Using Time Intervals Between Expected Events to Communicate Risk Magnitudes

Because members of the public have difficulty understanding risk presented in terms of odds ratios (e.g., 1 in 1000) and in comparing odds ratios from different hazards, we examined the use of time intervals between expected harmful events to communicate risk. Perceptions of the risk from a hypothetical instance of naturally-occurring, cancer-causing arsenic in drinking water supplies was examined with a sample of 705 homeowners. The risk was described as either 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100,000 and as present in a town of 2000 people or a city of 200,000 people. With these parameters, the time intervals ranged from 1 expected death in 3500 years (1 in 100,000 risk, small town) to 1 death every 4 months (1 in 1000 risk, city). The addition of time intervals to the odds ratios significantly decreased perceived threat and perceived need for action in the small town but did not affect response for the city. These framing effects were nearly as large as a 100-fold difference in actual risk. Instances when this communication approach may be useful are discussed.     

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.     

Heuristic-Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment

The heuristic-systematic information processing model (HSM) holds that individuals will use one or both of these modes of information processing when attempting to evaluate information in order to arrive at a judgment. Systematic processing is defined by effortful scrutiny and comparison of information, whereas heuristic processing is defined by the use of cues to arrive more easily at a judgment. Antecedents to the two processing modes include information sufficiency, motivation, and self-efficacy. Structural equation modeling is used to examine competing configuration of this model and to evaluate the model as appropriate for predicting risk judgment. The model also is evaluated across three groups that vary with respect to their level of concern. These analyses are executed within a case study involving an epidemiological investigation of a suspected cancer cluster. The analysis confirms the HSM's theoretically proposed structure and shows it to be a useful vehicle for evaluating risk judgment. In the overall analysis, antecedent variables generally function as specified by theory. Systematic processing is predicted by greater motivation. Heuristic processing is predicted by information sufficiency. Self-efficacy is a significant predictor of both processing modes. And heuristic processing is shown to be associated with judgment of less risk. However, when the analysis is contrasted across three groups (those concerned about cancer, not concerned and uncertain) it is shown that the model is significantly more robust for the uncertain group. This finding may have implications for the use of the HSM in risk research specifically, and in field research generally.     

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.     

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. .     

Sensitivity Analysis Using Risk Measures

In a quantitative model with uncertain inputs, the uncertainty of the output can be summarized by a risk measure. We propose a sensitivity analysis method based on derivatives of the output risk measure, in the direction of model inputs. This produces a global sensitivity measure, explicitly linking sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. We focus on the case of distortion risk measures, defined as weighted averages of output percentiles, and prove a representation of the sensitivity measure that can be evaluated on a Monte Carlo sample, as a weighted average of gradients over the input space. When the analytical model is unknown or hard to work with, nonparametric techniques are used for gradient estimation. This process is demonstrated through the example of a nonlinear insurance loss model. Furthermore, the proposed framework is extended in order to measure sensitivity to constant model parameters, uncertain statistical parameters, and random factors driving dependence between model inputs.     

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.     

Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators

Government agencies often compare contaminant levels to standards and other regulatory benchmarks to convey relative risk to public audiences, as well as for enforcement. Yet we know little of how citizens interpret these risk indicators or factors influencing interpretations. Owners of private residential wells in New Jersey were surveyed by mail. A majority appreciated this comparison, trusted the standard, and could effectively compare the contaminant level to the standard. Most people who recalled that their own well water quality was unsatisfactory simply installed treatment systems. However, there was also a surprising amount of inability to tell whether pollution levels were better or worse than the standard, perhaps exacerbated by confusing institutional language to summarize the comparison (e.g., pollution “exceeds” or is “less than” the standard) and innumeracy. There was also substantial skepticism about the degree to which pollution levels below, or (to a lesser extent) above, the standard are harmless or harmful, respectively. Skepticism was variously due to distrust of standards, disbelief in thresholds for health effects, inability to accurately compare standards and contaminant levels, information processing, and demographics. Discontinuity in reactions below versus above the standard did not exist in the aggregate, and rarely among individuals, contrary to some previous findings. At identical standards and contaminant levels, familiar toxins (mercury, arsenic, lead) elicited higher risk ratings than less familiar ones. Given the wide institutional use of this risk indicator, further research on how to improve the design and use of this indicator, and consideration of alternatives, is warranted.     

Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments

Three experimental studies were conducted employing hypothetical news stories to compare the effects on reader risk perceptions of two situations: when agency communication behavior was reported to be responsive to citizens' risk concerns, vs. when the agency was reported to be unresponsive. In the first two experiments, news stories of public meetings filled with distrust and controversy led to ratings indicating greater perceived risk than news stories reporting no distrust or controversy, even though the risk information was held constant. This effect appeared clearly when the differences in meeting tone were extreme and subjects made their ratings from their recall of the stories, but it was much weaker when the differences were moderate and subjects were allowed to go back over the news stories to help separate risk information from conflict information. In the third experiment, news stories about a spill cleanup systematically varied the seriousness of the spill, the amount of technical information provided in the story, and the agency behavior and resulting community outrage. The outrage manipulation significantly affected affective and cognitive components of perceived risk, but not hypothetical behavioral intentions. Seriousness and technical detail had very little effect on perceived risk.     

Stability and Inoculation of Risk Comparisons'' Effects Under Conflict: Replicating and Extending the "Asbestos Jury" Study by Slovic et al.

Promotion or criticism of risk comparisons in risk communication has far exceeded empirical tests of their effects. Slovic et al. (1990) experimented with a hypothetical jury trial in which an asbestos-installing firm was accused of subjecting school occupants to unreasonable risk. A risk comparison sharply reduced subjects' estimates of risk and judgments that the firm was guilty, but a critique of the risk comparison had risk estimates and guilt judgments rebounding to the original (without risk comparison) level. Slovic et al. concluded that risk comparisons' effects were highly unstable, at least in conflict-ridden situations such as a jury trial. The present study replicates and extends this important study, using the same stimuli and questions. The respective effects of the risk comparison and the critique recurred, although much less sharply than in Slovic et al. Moreover, judgments of guilt, risk, and other aspects of the case seemed shaped more by demographics and beliefs about risk generically (e.g., about the likelihood of cancer after exposure to a carcinogen) than by either risk comparison or critique. A variant design, in which the defense's expert witness dismissed potential criticisms of the risk comparison, appeared to "inoculate" people against shifting their views after seeing the critique. Overall, these results show that risk comparisons might change some beliefs about risks in conflict and that "inoculation" can reduce vulnerability to criticism. However, the results also show strong limits on effects of both comparisons and their critiques: they shifted only a minority of judgments and had small effects relative to people's social locations and prior risk beliefs.     

Setting Risk Priorities: A Formal Model

This article presents a model designed to capture the major aspects of setting priorities among risks, a common task in government and industry. The model has both design features, under the control of the rankers (e.g., how success is evaluated), and context features, properties of the situations that they are trying to understand (e.g., how quickly uncertainty can be reduced). The model is demonstrated in terms of two extreme ranking strategies. The first, sequential risk ranking , devotes all its resources, in a given period, to learning more about a single risk, and its place in the overall ranking. This strategy characterizes the process for a society (or organization or individual) that throws itself completely into dealing with one risk after another. The other extreme strategy, simultaneous risk ranking , spreads available resources equally across all risks. It characterizes the most methodical of ranking exercises. Given ample ranking resources, simultaneous risk ranking will eventually provide an accurate set of priorities, whereas sequential ranking might never get to some risks. Resource constraints, however, may prevent simultaneous rankers from examining any risk very thoroughly. The model is intended to clarify the nature of ranking tasks, predict the efficacy of alternative strategies, and improve their design.     

Perception of Risk and Credibility at Toxic Sites

This study integrates previous research methodologies to compare the risk perceptions and responses to risk messages of agency personnel and neighbors of Superfund sites in Michigan. The integration attempted and the focus on risk messages are shaped by a critical review of the social amplification conceptual framework. The study involved all four agency groups and three groups of site neighbors actively involved in Superfund planning across the state. The first part of the study utilized the psychometric techniques of hazard rating and hazard profiles that had not previously been used in studies involving stakeholders. While agency personnel responded similarly to experts in previous studies, the responses of individuals in the neighbor groups reflected experience with toxic sites and were dissimilar to previous ratings by the general public. The second part of the study consisted of a hypothetical toxic site scenario that focused on specific risk messages at different times in the site history. Results indicate that the difference in perception of risk occurs after the first testing at a site, and that dramatic differences arise between agency and resident groups regarding the credibility of information sources and the need for independent testing. A general lack of trust in the Superfund program was demonstrated by all groups. The results indicate that problems of institutional credibility and program adequacy cannot be addressed by better risk communication.     

Risk Knowledge and Risk Attitudes Regarding Nuclear Energy Sources in Space

A series of four studies examined the relationship between how much people know about the risks of using nuclear energy sources in space and how they feel about the technology. We found that the more people know, the more favorable they are—except for two groups of people selected from organizations with strong pro-industry or pro-environment positions. These results suggest that a technology will get a more favorable hearing if it can get its message out—providing that it has a legitimate story to tell and that the situation has not become too polarized already. The limits to these conclusions are discussed.     

Some Criteria for Evaluating Risk Messages

Seven criteria are presented for use in evaluating communications designed to explain the magnitude of a risk. The criteria are: (1) comprehension (Does the audience understand the content of the communication?); (2) agreement (Does the audience agree with the recommendation or interpretation contained in the message?); (3) dose-response consistency (Do people facing a higher dose of a hazard perceive the risk as greater and/or show a greater readiness to take action than people exposed to a lower dose of this hazard?); (4) hazard-response consistency (Do people facing a hazard that is higher in risk perceive the risk as greater and/or show a greater readiness to take action than people exposed to a hazard that is lower in risk?); (5) uniformity (Do audience members exposed to the same level of risk tend to have the same responses to this risk?); (6) audience evaluation (Does the audience judge the message to have been helpful, accurate, clear, etc.?); and (7) types of communication failures (When different types of failures are possible, are the failures that occur generally of the more acceptable variety?). Each of these criteria is illustrated with data collected in a test of message formats designed to explain the risk presented by radon gas in a home.     

Risk Perception and Risk Talk: The Case of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Radiation Risk

Individuals’ perceptions and their interpersonal communication about a risk event, or risk talk, can play a significant role in the formation of societal responses to the risk event. As they formulate their risk opinions and speak to others, risk information can circulate through their social networks and contribute to the construction of their risk information environment. In the present study, Japanese citizens’ risk perception and risk talk were examined in the context of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear radiation risk. We hypothesized and found that the risk information environment and risk literacy (i.e., competencies to understand and use risk information) interact to influence their risk perception and risk talk. In particular, risk literacy tends to stabilize people's risk perceptions and their risk communications. Nevertheless, there were some subtle differences between risk perception and communication, suggesting the importance of further examination of interpersonal risk communication and its role in the societal responses to risk events.