Risk-reception technologies as a tool of political influence in international relations
https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2023-3-95-107
Abstract
The article is about analyzing the issue of risk management in the sphere of world politics, the importance of which is increasing in the conditions of the modern geopolitical crisis. The purpose of the study is to consider the issue of risk perception in a political perspective; substantiation of the application of the cognitive-narratological approach to its study; description of risk-reception technologies as a mechanism for the formation of one of the types of strategic narratives; assessment of the prospects for the use of certain technologies for manipulating the perception of risks in the field of international relations. The analysis of scientific publications on the issues of risk perception is carried out, a number of interdisciplinary areas of value for political science are identified. The application of cognitive-narratological methodology and the concept of strategic narratives in the study of risk perception issues issubstantiated. The operationalization of risk perception management concepts in the practice of international communication is carried out using the example of strategic planning technologies of the RAND Corporation, an American analytical center for the study of global politics. The principles of risk reception technologies (risk perception management technologies) are described, it is shown that the mechanism of their application includes the impact on the cognition of “perception” or “reception”. By the example of one of the types of strategic narratives, an assessment of the prospects for the use of certain technologies for manipulating risk perception in the field of international relations is given.
About the Author
T. A. Podshibyakina
Southern Federal University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tatiana A. Podshibyakina, Dr. of Sci. (Political Science), associate professor,
105, Bolshaya Sadovaya St., Rostov-on-Don, 344006
References
1. Boholm, A. (1998). “Comparative studies of risk perception. A review of 20 years of research”, Journal of risk research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 135–163.
2. Charap S. and Priebe, M. (2023), Avoiding a Long War, available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html (Accessed 29 Jan. 2023).
3. Coleman, C.L. (1993), “The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments”, Communication Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 611–628.
4. Dobbins, J., Cohen, R.S., et al. (2019), Overextending and unbalancing Russia. Assessing the impact of cost-imposing options, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html (Accessed 29 Jan. 2023).
5. Eder, J. (2003), “Narratology and cognitive reception theories”, in Kindt, T. and Müller, H.-H. (eds.), What is narratology? Questions and answers regarding the status of a theory, De Gruyer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 277–301.
6. Gerunov, A. (2022), “Risk in digital assets”, in Risk analysis for the digital age, Springer, pp. 81–114.
7. Hao, J., Li, J. and Wu, D. (2023), “Bibliometric analysis of risk science from 1996 to 2021. Insights and implications”, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 26, no. 5, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2176914 (Accessed 2 Apr. 2023).
8. Luhman, N. (2013), “Risk and peril”, Otechestvennye zapiski, no. 2, pp. 19–51.
9. Lundberg, R. and Willis, H.H. (2019), “Examining the effectiveness of risk elicitations. Comparing a deliberative risk ranking to a nationally representative survey on homeland security risk”, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1546–1560.
10. McComas, K.A. (2006), “Defining moments in risk communication research. 1996–2005”, Journal of Health Communication, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 75–91.
11. Miskimmon, A., Roselle, L. and O’Loughlin, B. (2013), Strategic Narratives: Communication power and the New World Order, Routledge, New York, USA.
12. Oh, S.H., Paek, H.J. and Hove, T. (2015), “Cognitive and emotional dimensions of perceived risk characteristics, genre-specific media effects, and risk perceptions. The case of H1N1 influenza in South Korea”, Asian Journal of Communication, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 14–32.
13. Paek, H.J. and Hove, T. (2017), Risk perceptions and risk characteristics, available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.283 (Accessed 29 Mar.2023).
14. Perko, T., Thijssen, P., Turcanu, C. and Van Gorp, B. (2014), “Insights into the reception and acceptance of risk messages. Nuclear emergency communication”, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1207–1232.
15. Renn, O. (2006), “Risk communication – consumers between information and irritation”, Journal of Risk Research, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 833–849.
16. Rohrmann, B. and Renn, O. (2000), “Risk perception research. An introduction”, Crosscultural risk perception. A survey of empirical studies, Manuscript for Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 11–53.
17. Slovic, P. (1987). “Perception of risk”, Science, vol. 236, no. 4799, pp. 280–285.
Review
For citations:
Podshibyakina T.A. Risk-reception technologies as a tool of political influence in international relations. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series "Political Science. History. International Relations". 2023;(3):95-107. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2023-3-95-107
Views:
113
Email this article 