Frequent reports could make an outbreak seem more serious than it is

Oct 30, 2008 15:56 GMT  ·  By

A recent study proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that people truly follow whatever the media tells them to the last word. To show that this is especially true in the case of disease outbreaks, a team of scientists from the McMaster University conducted a survey on the reactions the name of ten diseases triggered in test subjects.  

Their results showed that the diseases that get most media coverage, such as the avian flu, anthrax or SARS, were rated by participants in the study as being more dangerous than other, less-broadcast but potentially deadlier conditions, such as Lassa fever and yellow fever. The test subjects were first only given the names of the pathogens and asked to order them according to the threat they posed.  

As expected, anthrax, SARS and the avian flu were noted as the most dangerous, because they were the most widely covered in the media over the years. Participants changed their minds however, when they were only given the description of the diseases, without their names. The pathogen agents were arranged mostly in their natural order, which makes a certain amount of sense.  

When presented with both the name and the description of the symptoms each disease caused, test subjects showed that media influence only counts when people don't know what the story is all about. "Another interesting aspect of the study is when we presented factual information about the diseases along with the names of them, the media effect wasn't nearly as strong. This suggests that people can overcome the influence of the media when you give them the facts, and so objective reporting is really critical," explained study author Karin Humphreys, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behavior.  

As for the influence of the media on the masses in general, the authors said that "We see that a single incident reported in the media, can cause great public concern if it is interpreted to mean that the potential risk is difficult to control, as with the possibility of a pandemic like in the case of Avian flu, and bioterrorism, as in the case of anthrax infection." The research was published on-line in the Public Library of Science: ONE journal.

Photo Gallery (2 Images)

Media coverage might give ample proportions to harmless outbreaks
Reporters battling for audience may not be completely impartial when presenting the facts
Open gallery