The NAS Risk Paradigm as a Medium for Communication

Many journalists, public interest groups and other recipients of risk assessment information are familiar with the National Academy of Sciences risk assessment paradigm. From time to time, paradigm concepts appear in news features or community group discussions on environmental issues. With knowledge of the paradigm common to scientists, journalists, and other interested parties, the paradigm is a potentially important medium for communication between risk scientists, journalists, and the public. Specifically, the paradigm offers widely-accepted organizing principles for presenting risk information, a common language for addressing a variety of issues and concepts, and a flexible analytical system that accommodates the diversity of scientific information and policy perspectives that characterize the risk assessment process. In addition, the paradigm outlines important relationships and distinctions between risk assessment and risk management. Informed and creative use of these features of the paradigm can guide and simplify interviews between journalists or community groups and their expert sources, clarify presentation of risk information, and promote collaboration between risk scientists, journalists, and others to assure complete, objective and fair comment on risk issues of interest to the public.     

Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Continuing the Discussion

Proposed in this article is one possible framework for classifying multiple types of ethical issues in risk communication research and practice to help continue a discussion initiated in 1990 by Morgan and Lave. Some of the questions that each stage of the process for planning risk communication strategies appears to pose for ethics are discussed (e.g., selecting issues to be communicated, knowing the issue, dealing with constraints). Also discussed briefly are some issues raised by the possibility that risk communicators aspire to the status of a profession. The purpose is to foster discussion rather than issue a conclusive statement on the topic, because its very nature makes a definitive pronouncement indefensible.     

Risk Communication for Empowerment: Interventions in a Rohingya Refugee Settlement

There are many reasons that people, when warned of an impending extreme event, do not take proactive, self-defensive action. We focus on one possible reason, which is that, sometimes, people lack a sense of agency or even experience disempowerment, which can lead to passivity. This article takes up one situation where the possibility of disempowerment is salient, that of Rohingya refugees who were evicted from their homes in Myanmar and forced to cross the border into neighboring Bangladesh. In their plight, we see the twin elements of marginalization and displacement acting jointly to produce heightened vulnerability to the risks from extreme weather. Building on a relational model of risk communication, a consortium of researchers and practitioners designed a risk communication training workshop that featured elements of empowerment-based practice. The program was implemented in two refugee camps. Evaluation suggests that the workshop may have had an appreciable effect in increasing participants' sense of agency and hope, while decreasing their level of fatalism. The outcomes were considerably more positive for female than male participants, which has important implications. This work underscores the potential for participatory modes of risk communication to empower the more marginalized, and thus more vulnerable, members of society.     

A Discussion of Findings and Their Possible Implications from a Workshop on Bioterrorism Threat Assessment and Risk Management

In November 2001, the Monterey Institute of International Studies convened a workshop on bioterrorism threat assessment and risk management. Risk assessment practitioners from various disciplines, but without specialized knowledge of terrorism, were brought together with security and intelligence threat analysts to stimulate an exchange that could be useful to both communities. This article, prepared by a subset of the participants, comments on the workshop's findings and their implications and makes three recommendations, two short term (use of threat assessment methodologies and vulnerability analysis) and one long term (application of quantitative risk assessment and modeling), regarding the practical application of risk assessment methods to bioterrorism issues.     

Conventional Wisdom on Risk Communication and Evidence from a Field Experiment

A recent comprehensive review of the literature identified a number of facts and principles governing risk communication. This paper evaluates several of these propositions using recent evidence from a field experiment in communicating the risks from radon in homes. At this point in the research, data relates primarily to the response of risk perceptions to different information treatments and different personal characteristics. The effect of various causal factors is sensitive to the particular test of risk perception applied. No information treatment was clearly superior for all tasks. An important implication of these findings is that risk communicators must determine what specific task or tasks the information program should enable people to do.     

The Significance of Socioeconomic and Ethnic Diversity for the Risk Communication Process

Risk communication is being characterized as one way of facilitating more effective, democratic and participatory risk management strategies. An emphasis on formal communication approaches as a means to improve decisions and decrease conflict will highlight the challenge of managing hazards within a culturally heterogeneous society. Communication and participatory strategies will be considered successful only if diverse communities can be engaged as partners in the policy process. Because responses to risks are embedded and evolve within broader social environments, achieving the promise of risk communication across a diverse society may not be possible absent an understanding of how sociocultural variables and past experiences shape the exchange of ideas or information in any particular situation. This paper considers the implications of ethnic and socioeconomic variability for the risk communication process, summarizing theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence on the link between sociocultural features and risk responses. Specifically, the factors that define the context of communication may influence: the initial framing of a risk issue, particularly, the adoption of an environmental justice vs. scientific/economic perspective; the perceived importance of various aspects of the decision problem; and prior beliefs about environmental hazards and agencies involved in risk management. Two examples of situations requiring communications about risk are presented and illustrate how these principles could operate in minority or lower-income communities. A significant challenge for health and regulatory officials will be to engage in an interactive process of information and opinion exchanges that is reasonable and effective within vastly different socioeconomic and cultural contexts.     

Risk Communication and Foodborne Illness: Message Sponsorship and Attempts to Stimulate Perceptions of Risk

Foodborne illness represents a serious health hazard in the United States. Since foodborne illness can often be prevented by an individual's behavior, messages aimed at promoting safe food-handling behaviors should be a major tool to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness. This article argues that to achieve adoption of safe food-handling practices in the home, food-safety messages should both stimulate risk perceptions and promote self-efficacy, feelings that one can successfully enact recommended behaviors. A content analysis of nationally distributed food-safety messages questioned if messages incorporated these features. Since food-safety communicators operate in complex environments with multiple and sometimes competing objectives, this study also questioned if sponsorship of foodborne illness prevention messages was related to the amount of content designed to alter risk perceptions associated with foodborne illness. Results of the quantitative content analysis found that copywriters generally included content designed to stimulate risk perception about foodborne illness but virtually ignored self-efficacy needs of the audience. A marked difference in tendencies to stimulate risk perceptions was found based on sponsorship. Both in volume and proportion, results show that governmentally sponsored messages more aggressively attempted to heighten risk perceptions associated with foodborne illness than did messages sponsored by privately funded communicators.     

The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication

Results of past research suggest that affect plays an important role in risk perception. Because affect may also increase the availability of risks, affect and availability are closely related concepts. Three studies tested the hypothesis that evoking negative affect (fear), either through past experience or through experimental manipulation, results in greater perceived risk. The present research focused on perception of flooding risk. Study 1 and Study 2 showed that participants who received risk information concerning a longer time period (e.g., 30 years) perceived more danger compared with participants who received risk information for one year. Study 2 showed that the interpretation of risk information was influenced by participants' own experiences with flooding. In Study 3, affect was experimentally manipulated. After looking at photographs depicting houses in a flooded region, participants perceived greater risk compared with participants in a control group. Taken together, the results of these three studies suggest that affect is important for successful risk communication. Results of the present research are in line with the affect heuristic proposed by Slovic and colleagues.     

The Evolving Field of Risk Communication

The 40th Anniversary of the Society for Risk Analysis presents an apt time to step back and review the field of risk communication. In this review, we first evaluate recent debates over the field's current state and future directions. Our takeaway is that efforts to settle on a single, generic version of what constitutes risk communication will be less productive than an open-minded exploration of the multiple forms that comprise today's vibrant interdisciplinary field. We then review a selection of prominent cognitive, cultural, and social risk communication scholarship appearing in the published literature since 2010. Studies on trust in risk communication messengers continued to figure prominently, while new research directions emerged on the opportunities and critical challenges of enhancing transparency and using social media. Research on message attributes explored how conceptual insights particularly relating to framing, affective and emotional responses, and uncertainty might be operationalized to improve message effectiveness. Studies consistently demonstrated the importance of evaluation and how varying single attributes alone is unlikely to achieve desired results. Research on risk communication audiences advanced on risk perception and multiway engagement with notable interest in personal factors such as gender, race, age, and political orientation. We conclude by arguing that the field's interdisciplinary tradition should be further nurtured to drive the next evolutionary phase of risk communication research.     

Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence

Risk communication is fundamental in ensuring people are equipped with the knowledge needed to navigate varied risks. One generally well‐regarded framework for the development of such communications is the mental models approach to risk communication (MMARC). Developed during the 1990s, the MMARC has been applied to a range of health, technological, and environmental risks. However, as yet, we know of no attempt to collate and review articles that evaluated communications developed using the MMARC. This article took a first step at addressing this gap by conducting a scoping review that aimed to begin to explore the fidelity with which the approach has been applied, explore whether there appeared to be sufficient studies to warrant a future systematic review, and identify future research questions. Although the initial search found over 100 articles explicitly applying the MMARC, only 12 of these developed a risk‐related communication that was tested against a control (and thus included in the current review). All studies reported a positive effect of the MMARC versus control communication for at least some of the outcome measures (knowledge being the most prevalent). However, there was wide variation between studies including type of control, outcomes assessed, and only five studies reported adopting a randomized design. The review highlights both the need for greater fidelity in the way future studies operationalize the MMARC approach, and suggests that a full‐scale systematic review of the MMARC literature appears justified, especially given the possibility of a large gray literature in this area.     

Development of a Preliminary Framework for Informing the Risk Analysis and Risk Management of Nanoparticles

Decisions are often made even when there is uncertainty about the possible outcomes. However, methods for making decisions with uncertainty in the problem framework are scarce. Presently, safety assessment for a product containing engineered nano-scale particles is a very poorly structured problem. Many fields of study may inform the safety assessment of such particles (e.g., ultrafines, aerosols, debris from medical devices), but engineered nano-scale particles may present such unique properties that extrapolating from other types of studies may introduce, and not resolve, uncertainty. Some screening-level health effects studies conducted specifically on engineered nano-scale materials have been published and many more are underway. However, it is clear that the extent of research needed to fully and confidently understand the potential for health or environmental risk from engineered nano-scale particles may take years or even decades to complete. In spite of the great uncertainty, there is existing research and experience among researchers that can help to provide a taxonomy of particle properties, perhaps indicating a relative likelihood of risk, in order to prioritize nanoparticle risk research. To help structure this problem, a framework was developed from expert interviews of nanotechnology researchers. The analysis organizes the information as a system based on the risk assessment framework, in order to support the decision about safety. In the long term, this framework is designed to incorporate research results as they are generated, and therefore serve as a tool for estimating the potential for human health and environmental risk.     

Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change

Believing action to reduce the risks of climate change is both possible (self‐efficacy) and effective (response efficacy) is essential to motivate and sustain risk mitigation efforts, according to current risk communication theory. Although the public recognizes the dangers of climate change, and is deluged with lists of possible mitigative actions, little is known about public efficacy beliefs in the context of climate change. Prior efficacy studies rely on conflicting constructs and measures of efficacy, and links between efficacy and risk management actions are muddled. As a result, much remains to learn about how laypersons think about the ease and effectiveness of potential mitigative actions. To bring clarity and inform risk communication and management efforts, we investigate how people think about efficacy in the context of climate change risk management by analyzing unprompted and prompted beliefs from two national surveys (N = 405, N = 1,820). In general, respondents distinguish little between effective and ineffective climate strategies. While many respondents appreciate that reducing fossil fuel use is an effective risk mitigation strategy, overall assessments reflect persistent misconceptions about climate change causes, and uncertainties about the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies. Our findings suggest targeting climate change risk communication and management strategies to (1) address gaps in people's existing mental models of climate action, (2) leverage existing public understanding of both potentially effective mitigation strategies and the collective action dilemma at the heart of climate change action, and (3) take into account ideologically driven reactions to behavior change and government action framed as climate action.     

The Role of Emotions in Risk Communication

We present two experiments investigating the role of emotions concerning technological and natural hazards. In the first experiment, technological hazards aroused stronger emotions, and were considered to be riskier than natural hazards. No differences were found between the texts versus audio presentations. However, the presence of pictures aroused stronger emotions and increased the perceived risk. Emotions play a mediating role between hazard types and perceived risk, as well as between pictures and perceived risk. The second experiment adopted real‐world materials from webpages and TV. Emotions again play a mediating role between pictorial information and risk perception. Moreover, specific emotions were found to be associated with different types of action tendencies. For example, loss‐based emotions (e.g., fear, regret) tend to lead to prevention strategies, whereas ethical emotions (e.g., anger) lead to aggressive behavior. We also find that loss‐based emotions in the technical hazard scenario trigger more coping strategies (from prevention to retaliation) than in the natural hazard scenario.     

One Agency's Use of Risk Assessment and Risk Communication1

Few organizations have the courage to evaluate their own use of risk assessment (identifying hazards and estimating their probability and magnitude) and risk communication (interacting with internal and external stakeholder groups about risks). The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) wants to enhance its overall risk analysis process for managing a wide range of risks to animals, plants, and human health. We gathered survey data for a baseline of APHIS professionals’ understanding and use of risk assessment and risk communication. APHIS professionals spend a surprisingly large share of their time communicating about risks. They perceive that risk estimates influence decisions, but that risk estimates should have more influence. Respondents reported little opposition to APHIS risk management decisions, and little use of channels such as USDA Extension Service for disseminating risk messages. Substantial variance across responses is explained mostly by differences in the roles of the 11 work units (now 10) within the agency. Location also contributes to the variance. Demographic variables seem less important.     

Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication

Differences in the conceptual frameworks of scientists and nonscientists may create barriers to risk communication. This article examines two such conceptual problems. First, the logic of "direct inference" from group statistics to probabilities about specific individuals suggests that individuals might be acting rationally in refusing to apply to themselves the conclusions of regulatory risk assessments. Second, while regulators and risk assessment scientists often use an "objectivist" or "relative frequency" interpretation of probability statements, members of the public are more likely to adopt a "subjectivist" or "degree of confidence" interpretation when estimating their personal risks, and either misunderstand or significantly discount the relevance of risk assessment conclusions. If these analyses of inference and probability are correct, there may be a conceptual gulf at the center of risk communication that cannot be bridged by additional data about the magnitude of group risk. Suggestions are made for empirical studies that might help regulators deal with this conceptual gulf.     

Public Reliance on Risk Communication Channels in the Wake of a Cryptosporidium Outbreak

In the spring of 1993, about 39% of Milwaukee-area residents suffered through a nationally publicized illness brought about by cryptosporidium, a parasite that had infested the metropolitan drinking water supply. Our study, based on a telephone survey of 610 local adult residents, indicates that worry about becoming ill in the future with cryptosporidiosis relates more strongly and consistently to public reliance on, and use of, media for cryptosporidium information than do a range of risk perception and experience variables. We propose that more studies should take an audience-centered approach to understanding risk communication.     

Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process1

Over the past twenty years, risk communication researchers and practitioners have learned some lessons, often at considerable personal price. For the most part, the mistakes that they have made have been natural, even intelligent ones. As a result, the same pitfalls may tempt newcomers to the field. This essay offers a personal (even confessional) history of the field over this period. It identifies a series of developmental stages. Progress through the stages involves consolidating the skills needed to execute it and learning its limitations. Knowing about their existence might speed the learning process and alert one to how much there still is to learn.     

Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature

Communicating probability information about risks to the public is more difficult than might be expected. Many studies have examined this subject, so that their resulting recommendations are scattered over various publications, diverse research fields, and are about different presentation formats. An integration of empirical findings in one review would be useful therefore to describe the evidence base for communication about probability information and to present the recommendations that can be made so far. We categorized the studies in the following presentation formats: frequencies, percentages, base rates and proportions, absolute and relative risk reduction, cumulative probabilities, verbal probability information, numerical versus verbal probability information, graphs, and risk ladders. We suggest several recommendations for these formats. Based on the results of our review, we show that the effects of presentation format depend not only on the type of format, but also on the context in which the format is used. We therefore argue that the presentation format has the strongest effect when the receiver processes probability information heuristically instead of systematically. We conclude that future research and risk communication practitioners should not only concentrate on the presentation format of the probability information but also on the situation in which this message is presented, as this may predict how people process the information and how this may influence their interpretation of the risk.     

Threshold Conditions for the Persistence of Plague Transmission in Urban Rats

In this article we derive a mathematical expression characterizing the tendency for Yersinia pestis, the etiologic agent of plague, to become established in an urban rat population upon introduction, and evaluate this risk for several cities. The expression gives a threshold condition for the persistence of Y. pestis transmission in terms of measurable attributes of a local urban rat population: the average flea density and the rat colony size. If the local rat and flea populations exceed this threshold, plague circulation is predicted to continue; if not, it will burn out of its own accord. This expression may be used to evaluate both the vulnerability of a specific neighborhood and the effect of pest control strategies upon that vulnerability.