Framing the Nicotine Debate: A Cultural Approach to Risk

This study examined Congressional testimony concerning regulation of tobacco advertising by 3 policy factions representing industry, government, and lay activists. On the basis of the cultural theory of risk, policy disputants were divided into entrepreneurial, bureaucratic, and egalitarian communities, each with a distinct cosmology that impedes discourse among the groups. The authors examined ways in which the 3 policy factions framed the tobacco advertising issues to see the extent to which such unique cosmologies were expressed or whether mutual frames might signal opportunities for negotiation among the interest groups. Major themes in the testimony were identified through semantic network analysis and clustering of associated words that revealed discourse patterns peculiar to each group and reflective of their cultural biases toward health risk. Semantic network analysis can be a tool to clarify these presuppositions and unmask relations among factions, thereby bridging policy solutions across interest groups.

[1]  Keith Turner.  Three Dimensional Model , 1991 .

[2]  J. Bradbury.  The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk , 1989 .

[3]  M. Douglas,et al.  Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers , 1983 .

[4]  Frances M. Lynn,et al.  The Interplay of Science and Values in Assessing and Regulating Environmental Risks , 1986 .

[5]  Thomas Dietz,et al.  Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk , 1989 .

[6]  S. Rayner,et al.  How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice1 , 1987 .

[7]  Ralph L. Keeney.  The Role of Values in Risk Management , 1996 .

[8]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure , 1993, Policy Sciences.

[9]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Acceptable Risk: A Conceptual Proposal , 1994 .

[10]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Risk communication: Towards a rational discourse with the public , 1992 .

[11]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Special feature: What's in a name? Bibliometric analysis of 40 years of the journal of broadcasting ( & electronic media) , 1996 .

[12]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science , 1992 .

[13]  M. Douglas,et al.  Essays in the Sociology of Perception , 1982 .

[14]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Is It Really Just Like a Fancy Answering Machine? Comparing Semantic Networks of Different Types of Voice Mail Users , 1993 .

[15]  C. Levitt,et al.  "The Whole World Is Watching": Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left , 1981 .

[16]  J. Throgmorton.  The rhetorics of policy analysis , 1991 .

[17]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Levels of environmental decisions , 1985 .

[18]  Priscilla Murphy,et al.  Reconciling the Preferences of Environmental Activists and Corporate Policymakers , 1996 .

[19]  L. G. White,et al.  Policy analysis as discourse , 1994 .

[20]  Gerald M. Kosicki.  Problems and Opportunities in Agenda‐Setting Research , 1993 .

[21]  Elaine Vaughan,et al.  Variability in the Framing of Risk Issues , 1992 .

[22]  A. Brandt.  The Cigarette, Risk, and American Culture , 1990 .

[23]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Three Types of Risk Assessment: A Methodological Analysis , 1985 .

[24]  Joseph Woelfel.  Artificial Neurol Networks in Policy Research: A Current Assessment , 1993 .

[25]  Paul C. Stern,et al.  Learning through conflict: a realistic strategy for risk communication , 1991 .

[26]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm , 1993 .

[27]  S. Hilgartner,et al.  The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Rating the Risks , 1979 .

[29]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications , 1981, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[30]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Public Values in Risk Research , 1996 .

[31]  T. Lawrence,et al.  Cultural rationalities in crisis sensemaking: a study of a public inquiry into a major industrial accident , 1990 .

[32]  Gerald M. Kosicki,et al.  Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse , 1993 .

[33]  T. Webler,et al.  A novel approach to reducing uncertainty: The group Delphi☆ , 1991 .