What’s in a #Name? An Experimental Study Examining Perceived Credibility and Impact of Winter Storm Names

What’s in a #Name? An Experimental Study Examining Perceived Credibility and Impact of Winter... AbstractThe practice of naming winter storms has generated a large amount of discussion within the meteorology community of late. While storm naming has typically been reserved for tropical systems, some media organizations in the United States recently began naming winter storms - but often-times using differing criteria. Anecdotal comments have labeled this practice as a marketing initiative and other forecasting organizations have criticized The Weather Channel for naming storms (Palmer, 2013), but little to no research has investigated whether naming winter storms serves useful to forecasters, practitioners, and the general public. The purpose of this study is twofold. First, we hope to further the discussion and investigation of naming winter storms. We provide empirical evidence which suggests that little difference exists between individual perceptions dependent on whether a name is used or the type of name used. The results indicate that individuals do not differ in levels of perceived severity or susceptibility toward a fictional winter storm dependent on the type of name used. Similarly, perceptions of credibility of media organizations do not change dependent on the storm name. Second, we discuss the implications of our results with respect to the current storm naming process, and provide future areas of exploration which can further an understanding of the practice. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Weather, Climate, and Society American Meteorological Society

What’s in a #Name? An Experimental Study Examining Perceived Credibility and Impact of Winter Storm Names

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ams/what-s-in-a-name-an-experimental-study-examining-perceived-credibility-3TO6JkvJt0
Publisher
American Meteorological Society
Copyright
Copyright © American Meteorological Society
ISSN
1948-8335
D.O.I.
10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0037.1
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractThe practice of naming winter storms has generated a large amount of discussion within the meteorology community of late. While storm naming has typically been reserved for tropical systems, some media organizations in the United States recently began naming winter storms - but often-times using differing criteria. Anecdotal comments have labeled this practice as a marketing initiative and other forecasting organizations have criticized The Weather Channel for naming storms (Palmer, 2013), but little to no research has investigated whether naming winter storms serves useful to forecasters, practitioners, and the general public. The purpose of this study is twofold. First, we hope to further the discussion and investigation of naming winter storms. We provide empirical evidence which suggests that little difference exists between individual perceptions dependent on whether a name is used or the type of name used. The results indicate that individuals do not differ in levels of perceived severity or susceptibility toward a fictional winter storm dependent on the type of name used. Similarly, perceptions of credibility of media organizations do not change dependent on the storm name. Second, we discuss the implications of our results with respect to the current storm naming process, and provide future areas of exploration which can further an understanding of the practice.

Journal

Weather, Climate, and SocietyAmerican Meteorological Society

Published: Aug 16, 2017

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off