Overview The social amplification/ attenuation of risk framework: application to climate change Ortwin Renn ∗ The social experience of risk is not confined to the technical definition of risk, that is, the product of probability and magnitude. What human beings perceive as threat to their well-being and how they evaluate probabilities and magnitudes of unwanted consequences is codetermined by values, attitudes, social influences, and cultural identity. This article introduces the social amplification of risk framework (SARF) and applies it to climate change. The SARF is based on the thesis that events pertaining to hazards interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways that can heighten or attenuate individual and social perceptions of risk and shape risk behavior. Drawing upon the concept of social amplification of risk, this article investigates the mechanisms of amplification and attenuation in the climate change debate: it focuses first on the micro-sociological and psychological literature on amplification and attenuation of individual responses (including behavior) in relation to climate change; and second on the application of functional resonance and common pool concepts to the intensity of societal concern and action, interpreted in the light of the SARF.  2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. WIREs Clim Change 2011 DOI: 10.1002/wcc.99 INTRODUCTION A fter the failure of the Copenhagen negotiations on climate change, it has become evident that the role and importance of institutional behavior and human responses toward the challenges of climate change have gained even more prominence in the scientific and political debate. Individual behavior as well as the actions and reactions by other actors in society play a key role in how societies and the world community face the challenges posed by climate change, in particular for designing new climate change policies and implementing these policies. 1–3 A better understanding of the human drivers for initiating, promoting, or hindering political change in this arena is as crucial to effective decision-making as are the findings of the natural and climate sciences communities about the extent and intensity of changes induced by greenhouse gas emissions. 4,5 Most social science analysts have come to the conclusion that despite a broad awareness of ∗ Correspondence to: ortwin.renn@sowi.uni-stuttgart.de Environmental Sociology and Technology Assessment, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany DOI: 10.1002/wcc.99 global climate changes, most individuals in almost all countries have significant difficulties in compre- hending the causes and effects of climate change. 6–9 Furthermore, only few are willing to engage in rad- ical changes of their lifestyles to achieve mitigation, although most people agree that such changes are probably necessary in light of the issues induced by global climate change. 10–12 Finally, public pressure to make significant changes in national and international policies is even less intense, especially considering the far-reaching consequences of this threat to the global community. What are the reasons for such a muted response in most societies of the word? 13 Social scientists and psychologists point to sev- eral factors that tend to attenuate the attention given to climate change. 4,11,14,15 First, laypeople have difficulty recognizing climate change because of the variability of the systems and the oscillation around a long-term trend. Systematic as well as random elements affect the patterns of climate change. Similarly, it is difficult for communicators to provide intuitively verifiable evidence about climate change and related impacts. 16 There is always room for counter-evidence and scep- ticism. In particular, interested parties can build upon this inevitable random component of climate change  2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.