Risk Communication: Applications

The moment a man talks to his fellows he begins to lie.

Hilaire Belloc

Introduction

The quantity of social science research on risk communication has increased dramatically over the past twenty years in response to a growing awareness among risk assessors, risk managers, and consumers that the public should be better informed and more active in technology development and policy making. Led primarily by psychologists, research has explored key determinants of consumer understandings, misunderstandings, and outrage concerning risks associated with a wide variety of new technologies.

Early investigations into consumer risk perceptions revealed that the public often has much different viewpoints about risk than do experts. Studies showed that expert and public opinions often were inverted, where the public was least concerned about hazards that most concerned scientific experts and most concerned about risks of least concern to scientists. Early efforts at risk communication, therefore, focused on developing procedures to convey "actual" risk to consumers who held uninformed and sometimes irrational "perceptions" of risk.

After further investigations, scholars became more aware of the many limitations of technical risk assessments and risk management practices. Scholars become more aware also that value orientations can be legitimate criteria for establishing technology policy (e.g., chemical warfare is rejected by civilized nations not because it is scientifically flawed or inefficient but because people consider it to be ethically abhorrent).

Such awareness greatly changed the nature of risk communication research and application. The recognition that technical assessments are biased and flawed and that value-orientations are equally important to risk assessment as are technical assessments altered the risk communication paradigm from a focus upon "educating an irrational public" to one of "exchanging information and opinions" among the many stakeholders in technology policy making.

This section of Sociology 415 outlines key conclusions reached by social scientists about effective risk communication strategies. The presentation reviews the Joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Expert Commission report on The Application of Risk Communication to Food Standards and Safety Matters (1998). Two other books provide similar information on risk communication as is found in the FAO/WHO report: Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks, Second Edition, by Regina E. Lundgren and Andrea H. McMakin (Battelle Press, 1998), and Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication, by Peter M. Sandman (American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1993).

Compass

Key Questions

Examples

Guiding Principles of Risk Communication

Peter M. Sandman[1], a leading consultant on risk communication, says that, "watch out!" and "stop worrying" almost certainly were among the first phrases uttered in the early development of language. These phases embody the two essential goals of risk communication:

to warn others of potential harm, and
to inform others that there is no need to be concerned about harm.

Sandman notes that risk communication, defined in this manner, essentially represents one-way communication of knowledge to others. As such, this form of risk communication reflects three assumptions:

that the source of the warning/reassurance knows more about the risk than the audience,
that the source is primarily concerned about the best interests of the audience, and
that the warnings/reassurances are based upon actual information rather than just values or preferences.

For many warnings (e.g., yelling out about a falling tree limb) and reassurances (e.g., telling others that a gas leak has been repaired), "watch out!" and "stop worrying" are pragmatic forms of risk communication. Disseminating information about complex and controversial technologies, however, presents challenges for which "watch out!" and "stop worrying" often are not adequate to create/reduce a sufficient amount of perceived risk/lack of risk to be effective approaches to risk communication. The reason that "watch out!" and "stop worrying" are inadequate forms of risk communication is that people realize that sources of warnings/reassurances sometimes must rely upon flawed technical assessments and the political, economic, and cultural context of new technology diffusion influences sources to embed value-judgments into warnings/reassurances.

Because the public realizes that risk assessments of complex and controversial technologies are flawed and influenced by political, economic, and cultural context, Sandman recommends that risk communication regarding them should be multi-directional; it should stimulate debate in addition to transferring knowledge. To Sandman, the criteria for evaluating "effective risk communication" should be the openness of the decision-making process and the extent to which value claims are distinguished from (admittedly flawed) scientific claims.

Everett Rogers [2] author of The Diffusion of Innovations, makes a similar argument. He states that diffusion of information about complex and controversial technologies must avoid the pitfalls of the hypodermic-needle model, wherein the paradigm of risk communication is "injection of knowledge about actual risks" into an uninformed public. Instead, diffusion should consist of two-way communication between the public and developers of new technologies.

The FAO/WHO report, The Application of Risk Communication to Food Standards and Safety Matters, incorporates these suggestions into its definition of risk communication:

Risk communication is the exchange of information and opinions concerning risk and risk-related factors among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, and other interested parties.

The goals of risk communication, according to the FAO/WHO report, are to:

Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk analysis process,
Promote consistency and transparency in arriving at and implementing risk management decisions,
Promote awareness and understanding of the specific issues of the risk analysis process,
Strengthen the working relationships and mutual respect among risk assessment and management participants,
Exchange information among interested parties to risk analysis and management, and
Foster public trust and confidence in risk analysis and management.

The FAO/WHO report, therefore, considers risk communication as an integral part of technology development and analysis rather than as a one-way transfer of knowledge from scientists to consumers. Multi-directional communication aimed at an inclusive process of informed decision-making that respects the value-orientations of others has been adopted as the most effective approach because experience demonstrates that one-way communication must rely upon flawed analysis and inevitably reflects biased judgments and value orientations of risk assessors in addition to errors resulting from lack of sufficient data on failure probabilities.

Susan G. Hadden, in A Citizen's Right to Know: Risk Communication and Public Policy, argues that citizens have a right to know the risks to which they have been exposed and what policies are in place to regulate these risks and a right to participate in risk assessment and management decisions. The essential element of risk communication, therefore, as stated in the FAO/WHO report, is facilitation of the identification of risks and informed weighing of decision alternatives by risk managers and the public. That is, proper risk communication is interactive risk communication.

Elements of Effective Risk Communication

The principles described above note that transmission of scientific knowledge alone is insufficient for proper risk communication. Scientific knowledge should not be considered as flawless, value-free, and unbiased. Nor should scientific knowledge be considered as the only criteria for technology adoption. Technology policy, however, should be science based. Transmission of scientific knowledge, therefore, is a necessary component of risk communication.

Essential aspects of proper risk communication, as described in the FAO/WHO report, include:

Knowing the audience. The audience should be analyzed to understand their knowledge and opinions regarding the new technology. Listening to all interested parties is a critical element of this task.
Involving scientific experts. Technology policy decisions should be science based. Hence, scientific experts should be called upon to relate current knowledge about the technology in a clear and concise manner.
Establishing expertise in communication. The FAO/WHO report states that successful risk communication requires expertise in conveying information in a manner that can be clearly understood by most citizens. This suggestion has created some controversy among scientists who wonder why all the burden for information dissemination should fall upon them. They wonder why citizens do not make more effort at understanding science.
Being a credible source of information. Factors that influence source credibility include perceived competence, trustworthiness, and sincere interest in the well-being of the public. Consistent messages help establish credibility. It is the nature of science, however, that new knowledge alters existing risk estimates. Thus, scientists, who are obligated to report their findings, oftentimes face the dilemma of reporting new knowledge that will erode public confidence in science.
Sharing responsibility. Scientists, regulatory agencies, and industry must share responsibility for developing and managing effective and safe technologies. Increasingly, these parties are pointing out that consumers also must bear responsibility for becoming more informed and active in technology development and policy making.
Differentiating between science and value judgment. Certainly, a fundamental goal of science is to conduct value-free, unbiased research. Therefore, risk communication should focus upon facts, not values. Unfortunately, this approach to risk communication is impossible because it is impossible for any science to be free of bias and value judgments. Scientists should, as much as possible, omit their value judgments from risk communication and point out where judgment is most likely to affect risk assessments.
Assuring transparency. As much as possible within legitimate requirements to assure confidentially, scientists should help the public understand the technology development and risk assessment process.
Placing the risk in perspective. Risks and benefits and the probabilities of each should be compared with one another. One must use caution, however, in comparing risks because the choice of risks compared might reflect bias. Risk comparisons should not be made unless the estimates are equally sound, directly comparable, and relevant to the audience.

The FAO/WHO report lists the following elements that might be included as part of a risk communication program:

The nature of risk

The characteristics of the hazard,
The estimated magnitude of the hazard,
The urgency of addressing the hazard,
Whether the hazard is becoming smaller or larger over time/space,
The probability of exposure to the hazard, and
Who is at greatest risk from the hazard.

The nature of the benefits
The estimated benefits associated with the technology, and
Who is most likely to be benefited by adoption of the technology.

The uncertainties in risk assessment
The methods used to assess the risk,
The weaknesses or inadequacies of the risk assessment,
The assumptions used in the risk assessment, and
The sensitivity of the risk/benefits estimates to changes in the assumptions.

Risk management options
The policy(ies) suggested to control the risk,
The action(s) individuals might take to control their exposure to the risk,
The estimated effectiveness of different management options,
The costs and benefits of different management options, and
The justification for selecting a particular risk management option.

Barriers to Effective Risk Communication

The shift in paradigms from "informing an irrational public" to "facilitating informed and respectful discussion among interested stakeholders" greatly improved the quality of risk communication research and practice. Which is not to say that unavoidable barriers remain to effective risk communication.

The FAO/WHO report describes barriers to effective risk communication that occur due to limitations of the risk assessment process and social processes of human interaction and decision making:

Barriers within the risk analysis process

Lack of information. Lack of information always poses problems for risk communication because, by nature, little information exists about how well new technologies will perform in practice. New findings and new applications of technologies can reveal flaws not previously known or anticipated.
Access to information. Lack of access to proprietary information held by private firms limits the abilities of risk assessors to adequately evaluate new technologies.
Incomplete participation in the process. Lack of participation by appropriate experts or stakeholders limits the abilities of risk assessors to evaluate hazards and of risk communicators to effectively convey important information. Sometime, non-participation occurs because of the nature of technology development, assessment, and dissemination processes themselves. Lack of knowledge about the development of a new technology, lack of resources to learn about them, and lack of access to relevant information can influence some who should become involved to not participate.

Barriers associated with human agency
Differences in perceptions. People from different segments of society or who hold different value orientations view the same scientific facts differently. Concerns about hazards and viewpoints about how best to manage risks vary by individual and sub-populations. People differ in the extent to which they are exposed and attend to hazard analyses. The effectiveness of risk communication is enhanced when people become aware of differences in perceptions and the reasons for these differences.
Differences in receptivity. Given similar perceptions of risk, people differ in their concerns about it. Some persons might consider, for example, a 1/100 chance of technology failure to be acceptable while others think of this estimate as too risky.
Lack of understanding of the scientific process.Most persons do not have a thorough understanding of the scientific process, resulting not necessarily out of a lack of formal education or awareness of important societal issues, but from ignorance of science. Even the most educated among us are ignorant in many ways. Risk communication should attempt to use non-technical terms to overcome barriers related to ignorance. Risk communication should focus as well on educating the public about the process of science, wherein it is not uncommon that new findings alter existing risk estimates and controversy among scientists is common rather than an indication of poor science.
Source credibility. Trust in the sources of information about new technologies is perhaps the most important factor influencing public opinions. Trust is associated with perceptions of expertise, accuracy, and concern for the public welfare. Distrust arises with suspicions of bias or conflicts of interest. Once lost, trust is difficult to regain.
Media effects. Most persons receive their information about new technologies from the media. Because relatively few reporters have extensive backgrounds in the sciences, they rely heavily upon scientists to present their information in a clear and concise manner using non-technical language. Reporters are ethically bound to present differing viewpoints rather than what a scientist might consider to be the "truth." Scientists therefore oftentimes blame the media for public controversy they think never would have occurred if the media had not presented the viewpoints of opposition groups. Risk communicators need training in media skills and reporters need more training in science.
Societal characteristics. Language barriers, cultural differences, illiteracy, geographic barriers, discrimination, exploitation of power, and other characteristics of society influence perceptions of risk, receptivity to risk messages, source credibility, and opinions about risk. As much as possible, societal differences that might affect risk perceptions and risk communication effectiveness need to be identified. The section on Diffusion of Innovations, Part II in Sociology 415 describes procedures that can be used to improve risk communication to disadvantaged audiences.

Strategies for Effective Risk Communication

The complexity of risk communication requires that communication programs be tailored to each setting. It is possible, however, to describe general strategies that research and experience have shown to be effective across a wide variety of settings.

The outline presented here summarizes the large body of risk communication research and program experience to date. Strategies for implementing the suggestions offered in this section are addressed in more detail in Diffusion of Innovations, Parts I and II. Techniques for risk communication and public relations campaigns are covered in JLMC 424: Public Relations Campaigns, offered by Iowa State University's Greenlee School of Journalism and Communications.

General Considerations

According to the FAO/WHO report, systematic approach to risk communication recognizes the importance of gathering background information, thorough preparation, effective dissemination of information, and program evaluation.

Background information

Understand the scientific knowledge about the technology,
Understand public perceptions by gathering information through surveys and other social science methods,
Find out what information people need and want, and
Be sensitive to differences in perceptions, access to information, receptivity to information, and social context.

Preparation
Avoid overly simplistic comparisons between familiar risks and new risks because they might appear to be flippant and insincere.
Recognize and respond to the emotional aspects of risk perceptions. Sandman states that Risk = Hazard + Outrage, wherein hazard is the technical assessment of risk and outrage is the emotional response to hazard analysis. Hazard and outrage are equally important determinants of public risk assessments.
Express the risk in several ways without avoiding the central issues of the new technology.
Maintain an openness to and recognition of public responsibilities.
Build public awareness of the benefits of the new technology.

Communication
Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner to technology policy making.
Share the public's concern rather than dismiss it as not being legitimate.
Be honest, frank, and open at all times.
Explain the overall risk assessment before presenting the more detailed statistics.
Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources.
Meet the needs of the media.

Review and Evaluation
Evaluate the effectiveness of the risk communication program.
Emphasize ongoing actions to monitor, manage, and reduce risk exposure.

Risk Communication and Outrage

We noted that outrage--emotional responses to risk information--is equally as important as hazard--technical evaluations of the probability of technology failure--in public risk assessments. "Outrage factors," as they are described by Peter M. Sandman, are key factors affecting emotional reactions to new technologies.

Outrage and Risk Perceptions

The FAO/WHO report outlines outrage factors that affect risk perceptions:

Unknown, unfamiliar, or rare events are more likely to create outrage.
Outrage increases when events are seen to be outside one's control.
Risks perceived to result from industry action(s) create more outrage than those viewed as natural occurrences.
Risks that raise moral or ethical questions are more likely to create outrage.
An unresponsive decision-making process will create outrage.

The FAO/WHO report suggests these approaches to reducing outrage:

Make risks voluntary by giving the public input into the decision making process and control over the regulation of risks.
Show that expert disagreement about risk simply represents a range of uncertainty, not uncertainty about the quality of science used to estimate risk.
Acknowledge that uncertainty exists.
Treat all stakeholders with respect.
Always consider public concerns and complaints seriously.

Risk Communication Strategy and Use of Outrage Factors

Sometimes, persons/organizations attempt to create outrage as a means of warning about risk. Various agencies of the U.S. government and some private organizations, for example, try to create outrage about cigarette smoking to reduce its use. And sometimes persons/organizations want to reduce outrage when they think the public is overly concerned about a low-risk technology.

Earlier in Sociology 415, we learned from Bell and Mayerfeld that the "language of risk" can be an effective tool in swaying public opinion. Thus, persons/organizations interested in swaying public opinion learn to use language in a manner that creates/reduces outrage. Proponents and opponents of the sampler technologies, for example, are familiar with outrage factors and attempt to create/reduce public outrage regarding these technologies.

Research and experience have identified twelve key factors that tend to create/reduce outrage regarding new technologies:

Voluntary/Coerced. Risks we take upon ourselves create less outrage than those forced upon us.
Natural/Industrial. Natural risks are viewed with less emotional response than risks created by human actions.
Familiar/Unfamiliar. Things familiar are considered less risky than the unfamiliar.
Memorable/Not Memorable. Linking technologies to highly memorable tragedies makes them seem more risky.
Not Dreaded/Dreaded. Linking technologies to dreaded events (i.e., cancer) makes them seem more risky.
Chronic/Catastrophic. Risks we face everyday create less outrage than the catastrophic event.
Knowable/Unknowable. People tend to fear the unknown. Opponents of a new technology can always use this outrage factor to their advantage because, de facto, using new technologies involves uncertainties.
Control/Not in Control. We feel safer when we have the ability to regulate the use of a technology.
Fair/Unfair. People will become more outraged about a technology if they think they must bear more costs or fewer benefits than do others.
Morally Irrelevant/Relevant. Linking the use of a technology with immoral motives creates outrage. Linking it with moral standards lessens outrage.
Trustworthy/Untrustworthy. Trust in the experts who develop or endorse a new technology might be the most important factor influencing outrage.
Responsive/Unresponsive. Outrage is reduced when persons/organizations responsible for the development or regulation of a new technology seem responsive to public concerns.

Thus, proponents of a technology attempt to convey to the public that the technology is well known, under control, familiar, trustworthy, and so forth. Opponents want the technology to appear uncertain, unresponsive, unfair, not trustworthy and so on.

Risk Communication: Non-Crisis Situations

Risk communication is not limited to crisis situations. Rather, risk communication is an ongoing process of informing, listening to, and responding to the public. Responsive risk communication programs help prevent crises and establish source credibility when crises emerge.

The FAO/WHO report describes important steps to take in developing responsive risk communication programs:

Background information

Anticipate potential hazards before they become significant.
Keep abreast of the target audience--their perceptions, knowledge, and motivations to become involved in technology policy making.
Determine which communication channels are most effective for different types of risk information.

Preparation
Provide ongoing information about the technology, including updates on risk assessments.
Identify shared values and concerns among the target audience.
Make messages interesting and relevant by focusing upon people rather than statistics.
Maintain good working relationships with the media.

Communication
Keep messages in the mass media and in public forums.
Sustain regular communication to enable citizens to become involved in ongoing decision making.
Make certain that risk communication is multi-directional: listen to the public and facilitate their involvement in decision making.

Review and Evaluation
Continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the risk communication program.
Test the clarity and understanding of messages.
Educate risk assessors and managers on the principles of risk communication.
Engender cooperation among the public, management, and regulatory agencies.

Risk Communication: Crisis Situations

By definition, a crisis is short-lived. The public's memory of how a crisis is handled, however, can affect risk perceptions and outrage for a long time.

The suggestions offered by the FAO/WHO report can help mitigate the negative consequences of a crisis situation.

Describe in an open and honest manner the extent of the crisis and measures being taken to control it.
Inform the public about how to reduce their risk exposure.
Help the public identify the hazard and how to avoid it.
Describe how to prevent further exposure to the risk.
Provide complete, up-to-date, and accurate information about the crisis.
Keep messages simple. Too many facts can be overwhelming. Do not, however, omit key facts in the hope that the public will not hear about them.
Choose and rely upon a media spokesperson. The public should know who is the spokesperson. Make this person available to the media at all times. Hold regular briefings with representatives of the public and regulatory agencies.

Peter M. Sandman makes some additional suggestions for handling a risk crisis:

Acknowledge prior misbehavior. The prerogative of deciding when you can put your mistakes behind you belongs to your stakeholders, not to you. The more often and apologetically you acknowledge the sins of the past, the more quickly others decide it's time to move on.
Acknowledge current problems. Omissions, distortions, and "spin control" can damage credibility nearly as much as outright lies. The only way to build credibility is to acknowledge problems.
Share control and be accountable. The higher the outrage, the less willing people are to leave the control in your hands. Look for ways to put the control elsewhere (or to show that it is already elsewhere). Let others--regulators, neighbors, activists--keep you honest and certify your good performance.