Studying Heuristic-Systematic Processing of Risk Communication

Using a model of risk information seeking and processing developed by Griffin, Dunwoody, and Neuwirth (1999), this study looks at predictors of the processing strategies that people apply to health risk information. Specifically, this article focuses on one relationship within the model--the relationship between perceived amount of information needed to deal with a risk and heuristic-systematic processing. Perceived amount of information needed refers to the gap between one's understanding of a risk and the level of understanding that one needs in order to make a decision about that risk. Building on the work of Chaiken (cf. 1980), the Griffin et al. model predicts--and finds--that the larger the gap, the more likely one will process information systematically. The study employs a novel measure of information processing in a survey setting by sending actual information to participants and then asking them how they attended to it; the researchers evaluate this strategy. Finally, the researchers discuss how these findings might help agencies and practitioners create more effective risk messages.     

Information Processing of Genetically Modified Food Messages Under Different Motives: An Adaptation of the Multiple-Motive Heuristic-Systematic Model

Recent risk management research has noted the importance of understanding how the lay public processes and reacts to risk-related information. Guided by the multiple-motive heuristic-systematic model, this study examines (1) how individuals process messages in the context of genetically modified foods to change their attitudes and (2) how the persuasion process varies across types of motives. In the three treatment conditions of accuracy, defense, and impression motives, the respondents changed their attitudes through either the heuristic or the systematic mode, depending on their motives. The accuracy-motive group appeared to use the systematic processing mode, while the impression-motive group seemed to employ the heuristic processing mode. The empirical findings highlight the importance of incorporating motives to improve our understanding of the process of attitude change in risk management and communication contexts.     

Testing and Expanding a Model of Cognitive Processing of Risk Information

Scholars have begun to explore the role of modes of information processing and related audience characteristics in reactions to risky situations and risk information.((11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20))"Information processing" concerns how people attend to and consider available information: systematic processors analyze messages and situations carefully, while heuristic processors skim and use cues (e.g., opinions of trusted reference groups) for quick judgments. This article uses scenarios about a semi-hypothetical industrial facility, in particular risk comparisons being considered by its manager for inclusion in a talk to the community, to explore the impact of information processing. Information insufficiency, self-assessed capacity to understand information, and information-seeking propensities are tested for potential effects on information processing about industrial risks by people living near industry. As well as testing established models, this article explores the additional explanatory value of involvement, relevance, and ability (Earle et al., 1990) and objective knowledge. Both existing model variables and new ones have significant effects on information seeking and information processing in this case, and partly confirm earlier results. Trumbo((17,18)) found that heuristic processors saw lower risk and systematic processors higher risk from suspected cancer clusters. In this study, reporting knowledge about local industrial risks as insufficient for one's purposes and self-reported avoidance of such information both raised ratings of the facility's risk and lowered ratings of its acceptability. Neither type of information processing significantly affected risk or acceptability judgments, but both increased risk ratings and heuristic processing had more effect than systematic processing. Positive ratings of risk comparisons' clarity and meaningfulness decreased risk and increased acceptability ratings, dominated other information variables in predictive power, and exceeded risk, benefit, and trust in contribution to acceptability judgments. Despite differences across studies in designs and variables, and the embryonic development of appropriate (self-reported) measures for use in field surveys, these results confirm the potential value of further research in how information seeking and processing affect risk beliefs and reactions to risk communications.     

A Structured Expert Judgment Study for a Model of Campylobacter Transmission During Broiler-Chicken Processing

A structured expert judgment study was organized to obtain input data for a microbial risk-assessment model describing the transmission of campylobacter during broiler-chicken processing in the Netherlands. More specially, the expert study was aimed at quantifying the uncertainty on input parameters of this model and focused on the contamination of broiler-chicken carcasses with campylobacter during processing. Following the protocol for structured expert judgment studies, expert assessments were elicited individually through subjective probability distribution functions. The classical model was used to aggregate the individual experts' distributions in order to obtain a single combined distribution per variable. Three different weighting schemes were applied, including equal weighting and performance-based weighting with and without optimalization of the combined distributions. The individual experts' weights were based on their performance on the seed variables. Results of the various weighting schemes are presented in terms of performance, robustness, and combined distributions of the seed variables and some of the query variables. All three weighting schemes had adequate performance, with the optimized combined distributions significantly outperforming both the equal weight and the nonoptimized combined distributions. Hence, this weighting scheme, having adequate robustness, was chosen for further processing of the results.     

Source Credibility in Environmental Health – Risk Controversies: Application of Meyer's Credibility Index

This article applies an existing five-item index for measuring source credibility in the context of environmental health-risk controversy. Survey data were gathered in five upstate New York communities facing environmental health-risk issues. Analysis of the five case studies and a combined dataset (N = 870) show that the credibility index was consistently reliable across all applications. Use of the resulting index is demonstrated through a comparison of the credibility of the New York State Department of Health (active in each case), the industries associated with each case, and the newspaper providing coverage of each case. The credibility index was used to predict risk judgments in a structural equation model. Overall, the analysis demonstrated that the credibility index performed consistently well across the five cases and illuminated important differences in each. As such, the index should be a useful addition to many environmental health and risk communication studies.     

Summarizing Risk Using Risk Measures and Risk Indices

Our society is fascinated with risk in many different areas and disciplines. One of the main ways to describe and communicate the level of risk is through risk indices, which summarize risk using numbers or categories such as words, letters, or colors. These indices are used to communicate risks to the public, understand how risk is changing over time, compare among different risks, and support decision making. Given the different methods to construct risk indices, including flawed methods such as risk matrices, this article develops specific steps that analysts can follow to create a risk index. This article emphasizes the importance of describing risk with a probability distribution, developing a numerical risk measure that summarizes the probability distribution, and finally translating the risk measure to an index. Measuring the risk is the most difficult part and requires the analyst to summarize a probability distribution into one or possibly a few numbers. The risk measure can then be transformed to a numerical or categorical index. I apply the method outlined in this article to construct a risk index that compares the risk of fatalities in aviation and highway transportation.     

Risk Perception and Information Processing: The Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Self‐Reported Information Processing

The role of information processing in understanding people's responses to risk information has recently received substantial attention. One limitation of this research concerns the unavailability of a validated questionnaire of information processing. This article presents two studies in which we describe the development and validation of the Information‐Processing Questionnaire to meet that need. Study 1 describes the development and initial validation of the questionnaire. Participants were randomized to either a systematic processing or a heuristic processing condition after which they completed a manipulation check and the initial 15‐item questionnaire and again two weeks later. The questionnaire was subjected to factor reliability and validity analyses on both measurement times for purposes of cross‐validation of the results. A two‐factor solution was observed representing a systematic processing and a heuristic processing subscale. The resulting scale showed good reliability and validity, with the systematic condition scoring significantly higher on the systematic subscale and the heuristic processing condition significantly higher on the heuristic subscale. Study 2 sought to further validate the questionnaire in a field study. Results of the second study corresponded with those of Study 1 and provided further evidence of the validity of the Information‐Processing Questionnaire. The availability of this information‐processing scale will be a valuable asset for future research and may provide researchers with new research opportunities.     

Multiple Health Risk Perception and Information Processing Among African Americans and Whites Living in Poverty

We investigated the risk‐information‐processing behaviors of people living at or near the poverty line. Because significant gaps in health and communication exist among high‐ and low‐income groups, increasing the information seeking and knowledge of poor individuals may help them better understand risks to their health and increase their engagement in health‐protective behaviors. Most earlier studies assessed only a single health risk selected by the researcher, whereas we listed 10 health risks and allowed the respondents to identify the one that they worried about most but took little action to prevent. Using this risk, we tested one pathway inspired by the risk information seeking and processing model to examine predictors of information insufficiency and of systematic processing and extended this pathway to include health‐protective action. A phone survey was conducted of African Americans and whites living in the southern United States with an annual income of ≤$35,000 (N= 431). The results supported the model pathway: worry partially mediated the relationship between perceived risk and information insufficiency, which, in turn, increased systematic processing. In addition, systematic processing increased health‐protective action. Compared with whites and better educated respondents, African Americans and respondents with little education had significantly higher levels of information insufficiency but higher levels of systematic processing and health‐protective action. That systematic processing and knowledge influenced health behavior suggests a potential strategy for reducing health disparities.     

Informing and Educating the Public About Risk

The objective of informing and educating the public about risk issues seems easy to attain in principle, but, in practice, may be difficult to accomplish. This paper attempts to illustrate why this is so. To be effective, risk communicators must recognize and overcome a number of obstacles that have their roots in the limitations of scientific risk assessment and the idiosyncrasies of the human mind. Doing an adequate job of communicating means finding comprehensible ways of presenting complex technical material that is clouded by uncertainty and inherently difficult to understand. The problems may not be insurmountable, however, if designers of risk information programs are sensitive to the difficulties.     

Presenting Uncertainty in Health Risk Assessment: Initial Studies of Its Effects on Risk Perception and Trust

Some analysts suggest that discussing uncertainties in health risk assessments might reduce citizens'perceptions of risk and increase their respect for the risk-assessing agency. We tested this assumption with simulated news stories varying simple displays of uncertainty (e.g., a range of risk estimates, with and without graphics). Subjects from Eugene, Oregon, read one story each, and then answered a questionnaire. Three studies tested between 180 and 272 subjects each. Two focus groups obtained more detailed responses to these stories. The results suggested that (1) people are unfamiliar with uncertainty in risk assessments and in science; (2) people may recognize uncertainty when it is presented simply; (3) graphics may help people recognize uncertainty; (4) reactions to the environmental problems in the stories seemed affected less by presentation of uncertainty than by general risk attitudes and perceptions; (5) agency discussion of uncertainty in risk estimates may signal agency honesty and agency incompetence for some people; and (6) people seem to see lower risk estimates (10^-6, as opposed to 10^-3) as less credible. These findings, if confirmed, would have important implications for risk communication.     

Expert Scientific Judgment and Cancer Risk Assessment: A Pilot Study of Pharmacokinetic Data

When high-dose tumor data are extrapolated to low doses, it is typically assumed that the dose of a carcinogen delivered to target cells is proportional to the dose administered to test animals, even at exposure levels below the experimental range. Since pharmacokinetic data are becoming available that in some cases question the validity of this assumption, risk assessors must decide whether to maintain the standard assumption. A pilot study of formaldehyde is reported that was undertaken to demonstrate how expert scientific judgment can help guide a controversial risk assessment where pharmacokinetic data are considered inconclusive. Eight experts on pharmacokinetic data were selected by a formal procedure, and each was interviewed personally using a structured interview protocol. The results suggest that expert scientific opinion is polarized in this case, a situation that risk assessors can respond to with a range of risk characterizations considered biologically plausible by the experts. Convergence of expert opinion is likely in this case of several specific research strategies ar executed in a competent fashion. Elicitation of expert scientific judgment is a promising vehicle for evaluating the quality of pharmacokinetic data, expressing uncertainty in risk assessment, and fashioning a research agenda that offers possible forging of scientific consensus.     

Improving Risk Communication

This paper explores reasons for difficulties in communicating risks among analysts, the laypublic, media, and regulators. Formulating risk communication problems as decisions involving objectives and alternatives helps to identify strategies for overcoming these difficulties. Several strategies are suggested to achieve risk communication objectives like improving public knowledge about risks and risk management, encouraging risk reduction behavior, understanding public values and concerns, and increasing trust and credibility.     

What Do We Know About Making Risk Comparisons?

The risks of unfamiliar technologies are often evaluated by comparing them with the risks of more familiar ones. Such risk comparisons have been criticized for neglecting critical dimensions of risky decisions. In a guide written for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Covello et al. (¹) have summarized these critiques and developed a taxonomy that characterizes possible risk comparisons in terms of their acceptability (or objectionableness). We asked four diverse groups of subjects to judge the acceptability of 14 statements produced by Covello et al. as examples of their categories. We found no correlation between the judgments of acceptability produced by our subjects and those predicted by Covello et al. .     

Understanding Risk Information Seeking and Processing during an Infectious Disease Outbreak: The Case of Zika Virus

This study draws on the Planned Risk Information Seeking Model (PRISM) to assess Zika virus information seeking and systematic processing, paying particular attention to the relationship between perceived knowledge and knowledge insufficiency. Novel risks, such as Zika, provide an interesting context for examining whether information-seeking models, such as PRISM, are able to predict information seeking when available information is limited or scarce. A cross-sectional, online study of men and women of childbearing age (N = 494) residing in the state of Florida was conducted. Our results provide some support for the PRISM for predicting Zika information seeking intention, as well as systematic processing of information. We also found that individuals with high levels of perceived knowledge were more likely to report high level of knowledge insufficiency, illustrating that contextual factors may impact the fit of risk information seeking models.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

High Risk or Low: How Location on a "Risk Ladder" Affects Perceived Risk

Efforts to explain risk magnitude often rely on a "risk ladder" in which exposure levels and associated risk estimates are arrayed with low levels at the bottom and high ones at the top. Two experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that perceived threat and intended mitigation vary with the location of the subject's assigned level on the risk ladder. Subjects were New Jersey homeowners, asked to assume a particular level of radon or asbestos contamination in their homes, to read a brochure explaining the risk, and then to complete a questionnaire. Both studies found that the difference between an assigned level one-quarter of the way up the ladder and the same level three-quarters of the way up the ladder significantly affected threat perception; the effect on mitigation intentions was significant in only one of the studies. Variations in assigned risk also affected threat perception and mitigation intentions. Variations in test magnitude (e.g., 15 fibers per liter vs. 450 fibers per cubic foot, roughly equivalent risks) had no effect, nor did the distinction between radon and asbestos affect the dependent variables. These findings suggest that communicators can design risk ladders to emphasize particular risk characteristics.     

Perceived Acceptability of Risk Analysis as a Decision-Making Approach

Three methods for making a consumer product safety decision were evaluated on scales relating to their perceived acceptability, logical soundness, completeness, and sensitivity to moral and ethical concerns. Two of the methods were formalized techniques: cost-benefit analysis and risk analysis. The third method involved abiding by standard industry practices. Other factors in the decision-making context were also varied. The results indicated that formalized techniques were preferred over the standard practices method. Within the formalized methods, cost-benefit analysis was judged less acceptable than a comparable method that did not involve making explicit value tradeoffs. All methods were judged more acceptable when they led to improved product safety. Knowledge of consequences did not exert direct effect on judgments, though it did interact significantly with other variables. The results are discussed in terms of judgmental processes that people apply when evaluating decision methods.