate langua ge to use for written risk communication messages, stating Avoid any kind of language that might give your audience the feeling that they have no control (1994, p. 113). But if a communicator wishes to amplify a risk, he or she should do the opposite. When a target public is under-reac ting to a risk, Sandman (2004) recommends what he calls the activist so lution of mobilizing the target publics outrage. To amplify the target publics percepti on of risk, communicators will work to make a hazard more outrageous (Sandman, 1987). For example, the safety advocacy group Mothers Against Drunk Driving creates commercials th at use dread (of death) and memorability (gruesome or emotional visuals) factors to amplify the risk of drunk driving. Krimsky points out that the framework is causal, not in the sens e of positing laws of causality, but rather in the sense of outlining a causal process (p. 12). The social amplification of risk concept is dynamic, taking into account the continuing learning and social interactions resulting from social experien ce with risk (Kasperson, 1992, p. 160) Most studies testing the framework have considered how the framework expl ains physical risks. For example, through a study involving genetically modified foods, Fewer et al. found that changes in the volume and content of risk reporting about a particular hazard can produce attitude changes consistent with those suggested by the social amplifica tion of risk framework (2002, p. 708). Although risk communication study over the year s has justified the general concept of Kasperson and Kaspersons framework, the theory is still being perfected. The different opinions about risk and the value of the social amplification of risk framework within the social science community center on the relative importa nce of different factors influencing risk construct (Krimsky & Golding, 1992, p. 356). Tes ting the framework from the perspective of 20

PAGE 21

government agencies in the United Kingdom, Br eakwell and Barnett (2001) found that to improve the predictive power of the framework, cr itical points when the social image of the hazard changes need to be included. In other words, the framework needs to address how and when turning points in the public perception of risk can occur. Studying eco-industrial development in Canada, Masuda and Gavin (2002) found that place also can be inserted into the framework to help the understand ing of the influence of culture in the social amplification of risk. To conclude the literature revi ew of the social amplification of risk, clarity calls for a look at how communicators for historic preservation campaigns may use the social amplification of risk framework to amplify the cultural risk of failing to preserve the historic site or artifact. In this case, the risk event to start out the campa ign would be the imminent deterioration of the historic site or artifact Next in the framework, the sources of information would be a first-hand experience with the preservation effort, the pr eservation organization fo r direct communication or the news media for indirect communication. Th e information channels would be the same as for any risk, either first-hand accounts, profession al media channels or social networks. The social stations for historic preservation campaigns also would be the same as for any other risk, as opinion leaders, cultural/socia l groups, government agencies, voluntary organizations, and the news media all may have interests in the preserva tion and wish to amplify the cultural risk to encourage more support of the preservation. But just a with any other type of risk, the influence of the individual stations depend on the individual and his or her involvement with the historic preservation. In the institutional and social behavior section of the framework, the promoted behavior in response to the cultural risk could involve attitude changes, political/social action, organizational responses and social protest that promote the preservati on. The ripple effects 21

PAGE 22

from this feedback and interaction process could cause the historic preservation effort to reach not only those in the immediate vici nity of the site or artifact but also people and organizations further away, especially if the preservation is of national cultural significance. Finally, the impacts of the social amplifica tion of the cultural risk could i nvolve an increase in the public perception of the cultural risk, heighten community concern, or regulatory action to support the preservation. Framing The social amplification of risk frameworks emphasis on signals for amplification has enabled the framework to integrate media analysis into a theory of risk (Krimsky & Golding, 1992, p. 359). Framing is the selection and treatm ent of information to maximize a certain understanding about a topic. Like the social theories of risk, the concept of framing is based on the idea that an issue in the public arena is defined by the influence of not only the media but also by other groups as well, such as opinion le aders and organizations (Kiousis et al., 2007). For example, Zoch and Molleda state that cult ure or a social grouping is the origin for many commonly accepted frames (2007, p. 281). To fram e a risk and the desired risk behavior, communicators must build the media ag enda with information subsidies. Creating a model of media rela tions, Zoch and Molleda state that framing and information subsidies are just tools media rela tions practitioners can use to pa rticipate in the building process of the media agenda (2007, p. 290). Agenda build ing relates to issue salience, or how much prominence the issue has with the audience and ho w well it resonates, and cognitive priming, or the connection the audience has with the issue (Cutlip et al., 2006). According to numerous studies, about half of the cont ent found in mass media today is supplied by public relations sources (Wilcox, 2005, p. 42). 22

PAGE 23

Most people learn about risk s through information systems rather than personal experience, so the mass media are major agents of risk amplification (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996). But researchers have different opinions about just how powerful of agents the media are. Lundgren and McMakin state that the news me dia in particular has been credited with amplifying risk messages (2004, p. 24). On the other hand, Wilcox (2005) argues that the media may set the agenda in terms of what people think about, but they ha ve limited influence in telling people what to think. According to the sociocultura l model of persuasion, messages presented via the mass media may provide the appearance of consensus regarding orientation and action with respect to a given object or goal of persuasion (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach 1982 as cited in Cutlip et al., 2006). Studying media covera ge of risk in the U.K., Petts et al. found that the media are not transmitters of official info rmation on risk as suggested by the linear SARF framework, but dynamic interpreters and mediator s (2001, p. ix). Furthermore, the media do not act as a single unit, so media outlets should be treated as different agents with different amounts of influence on the risk construction process. Historic Preservation Campaigns Historic preservation in the U.S. is generally agreed to have begun when the countrys first preservation group, the Mount Ve rnon Ladies Association of th e Union, was founded in 1853 to save Mount Vernon, George Washington's deterior ating estate. In 1949, the U.S. National Trust for Historic Preservation, a pr ivately funded non-profit organizati on, was established to provide leadership, education, advocacy, and resources to save America's diverse historic places and revitalize our communities (NTHP, 2008). Th e trust helped pass the landmark National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 th at established the National Regist er of Historic Places, which today recognizes more than 80,000 historic districts, sites, buildings, stru ctures and objects. A National Register designation qualifies property for financial assistance from governmental 23

PAGE 24

funds for historic preservation when these funds are available (NTHP, 2008). The act also authorized the ability to create legislation to fund preservation activities and encouraged the establishment of state historic preservation offices. But government funds are limited, and the competition for the available funding is difficult. Accordingly, historic preservation campaigns usually run by nonprofit organizations, must raise funds from private and business sources. Nonprofit organizations working in historic preservation are not real ly controversial in their mission, but they still must compete for public support in the form of volunt eers, donations and public fundi ng (Cutlip et al., 2006, p. 463). Nonprofits have come to rely on public relatio ns campaigns to confront the challenges of attracting individual volunteers and obtaining funding from donors and other public and private sources (Cutlip et al., 2006, p. 463). Public rela tions practitioners in nonprofit organizations work to define the organization, develop channels of communication with target publics, create a favorable climate for fund-raising, develop and support the organiza tions public policy, and motivate internal stakeholders (Cutlip et al., 2006, p. 449). Most historic preservation campaigns are conduct ed at the state or local level where target publics have strong connections to the local cultur e represented by the building or artifact. But some campaigns to save historic sites or arti facts of federal significan ce are conducted at the national level. Generally, the outra ge at the threat of losing a hist oric site or artifact is low until the threat of teardown or complete deterioration is imminent. Bu t outrage is always high after a historic preservation effort fails and the structur e is destroyed, especially if the demolition is unexpected and beyond the control of the target public (Sandman, 1987). For instance, the New York City public was shocked and outraged after the demolition of the famous Pennsylvania Station in 1964, resulting in a city landmarks preservation law (The Municipal Art Society of 24

PAGE 25

New York, 2008). Therefore, hi storic preservation has the potential for motivating inactive publics to become motivated publics, a key ingredient of risk amplification. Two campaigns were selected for this study to represent the two main types of historic preservation campaigns: for historic sites and for historic artifacts. The campaigns also were chosen for this study based on the amount of cam paign tactic information and news coverage accessible for analysis. The following secti ons explain the background of each campaign. Save Ellis Island Inc. Save Ellis Island Inc. was in cluded in this study as an example of an ongoing historic preservation campaign for the preservation of a historic site. Between 1892 and 1954, more than 12 million immigrants passed throug h Ellis Island (Save Ellis Is land Inc., 2008). The island was closed in 1954, and the buildings were left to de teriorate. The National Park Service was given legal title to the isla nd in 1965 when it was declared part of the Statue of Liberty National Monument. During the 1990s, the buildings on th e islands north side were restored, and the Ellis Island Immigration Museum was opened. But lack of funds prevented a complete restoration of the island, and the remaining 30 build ings on the south side were still left to deteriorate. In 1996, the World Monuments Fund named Ellis Islands south side one of the worlds most threatened culturall y significant sites, and in 1997, the National Trust for Historic Preservations placed the south side on the list of Americas Most Endangered Historic Places (Save Ellis Island Inc, 2008). To raise the funds necessary to restore and beneficially reuse the remaining buildings on Ellis Island, Save Ellis Island Inc., a nonprofit organization, was founded in February 2001 in Mt. Olive, New Jersey. In a partnership agreem ent with the National Park Service, Save Ellis Island Inc. was recognized as the primary nonprofit for this preserva tion effort and promised to conduct fundraising campaigns with goals of raisi ng at least $1 million and that are national in 25

PAGE 26

scope and highly visible in nature to benefit the rehabilitation and eventual reuse of Ellis Island (Save Ellis Island Inc ., 2008). The organization goals ar e to establish the Ellis Island Institute and Conference Center, maintain and grow the partnership with the National Park Service, develop a comprehensive fundraising pl an, plan and implement a national awareness campaign, and plan and implement a national capital fundraising campaign (Save Ellis Island Inc., 2008). The organizations board of directors is made up of leaders in business, philanthropy, government, historic pr eservation, history and education. The Save Ellis Island Inc. campaign had a sl ow start. Right after the organizations establishment in early 2001, the Sept. 11 terrori st attacks in New York City put government efforts toward the south side pr eservation on hold. To date, the U.S. Congress, the State of New Jersey and the National Park Service have supp lied $8.6 million for the restoration, and two Save Americas Treasures grants matched with mone y from the State of New Jersey and private sources have totaled $4.9 million, for a total of $ 13.5 million for the south side buildings (Save Ellis Island Inc. 2008). But the organizations sa ys the south side rest oration is only half complete. To help boost donations to finish the remaining half of the restoration, Save Ellis Island Inc. together with Phillips-Van Heusen Corporat ion, which gave a $500,000 donation, launched the national We Are Ellis Island ca mpaign to raise the awareness and donations needed to meet a goal of completing the restoration and reuse of Ellis Islands remaining buildings within 10 years (Sav e Ellis Island Inc., 2008). The historic preservati on effort has support from various national and local non-profits, but this national campaign focuses on individua ls of all backgrounds. The campaign aspires to capture the essence of Ellis Isla nd by sharing the stories of the immigrants who arrived here seeking equal rights, over coming challenges and enduring life's many struggles, all to create new opportunities for th emselves and generations to come (We Are Ellis Island, 2008). 26

PAGE 27

Celebrities like Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps as well as average Americans are encouraged through TV and magazine ads to visit the campaigns Web site to share their family stories, read others, and donate to the preservati on effort (We Are Ellis Island, 2008). Friends of the Hunley Inc. Friends of the Hunley Inc. was included in this study to represent a historic preservation campaign for an artifact. The H.L. Hunley was a Confederate submarine in the U.S. Civil War and the worlds first successful submarine, having completed her mission to sink the Unions USS Housatonic on Feb. 17, 1864 in Charleston, Sout h Carolina (Friends of the Hunley Inc., 2008). But minutes after her historic feat, the Hunley sank, drowning all eight crew men. The submarine was finally discovered in May 1995 by archeologists. In 1995, the Hunley Commission was created by the State of South Carolina to acquire, recover, and preserve the Hunley for public display. The Hunley was fina lly raised in August 2000 and transported to its permanent home at the Warren Lasch Conservation Center in Charleston. There, archeologists began to invent cutting-edge techniques to pres erve the submarine (Frien d of the Hunley Inc., 2008). The State of South Carolina appropriates funding to the Hunley Commission for the preservation of the submarine (F riends of the Hunley Inc., 20 08). To supplement this funding and provide public outreach, the Hunley Commis sion created Friends of the Hunley Inc., a nonprofit organization, in 1997. The Hunley Commi ssion appoints members of Friends of the Hunley Inc. The goals of Friends of the Hunley Inc. are to recover the remains of the brave men w ho gave their lives and honor them with the proper burial that they earned; to solve the myst ery of that first ever submarine attack in 1864; and to conserve one of the greatest, most sought-after artifacts in the history of naval warfare (Friends of the Hunley Inc., 2008). 27

PAGE 28

The organization also runs the conservation cen ter and museum that houses the Hunley and conducts educational programs for elementary to college students. To achieve its goals, Friends of the Hunley Inc. conducts a fundraising and awareness campaign mainly in the southern United States although it has received donations from around the world. Almost immediatel y after its establishment, th e organization received enough donations from people and other or ganizations to meet the fundi ng requirements to raise and restore the submarine for five years (Friends of the Hunley Inc., 2008). Since then, Friends of the Hunley Inc. has never been at a loss fo r funding. Today, the organization has about 35 sponsors, both corporate, like Bellsouth and Duke Energy, and non-profit, like the National Geographic Society and the University of South Carolina, and c ontinues to receive funding from the Hunley Commission. The Hunl ey Commission has also reached an agreement with Clemson University to construct a new conservation facil ity for the submarine and other naval artifacts, further emphasis the preservations impact on adva ncing preservation technology (Friends of the Hunley Inc., 2008). Research Questions To motivate donations, practitioners in histor ic preservation organizations may emphasize the cultural value of the historic building or artifact and then a ttempt to amplify threat of the cultural loss if the preservation fails. In order to determine th e accuracy of this proposition, this study proposed the following research questions. RQ1: How are risk communica tion and/or amplification messages used in historic preservation campaigns? The first research question aims, first and foremost, to determine how prominent risk communication and/or amplification messages are in historic preservation campaigns. In other words, do historic preservation campaigns us e risk communication to communicate their 28

PAGE 29

campaign? Before any statements about the framing of cultural risks can be made, the use of risk communication, specifically risk am plification, to handle a cultural risk first must be confirmed to exist at all. Review of th e literature on the social amplifica tion of risk and personal exposure to historical preservation campai gns suggests that preservation failu re can be and is presented as a cultural risk and that histor ic preservation communicators use risk communication to conduct their campaigns. The content included in Lundg rens checklist for what should be included in written risk messages (Figure 2-1) and Kasperson and Kaspersons factors that influence risk construction (Sources of Information, Informa tion Channels, Social Stations, Institutional and Social Behavior, and Impacts as shown in Figure 2-2) in their social amplification of risk framework can help identify any risk communication and/or amplif ication elements present in the campaign tactics and news coverage. To answer this research question, this study stated that if the items on the checklist or th e factors in the framework are found in the historic preservation campaign tactics or media coverage, then th e historic preservation campaigns use risk communication and/or risk amplification. RQ2: What are the impacts of these risk co mmunication and/or amplification messages on media framing of the histor ic preservation campaigns? The second research question aims to determine the media framing of th e cultural risk that the campaigns present with their risk amplification messages. Th is study compared the frame of the historic preservation presen ted by the preservation organization to the frame of the historic preservation presented by the media. If the cam paigns frame the loss of the historic site or artifact as a risk, do the media do so as well? The Impacts por tion of the social amplification of risk framework (Figure 2-2) can help identify the frames in both the tactics and the news coverage of the campaigns. 29

PAGE 30

The written risk communication message includes information on the nature of the risk alternatives uncertainties risk management risk benefits contact information audience actions goals and content glossary metric conversion table helpful hints index list of related information. Figure 2-1. Checklist for written risk messa ges. [Adapted from Lundgren, R.E. (1994). Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicatin g Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. (Pages 117-118, Checklist for Written Messages). Columbus: Battelle Press.] Figure 2-2. The social amplification of risk framework [Reprinted with permission from Kasperson, R.E. & Kasperson, J.X. (1996). The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk. (Page 97, Figure 1). Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545 95-105.] 30

PAGE 31

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Content analysis enables researchers t o identify what exists by cataloging the characteristics of a given body of communicatio n content at one or more points in time (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006, pg. 152). As the proposed research questions s eek to identify risk amplification messages and media framing of historic preservation, content analysis is the ideal methodology to address these research questions. When conducting a cont ent analysis, Wimmer and Dominick recommend developing the research questions, defining the population, selecting an appropriate sample, defining the unit of analysis, creating the coding co nstruct, establishing a quantification system, training c oders, conducting a pilot study, codi ng the content, analyzing the data, and drawing conclusions (2006). Sample For population, this study considered the campai gn tactics and news coverage of the Save Ellis Island Inc. and Friends of the Hunley campa igns since the organizations creations, in 2001 and 1997, respectively, to encompass all of the or ganizations efforts at historic preservation over time. In this study, a campaign tactic was defined as any communication, such as an ad, press release or Web page, intended to promote support for the historic preservation effort. Strictly informative communications, such as We b pages explaining what the H.L. Hunley and Ellis Island buildings are or the sponsorships of the campaigns, were not considered campaign tactics as they do not promote the historic preser vation. News coverage was defined as any news item in U.S. newspapers or wire sources. Messaging of the campaigns was examined mainly through the campaign tactics, and framing was exam ined mainly through th e news coverage. Rather than select a finite sample, the rese archer conducted a census of all the available campaign tactics and news coverage of both campa igns, as the amount of information available 31

PAGE 32

is not overwhelming for coding. Overall, 32 camp aign tactics and 75 news items for Save Ellis Island Inc.s campaign were coded, and 39 tactics and 263 news items for Friends of the Hunley Inc.s campaign were coded. Save Ellis Island Inc. Sample To gather campaign tactics of Save Ellis Is land Inc.s campaign, information available on the organizations Web site as well as the We Are Ellis Island campaign Web site was used. The 32 tactics included: 16 press releases from July 2002 to February 2008 on the Save Ellis Island Inc. Web site (Out of the 18 press releases available, only those that mention the historic preservation effort, not just about facts about the buildings, were selected for coding) Five newsletter issues from 2005 to 2008 on the Save Ellis Island Inc. Web site Five magazine ads on the We Are Ellis Island Web site Scripts from two TV ads on the We Are Ellis Island Web site Join Save Ellis Island, a Web page to sign up to donate on the Save Ellis Island Inc. Web site Renew Your Membership, a Web page to renew your donation membership on the Save Ellis Island Inc. Web site The Cast Web page featuring the personal stories from celebrities and average U.S. citizens supporting Ellis Island on the We Are Ellis Island Web site The Cause Web page explaining the campa igns cause on the We Are Ellis Island Web site To gather news coverage of Save Ellis Isla nd Inc.s campaign, a LexisNexis news search of U.S. newspapers and wire sources for Save Ellis Island and Ellis Island, south side from 2001 to the present was conducted and produced 171 ite ms. Only those that were clearly about the historic preservation (whether Save Ellis Is land Inc. is mentioned explicitly or not) and not just facts about the build ings were coded, resulting in 74 item s. One news article listed on the Save Ellis Island Inc. Web site was also coded, bringing the total to 75 items. 32

PAGE 33

Friends of the Hunley Inc. Sample To gather the campaign tactics of Friends of the Hunley Inc.s campaign, the information available on the organizations Web site was used. The 39 tactics include: 34 press releases from January 2001 to October 2008 (Out of th e 96 press releases available, only those that address the preser vation effort, and not just facts about the Hunley or updates about what was discove red inside, were selected for coding) Become a Member Web page to sign up to donate Conservation Web page describi ng the historic preservation Complete the Journey: Be a part of the Hunleys Fourth Crew Web page encouraging visitors to help the preservation efforts Obstacles to Finding the Hunley Web page explaining the difficulties in preservation A Plan Evolves Web page describing the preservation To gather news coverage of Friends of th e Hunley Inc.s campaign, the 138 new items posted on the Friends of the Hunley Inc. Web site were searched and a LexisNexis news search of U.S. newspapers and wire sources for Frie nds of the Hunley from 1997 to the present was conducted and produced 300 items. Repeats were removed and only those items clearly about the historic preservation (whether Friends of the Hunley Inc. is mentioned explicitly or not) and not just about facts about the H unley or what was discovered insi de were coded for a total of 263 items. Measurement Kaid and Wadsworth assert, No step in c ontent analysis is more crucial than the formulation of categories and their units of analysis (1989, p. 203). This studys unit of analysis was each campaign tactic and news item. Each unit of analysis was assigned a reference number. This content analysis sought to de termine the prominence of risk amplification messages in each unit of analysis (RQ1) and determine the overall frame of the historical 33

PAGE 34

preservation in each unit of analysis (RQ2). Accordingly, the coding guide was divided into two foci messaging and framing. This study used the priori coding technique th at establishes the c oding structure based on theoretical concepts (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006) The coding structure takes factors from Lundgrens checklist for written risk messages (Figure 2-1) and Kasperson and Kaspersons social amplification of risk framework (Figure 22). The factors selected for use in this coding structure can describe the risk communication and amplification elements (RQ1) and framing (RQ2) present in the unit of analysis. For each fact or, categories were constructed to classify the content. The categories were de signed to be mutually exclusiv e and exhaustive, as Kaid and Wadsworth emphasize (1989). But because the sa me coding guide was to be used for the campaign tactics and news items, the factors and cat egories also had to be simple and applicable to each unit of analysis. Table 3-1 illustrates the coding structure, showing the factors used, what theoretical concept the fact ors were drawn from, and the fact ors categories that the units will be coded into. The complete coding guide, including category descriptions can be found in Appendix A. For reference, the date of publi cation was also included for coding. To further explore the use of risk amplification language, the study also included for coding how frequently the word save and its synonyms protect and r escue were used in terms of the historic preservation. Validity and Reliability The researcher acted as the primary coder for the study. To assess the reliability or objectivity of the content analysis, a volunteer was recruited to act as a reliability coder for an intercoder reliability test, the most commonly a ssessed reliability in content analysis (Kaid & Wadsworth, 1989, p. 208). The reliability test also helped identify any remaining problems with the coding guide, such as poorly defined or missi ng categories. Before conducting the reliability 34

PAGE 35

test, the reliability coder was trained by the re searcher to ensure unde rstanding of the coding guide and definitions of the different categories. Training co ders helps to produce a more reliable study (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). For the reliability test, 10% of each organizations tactic and news sample was selected for the researcher and the reliability coder to code separately for a total of 38 units (N1=38 and N2=38). Holstis formula for determining reliab ility: reliability = 2M / (N1 + N2), where M is the number of coding decisions on which two coders agree, and N1 and N2 are the total number of coding decisions by the first and second coder, respectively was used (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006, p. 167). A reliability coefficient of about 70% or higher is acceptable for exploratory studies such as this study (Neuendorf 2002 as cited in Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). The coding guide was reliable, as shown in Table 3-2. Th e coding question regarding the use of the word save and its synonyms was also reliable, with a reliability coefficient of 81.6% (M=31). Face validity was used to assess the study. Face validity assumes that an instrument adequately measures what it purports to measure if the categories are rigi dly and satisfactorily defined and if the procedures of the analysis have been adequately conducted (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006, pg. 171). The reliabili ty test shows that this studys categories are rigidly and satisfactorily designed, and, therefore, are valid. Analysis All coders were asked to input their responses into spreadsheets for data analysis. The quantification of the data for this study involves just the nominal level of data measurement. Nominal data counts the frequency of the un its in each category (Wimmer & Dominick, 2006, p. 161). The Statistical Package for the Social Sc iences was used to run descriptive statistical analysis of the coding data, spec ifically frequency percentages. Frequencies are obtained to show the occurrence of particular elements or phenomena (Kaid & Wadsworth, 1989, p. 210). 35

PAGE 36

Table 3-1. Content analysis coding structure Focus Factor Theoretical concept Categories Channel Information Channel in social amplification of risk (Figure 2-2) (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996) News story, opinion story, press release, organization Web page, organization newsletter, print ad, or TV ad Source Sources of Information in social amplification of risk (Figure 2-2) (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996) Organization or media outlet (listed) Key influencer Social Stations in social amplification of risk (Figure 2-2) (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996) Opinion leaders, social/cultural group, government agency, organization, news media, individual, or no key influencer (ranked Top 3) Nature of risk The nature of risk in written risk message content (Figure 2-1) (Lundgren 1994) Cultural, educational, monetary, physical, or nonexistent Group targeted for behavior promotion Institutional and Social Behavior in social amplification of risk (Figure 2-2) (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996) Political, social, organizational, individual, or no group is targeted (ranked Top 3) Messaging (RQ1) Promoted behavior Audience actions in written risk message content (Figure 2-1) (Lundgren 1994) Supporting the preservation with clear means of how to do so, supporting the preservation but not clear as to how to do so, or no promoted behavior Uncertainty of risk assessment Uncertainties in written risk message content (Figure 2-1) (Lundgren 1994) Risk is valid and likely, risk is valid but not likely, risk is not valid but is likely, or risk is nonexistent (not valid and not likely) Confidence in promoted behavior Impacts in social amplification of risk (Figure 2-2) (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996) Preservation will definitely succeed, preservation will succeed only if more support is raised, or preservation will definitely fail Framing (RQ2) Concern Impacts in social amplification of risk (Figure 2-2) (Kasperson & Kasperson, 1996) High concern for preservation effort, neutral, or low/no concern for preservation effort 36

PAGE 37

Table 3-2. Reliability test results Focus Factor Categories Reliability Channel News story, opinion story, press release, organization Web page, organization newsletter, print ad, or TV ad 100% (M=38) Source Organization or media outlet (listed) 100% (M=38) Key influencer Opinion leaders, social/cultural group, government agency, organization, news media, individual, or no key influencer (ranked Top 3) Top influencer: 94.7% (M=36) second influencer: 81.6% (M=31) third influencer: 100% (M=38) Nature of risk Cultural, educational, monetary, physical, or nonexistent 89.5% (M=34) Group targeted for behavior promotion Political, social, organizational, individual, or no group is targeted (ranked Top 3) Top group targeted: 79.0% (M=30) second group targeted: 79.0% (M=30) third group targeted: 100% (M=30) Messaging (RQ1) Promoted behavior Supporting the preservation with clear means of how to do so, supporting the preservation but not clear as to how to do so, or no promoted behavior 81.6% (M=31) Uncertainty of risk assessment Risk is valid and likely, risk is valid but not likely, risk is not valid but is likely, or risk is nonexistent (not valid and not likely) 94.7% (M=36) Confidence in promoted behavior Preservation will definitely succeed, preservation will succeed only if more support is raised, or preservation will definitely fail 79.0% (M=30) Framing (RQ2) Concern High concern for preservation effort, neutral, or low/no concern for preservation effort 89.5% (M=34) 37

PAGE 38

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Save Ellis Island Inc. The findings on the use of risk communication and/or amplification by Save Ellis Island Inc. (RQ1) and the subsequent media framing of the preservation (RQ2) are presented in Table 4-1. The table is based on the coding structure described in Table 3-1. First, the findings table shows which research questions the factors are used to answer. Then, the table lists what categories the tactic and news units fell into and at what frequency percentage for each factor (refer to Figure 3-1 for the list of categories available for each factor and to Appendix A for category descriptions). Finally, results from a chi-square sign ificance test show whether the results of the categories chosen de pends on whether the unit is a tactic or news item (p < .05) or whether the differences in categories chosen occur by chance (p > .05). Answer to RQ1 on Messaging To answer RQ1 how are risk communicati on and/or amplification messages used in historic preservation campaigns on messaging th e study revealed that Sa ve Ellis Island Inc. does use risk communication in its campaign tactics. This question was answered first and foremost by the results of the nature of risk f actor, which Lundgrens checklist (Figure 2-1) says should be included in written risk messages to descri be the risk. In this study, the nature of risk factor determined how the loss of the historic si te is presented in the units of analysis. The findings for this factor reveal that 90.6% of Save Ellis Island Inc.s tact ics fell into the category cultural risk (see question No. 7 in Appendix A for categ ory descriptions). Similarly, 90.7% of the news items fell into the cultural risk category. Therefore, the Save Ellis Island Inc. campaign follows Lundgrens checklist by describing the threat of losing th e buildings as a risk, specifically as a cultural risk. 38

PAGE 39

The channel and source factors represent two f actors in Kasperson and Kaspersons social amplification of risk framework (Figure 2-2). For the channel factor, the Save Ellis Island Inc. tactics fell mostly into the pre ss release category (50%), and the news items fell mainly into the news story category (90.7%). For the source fact or, 100% of the tactics fell into the organization category, and 100% of the news items fell into the media outlet category. Although they are pretty straightforward factors that simply describe the logistics of the communication, the channel and source factors do represent key elem ents of the risk communication process. Therefore, they can confirm risk communication is being used. As in the social amplification of risk framework, the key influe ncer factor determines what party is talking the lead in defi ning the risk. Therefore, in this study, the key influencer factor not only confirmed the presence of risk communica tion but also determined what party is most influential in risk communication process. In this study, the group that seemed to provide the most information about the preservation effort wa s deemed the key influencer. Findings show that for both Save Ellis Island Inc.s tactic a nd news units, the organization category had the highest percentage of units fall into it (84.4% and 41.3%, respectively; see question No. 6 in Appendix A for category descriptions). Also, th e 40.0% of news units fe ll into the government agency category. This division of news units for the key influencer factor can be attributed to the fact that Save Ellis Island Inc., an organization, put out all the information in the tactics, but the news items also got information from the govern ment agencies, specific ally the National Park Service which created Save Ellis Island Inc. So the two key influencers in the risk communication are the orga nization and government. The group targeted for behavior promotion f actor represents a factor in the social amplification of risk framework, and the promoted behavior factor repres ents an item of on the 39

PAGE 40

checklist for written risk communication messages. These factors can confirm the use of risk communication while also showing which specific group is targeted for action and how specific the action is. Findings for the group targeted for behavior promotion factor show that for the tactics, the organizational category had the highest frequency percentage (53.1%), and the individual category had the s econd highest (40.6%; see ques tion No. 8 in Appendix A for category descriptions). For the news units, th e organizational category also had the highest frequency percentage (44.0%), and the political category had the second highest (34.7%). Findings for the promoted behavior factor show that 87.5% of the tactics fell into the supporting the preservation with clear mean s of how to do so category (s ee question No. 9 in Appendix A for category descriptions). For the news un its, 54.7% fell into the category supporting the preservation but not clear as to how to do so, and 38.7% fell into th e category supporting the preservation with clear means of how to do so. The findings for the key influencer and group targeted for behavior promotion factors show that the key influencers in the social amplif ication of cultural risk in the Save Ellis Island Inc. campaign are the organization and the government, which each support the preservation. Similarly, the groups targeted for behavior promo tion the organizational, the individual and the political also support the preserva tion, or at least do not oppose the effort. Therefore, the Save Ellis Island campaign succeeds at boosting the voice of groups within the social amplification of risk framework that support the preservation whil e at the same time targeting those groups that are inclined to suppor t the preservation for behavior promotion. Answer to RQ2 on Framing To answer RQ2 what are the impacts of th ese risk communication and/or amplification messages on media framing of the historic preser vation campaigns the study revealed that the media accept the cultural risk frame presented by Save Ellis Island Inc. This question was 40

PAGE 41

answered through the uncertainty of risk assessment, confidence in promoted behavior and concern factors. The uncertain ty of risk assessment factor is based on a requirement in Lundgrens written risk communication message checklist that says risk messages should address the uncertainties about the risk and potential outcomes. This factor can confirm that risk communication is being used while determining wh ether the media view the loss of the historic site as a risk. Findings for th is factor reveal that 93.8% of the tactics and 94.7% of the news units fell into the risk is valid but not likely category (see question No. 10 in Appendix A for category descriptions). Therefor e, the media do view preservation failure as a cultural risk but just not as a risk that is likely to occur. Following the social amplification of risk fr ameworks section on the visible impacts of risk amplification, the confidence in promoted behavior a nd concern factors can determine how confidently and with how much concern the tactics and news units view the risk, if the risk is considered to exist at all. The less confident th e tone of the unit seems and the more concern for the preservation effort the tone of the unit has, the more risky the th reat of losing the historic site is framed, showing affects of successful risk amplification. For the confidence in promoted behavior factor, 59.4% of tactics fell into the prevention will succeed only if more support is raised category, and 40.6% fell into the preservation will definitely succeed category (see question No. 11 in Appendix A for category descri ptions). For the news units, 65.3% fell into the preservation will succeed only if more suppor t is raised category, and 28.0% fell into the preservation will definitely succeed category. Fo r the concern factor, a majority of both the tactic and news units fell into the high c oncern for preservation effort category (100% and 94.7%; see question No. 12 in Appendix A for categor y descriptions). Therefore, the findings for these two factors confirm the effect s of successful risk amplification. 41

PAGE 42

Use of the Word Save To explore the use of risk amplification la nguage, the researcher al so counted the number of times the word save or its synonyms protect and rescue appeared in the units, as shown in Table 4-2. For example, a Web page tac tic features the risk amplification language, If we do not act now to save them, Ameri ca will forever lose these buildings and the stories they tell about our nation and the im migrants who traveled through Ellis Island seeking freedom in the new world (Save Ellis Island Inc., 2008). Most news units did not use the word save or its synonyms (69.3%). But the tactics had a mean of 1.06 for word use. A separate twotailed independent samples t-test showed a significant difference between the mean of the tactics and news units, based on a .05 level of significance (t = -2.943, df = 105, p < .05). Therefore, the language did not carry over from the tactics to the media coverage, so communicators for the Save Ellis Island Inc. campaign should rethink the use of ineffective language. Friends of the Hunley Inc. The findings on the use of risk amplification by Friends of the Hunley Inc. (RQ 1) and the subsequent media framing of the preservation (R Q2) are presented in Table 4-3. The table is based on the coding structure described in Tabl e 3-1. First, the findings table shows which research questions the factors were used to an swer. Then, the table lis ts what categories the tactic and news units fell into and at what frequency percentage for each factor (refer to Figure 3-1 for the list of categories available for each factor and to Appendix A for category descriptions). Finally, the results of a chi-square significance test show wh ether the results of the categories chosen depends on if the unit is a ta ctic or news item (p < .05) or whether the differences in categories chosen occur by chance (p > .05). 42

PAGE 43

Answer to RQ1 on Messaging To answer RQ1 how are risk communicati on and/or amplification messages used in historic preservation campaigns on messaging th e study revealed that Fr iends of the Hunley Inc. does use risk communication in its campaign t actics. This question is answered first and foremost by the results of the nature of risk f actor, which Lundgrens checklist (Figure 2-1) says should be included in written risk messages to descri be the risk. In this study, the nature of risk factor determined how the loss of the historic si te is presented in the units of analysis (see question No. 7 in Appendix A for category descriptions ). The findings for this factor reveal that 66.7% of Friends of the Hunley Inc.s tactics fell into the category cultur al risk, and 25.6% fell into the category educati onal risk. Similarly, 61.2% of the ne ws items fell into the cultural risk category, and 27% fell into the educational risk cat egory. Therefore, the Friends of the Hunley Inc. campaign follows Lundgrens checklist by describing the threat of losing the buildings as a risk, specifically as a cultural risk. The channel and source factors represent two f actors in Kasperson and Kaspersons social amplification of risk framework (Figure 2-2). For the channel factor, the Friends of the Hunley Inc. tactics fell manly into the press release category (87.2%), and the news items fell mainly into the news story category (97.0%). For the source factor, 100% of th e tactics fell into the organization category, and 100% of the news items fell into the media outlet category. As stated earlier, although they are pretty st raightforward factors that simply describe the logistics of the communication, the channel and source factors still represent necessary el ements of the risk communication process. Therefore, they can c onfirm risk communication is being used. As in the social amplificati on of risk framework, the key influencer factor can determine what party is taking the lead in defining the risk. Therefore, in this study, the key influencer factor not only confirmed the presence of risk communication but also determined what party is 43

PAGE 44

most influential in risk communication process. Again, the group that seemed to provide the most information about the preservation effort wa s deemed the key influencer (see question No. 6 in Appendix A for category descriptions). Find ings show that for both Friends of the Hunley Inc.s tactic and news units, th e organization category had the highe st percentage of units fall into it (84.6% and 48.7%, respectively). Als o, 31.2% of news units fe ll into the government agency category. This division of news units for the key influencer factor can be attributed to the fact that Friends of the Hunley Inc., an organiza tion, put out all the informa tion in the tactics, but the news items also got information from the government agencies, specifically the Hunley Commission which created Friends of the Hunley Inc. So the two key in fluencers in the risk communication are the orga nization and government. The group targeted for behavior promotion f actor represents a factor in the social amplification of risk framework, and the promoted behavior factor repres ents an item of on the checklist for written risk communication messages. These factors can confirm the use of risk communication while also showing which specific group is targeted for action and what the action is. Findings for the group targ eted for behavior promotion factor show that for the tactics, the organizational category had the highest frequency percenta ge (64.1%), and the individual category had the second highest (30.8%; see question No. 8 in Appendix A for category descriptions). For the news units, the organizational category also ha d the highest frequency percentage (49.4%), and the indi vidual category had th e second highest (31.6%). Findings for the promoted behavior factor show that 56.4% of the tactics fell into the supporting the preservation but not clear as to how to do so category, and 41.0% fell into the supporting the preservation with a clear means of how to do so (see question No. 9 in Appendix A for category descriptions). Similarly for the news units, 49.8% of the tactics fell into the supporting the 44

PAGE 45

preservation but not clear as to how to do so category, and 33.8% fell into the supporting the preservation with a clear m eans of how to do so. The findings for the key influencer and group targeted for behavior promotion factors show that the key influencers in the social amplification of cultural risk in the Friends of the Hunley Inc. campaign are the organization and the government, which each support the preservation. Similarly, the groups targeted for behavior promotion the organizational and the individual also support the pres ervation, or at least do not oppos e the effort. Therefore, the Friends of the Hunley Inc. campaign succeeds at boosting the voice of groups within the social amplification of risk framework that support the preservation while at the same time targeting those groups that are inclined to suppor t the preservation for behavior promotion. Answer to RQ2 on Framing To answer RQ2 what are the impacts of th ese risk communication and/or amplification messages on media framing of the historic preser vation campaigns the study revealed that the media accept the cultural risk frame presented by Friends of the Hunley Inc. This question was answered through the uncertainty of risk assessment, confidence in promoted behavior and concern factors. The uncertain ty of risk assessment factor is based on a requirement in Lundgrens written risk communication message checklist that says risk messages should address the uncertainties about the risk and potential outcomes. This factor can confirm that risk communication is being used while determining wh ether the media view the loss of the historic site as a risk. Findings for th is factor reveal that 92.3% of the tactics and 72.6% of the news units fell into the risk is valid but not likely category (see question No. 10 in Appendix A for category descriptions). Therefor e, the media do view preservation failure as a cultural risk but just not as a risk that is ve ry likely to occur. 45

PAGE 46

Following the social amplification of risk fr ameworks section on the visible impacts of risk amplification, the confidence in promoted behavior a nd concern factors can determine how confidently and with how much concern the tactics and news units view the risk, if the risk is considered to exist at all. The less confident th e tone of the unit seems and the more concern for the preservation effort the tone of the unit has, the more risky the th reat of losing the historic site is framed, showing affects of successful risk amplification. For the confidence in promoted behavior factor, 84.6% of tactics fell into the p revention will definitely succeed category (see question No. 11 in Appendix A for category descri ptions). For the news units, 78.7% fell into the preservation will definitely succeed category. For the con cern factor, a majority of both the tactic and news units fell in to the high concern for preser vation effort category (100% and 83.3%; see question No. 12 in Appendix A for categor y descriptions). Therefore, the findings for these two factors show that although ther e is concern for the preservation effort, the confidence in successful risk prevention is high, so the risk amplification impacts were not as strong as they would be if confidence was low as well. Use of the Word Save To explore the use of risk amplification la nguage, the researcher al so counted the number of times the word save or its synonyms protect and rescue appeared in the units, as shown in Table 4-4. For example, a Web page tac tic features the risk amplification language, Not only will her preservation save for all tim e this great chapter of courage an innovation, but it also will allow the Hunley to touch gene rations with the great American story that our people, in pursuit or defens e of freedom, put aside the el ement of fear and answered the call of duty (Friends of the Hunley Inc., 2008). Most news units and tactics did not use the word save or its synonyms (95.1 and 92.3%). A separate two-tailed independent samples t-test showed that there was no significant difference between the mean of the tactics and news units based on a .05 level of significance (t = .439, df 46

PAGE 47

= 300. p > .05). Therefore, media coverage matched the Friends of the Hunley Inc.s language. Communicators for the campaign coul d increase their use of the langua ge to see if the media still follows. Table 4-1. Findings for Save Ellis Island Inc. Focus Factor Categories of tactics (n = 32) Categories of news (n = 75) Chi-square test Channel 50.0% press releases 15.6% newsletters 15.6% print ads 12.5% web pages 6.3% TV ads 90.7% news stories 9.3% opinion stories chi-square = 1.070E2 df = 6 p = .000 Source 100% organization 100% media outlet chi-square = 1.070E2 df = 19 p = .000 Key influencer 84.4% organization 9.4% individual 6.3% government agency 41.3% organization 40.0% government agency 9.3% news media 8.0% individual 1.3% opinion leaders chi-square = 19.673 df = 4 p = .001 Nature of risk 90.6% cultural 6.3% nonexistent 3.1% educational 90.7% cultural 5.3% nonexistent 4.0% educational chi-square = .080 df = 2 p = .961 Group targeted for behavior promotion 53.1% organizational 40.6% individual 6.3% political 44.0% organizational 34.7% political 16.0% individual 5.3% no group targeted chi-square = 14.849 df = 3 p = .002 Messaging (RQ1) Promoted behavior 87.5% supporting the preservation with clear means of how to do so 12.5% supporting the preservation but not clear as to how to do so 54.7% supporting the preservation but not clear as to how to do so 38.7% supporting the preservation with clear means of how to do so 6.7% no promoted behavior chi-square = 21.657 df = 2 p = .000 47

PAGE 48

Table 4-1. Continued Focus Factor Categories of tactics (n = 32) Categories of news (n = 75) Chi-square test Uncertainty of risk assessment 93.8% risk is valid but not likely 6.3% risk is nonexistent 94.7% risk is valid but not likely 5.3% risk is nonexistent chi-square = .036 df = 1 p = .850 Confidence in promoted behavior 59.4% preservation will succeed only if more support is raised 40.6% preservation will definitely succeed 65.3% preservation will succeed only if more support is raised 28.0% preservation will definitely succeed 6.7% future not addressed chi-square = 3.384 df = 2 p = .184 Framing (RQ2) Concern 100% high concern for preservation effort 94.7% high concern for preservation effort 2.7% neutral 2.7% no concern for preservation effort chi-square = .882 df = 2 p = .644 Table 4-2. Save Ellis Isla nd Inc.s use of save Count Tactics (n = 32, mean = 1.06, standard deviation =1.216) News (n = 75, mean = .47, standard deviation = .827) 0 46.9% 69.3% 1 18.8% 20.0% 2 18.8% 5.3% 3 12.5% 5.3% 4 3.1% 0% 48

PAGE 49

Table 4-3. Findings for Frie nds of the Hunley Inc. Focus Factor Categories of tactics (n = 39) Categories of news (n = 263) Chi-square test Channel 87.2% press releases 12.8% web pages 97.0% news stories 3.0% opinion stories chi-square = 3.020E2 df = 3 p = .000 Source 100% organization 100% media outlet chi-square = 3.020E2 df = 31 p = .000 Key influencer 84.6% organization 12.8% government agency 2.6% opinion leaders 48.7% organization 31.2% government agency 11.4% individual 4.6% news media 1.9% opinion leaders 2.3% social/cultural group chi-square = 19.398 df = 5 p = .002 Nature of risk 66.7% cultural 25.6% educational 7.7% nonexistent 61.2% cultural 27% nonexistent 10.6% educational chi-square = 11.842 df = 3 p = .008 Group targeted for behavior promotion 64.1% organizational 30.8% individual 2.6% political 2.6% no group targeted 49.4% organizational 31.6% individual 11.8% political 4.9% no group targeted 2.3% social chi-square = 5.462 df = 4 p = .243 Messaging (RQ1) Promoted behavior 56.4% supporting the preservation but not clear as to how to do so 41.0% supporting the preservation with clear means of how to do so 2.6% no promoted behavior 49.8% supporting the preservation but not clear as to how to do so 33.8% supporting the preservation with clear means of how to do so 16.3% no promoted behavior chi-square = 5.227 df = 2 p = .073 49

PAGE 50

Table 4-3. Continued Focus Factor Categories of tactics (n = 39) Categories of news (n = 263) Chi-square test Uncertainty of risk assessment 92.3% risk is valid but not likely 7.7% risk is nonexistent 72.6% risk is valid but not likely 27.4% risk is nonexistent chi-square = 7.050 df = 1 p = .008 Confidence in promoted behavior 84.6% preservation will definitely succeed 12.8% preservation will succeed only if more support is raised 2.6% future not addressed 78.7% preservation will definitely succeed 15.6% future not addressed 5.7% preservation will succeed only if more support is raised chi-square = 7.637 df = 2 p = .032 Framing (RQ2) Concern 100% high concern for preservation effort 83.3% high concern for preservation effort 14.4% neutral 2.3% no concern for preservation effort .022 Table 4-4. Friends of the Hunley Inc.s use of save Count Tactics (n = 39, mean = .08, standard deviation = .270) News (n = 263, mean = .06, standard deviation = .263) 0 92.3% 95.1% 1 7.7% 4.2% 2 0% 0.8% 50

PAGE 51

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION In short, this study of the Save Ellis Island In c. and Friends of the Hunley Inc. historic campaigns revealed that threat of losing a historic site or artif act is communicated as a risk by the preservation organizations (R Q1). Therefore, cultural risks are communicated like physical risks. But how strongly a preservation organi zation relies on risk communication depends on overall nature of the specific site/artifact and the financia l status of the campaign. For instance, most (96%) of Sa ve Ellis Island Inc.s campaign tactics presented the threat of losing the historic item as a cultural risk, wher eas only a slight majority (66.7%) of Friends of the Hunley Inc.s campaign tactics did (chi-s quare = 30.898, df = 3, p = .000). This difference can be attributed to the fact th at the Hunley and the Friends of the Hunley Inc.s preservation efforts also are valued for their contributions to naval archeology techni ques, resulting in both the communication of the threat as an educational risk (25.6%) as well. In addition to the nature of th e preservation target, the financia l status of the campaign also influences the preservati on organizations use of risk communi cation. For example, in terms of the promoted behavior, the Save Ellis Island Inc. campaign met the written risk message checklist requirement of including a promotion to support the preservation with a clear means to do so for its tactics, but the Friends of the Hunley Inc. campaign did not, with most of its tactics falling into the category of promoting support fo r the preservation but without any clear means of how to do so. This can be attributed to th e fact that the Hunley restoration was never in critical need of funding, having continued and adequate government support as well as private donations. Therefore, the Friends of the Hunley Inc. campaign had no need to make sure the promoted support behavior was clear. 51

PAGE 52

Funding also explains how the media frame a preservation effort (RQ2). Unlike in the case of Save Ellis Island Inc., 27.4 percent of media cove rage of the Friends of the Hunley Inc. labeled the preservation effort as a nonexistent risk (chi-squa re = 30.898, df = 3, p = .000). This result can be attributed to the f act that the Hunley restoration e ffort has always been well-funded. Therefore, the threat of losing the Hunley was never in any danger of coming true. Having enough funding also explains why the news items of Friends of the Hunley Inc. also were confident that the preservation would definitely succeed. On the other hand, Save Ellis Island Inc.s news items were confident that the pr eservation would succeed onl y if more support is raised. This result gives eviden ce of Save Ellis Island Inc.s current need fo r about half of the restoration projects total funding. Accordingly, the strength of the risk amplification attempt and its success at influencing media framing depends on the financial motivation of the preservation organization. The use of risk amplificati on strategies in preservation campaigns is most clearly exemplified by this studys risk language findings. Coding of the language of risk amplification, as represented by the use of the word save and its synonyms, showed that the Save Ellis Island Inc. tactics used the language at least once (mean = 1.06), while their corresponding news units did not. In the case of the Friends of th e Hunley Inc. campaign, both its tactics and corresponding news units rarely used the language. These findings show that Save Ellis Island Inc. made a greater attempt at using risk amplif ication language in its messaging than Friends of the Hunley Inc. Therefore, if the preservation effort needs more money or is in danger of being shut down, the attempt at risk amplification to encourage financial suppor t will be stronger than if money or support were not issues. But the fact that Save Ellis Island Inc.s language did not translate to media usage shows the disconnect in the perception of risk between the media and 52

PAGE 53

the preservation organization. Accordingly, pr eservation communicators need to determine whether or not risk amplification language is appropriate and affective for their campaigns. Despite the medias refusal to use the pres ervation organizations risk amplification language, this study revealed that the media do view the threat of the loss of a historic site or artifact also as a cultural ri sk. This connection between th e preservation organizations and medias view of the risks shows the success of bo th preservation organiza tions at agenda-setting and shaping the medias framing of their respec tive risks. Furthermore, both preservation organizations news items also matched the or ganizations high concern for the preservation effort. But the medias belief that the risk is not likely to occur show s that the medias risk perception and concern may not be permanent. The media confidence in the eventual success of the preservation effort can be attributed to the fact that public acknowledgement of the preservation shows that the effort is already succeeding by just continuing to exist. Therefore, the media frame would not have any reason to sugge st that the preservation effort will fail in the future, unless explicit facts state otherwise. In addition to showing preservation communicat ors how risk communica tion strategies can and are being implemented in their field, this studys findings may also help expand scholarly knowledge about the construct and treatment of cu ltural risks. This study revealed that risk communication strategies are used to encourage audiences to re spond to threats to cultural values, especially when the cultural risk is very likely to occur. Yet little research has been conducted in the area of cultura l risks. Lundgrens basic checklist for written risk communication messages and Kasperson and Kasp erspons social amplification of risk framework were created to address risk manage ment only for physical risks in a world where risks are socially defined. But if a risk is so cially defined, then anythi ng can be a risk, whether 53

PAGE 54

the threat is physical or not. So the checklist and framewor k should be applied to cultural risks as well. This studys findings show that cultur al threats are being handl ed with communication strategies designed for physical threats. Hopefully, these results can inspire a discussion among risk communication scholars about how physical risk concepts can be applied to cultural risks. Limitations As this study only encompassed two historic preservation campaigns, the findings may generalized as to the extent as a case studys findings would be. This study only aimed to determine the presence of risk communication an d/or amplification messages in historical preservation campaigns and the media framing of th e historic preservation effort. Therefore, the main limitation of this study is that it did not measure the effects of any risk messages on the actual target publics percepti on of the cultural risk or on intended donating behavior. Suggestions for Future Research Future studies could research the impact of ri sk amplification on the target publics actual donating behavior, comparing histor ic preservation campaigns that use risk amplification with those that do not. Are historic preservation campaigns that use risk amplification strategies more effective than those that do not? Or do hist oric preservation campaigns that use risk amplification strategies receive more or better media coverage than those that do not? Future studies could also investigate how cultural risk communication campaigns compare with physical risk campaigns, like hea lth communication campaigns. If risk literature proves correct, all risks are socially defined, so there should not be much differe nce between a cultural risk and physical risk nor much difference between a cultural risk campaign and a physical risk campaign. 54

PAGE 55

APPENDIX A CODING GUIDE 1. Coder ID: (1) Researcher (2) Reliability Test Coder 2. Unit number: start with 001 3. Channel (1) news story (2) opinion story (3) press release (4) organization Web page (5) organization newsletter (6) print ad (7) TV ad 4. Source. Will be either one of the preservation organizations or a media outlet. (1) Save Ellis Island Inc. (2) Friends of the Hunley Inc. (3) The Post and Courier (Charleston) (4) Houston Chronicle (5) The New York Times (6) USA Today (7) Florida Times-Union (8) U.S. News & World Report (9) PR Newswire (10) Jersey Journal (11) The Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ) (12) Business Wire (13) Herald News (Passaic County, NJ) (14) The Record (Bergen County, NJ) (15) The Virginian-Pilot (16) The Associated Press (17) The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) (18) The New York Sun (19) Education Week (20) San Antonio Express-News (21) Daily News (New York) (22) The Boston Herald (23) The Santa Fe New Mexican (24) Chicago Sun Times (25) The Advocate (26) The Washington Post (27) Morning Call (Charleston) (28) Fresno Bee (California) (29) The Press Enterprise (30) The State (South Carolina) 55

PAGE 56

(31) The Sun News (32) The Augusta Chronicle (33) The Free Press (34) The Herald (35) Vallejo Times Herald (36) Atlanta Journal-Constitution (37) News & Record (38) The Richmond Times Dispatch (39) Grand Rapids Press (40) Chattanooga Times Free Press (41) The Washington Times (42) Contra Costa Times (43) Plain Dealer (44) The Charlotte Observer (45) Times-Picayune 5. Date of publication: month, day, and year all in numbers. For example: January 10, 2005 would be stated as 01102005. Use 00 if no date is available. 6a, b, c. Key Influencer. Which group is the information about; which group is the main source of the information presented; which group takes the lead in defining the historic preservation; which group is being quoted? Rank the Top 3 influencers in order of dominance (those higher up in the story have more weight ). If influencers are not clear, code 0. (1) opinion leaders (ex. professors not associated with an organization) (2) social/cultural group (ex. community groups) (3) government agency (ex. Hunley Co mmission; National Park Service) (4) organization (ex. Friends of the Hunley; Save Ellis Island; busines ses, non-profits, or foundations) (5) news media (6) individual (ex. visitor to Hunley Mu seum or Ellis Island story contributor) 7. Nature of Risk. What type of risk is th e failure to preserve the buildings/submarine presented as? (1) cultural (ex. threat to the heritage or the culture of the South or the country) (2) educational (ex. threat to history knowledge, preserva tion technology advancement) (3) monetary (probably not likely) (4) physical (probably not likely) (5) nonexistent 8a, b, c. Group Targeted for Behavior Promo tion. Which group is singled out to act in response to the need for historic preservati on; who is donating; who should donate; who should work on the actual restorations; who should orga nize fundraisers; who sh ould volunteer; should legislation be passed? Rank the Top 3 targ eted groups. If none or not clear, code 0. (1) political (government; ex. to make laws or regulations) (2) social (clubs, communities) (3) organizational (non-profits, businesses, foundations) 56

PAGE 57

(4) individual (ex. public; Web pa ges target the i ndividual reader) 9. Promoted Behavior. How clear is the behavior encouraged in response to the need for historic preservation? (1) supporting the preservation with clear means of how to do so (example: donate here to save) (2) supporting the preservation, but not clear as to how to do so (example: we need to save) (3) no promoted behavior (no statement or ove rall tone about supporting the preservation) 10. Uncertainty of Risk Assessment. How doe s the unit view both the legitimacy of the risk of failing to preserve and also the likelihood of the risk occurring or likelihood of failing to preserve? (1) risk is valid and likely (in other words, preservation is necessary but wont succeed) (2) risk is valid but not likely (preservation is necessary and will succeed either because of the nature of the preservati on or the eventual success of the promoted behavior) (3) risk is not valid but is likely (preservation is not necessary and wont succeed) (4) risk is nonexistent (risk is not valid a nd not likely; preservati on is not necessary but will succeed anyway) 11. Confidence in Promoted Behavior. What is the tone of the unit when considering the preservations future? (1) preservation will definitely succeed (because of the measures presented) (2) preservation will succeed onl y if more support is raised (3) preservation will definitely fail (4) future not addressed 12. Concern. What is the tone of the unit in te rms of concern for the success or failure of the preservation effort? (1) high concern for preservation effo rt (this is an important cause) (2) neutral (no mention of desirable outcome) (3) no concern for preservation effort (this is not an important cause) 13. How many times is the word save and its s ynonyms (like rescue or protect) used in terms of the historic preservation effort? Exam ple: we need to save the H.L. Hunley or donations will help save the buildings. But do not count the save in Save Ellis Island Inc. Count how many times the word appears. 57

PAGE 58

APPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHIC ESSAY This study relied heavily on the University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries, particularly the Allen H. Neuhart h Library in the College of Jour nalism and Communications, to conduct a literature review as well as news c overage sampling. Cited references include scholarly literature and practic al texts addressing general risk communication, the social concepts of risk, framing, historic preservation, and content analysis. In addition to books on risk communication and public relations, academic journals of communication, public relations, risk management, social science, health communication, and science communication were consulted. Information about the specific hist orical preservation campaigns was found on the organizations Web sites and the news database Le xisNexis. For data analysis, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program provide d for student use in the colleges research laboratory was used. Faculty expertise at the University of Florida also contributed to this masters thesis. Committee chair Dr. Spiro Kiousis, associate professor and chair of the department of public relations, assisted with his expertise in the area of framing and agenda-setting. Committee member Dr. Debbie M. Treise, pr ofessor of advertising and associate dean of the division of graduate studies and research, ai ded with her expertise in risk communication for science issues. Committee member Dr. Youjin Choi, assistant prof essor of public relations contributed with her expertise in strategic communications and public health campaigns. 58

PAGE 59

REFERENCE LIST Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity Thousand Oaks: Sage. Breakwell, G.M. & Barnett, J. (2001). The impact of social amplification on risk communication Suffolk: HSE Books. Cutlip, S.M., Center, A.H., & Broom, G.M. (2006). Effective Public Relations, 9th ed. Upple Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Frewer, L.J., Miles, S., & Marsh, R. (2002). The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk. Risk Analysis, 22 (4), 701-711. Friends of the Hunley Inc. (2008). Friends of the Hunley Last retrieved Oct. 31, 2008 from http://www.hunley.org/ Heath, R.L. & Palenchar, M. (2000). Commun ity Relations and Risk Communication: A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Emergency Response Messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12 (2), 131-161. Kaid, L.L. & Wadsworth, A.J. (1989). Content An alysis. In P. Emmert & L.L. Barker (Eds.), Measurement of Communication Behavior (ch. 10). New York: Longman.197-217. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J.X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The Social Amplificat ion of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis, 8 (2), 177-187. Kasperson, R.E. (1992) The Social Amplification of Risk: Progress in Developing an Integrative Framework. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (ch. 6). Connecticut: Praeger. Kasperson, R.E. & Kasperson, J.X. (1996). The So cial Amplification and Attenuation of Risk. Annals of American Academy of Po litical and Social Science, 545 95-105. Kiousis, S., Popescu, C., & Mitrook, M. ( 2007). Understanding Influence on Corporate Reputation: An Examination of Public Relations Efforts, Me dia Coverage, Public Opinion, and Financial Performance From an Agenda -Building and Agenda-S etting Perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 147-165. Krimsky, S. (1992). The Role of Theory in Risk Studies. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (ch. 1). Connecticut: Praeger. Krimsky, S. & Golding, D. (1992). Reflections. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 355-363). Connecticut: Praeger. Lundgren, R.E. (1994). Risk Communication: A Handbook fo r Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks Columbus: Battelle Press. 59

PAGE 60

Lundgren, R.E. & McMakin, A.H. (2004). Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks, 3rd ed. Columbus: Battelle Press. Masuda, J.R. & Garvin, T. (2002). Place, Cultu re, and the Social Amplification of Risk. Risk Analysis, 26 (2), 437-454. The Municipal Art Society of New York. (2008). Original Penn Station Last retrieved April 9, 2009 from http://newpennstation.org/site/station/past National Trust for Historic Preservation. (2008). About the National Trust for Historic Preservation Last retrieved April 9, 2009 from http://www.preservati onnation.org/aboutus/ Palmlund, I. (1992). Social Drama and Risk Eval uation. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (ch. 8). Connecticut: Praeger. Petts, J., Horlick-Jones, T., & Murdock, G. (2001). Social amplification of risk: The media and the public Suffolk: HSE Books Perloff, R. M. (2003). The Dynamics of Persuasion: Comm unication and Attitudes in the 21st Century, 2nd ed. Mahwah: Erlbaum. Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of Risk: A Classifi cation. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (ch. 3). Connecticut: Praeger. Sandman, P.M. (1987). Ri sk Communication: Facing Public Outrage. EPA Journal, Nov. 21-22. Retrieved Oct. 31, 2008 from The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Website: http://www.psandman.com/articles/facing.htm Sandman, P.M., Miller, P. M., Johnson, B.B., & Weinstein, N.D. (1993). Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments. Risk Analysis, 13 (6), 585-598. Retrieved Oct. 31, 2008 from The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Website: http://www.psandman.com/articles/simulate.htm Sandman, P.M., Weinstein, N.D., & Hallman, W.K. (1998). Comm unications to Reduce Risk Underestimation and Overestimation. Risk Decision Policy, 3 (2), 93-108. Retrieved Oct. 31, 2008 from The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Website: http://www.psandman.com/articles/underest.htm Sandman, P.M. (2004). When People Are Under-Reacting to Risk. The Synergist, July 24-25. Retrieved Oct. 31, 2008 from The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Website: http://www.psandman.com/col/under-r.htm Save Ellis Island, Inc. (2008). Save Ellis Island Last retrieved Oct. 31, 2008 from http://www.saveellisisland.org/ 60

PAGE 61

Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (ch. 5). Connecticut: Praeger. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19 689-701. We Are Ellis Island. (2008). WeAreEllisIsland Last retrieved Oct. 31, 2008 from http://www.weareellisisland.org/ White, M.P., Pahl, S., Buehner, M., & Haye, A. (2003). Trust in Risky Messages: The Role of Prior Attitudes. Risk Analysis, 23 717-726. Wimmer, R.D. & Dominick, J.R. (2006). Mass Media Research: An Introduction 8th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth. Wilcox, D.L. (2005). Public Relations Writi ng and Media Techniques, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson. Zoch, L.M. & Molleda, J. (2007). Building a Theoretical Model of Media Relations Using Framing, Information Subsidies, and Agenda-building. Public Relations Theory II 279309. 61

PAGE 62

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Raised in Jupiter, FL, I graduated from Jupiter Community High School in 2004. While earning my bachelors degree in journalism with a minor in business administration from the University of Florida, I worked as a nuclear communications intern at Florida Power & Light Company in Juno Beach, FL, for two summers. There, I cultivated an intere st in public relations, specifically risk communication. After graduating with my bach elors in May 2007, I stayed at UF to expand my knowledge of public rela tions by earning a mast ers degree in mass communication specializing in public relations in May 2009. I hope to have a long public relations career in Florida, preferably working in risk or crisis communication. 62