Risk Analysis, Vol. 23, No.

2, 2003

A Social Network Contagion Theory of Risk Perception

Clifford W. Scherer1 and Hichang Cho2

Risk perceptions have, to a great extent, been studied exclusively as individual cognitive
mechanisms in which individuals collect, process, and form perceptions as atomized units un-
connected to a social system. These individual-level theories do not, however, help explain
how perception of risk may vary between communities or within a single community. One al-
ternative approach is based on a network theory of contagion. This approach, emerging largely
from organizational and community social network studies, suggests that it is the relational
aspects of individuals and the resulting networks and self-organizing systems that influence
individual perceptions and build groups or communities of like-minded individuals. These
social units, it is argued, behave as attitude, knowledge, or behavioral structures. The study
reported in this article tests one aspect of this theoretical perspective. The central hypothe-
sis proposes the existence of risk perception networksrelational groupings of individuals
who share, and perhaps create, similar risk perceptions. To test this idea, data were collected
from individuals involved in a community environmental conflict over a hazardous waste site
cleanup. The statistical analysis used a matrix of relational social linkages to compare with a
matrix of individual risk perceptions. The analysis confirmed the hypothesis suggesting that
social linkages in communities may play an important role in focusing risk perceptions.

1. INTRODUCTION Communication science has discarded the linear

model of communication in favor of a view that posits
Casual observation suggests that communities of-
that information is not isomorphic and that mean-
ten develop different groups of individuals support-
ing is a construction based on understanding, per-
ing or opposing aspects of a particular risk situation. In
ceptions, and social influences.(1) There are, however,
addition, different communities often react in differ-
many gaps in understanding how to best communi-
ent ways to the same risk event. Although cognitive-
cate complex science when meaning is constructed by
level analysis suggests that individuals arrive at
the receiver, or alternatively, by the receiver and the
similar conclusions because of common information
receivers community network.(2) Without a deeper
received through various channels, this approach does
knowledge of how individuals, groups, and commu-
not adequately account for social or social-structural
nities go about the construction of meaning, commu-
variables.
nication efforts are bound to be less successful than
desired. How do community members and groups, for
1 Department of Communication, Social and Behavioral Research
example, influence how individuals regard a particu-
Unit, Cornell University. lar risk?
2 Assistant Professor, Information and Communication Manage- Many studies have added to our understanding
ment Programme, National University of Singapore, Singapore, of the role and treatment of science and risk. These
119260. include studies of media coverage of risk, how the
Address correspondence to Clifford W. Scherer, Department of

Communication, Social and Behavioral Research Unit, Cornell

media and journalists construct meaning,(3,4) the so-
University, Ithaca, NY 14853; tel.: 607-255-7498; CWS4@Cornell. cial amplification of risk in social systems,(5) and the
edu. far-ranging psychological studies that have helped us

261 0272-4332/03/1200-0261$22.00/1 
C 2003 Society for Risk Analysis
262
better understand individual cognitive processes re-
lated to risk perceptions, risk estimates, heuristics, and
others.(6) For the most part, however, risk perception
and behavior have been studied almost exclusively as
individual cognitive mechanisms in which individuals
collect and process information and form perceptions
of risk as atomized units unconnected to a social sys-
tem.(7) Even when the social aspects are recognized,
the linkages are generally regarded as simple sources
of information, much as the mass media are recog-
nized as sources. Psychological approaches utilizing
the idea of social systems generally assume that di-
rect communication from individuals and groups will
influence individuals but that individual cognitions
remain central to the formation and maintenance
of attitudes and behaviors.(8) There are, however, a
number of competing and perhaps complementary
perspectives and theories that might help expand our
understanding of risk perceptions, knowledge, and be-
haviors. One such approach is based on a network
theory of contagion.(9) Emerging largely from social
network studies, this theory suggests that it is the re-
lational aspects of individuals and the resulting net-
works and self-organizing systems that should be the
units of analysis rather than the individuals and their
isolated cognitive structures and processes. These so-
cial units, it is argued, function as attitude, knowledge,
or behavioral structures(10) that facilitate or constrain
the flow of information and influence to individuals
in the network. Thus, the theory suggests, it is not just
the information or the sources of information that
are important in forming perceptions or transferring
knowledge, but it is the structure itself that forms a cul-
tural system of norms, expectations, knowledge, and
behavioral support.(11)
1.1. Contagion Theory
The idea of social contagion suggests that indi-
viduals adopt the attitudes or behaviors of others in
the social network with whom they communicate. The
theory does not require that there is intent to influ-
ence, or even an awareness of influence, only that com-
munication takes place.
The literature in organizational communication
is rich with studies of communication networks. A
majority of these network studies, particularly those
exploring the idea of social contagion through cohe-
sive network ties, have been conducted in organiza-
tional settings.(11) In addition, thousands of studies
have examined community networks from a diffusion
of innovation perspective.(12) These studies suggest
Scherer and Cho
that interpersonal networks influence the adoption of
ideas, innovations, and behaviors. Studies range from
the original 1943 studies by Ryan and Gross(13) ex-
amining the adoptions of hybrid seed corn, to studies
examining the adoption of new drugs by medical doc-
tors,(14) to studies of the social networks influencing
birth control practices in Korean villages.(15) There
have been a number of studies examining communica-
tion networks in a community context.(16) Other stud-
ies, including Dunwoody and Griffin,(17) Griffin and
Dunwoody,(18) and Fessenden-Raden et al.,(19) have
examined how communities deal with risk, but none
have specifically examined how social networks in-
fluence that process. No studies, however, could be
identified that examine community networks in a risk
context.
These studies and others suggest that individual
perceptions are influenced by the perceptions of indi-
viduals in their social, or friendship, network. A bet-
ter understanding of how these networks function in
a community context can provide a basic framework
for developing improved communication strategies
for communicating complex risk information.
1.2. Research Hypothesis
The general hypothesis coming from this line of
argument suggests that the proximity of two actors
in a social network is associated with the occurrence
of interpersonal influence between those actors. In
other words, social contagion theory suggests that be-
haviors and perceptions initiated by one member of
the network will influence others in the network.
More specifically, this study tests whether dyadic
similarity in risk perceptions is a function of social in-
teraction patterns. The first hypothesis predicts that a
dyadic similarity in risk perceptions is related to the
strength of the network tie. The hypothesis predicts
that the more frequent the communication between
two actors, the more similar their attitudes are likely
to be. Further, it can be suggested that the nature
of the topic, in this case a new health threat to the
community, would mobilize individuals to exchange
information and opinions about the risk topic. It is this
mobilization and emergence of the self-organizing so-
cial network that would be expected to facilitate sim-
ilarity in risk perceptions.
What is unclear from the literature is the extent to
which this influence occurs across topics with varying
levels of controversy. A majority of studies in both or-
ganizational and community settings have focused on
new innovationsthe transfer of ideas or technology
Social Network Contagion Theory
that can be easily followed through groups, from one
individual to another, and that would be expected to
encourage interpersonal discussion and exchange of
information. To what extent would similarity of per-
ception occur with topics that do not stimulate or
encourage interpersonal discussion and exchange of
information? Would topics that are noncontroversial
and thus less likely to be discussed in interpersonal
channels also show a similarity with others in the
interpersonal network?
A second case tested in this study relates to the ba-
sic understanding of the nature of science. In this case
we would not expect interpersonal discussion about
this topic because it is not controversial, it is long-
standing, and it is unlikely that social communication
has occurred on this topic within the community con-
text. Thus the second hypothesis is that the social net-
work (strength) will not predict attitudes about the
nature of science. However, this variable would be
expected to be related to the individuals exposure to
science in high school or college. Those individuals
without formal exposure to science are less likely to
work in a science-based job, to understand the nature
of science, or to use science as a decision-making tool.
Thus, the formal educational background of the indi-
vidual should be related to his or her belief in science.
2. METHOD
2.1. The Study Situation
The study reported in this article examines how
a rural community faced an environmental contro-
versy that potentially threatened its water supply. At
the center of the controversy were 15 county legis-
lators, employees of the county department of pub-
lic health, and other elected leaders. The controversy
was the result of at least a dozen organic chemicals
and heavy metals that were collected in three lagoons
left from what remained of a small manufacturing
plant operating from 1909 to 1983. One of the chemi-
cals used was Trichloroethylene (TCE), a degreasing
compound and suspected carcinogen. High concen-
trations were found in private wells in the immediate
area. The groundwater flow under the collection la-
goons appeared to be toward an inlet of a large lake
that was the drinking water supply for the study com-
munitys 55,000 residents.
The state agency overseeing the cleanup man-
dated that a water treatment system at the site be de-
signed to remove a range of toxic materials, including
barium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, thallium, mer-
263
cury, arsenic, cyanide, zinc, and benzene, in addition
to a number of volatile organics. The agency approved
a company proposal to design a process for removing
the toxics materials and discharge the treated water
into the lake inlet. A subdivision of the state health
agency concluded that the 15,000 gallons per day dis-
charge over a five-year period would have a negligi-
ble impact on the water quality of the lake, and would
meet all state standards. It described the discharge
water concentrations as approaching those set for
drinking water.
Decisionmakers and residents in the study com-
munity, however, did not agree. More than 5,000 res-
idents signed petitions, the county director of public
health called for increased testing of the discharge wa-
ter, and the county legislature unanimously agreed to
set aside $25,000 to hire an environmental attorney to
fight the state decision to allow discharging the treated
water into the lake inlet, and thus into the community
lake source drinking water.(20) The study took place
at the height of the two-year-long controversy.
2.2. Data Collection
The investigation used two forms of data collec-
tion: (1) face-to-face structured interviews and (2)
self-administered questionnaires given to each re-
spondent after the face-to-face interview. The study
started with interviews of county legislators who were
responsible for decision making about the contro-
versy. Each respondent was telephoned and asked if
he or she would be willing to participate in the study.
A time and location convenient to the respondent was
selected, often in the respondents home or office. All
interviews were structured and included a series of
questions about where the respondent had obtained
information about the water treatment controversy.
Snowball sampling was used, in which each re-
spondent was asked to name their personal sources
of information about the controversy, including indi-
viduals and other sources, such as the mass media.
The individuals named in the first round of interviews
then became the sample for the second round. This
referral process continued until no new individuals
were named. The study started with personal inter-
views with 13 of the 15 elected county legislators. In
the first round of interviews, one legislator was un-
available and another refused to participate. In the
second round of data collection, all sources named by
the county legislators were interviewed and asked the
same questions. Again, all sources named on the sec-
ond round were interviewed. This pattern continued
264
until no new sources were named. Individual respon-
dents named as few as six sources of information to as
many as 25 sources. No attempt was made to interview
sources from outside the county because of limited re-
sources, or to interview institutional sources. For ex-
ample, many respondents named the newspaper or
radio station or a regulatory agency as a source, but
could not name a specific individual.
Starting with the 13 county legislators, and con-
tinuing to interview all in-county sources named, a
total of 101 sources emerged. An additional 54 were
sources outside the county. Eighty-two of the 101 in-
county sources were interviewed for an 81% comple-
tion rate. These 82 individuals accounted for more
than 92% of all interactions in the network, pro-
viding a reasonable level of confidence that the in-
formation exchange patterns identified are accurate
representations of the actual exchanges in this contro-
versy. Because of the complexity of the data collection
involving two different questionnaires, personal in-
terviews, and self-administered questionnaires, some
respondents did not completely respond to the sec-
ond self-administered questionnaire, choosing to skip
some questions, or did not respond at all to the sec-
ond questionnaire. Missing data for the matrix anal-
ysis used in this study is a particularly difficult prob-
lem, so we chose to drop respondents with any missing
data. The final sample is a 50 by 50 matrix, with 2,450
possible interactions with a 49.5% response rate ac-
counting for 83% of all interactions. In other words,
those who had missing data tended to be less cen-
tral to the network, named fewer sources, and com-
municated less frequently than those included in this
analysis. Although this is an important methodolog-
ical issue, techniques such as means substitution for
missing data would, in this case, weaken the analy-
sis. Means substitution for missing data would create
more similarities in the data, resulting is a less con-
servative finding, that is, finding an effect where none
may exist. For this reason we chose to drop any indi-
vidual with missing data.
Although mass media and other printed forms
of information were included in the identification of
information sources, the study reported here includes
only interpersonal sources. The role of the mass media
in social groups is discussed elsewhere.(20)
2.3. Analysis
The independent variable for the study was the
strength of the tie, or the frequency of the interac-
tion between two individuals. It was measured on the
Scherer and Cho
questionnaire by asking respondents to nominate the
names of their information sources and to indicate
the frequency of their interactions with that individ-
ual. The frequency data were arranged into a matrix
of 50 by 50 with cell entries from 0 to 25 represent-
ing the range of interactions reported, 0 represent-
ing no interaction between the two individuals, to
a maximum of 25 representing 25 contacts between
the two individuals within the sampled month. In the
strength matrix, for example, an x in the cell formed
by the interception of row i and column j means that
actor i nominated actor j as an information source
and interacted with him or her x times during the
sampled month. To make the matrix compatible with
the dyadic similarity matrices, the matrix was sym-
metrized by replacing xij and xji with maximum val-
ues. For instance, if actor i indicated 8 interactions with
actor j, but actor j indicated only 6 interactions with
actor i, then xji was coded with the maximum value
of 8. This was an arbitrary decision, but a check using
the minimum interaction for each cell did not change
the results. On average, each individual identified 4.3
persons as information sources and received infor-
mation 5.87 times from these persons within the test
month.
Two dependent variables were tested. The first
was perceived level of risk from the hazardous waste
site cleanup. This variable was measured through
respondent answers to eight questions, which were
combined into one scale (M = 3.61; Alpha = 0.86).
Table I details these questions. The dependent vari-
able for the second hypothesis was belief in science.
This dependent variable was measured by one item,
also shown in Table I. All items were measured by
five-point Likert-type scales. In addition, three con-
trol variables were included in each regression test.
These were:
1. Education level, measured as the highest level
of education the respondent achieved. The
matrix was constructed using a Euclidean
Distance method. That is, number 3 was
entered in a cell xij if member i in a dyad
had an advanced degree (coded as 6) and the
other dyad member, j, had an associates de-
gree (coded as 3). In other words, the higher
the number in cell xij, the greater the differ-
ence in education level between members of
the dyad. Thirty-two percent of respondents
held an advanced degree, 32% had a bach-
elors degree, 12% had attended college but
had not earned a degree, 6% had an associates
Social Network Contagion Theory 265

Table I. Items Used for Dependent Variables

N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Perceived Risk Scalea (8 items: Alpha = 0.86)

The increased health risk of putting this water into the lake is so small that it is not 50 1 5 1.89 1.204
worthy of all this attention.
Should accept plan as is. 50 1 4 1.83 1.051
Even if the discharged water meets drinking water standards, it still contains some trace 50 2 5 4.26 1.041
chemicals that we should not allow in our lake.
Believe (organization) when they say that the treated water to be discharged into the 50 1 5 2.81 1.241
lake will meet drinking water standards?
Need to prove treated water meets drinking water standards. 50 1 5 4.15 1.183
If necessary, county should be willing to spend almost any amount of tax money to fight 50 1 5 3.0 1.328
the dumping of this treated water into the lake.
The $25,000 earmarked to prevent the dumping of this treated water into the lake is a 50 1 5 3.96 1.224
good use of taxpayers money.
If necessary, the county should be willing to spend another $25,000 in tax money to fight 50 1 5 3.60 1.261
the dumping of this water into the lake.
Belief in Science Scale
Science is the most rational way to approach complex questions and problems. 50 2 5 3.44 .978

a All items were on a five-point scale and were adjusted for direction depending on the specific question.

degree, 16% had graduated from high school, 3. RESULTS

and 2% had attended high school but had not
Table II reports the results of the regression anal-
graduated.
yses estimated for each of the two dependent vari-
2. Group affiliation was measured as the domi-
ables. In Model 1, control variables were first re-
nant group affiliation of each individual. All
gressed onto the dependent variable (Perceived Risk
individuals included in this study were citi-
or Belief in Science) as a baseline model. The second
zens of the community, but many were mem-
model (Model 2) added the strength of social interac-
bers of various official or unofficial groups. An
tion to the baseline. Note that the significance of R2 /F
individual was assigned to the highest-level
changes between the two models is not provided by
group for which they qualified. Groups in-
UCINET matrix regression analysis. UCINET 5 is a
cluded county legislators who had the primary
comprehensive program for the analysis of social net-
responsibility for making decisions about the
works and other proximity data.(21) Since this method
controversy (18%); employees of local gov-
ernment agencies who answered to the county
legislators (16%); local elected officials (other Table II. Matrix Regression Analysis (QAP) Results Showing
than county legislators), who had no official Standardized Beta
role in the decision making, but were inter- Model 1 Model 2 Model Fit (R2 )
ested and influential (15%); members of spe-
cial boards and districts, which included indi- Perceived risk
viduals who were neither elected nor involved Education 0.064 0.063 0.027
Age 0.0187 0.013
in any official capacity (18%); and local citi-
Group 0.154 0.149
zens (48%). The constructed matrix used an Network tie strengths 0.062 0.031
exact match method where members in the Belief in science
same group received a 1 code, and members Education 0.122 0.122 0.024
not in the same group received a 0. Age 0.052 0.052
3. Age was measured as a continuous variable Group 0.065 0.065
with the matrix representing the difference in Network tie strengths 0.001 0.024
age between each dyad. Average age for these Note: Based on 2,000 random permutations using quadratic assign-
subjects is 51 (minimum = 17 and maximum = ment procedure (QAP).
73). p < 0.05 (2-tailed); p < 0.01.
266
is not based on the ordinary least square (OLS) re-
gression method, the test does not provide sufficient
statistics to test the significance of R2 changes, which
is usually provided in hierarchical regression analysis.
The regression model incorporating these attribute
variables was:
Ysim = Bo + B1(STRENGTH)
+ B2(EDUCATION) + B3(GROUP)
+ B4(AGE) + E
where Bo is the intercept term, STRENGTH is the
adjacency matrix capturing interaction strengths be-
tween network ties, EDUCATION, GROUP, and
AGE are the matrices identifying whether or not
the ties share similarities/dissimilarities in those at-
tributes, and E is the error term.
The test results support Hypothesis 1, which
states that dyadic similarity in risk perceptions is re-
lated to the strength of the network tie. As shown in
Table II, the strength of the dyadic interaction is a
significant predictor of dyadic consensus or perceived
level of risk (beta = 0.062, p = 0.045). That is, in the
entire network, individuals are more likely to share
similar risk perceptions if they have frequent interac-
tions with each other. Note that a high score in the de-
pendent variable means that the pair of people are dis-
similar (measured by Euclidean distance) in their risk
perceptions. The negative coefficient, therefore, sug-
gests that there is a positive relationship between in-
teraction strength and dyadic consensus. Group mem-
bership was also a significant predictor. This should
not be surprising, since network members in the same
group are more likely to have shared interests, have
higher interactions, and thereby foster similarity in
risk perception, than are those with different group
memberships. The negative coefficient, here again,
suggests that there is a positive relationship between
attribute similarity and dyadic consensus.
The second hypothesis was also supported. This
hypothesis tested the idea that topics unlikely to
promote interpersonal discussion or information ex-
change should not be related to the strength of the
tie network. For this test we used a measure of
belief in science. The basic understanding of the
nature of science is significantly related only to educa-
tion similarity (beta = 0.121, p = 0.049). As expected
in Hypothesis 2, a social network did not appear to
emerge discussing this topic, thus the network prox-
imity (strength) was not a predictor of dyadic similar-
ity in these attitudes. Since education similarity is also
measured by Euclidean distance, the positive coeffi-
Scherer and Cho
cient in this case suggests that network partners are
more likely to share similar attitudes about the na-
ture of science when their educational backgrounds
are similar to each other.
Note that the small R2 s in these models are due
to the characteristics of network regression methods.
Since we are predicting 2,450 dyads from 50 network
members, the variances explained by the models are
typically small.(22)
4. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION
This article has reported findings of an ex-
ploratory study based on social contagion theory.
Contagion theory suggests that those individuals who
are most connected to each other through interper-
sonal contacts are also most likely to share similar
information, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors on con-
troversial topics. Conversely, individuals who are not
in frequent contact are less likely to have the same
information about a topic, and are less likely to share
similar attitudes and beliefs. The findings of this study
support these propositions. The strength of the net-
work tie was significantly related to similarity of per-
ceptions about the risk of adverse health effects from
a hazardous waste clean-up site, but not about an
assumed noncontroversial measure of the belief in
science.
The most significant unresolved issue related to
this study is the question of cause and effect. Did indi-
viduals seek out others with similar beliefs about this
risk event? This would suggest that the similarity of
perceptions about this risk event influenced the for-
mation of the social networks. The alternative would
be that networks were formed based on some other
criteria, such as social proximity, and that risk per-
ceptions then formed based on linkages with others.
Said another way, individuals with linkages to oth-
ers may have initially been different in their risk per-
ceptions, but over time, through communication ex-
change, those perceptions changed to become more
similar.
Although either of these is possible, studies com-
ing from organizational work suggest the latter is
more likely. Related to this is the question of how indi-
viduals might form different social networks based on
different topics. For example, in a community with two
different controversial topics, each expected to gen-
erate interpersonal discussions, to what extent would
individuals share the same social network on these
two topics? Could we expect individuals to have a dif-
ferent network for each topic? Either way, increased
Social Network Contagion Theory
understanding of this phenomenon could greatly en-
hance work to help risk communicators and commu-
nities deal with controversial risk situations.
Perhaps the most interesting result of this study
is the finding that community networks may function
in ways similar to organizational networks, and that
our understanding of risk perceptions may also be
improved by further exploration of social networks.
Although risk perception network studies have been
neglected in both organizations and communities, the
confirmation that these networks do predict risk per-
ception opens the door to exploring other relation-
ships between social networks and risk, including risk
behaviors.
REFERENCES
1. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: Free Press.
2. Fessenden-Raden, J., Fitchen, J., & Heath, J. S. (1987). Provid-
ing risk information in communities: Factors influencing what
is heard and accepted. Science, Technology, & Human Values,
12(34), 94101.
3. Nelkin, D. (1987). Selling science: How the press covers science
and technology. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.
4. Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (1986). Scien-
tists and journalists, reporting science as news. New York: Free
Press.
5. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J.,
Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1987). The social
amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis,
8(2), 177187.
6. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichenstein, S. (1982). Facts ver-
sus fears: Understanding perceived risk. In D. Kahneman,
P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
7. Lee, C. (1998). Alternatives to cognition: A new look at explain-
ing human social behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
267
8. Bovasso, G. (1996). A network analysis of social contagion
processes in an organizational intervention. Human Relations,
49(11), 14191435.
9. Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion
versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology,
92, 12871335.
10. Beer, M., & Walton, E. (1990). Developing the competitive
organization: Interventions and strategies. American Psychol-
ogist, 45(2), 154161.
11. Monge, P., & Contractor, N. (1999). Emergence of communi-
cation networks. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), Hand-
book of organizational communication (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New
York: Free Press.
13. Ryan, R., & Gross, N. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed
corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15
24.
14. Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1966). Medical inno-
vation study. New York: Bobbs Merrill.
15. Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication net-
works: Toward a new paradigm for research. New York: Free
Press.
16. Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of in-
novations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
17. Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. J. (1999). Community structure
and media accounts of risk. In D. Demers & K. Vishwanath
(Eds.), Mass media, social control and social change (pp. 139
158). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
18. Griffin, R. J., & Dunwoody, S. (1997). Community structure
and science framing of news about local environmental risks.
Science Communication, 18(4), 362384.
19. Fessenden- Raden, J., Fitchen, J., & Heath, J. S. (1987). Provid-
ing risk information in communities: Factors influencing what
is heard and accepted. Science, Technology, & Human Values,
12(34), 94101.
20. Scherer, C. (2000). Community network linkages during a
health controversy. Journal of Public Health Management
and Practice, 6(2), 2129.
21. Borgatti, S., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (1999). UCINET
5 for Windows. Columbia, NY: Analytic Technologies, Inc. and
the University of Greenwich.
22. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L. C. (1992).
UCINET IV version 1.00 reference manual. Columbia, NY:
Analytic Technologies.