{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013899049012435992, 'fraction_numerical': 0.000731528895391368, 'mean_word_length': 5.673170731707317, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The influence of popular media on perceptions of personal and population risk in possible disease outbreaks

Infectious disease outbreaks are uncertain and potentially risky events that often attract significant media attention. Previous research has shown that, regardless of their objective severity, diseases receiving greater coverage in the media are considered to be more serious and more representative of a disease than those receiving less coverage. This study assesses the role of media coverage in estimations of population risk (measured as perceived incidence among a specific population within a 1-year time period) and personal risk (measured as perceived personal likelihood of infection). Diseases with higher media coverage were considered more serious and more representative of a disease, and estimated to have lower incidence, than diseases less frequently found in the media. No difference in estimates of personal risk was found. A significant correlation between estimates of population and personal risk was found for diseases infrequently reported in the media. A weaker correlation between estimates of population and personal risk was found for diseases frequently reported in the media. The correlation remained unchanged when participants were exposed to additional information, including symptoms, mortality and estimates of prevalence.