Interpersonal Amplification of Risk? Citizen Discussions and Their Impact on Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of a Biological Research Facility

Much risk communication research has demonstrated how mass media can influence individual risk perceptions, but lacks a comprehensive conceptual understanding of another key channel of communication: interpersonal discussion. Using the social amplification of risk as a theoretical framework, we consider the potential for discussions to function as amplification stations. We explore this possibility using data from a public opinion survey of residents living in potential locations for a new biological research facility in the United States. Controlling for a variety of key information variables, our results show that two dimensions of discussion—frequency and valence—have impacts on residents’ perceptions of the facility's benefits and its risks. We also explore the possibility that an individual's overall attitude moderates the effect of discussion on their perceptions of risks and benefits. Our results demonstrate the potential for discussions to operate as amplifiers or attenuators of perceptions of both risks and benefits.     

Intended Message Versus Message Received in Hypothetical Physician Risk Communications: Exploring the Gap

We examined the risk perception that is derived from hypothetical physician risk communications. Subjects (n= 217) completed a questionnaire on the Web for $3. Subjects were presented with four hypothetical cancer risk scenarios that included a physician risk communication in one of three risk communication formats: verbal only, verbal plus numeric probability as a percent, and verbal plus numeric probability as a fraction. In each scenario, subjects were asked to imagine themselves as the patient described and to state their perceived personal susceptibility to the cancer (i.e., risk perception) on a 0 to 100 scale, as well as responses to other measures. Subjects' risk perceptions were highly variable, spanning nearly the entire probability scale for each scenario, and the degree of variation was only slightly less in the risk communication formats in which a numeric statement of risk was provided. Subjects were more likely to overestimate than underestimate their risk relative to the stated risk in the numeric versions, and overestimation was associated with the belief that the physician minimized the risk so they wouldn't worry, innumeracy, and worry, as well as decisions about testing for the cancer. These results demonstrate significant gaps between the intended message and the message received in physician risk communications. Implications for medical decisions, patient distress, and future research are discussed.     

You Have Been Framed! How Antecedents of Information Need Mediate the Effects of Risk Communication Messages

This study investigates the processes that mediate the effects of framing flood risks on people's information needs. Insight into the effects of risk frames is important for developing balanced risk communication that explains both risks and benefits of living near water. The research was inspired by the risk information seeking and processing model and related models. In a web‐based survey, respondents (n = 1,457) were randomly assigned to one of three communication frames or a control frame (experimental conditions). Each frame identically explained flood risk and additionally refined the message by emphasizing climate change, the quality of flood risk management, or the amenities of living near water. We tested the extent to which risk perceptions, trust, and affective responses mediate the framing effects on information need. As expected, the frames on average resulted in higher information need than the control frame. Attempts to lower fear appeal by stressing safety or amenities instead of climate change were marginally successful, a phenomenon that is known as a “negativity bias.” Framing effects were mediated by negative attributes (risk perception and negative affect) but not by positive attributes (trust and positive affect). This finding calls for theoretical refinement. Practically, communication messages will be more effective when they stimulate risk perceptions and evoke negative affect. However, arousal of fear may have unwanted side effects. For instance, fear arousal could lead to lower levels of trust in risk management among citizens. Regular monitoring of citizens’ attitudes is important to prevent extreme levels of distrust or cynicism.     

Why Study Risk Perception?

Studies of risk perception examine the opinions people express when they are asked, in various ways, to characterize and evaluate hazardous activities and technologies. This research aims to aid risk analysis and societal decision making by (i) improving methods for eliciting opinions about risk, (ii) providing a basis for understanding and anticipating public responses to hazards, and (iii) improving the communication of risk information among laypeople, technical experts, and policy makers.     

Communicating Conservation Status: How Different Statistical Assessment Criteria Affect Perceptions of Extinction Risk

Although alternative forms of statistical and verbal information are routinely used to convey species’ extinction risk to policymakers and the public, little is known about their effects on audience information processing and risk perceptions. To address this gap in literature, we report on an experiment that was designed to explore how perceptions of extinction risk differ as a function of five different assessment benchmarks (Criteria A–E) used by scientists to classify species within IUCN Red List risk levels (e.g., Critically Endangered, Vulnerable), as well as the role of key individual differences in these effects (e.g., rational and experiential thinking styles, environmental concern). Despite their normative equivalence within the IUCN classification system, results revealed divergent effects of specific assessment criteria: on average, describing extinction risk in terms of proportional population decline over time (Criterion A) and number of remaining individuals (Criterion D) evoked the highest level of perceived risk, whereas the single‐event probability of a species becoming extinct (Criterion E) engendered the least perceived risk. Furthermore, participants scoring high in rationality (analytic thinking) were less prone to exhibit these biases compared to those low in rationality. Our findings suggest that despite their equivalence in the eyes of scientific experts, IUCN criteria are indeed capable of engendering different levels of risk perception among lay audiences, effects that carry direct and important implications for those tasked with communicating about conservation status to diverse publics.     

Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions? Results of a Quasi‐Experimental Study

People's risk perceptions are generally regarded as an important determinant of their decisions to adjust to natural hazards. However, few studies have evaluated how risk communication programs affect these risk perceptions. This study evaluates the effects of a small-scale flood risk communication program in the Netherlands, consisting of workshops and focus group discussions. The effects on the workshop participants' ( n  = 24) and focus group participants' ( n  = 16) flood risk perceptions were evaluated in a pretest-posttest control group ( n  = 40) design that focused on two mechanisms of attitude change—direct personal experience and attitude polarization. We expected that (H1) workshop participants would show greater shifts in their flood risk perceptions compared with control group participants and that (H2) focus groups would rather produce the conditions for attitude polarization (shifts toward more extreme attitudinal positions after group discussion). However, the results provide only modest support for these hypotheses, perhaps because of a mismatch between the sessions' contents and the risk perception measures. An important contribution of this study is that it examined risk perception data by both conventional tests of the mean differences and tests for attitude polarization. Moreover, the possibility that attitude polarization could cause people to confirm their preexisting (hazard) beliefs could have important implications for risk communication.     

“These Power Lines Make Me Ill”: A Typology of Residents’ Health Responses to a New High‐Voltage Power Line

Little attention has been devoted to the potential diversity in residents’ health responses when exposed to an uncertain environmental health risk. The present study explores whether subgroups of residents respond differently to a new high‐voltage power line (HVPL) being put into operation. We used a quasi‐experimental prospective field study design with two pretests during the construction of a new HVPL, and two posttests after it was put into operation. Residents living nearby (0–300 m, n = 229) filled out questionnaires about their health and their perception of the environment. We applied latent class growth models to investigate heterogeneity in the belief that health complaints were caused by a power line. Classes were compared on a wide range of variables relating to negative‐oriented personality traits, perceived physical and mental health, and perceptions of the environment. We identified five distinct classes of residents, of which the largest (49%) could be described as emotionally stable and healthy with weak responses to the introduction of a new power line. A considerable minority (9%) responded more strongly to the new line being activated. Residents in this class had heard more about the health effects of power lines beforehand, were more aware of the activation of the new line, and reported a decrease in perceived health afterwards. Based on our findings we can conclude that there is a considerable heterogeneity in health responses to a new HVPL. Health risk perceptions appear to play an important role in this typology, which has implications for risk management.     

The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication

A major issue in all risk communication efforts is the distinction between the terms “risk” and “hazard.” The potential to harm a target such as human health or the environment is normally defined as a hazard, whereas risk also encompasses the probability of exposure and the extent of damage. What can be observed again and again in risk communication processes are misunderstandings and communication gaps related to these crucial terms. We asked a sample of 53 experts from public authorities, business and industry, and environmental and consumer organizations in Germany to outline their understanding and use of these terms using both the methods of expert interviews and focus groups. The empirical study made clear that the terms risk and hazard are perceived and used very differently in risk communication depending on the perspective of the stakeholders. Several factors can be identified, such as responsibility for hazard avoidance, economic interest, or a watchdog role. Thus, communication gaps can be reduced to a four‐fold problem matrix comprising a semantic, conceptual, strategic, and control problem. The empirical study made clear that risks and hazards are perceived very differently depending on the stakeholders’ perspective. Their own worldviews played a major role in their specific use of the two terms hazards and risks in communication.     

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.     

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.     

Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

The media play an important role in risk communication, providing information about accidents, both nearby and far away. Each media source has its own presentation style, which could influence how the audience perceives the presented risk. This study investigates the explanatory power of 12 information sources (traditional media, new media, social media, and interpersonal communication) for the perceived risk posed by radiation released from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant on respondents’ own health and that of the population in general. The analysis controlled for attitude toward nuclear energy, gender, education, satisfaction with the media coverage, and duration of attention paid to the coverage. The study uses a large empirical data set from a public opinion survey, which is representative for the Belgian population with respect to six sociodemographic variables. Results show that three information sources are significant regressors of perceived health‐related risk of the nuclear accident: television, interpersonal communication, and the category of miscellaneous online sources. More favorable attitudes toward nuclear power, longer attention to the coverage, and higher satisfaction with the provided information lead to lower risk perception. Taken together, the results suggest that the media can indeed have a modest influence on how the audience perceives a risk.     

Toward an Understanding of the Influence of Cultural Background and Domain Experience on the Effects of Risk‐Pricing Formats on Risk Perception

Risk‐information framing can be a powerful tool for aiding the communication of risk and improving decision making. However, little work has investigated the extent that these framing effects depend on the characteristics of the perceiver. In our study, we examine whether the effects of different risk‐pricing formats on risky choices are the same for all individuals, no matter their domain experience or cultural background, or whether there are interactions between these factors. Survey 1 revealed that three risk‐pricing formats of the same choice problem resulted in the same individuals making different risky choices (preference reversal), suggesting that risk perception was distorted by the risk‐pricing format manipulation. In Survey 2, the effects of the risk‐pricing formats were shown to differ by the participants’ cultural background (Asian vs. European) and the extent of their domain experience. The fact that there were no differences between the cultural or domain experience groups in their overall tendency to select riskier (cf. safer) choices indicates that risk behavior differences between groups are often closely linked to perceptual, rather than simply attitudinal, cognitive processes. The results demonstrate the complex, interactive cognitive processes that are used to encode risk information, involving the framing of the information and the cultural background and previous experiences of the individual. We conclude that it is important to consider the characteristics of the individual (e.g., culture, domain experience, etc.) when manipulating risk‐information framing with the aim of improving risk communication.     

Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication

New societal obligations for communicating risk information are emerging in a variety of contexts. This article draws upon the lengthy societal experience with citizen participation programs to identify how risk communication efforts may be effectively structured and implemented. Six major propositions address such themes as means/ends differences in expectations, the timing of the program, the role of credibility and trust, the need for technical and analytical resources, differing thresholds of public involvement, and limitations upon current understandings. Key conclusions for the design of risk communication programs are set forth.     

A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception,Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner

Sustainable urban water systems are likely to be hybrids of centralized and decentralized infrastructure, managed as an integrated system in water‐sensitive cities. The technology for many of these systems is available. However, social and institutional barriers, which can be understood as deeply embedded risk perceptions, have impeded their implementation. Risk perceptions within the water sector are often unrecognized or unacknowledged, despite their role in risk management generally in informing value judgments and specifically in ranking risks to achieve management objectives. There has been very little examination of the role of these risk perceptions in advancing more sustainable water supply management through the adoption of alternative sources. To address this gap, this article presents a framework that can be used as a tool for understanding risk perceptions. The framework is built on the relational theory of risk and presents the range of human phenomena that might influence the perception of an “object at risk” in relation to a “risk object.” It has been synthesized from a critical review of theoretical, conceptual, and empirical studies of perception broadly and risk perception specifically, and interpreted in relation to water practitioners. For a water practitioner, the risk object might be an alternative water system, a component, a process, or a technology, and the object at risk could be public or environmental health, profitability, or professional reputation. This framework has two important functions: to allow practitioners to understand their own and others’ risk perceptions, which might differ, and to inform further empirical research.     

Precision of Information,Sensational Information,and Self‐Efficacy Information as Message‐Level Variables Affecting Risk Perceptions

Studies that investigate how the mass media cover risk issues often assume that certain characteristics of content are related to specific risk perceptions and behavioral intentions. However, these relationships have seldom been empirically assessed. This study tests the influence of three message‐level media variables—risk precision information, sensational information, and self‐efficacy information—on perceptions of risk, individual worry, and behavioral intentions toward a pervasive health risk. Results suggest that more precise risk information leads to increased risk perceptions and that the effect of sensational information is moderated by risk precision information. Greater self‐efficacy information is associated with greater intention to change behavior, but none of the variables influence individual worry. The results provide a quantitative understanding of how specific characteristics of informational media content can influence individuals’ responses to health threats of a global and uncertain nature.     

Communicating with the Public About Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attacks: Results from a Survey Experiment on Factors Influencing Intention to “Run,Hide, Tell” in the United Kingdom and Denmark

Effective risk communication is an integral part of responding to terrorism, but until recently, there has been very little pre‐event communication in a European context to provide advice to the public on how to protect themselves during an attack. Following terrorist attacks involving mass shootings in Paris, France, in November 2015, the U.K. National Police Chiefs’ Council released a Stay Safe film and leaflet that advises the public to “run,” “hide,” and “tell” in the event of a firearms or weapons attack. However, other countries, including Denmark, do not provide preparedness information of this kind, in large part because of concern about scaring the public. In this survey experiment, 3,003 U.K. and Danish participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: no information, a leaflet intervention, and a film intervention to examine the impact of “Run, Hide, Tell” advice on perceptions about terrorism, the security services, and intended responses to a hypothetical terrorist firearms attack. Results demonstrate important benefits of pre‐event communication in relation to enhancing trust, encouraging protective health behaviors, and discouraging potentially dangerous actions. However, these findings also suggest that future communications should address perceived response costs and target specific problem behaviors. Cross‐national similarities in response suggest this advice is suitable for adaptation in other countries.     

Dangerous Climate Change: The Role for Risk Research

The notion of "dangerous climate change" constitutes an important development of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It persists, however, as an ambiguous expression, sustained by multiple definitions of danger. It also implicitly contains the question of how to respond to the complex and multi-disciplinary risk issues that climate change poses. The invaluable role of the climate science community, which relies on risk assessments to characterize system uncertainties and to identify limits beyond which changes may become dangerous, is acknowledged. But this alone will not suffice to develop long-term policy. Decisions need to include other considerations, such as value judgments about potential risks, and societal and individual perceptions of "danger," which are often contested. This article explores links and cross-overs between the climate science and risk communication and perception approaches to defining danger. Drawing upon nine articles in this Special Issue of Risk Analysis, we examine a set of themes: limits of current scientific understanding; differentiated public perceptions of danger from climate change; social and cultural processes amplifying and attenuating perceptions of, and responses to, climate change; risk communication design; and new approaches to climate change decision making. The article reflects upon some of the difficulties inherent in responding to the issue in a coherent, interdisciplinary fashion, concluding nevertheless that action should be taken, while acknowledging the context-specificity of "danger." The need for new policy tools is emphasised, while research on nested solutions should be aimed at overcoming the disjunctures apparent in interpretations of climate change risks.     

Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors,Personal Circumstances,and Social Influence

Drought‐induced water shortage and salinization are a global threat to agricultural production. With climate change, drought risk is expected to increase as drought events are assumed to occur more frequently and to become more severe. The agricultural sector's adaptive capacity largely depends on farmers’ drought risk perceptions. Understanding the formation of farmers’ drought risk perceptions is a prerequisite to designing effective and efficient public drought risk management strategies. Various strands of literature point at different factors shaping individual risk perceptions. Economic theory points at objective risk variables, whereas psychology and sociology identify subjective risk variables. This study investigates and compares the contribution of objective and subjective factors in explaining farmers’ drought risk perception by means of survey data analysis. Data on risk perceptions, farm characteristics, and various other personality traits were collected from farmers located in the southwest Netherlands. From comparing the explanatory power of objective and subjective risk factors in separate models and a full model of risk perception, it can be concluded that farmers’ risk perceptions are shaped by both rational and emotional factors. In a full risk perception model, being located in an area with external water supply, owning fields with salinization issues, cultivating drought‐/salt‐sensitive crops, farm revenue, drought risk experience, and perceived control are significant explanatory variables of farmers’ drought risk perceptions.     

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.     

Understanding Gaps Between the Risk Perceptions of Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) Residents and Wildfire Professionals

Research across a variety of risk domains finds that the risk perceptions of professionals and the public differ. Such risk perception gaps occur if professionals and the public understand individual risk factors differently or if they aggregate risk factors into overall risk differently. The nature of such divergences, whether based on objective inaccuracies or on differing perspectives, is important to understand. However, evidence of risk perception gaps typically pertains to general, overall risk levels; evidence of and details about mismatches between the specific level of risk faced by individuals and their perceptions of that risk is less available. We examine these issues with a paired data set of professional and resident assessments of parcel‐level wildfire risk for private property in a wildland–urban interface community located in western Colorado, United States. We find evidence of a gap between the parcel‐level risk assessments of a wildfire professional and numerous measures of residents’ risk assessments. Overall risk ratings diverge for the majority of properties, as do judgments about many specific property attributes and about the relative contribution of these attributes to a property's overall level of risk. However, overall risk gaps are not well explained by many factors commonly found to relate to risk perceptions. Understanding the nature of these risk perception gaps can facilitate improved communication by wildfire professionals about how risks can be mitigated on private lands. These results also speak to the general nature of individual‐level risk perception.