Why Rules for Risk Communication Are Not Enough: A Problem-Solving Approach to Risk Communication

Current work on risk communication offers practitioners helpful guidelines and rules such as "speak clearly" and "speak with compassion." While important, these guidelines have limitations. They offer practitioners and scholars little aid in determining why a communication encounter failed. Also, they do not help practitioners anticipate and overcome likely difficulties in future risk situations, nor can they help locate information about how to reduce these difficulties. To overcome the limitations of rule-based approaches to risk communication, this paper describes a diagnostic or problem-solving approach. This approach maintains that instead of rules, people need bases for anticipating likely obstacles to effective communication and selecting approaches that reduce these difficulties. Research on building trust, increasing awareness, deepening comprehension, gaining agreement, and motivating action is available in fields such as communication, educational psychology, science education, marketing, counseling, negotiation, and disaster response. This paper describes a framework that assists scholars and practitioners in: (a) identifying communication goals; (b) determining principal obstacles to those goals; and (c) selecting research-based methods for overcoming or minimizing these difficulties and achieving communication objectives.     

The semantic distinction between "risk" and "danger": a linguistic analysis

The analysis combines frame semantic and corpus linguistic approaches in analyzing the role of agency and decision making in the semantics of the words "risk" and "danger" (both nominal and verbal uses). In frame semantics, the meanings of "risk" and of related words, such as "danger," are analyzed against the background of a specific cognitive-semantic structure (a frame) comprising frame elements such as Protagonist, Bad Outcome, Decision, Possession, and Source. Empirical data derive from the British National Corpus (100 million words). Results indicate both similarities and differences in use. First, both "risk" and "danger" are commonly used to represent situations having potential negative consequences as the result of agency. Second, "risk" and "danger," especially their verbal uses (to risk, to endanger), differ in agent-victim structure, i.e., "risk" is used to express that a person affected by an action is also the agent of the action, while "endanger" is used to express that the one affected is not the agent. Third, "risk," but not "danger," tends to be used to represent rational and goal-directed action. The results therefore to some extent confirm the analysis of "risk" and "danger" suggested by German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. As a point of discussion, the present findings arguably have implications for risk communication.     

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.     

相关性下的银行风险集成研究综述

银行风险之间的相关关系会使风险之间相互转化，相互影响，令风险呈现出放大或者缩小的趋势，显著影响着银行风险度量结果的准确性。银行风险集成致力于在充分考虑银行风险相关关系的基础上，对银行风险进行较为准确的度量。但是银行风险具有相关关系种类繁多、表现形式复杂、以及数据的可获得性差等显著特征，导致银行风险的集成度量领域存在诸多挑战。本文对相关性下的银行风险集成研究进行综述，具体从集成对象、集成方法和集成数据三个层次系统展开。首先对银行风险及其蕴含的种类繁多的相关关系类型进行解析，然后分析银行风险相关关系表征出的多种复杂特性，根据对这些特性的刻画能力对银行风险的集成方法进行划分和比较，最后总结了获取银行风险集成数据的多种途径。在此基础上，进一步分析了银行风险集成研究的难点和未来趋势。     

Living with Nuclear Power: A Q-Method Study of Local Community Perceptions

The issue of new nuclear power is once again high up on the public policy agenda in many countries, and candidate sites for new civilian stations are likely to include those that have existing nuclear facilities. A common assumption is that existing nuclear communities will be more accepting of new build because of the direct economic and other benefits nuclear power already makes to a local area. Surprisingly, there is a dearth of contemporary data on perceptions of the risks, benefits, and values associated with nuclear power within such communities. This study uses Q-methodology to investigate the perspectives on living with nuclear risk among people ( n  = 84) drawn from communities near to two nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom. Both stations, at Bradwell-on-Sea and Oldbury-on-Severn, had been in operation for over 40 years. The Q-analysis identified four main perspectives, or points of view, accounting for 53% of total variance. These were interpreted as: Beneficial and Safe; Threat and Distrust; Reluctant Acceptance; and There's No Point Worrying. We conclude that the "landscape of beliefs" about nuclear power in such communities is both subtle and complex, avoiding simplistic bipolar dichotomies such as "for" or "against," and that there is a need for extensive and meaningful dialogue with such communities over any new build plans. The usefulness of Q-methodology for investigating the ways in which people live with risk is highlighted, as are the implications of the results for theories of risk and trust.     

Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: emerging technologies, emerging challenges

Nanotechnology involves the fabrication, manipulation, and control of materials at the atomic level and may also bring novel uncertainties and risks. Potential parallels with other controversial technologies mean there is a need to develop a comprehensive understanding of processes of public perception of nanotechnology uncertainties, risks, and benefits, alongside related communication issues. Study of perceptions, at so early a stage in the development trajectory of a technology, is probably unique in the risk perception and communication field. As such it also brings new methodological and conceptual challenges. These include: dealing with the inherent diversity of the nanotechnology field itself; the unfamiliar and intangible nature of the concept, with few analogies to anchor mental models or risk perceptions; and the ethical and value questions underlying many nanotechnology debates. Utilizing the lens of social amplification of risk, and drawing upon the various contributions to this special issue of Risk Analysis on Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication, nanotechnology may at present be an attenuated hazard. The generic idea of "upstream public engagement" for emerging technologies such as nanotechnology is also discussed, alongside its importance for future work with emerging technologies in the risk communication field.     

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.     

Exploring the "Psychometric Paradigm": Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses

The "psychometric paradigm" developed by Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein was a landmark in research about public attitudes toward risks. One problem with this work, however, was that (at least initially) it did not attempt to distinguish between individuals or groups of people, except "experts" vs. "lay people." This paradigm produced a "cognitive map" of hazards, and the assumption seemed to be that the characteristics identified were inherent attributes of risk. This paper examines the validity of this assumption. A questionnaire survey similar to those designed by Slovic et al. was conducted, but the data were analyzed at both the aggregate level, using mean scores, and at the level of individuals ( N = 131 Norwich residents). The results reported here demonstrate that (1) individuals vary in their perception of the same risk issue; (2) individuals vary in their rating of the same risk characteristics on the same risk issue; and (3) some of the strong intercorrelations observed between risk characteristics at the aggregate level are not supported when the same data are analysed at the level of individuals. Despite these findings, the relationship between risk characteristics and risk perceptions inferred by the psychometric paradigm did hold true at the level of individuals, for most—but not all—of the characteristics. In particular, the relationship between "lack of knowledge to those exposed" and risk perceptions appears to be a complex one, a finding which has important implications for risk communication strategies.     

The "moment of death"

The "moment of death," once a dominant concept in preparing for a "good death", has been eclipsed by a focus on the wider concept of the "dying trajectory". However, findings from interviews with 25 bereaved individuals suggest that dying loved ones' final moments may still be experienced as highly significant in their own right. In some accounts the dying individual's final moments did not feature or made little impression, either because the survivor was not present, or there was no obviously definable moment, or because other, usually medical factors, such as whether to resuscitate the person, took precedence. However, in six cases such moments were constructed as profound, special, and memorable occasions. These constructions are explored in relation to achieving a good death, the dying trajectory as a whole, and making sense of the bereavement experience. Their implications for sociological theories of identity and embodiment are also considered.     

The telephone encounter: the cast of characters encountered by the physician executive

Volumes have been written about telephone productivity, decorum, behavior, and economic impact. Although every physician is skilled in telephone communication, medical directors must approach this communications modality from a different vantage point. The attending physician uses it as an information receiver and transmittal station. The medical director uses it as a negotiation platform. It is estimated that 50 to 90 percent of the medical director's time is spent on the phone. "Working smarter" can increase productivity to save time and stress. This article identifies and categorizes many of the problems that the medical director deals with on a daily basis. It pertains to phone conversations in which there is a question about a procedure, appropriateness of care, medical necessity, or quality of care.     

基于多AGENT系统的电力合约市场协商平台框架研究

提出了电力合约市场的实用化交易协商平台,由代表各自公司利益的智能体自动完成协商过程,该平台支持各智能体的自由协商。为满足该平台的实用化要求,进行了以下针对性设计:定义了智能体的协商策略,并设计了模糊控制遗传算法进行策略学习,使合约协商具有策略优化基础;针对合约市场协商的动态性和信息量大且不完全等特点,设计了灵活、鲁棒性强的可废止逻辑作为协商语言,并采用满足序列信息交换要求的POS语义作为智能体平台的通信协议。最后给出了智能体的设计实现思路。     

Mixed Messages in Risk Communication

The exchange of risk information between risk managers and affected parties is frequently hampered by differences in the understanding or interpretation of many words and phrases. Much of the terminology used by risk practitioners may have different "technical" and "colloquial" meanings, resulting in "mixed messages" in risk communication. Several words and concepts commonly used in risk management that may be resulting in these "mixed messages" are discussed. These include primary underlying concepts, such as the various meanings of the word "risk" itself, as well as the perplexity of the notions of "safety vs. zero risk" and "probability". The potential "mixed messages" of the derived concepts of "significant vs. nonsignificant", "negative vs. positive results", "conservative assumptions", "population vs. individual risk", "relative vs. absolute risk", and "association vs. causation" are shown to range from mild confusion to the completely opposite interpretation of these words and expressions. Suggested strategies for recognizing and mitigating the use of words and phrases which may create unnecessary confusion are presented.     

Negotiating. Biases physicians bring to the table

What are some of the obstacles that physicians face as they seek to become more effective at the bargaining table? The author's thesis, based on experience in both the classroom and the front lines of medical practice, is that physicians face a set of systematic "biases" derived from physician training and professional culture that make negotiation especially difficult for them. They outline the biases they have observed, explore some possible explanations, and suggest solutions for physicians who wish to negotiate more effectively.     

The Risks of "Putting the Numbers in Context": A Cautionary Tale

Despite the warnings of risk communication specialists, members of the technical community often urge that technological risks should be "put in context" by comparisons against risks that are more familiar. Little quantitative evidence is available on the actual behavioral consequences of such risk comparison efforts. In the present study, subjects were presented with two types of information about a hazardous waste incinerator–a simplified statistical summary and a comparison of incinerator risks against the risks of smoking. Statistical information led to a modest increase in the reported willingness to vote in favor of the incinerator in a community referendum, but the comparison against cigarettes led to a slight decrease in support; the difference between the two messages is statistically significant ( p <.001). In combination with other results, this study's findings suggest that an implicit assumption of risk comparisons is in error: Opposition to controversial technologies may have little to do with citizens' levels of information about technology, having more to do with citizens' levels of trust in governmental and industrial actors.     

Do actions reduce perceived risk? A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between risk perception and actions in response to forest disturbance in Colorado

As residents living in hazard-prone areas face on-going environmental threats, the actions they take to mitigate such risks are likely motivated by various factors. Whereas risk perception has been considered a key determinant of related behavioral responses, little is known about how risk mitigation actions influence subsequent perceived risk. In other words, do actions to prevent or mitigate risk reduce risk perception? This longitudinal study considers the dynamic relationships between risk perception and risk-mitigating behavior in the context of forest disturbance in north-central Colorado. Based on panel survey data collected in 2007 and 2018, the results provide a first look at changes in perceived forest risks as they relate to individual and community actions in response to an extensive mountain pine beetle outbreak. Analysis revealed that the perception of direct forest risks (forest fire and falling trees) increased, whereas indirect forest risk perception (concern on broader threats to local community) decreased across the two study phases. Higher individual or community activeness (level of actions) was associated with subsequent reductions in perceived forest fire risk, smaller increases in direct risk perception, and larger decreases in indirect risk perception. These findings contribute insights into the complex risk reappraisal process in forest hazard contexts, with direct implications for risk communication and management strategies.     

The Weakest Link: Demonstrating the Inconsistency of "Appropriate Levels of Protection" in Australia-Salmon

In Australia-Salmon, the WTO Appellate Body found Australia to be in violation of the WTO SPS Agreement based on the inconsistency of the "appropriate level of protection" underlying various SPS measures. Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement prohibits arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions in "appropriate levels of protection" if such distinctions result in discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. In Australia-Salmon, Canada challenged Australia's import ban on salmon. Australia permitted the entry of other fish products that were known to host some of the same diseases cited by Australia in justifying its salmon import ban. The distinction in the "appropriate levels of protection" between Australia's regulation of salmon and its treatment of these other fish products was found to be "arbitrary or unjustified" and to have "resulted in a restriction on international trade."Australia-Salmon was the first WTO decision to find an Article 5.5 violation. Canada successfully made a "weakest link" argument to undercut Australia's regulatory justification. The decision rests on the relationship between the risk purportedly justifying the salmon import ban and the risk seemingly ignored in Australia's treatment of other fish products-the regulatory "situations" compared concerned the identical pathogens with the identical potential consequences. As such, Australia-Salmon may be an example of a category of regulatory "chains" that are peculiarly exposed to Article 5.5 challenge. In responding to the Appellate Body's ruling, Australia reduced its limits on salmon and imposed new restrictions on the other fish products. The outcome suggests that a challenge of one SPS measure under Article 5.5 may lead to the imposition of new restrictions on other imported products-an unexpected result for the free trade regime.     

The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards

This article reviews the main insights from selected literature on risk perception, particularly in connection with natural hazards. It includes numerous case studies on perception and social behavior dealing with floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcano eruptions, wild fires, and landslides. The review reveals that personal experience of a natural hazard and trust—or lack of trust—in authorities and experts have the most substantial impact on risk perception. Cultural and individual factors such as media coverage, age, gender, education, income, social status, and others do not play such an important role but act as mediators or amplifiers of the main causal connections between experience, trust, perception, and preparedness to take protective actions. When analyzing the factors of experience and trust on risk perception and on the likeliness of individuals to take preparedness action, the review found that a risk perception paradox exists in that it is assumed that high risk perception will lead to personal preparedness and, in the next step, to risk mitigation behavior. However, this is not necessarily true. In fact, the opposite can occur if individuals with high risk perception still choose not to personally prepare themselves in the face of a natural hazard. Therefore, based on the results of the review, this article offers three explanations suggesting why this paradox might occur. These findings have implications for future risk governance and communication as well as for the willingness of individuals to invest in risk preparedness or risk mitigation actions.     

Risk Perception and Social Acceptability of Technologies: The French Case

The authors present results of a February 1987 survey on judged frequency of mortality causes and risk perception of technologies in a representative sample of the French population. Although the French context is very different, and the impact of public controversies have been very limited on technological choices such as the nuclear energy program, strong similarities in risk perception of technologies are observed with results from U.S. surveys. Results, which could be worthwhile for other countries, suggest that risk perception is influenced by two different types of components. The first influence is the global feeling of "security" that society procures to its members. Such feeling depends on the individual's socioeconomic status, subjective state of health, and personal discomfort in daily life, and explains individual aversion to risk independently of the mortality causes or technologies involved. The second influence is the degree of perceived social legitimization of the activities involving risks. Risks of medical and transportation activities are strongly opposed to illegitimate risky behaviors (smoking, drugs, alcohol); technologies which have been an object of public debate (nuclear plants, the chemical industry, lead in gasoline) have an intermediate position reflecting the remaining uncertainties of public opinion about their risk–benefit balancing. Tentative conclusions for risk communication are proposed.     

关于“通缩出口”论的检验:中、日、美三国比较

本文的目的是根据价格传递效应的理论,通过考察中、日、美三国间进出口价格的相互影响来检验是否存在中国“通缩出口”的现象。为了使检验结果更具有统计意义上的稳健性(robustness),论文在两个方面作出了创新的努力:首先,数据处理方法的选择。不再是只依赖对数据要求苛刻的古典最小二乘法来做参数估计,以免造成“虚假回归”的问题。注意到数据本身的序列相关、异方差、结构变化和非线性等特征,我们还分别采用了工具变量(IV)、虚拟变量(DM)、一般矩(GMM)、向量自回归(VAR)和误差修正(ECM)等比较科学的方法来检验中国“通缩出口”论假说的真伪性。其次,代理变量界定及其数据的设计。由于数据本身的不稳定性、数据不全或某些重要的概念缺乏对应的数据,所以,论文运用了ARI-MA的动态预测模型来完善数据,以减少其他数据加工的方法所带来的严重性的估计偏差问题。鉴于上述比较严密的实证方法,我们得到两个重要的政策含义:首先,主张中国“通缩”输出论是基于传统的“支出转移效应”的宏观分析视角,但忽略了进出口企业的定价能力等微观要素,所以,这种主张不符合数据反映的现实情况。其次,一国的货币政策可以制约汇率和外国价格对本国价格的传递效应,这一特点是现有的价格传递效应理论,即支出转移效应和商品价格?     

不同“融资铜”模式的风险识别与警示

针对现实中防范"融资铜"风险的需要,本文归纳提炼出三种不同的"融资铜"模式,并就其操作过程中所面临的利率风险、人民币价格波动风险和标的物价格波动风险及其联动性进行深入剖析;采用GARCH-Copula模型,利用上述风险的收益数据及风险因子数据(2011年5月至2014年4月)对单一风险及综合风险进行识别与模拟,对不同模式中综合风险分布进行对比分析,根据在险价值做出警示。结果表明:"融资铜"是一种套利行为,其综合风险收益具有右偏特性,并明显呈现出尖峰厚尾的风险分布特征,相同置信水平下在险价值显著高于单一风险在险价值;其存在极值损失,发生极值损失对企业自身及金融系统会造成严重影响,因此相关监管机构必须对"融资铜"加以重视并实施控制,以引导资金回归实体经济之中。