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.     

Judgments of Chemical Risks: Comparisons Among Senior Managers, Toxicologists, and the Public

Nineteen Senior Managers of a major chemical company in the United Kingdom participated in a survey to determine their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding risks from chemicals. Similar surveys had previously been conducted with toxicologists and members of the general public in the United States and Canada. In general, the Senior Managers tended to judge risks to be quite small for most chemicals. Moreover, they had lower risk perceptions than did members of the British Toxicological Society and even far lower perceptions of risk than a comparison group of members of the Canadian public. The managers held views that were similar to British toxicologists working in industry and government and dissimilar to the views of toxicologists working in academia. The observed differences between views of managers, toxicologists, and the public must be recognized and understood in order to facilitate communication and constructive efforts to manage chemical risks.     

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.     

Fairness and nanotechnology concern

Research suggests that fairness perceptions matter to people who are asked to evaluate the acceptability of risks or risk management. Two separate national random surveys (n = 305 and n = 529) addressed Americans’ concerns about and acceptance of nanotechnology risk management in the context of the degree to which they view scientists and risk managers as fair. The first survey investigated general views about scientists across four proposed dimensions of fairness (distributional, procedural, interpersonal, and informational). The results show that respondents who believe that the outcomes of scientific research tend to result in unequal benefits (distributional fairness) and that the procedures meant to protect the public from scientific research are biased (procedural fairness) were more concerned about nanotechnology. Believing scientists would treat them with respect (interpersonal fairness) and ensure access to information (informational fairness) were not significant predictors of concern. The second study also looked at these four dimensions of fairness but focused on perceptions of risk managers working for government, universities, and major companies. In addition to concern, it also examined acceptance of nanotechnology risk management. Study 2 results were similar to those of study 1 for concern; however, only perceived informational fairness consistently predicted acceptance of nanotechnology risk management. Overall, the study points to the value of considering fairness perceptions in the study of public perceptions of nanotechnology.     

Putting the First Audience First: Conducting Useful Evaluation for a Risk-Related Government Agency

The risk communication practitioner in a government agency has two essential, interdependent tasks. One is to help develop and monitor effective communication programs with various external public audiences. The other task is to do the same thing for the senior government managers whose support is a prerequisite to addressing the first audience. Hence, the second audience–the manager–is really the first. This paper addresses ways in which communication practitioners can satisfy this crucial audience. A profile of these managers suggests that they would find it highly beneficial to have more control over the public problems they encounter, especially in view of the growing pressures to do more with less and demonstrate "customer satisfaction." They would rather avoid crises than manage them. And they would rather have their bosses praise their successes than challenge their budgets or punish their perceived difficulties or failures. Communication practitioners who can help them attain such benefits will find their efforts in great demand. They would be helpful team members who provide timely insights that can make and show agency success. We offer ten ways for communication practitioners to be more useful which focus their current strengths on satisfying senior managers'needs by becoming more valuable members of the program team. By becoming more useful to the senior manager they serve both the agency and its publics.     

Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Personnel: A Survey

This study investigated risk perception, well-being, and organizational commitment among nuclear power plant personnel. The study group, 428 employees from a nuclear power plant, completed a questionnaire which included the same questions as those in previous surveys on risk perception of lay persons and industrial workers. Hazards at work were not seen as a sizable problem by nuclear power plant personnel. The study group estimated the safety of nuclear power plants better and the possibility of a serious nuclear accident as more unlikely than the general public. Compared to employees in other industrial companies, the overall perceived risks at work among plant personnel did not exceed the respective perceptions of the reference groups. Risk-related attitudes did not explain well-being among plant personnel, but the relationship between the perceived probability of a serious nuclear accident at work and organizational commitment yielded to a significant correlation: Those plant workers who estimated the likelihood of an accident higher were less committed to the organization.     

Politics and Scientific Expertise: Scientists, Risk Perception, and Nuclear Waste Policy

To study the homogeneity and influences on scientists'perspectives of environmental risks, we have examined similarities and differences in risk perceptions, particularly regarding nuclear wastes, and policy preferences among 1011 scientists and engineers. We found significant differences ( p 0.05)in the patterns of beliefs among scientists from different fields of research. In contrast to physicists, chemists, and engineers, life scientists tend to: (a)perceive the greatest risks from nuclear energy and nuclear waste management; (b)perceive higher levels of overall environmental risk; (c)strongly oppose imposing risks on unconsenting individuals; and (d)prefer stronger requirements for environmental management. On some issues related to priorities among public problems and calls for government action, there are significant variations among life scientists or physical scientists. We also found that–independently of field of research–perceptions of risk and its correlates are significantly associated with the type of institution in which the scientist is employed. Scientists in universities or state and local governments tend to see the risks of nuclear energy and wastes as greater than scientists who work as business consultants, for federal organizations, or for private research laboratories. Significant differences also are found in priority given to environmental risks, the perceived proximity of environmental disaster, willingness to impose risks on an unconsenting population, and the necessity of accepting risks and sacrifices.     

Health Risk Communication at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

I have described areas for which ATSDR has responsibilities that we see as involving risk communication. I conclude by indicating, based on our professional experience and from meetings with the public where we have presented health information, what we consider to be five elements required of successful risk communication. The first element we suggest is the credibility of the source. If you have no credibility, no matter how accurate, how truthful, how up-to-date, how important, how dramatic your message is, you are not going to be heard. So you start with credibility. The quality of the message is the second building block of successful risk communication. By quality of the message, I mean whether it is accurate, truthful, up-to-date, and based on current scientific knowledge. The third element is the degree of involvement of the receiver of the message in the shaping of the message. If the receiver has not been involved in the process, then the likelihood of successful risk communication is going to be diminished. Get the receivers involved up front. That means, in the case of community health studies, get those persons involved in the community who have been most concerned about the health issues. To the extent possible, involve community leaders, citizen groups, physicians, the news media, and concerned individual citizens in the design, conduct, and evaluation of community health surveys and studies. The fourth element is the quality of the delivery. If you present the message in government jargon and do not speak with, but to, the audience, you are going to find difficulties in successful communication.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

On-Site Storage of High Level Nuclear Waste: Attitudes and Perceptions of Local Residents

No public policy issue has been as difficult as high-level nuclear waste. Debates continue regarding Yucca Mountain as a disposal site, and—more generally—the appropriateness of geologic disposal and the need to act quickly. Previous research has focused on possible social, political, and economic consequences of a facility in Nevada. Impacts have been predicted to be potentially large and to emanate mainly from stigmatization of the region due to increased perceptions of risk. Analogous impacts from leaving waste at power plants have been either ignored or assumed to be negligible. This paper presents survey results on attitudes of residents in three counties where nuclear waste is currently stored. Topics include perceived risk, knowledge of nuclear waste and radiation, and impacts on jobs, tourism, and housing values from leaving waste on site. Results are similar to what has been reported for Nevada; the public is concerned about possible adverse effects from on-site storage of waste.     

Public perceptions of risk to forest biodiversity.

This study examines the perceived risks to forest biodiversity and perceived effectiveness of biodiversity conservation strategies among the general public. It tests the hypotheses that perceived risk to forest biodiversity is influenced by cognitive factors (value orientation and knowledge) and social-cultural factors (such as gender and environmental membership) and that risk perceptions influence other cognitive constructs such as support for natural resource policy and management. Data were collected from a sample of the general public (n= 596) in British Columbia, Canada by mail survey in 2001. Results show that insects and disease were perceived as the greatest risk. Educating the public and industry about biodiversity issues was perceived as a more effective conservation strategy than restricting human uses of the forest. Value orientation was a better predictor of perceptions of risk and perceived effectiveness of conservation strategies than knowledge indicators or social-cultural variables. Examining the indirect effects of social-cultural variables, however, revealed that value orientation may amplify the effect of these variables and suggests that alternative paths of influence should be included. Perceived risk showed an inconsistent association with perceived effectiveness of conservation strategies.     

Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada

This paper examines the sources of public opposition to a high-level nuclear waste repository among samples of 1001 residents of Nevada and a national sample of 1201 residents. Two models of choice are contrasted: A benefit-cost model and a risk-perception model of individual choice. The data suggest that the willingness of Nevada residents to accept a repository at Yucca Mountain depends upon subjective risk factors, especially the perceived seriousness of risk to future generations. Perceived risk depends in part on level of trust placed in the Department of Energy to manage a repository safely. Opposition to a local repository did not decrease significantly if compensation in the form of annual rebates, either ($1000, $3000, or $5000 per year for 20 years) were offered to residents. The public needs to be convinced before compensation is considered, that the repository will possess minimal risks to themselves as well as to future generations, and that the site currently targeted is suitable. One way to do this is through adoption of mitigation and control procedures such as strict federal standards and local control over the operation of the repository. The federal government should also consider returning to the fair procedure for selection between candidate sites specified in the initial Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.     

Perceptions of Risk and Vulnerability Following Exposure to a Major Natural Disaster: The Calgary Flood of 2013

Many studies have examined the general public's flood risk perceptions in the aftermath of local and regional flooding. However, relatively few studies have focused on large‐scale events that affect tens of thousands of people within an urban center. Similarly, in spite of previous research on flood risks, unresolved questions persist regarding the variables that might influence perceptions of risk and vulnerability, along with management preferences. In light of the opportunities presented by these knowledge gaps, the research reported here examined public perceptions of flood risk and vulnerability, and management preferences, within the city of Calgary in the aftermath of extensive flooding in 2013. Our findings, which come from an online survey of residents, reveal that direct experience with flooding is not a differentiating factor for risk perceptions when comparing evacuees with nonevacuees who might all experience future risks. However, we do find that judgments about vulnerability—as a function of how people perceive physical distance—do differ according to one's evacuation experience. Our results also indicate that concern about climate change is an important predictor of flood risk perceptions, as is trust in government risk managers. In terms of mitigation preferences, our results reveal differences in support for large infrastructure projects based on whether respondents feel they might actually benefit from them.     

The Politicization of Risk: Party Cues,Polarization, and Public Perceptions of Climate Change Risk

Previous research shows that public perceptions of climate change risk are strongly related to the individual willingness to support climate mitigation and adaptation policy. In this article, I investigate how public perceptions of climate change risk are affected by communications from political parties and the degree of polarization among them. Specifically, using survey data from Sweden, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand, I study the relationship between party source cues, perceived polarization, and public perceptions of climate change risk. The results reveal a positive relationship between party cues and perceptions of climate change risk, indicating that individuals adjust their risk perceptions to align with their party preference. Furthermore, a negative relationship between perceived polarization and individual risk perceptions is also discovered, showing that individuals tend to be less concerned with climate change the more polarization they perceive. However, the effect of perceived polarization is found to be limited to more abstract perceptions of risk, while being unrelated to perceptions of concrete risks. Even with some contextual variance, the results generally hold up well across the four countries.     

Risk Perception,Experience, and Objective Risk: A Cross‐National Study with European Emergency Survivors

Understanding public risk perceptions and their underlying processes is important in order to learn more about the way people interpret and respond to hazardous emergency events. Direct experience with an involuntary hazard has been found to heighten the perceived risk of experiencing the same hazard and its consequences in the future, but it remains unclear if cross‐over effects are possible (i.e., experience with one hazard influencing perceived risk for other hazards also). Furthermore, the impact of objective risk and country of residence on perceived risk is not well understood. As part of the BeSeCu (Behavior, Security, and Culture) Project, a sample of 1,045 survivors of emergencies from seven European countries (i.e., Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, Sweden, Spain, Turkey, and Italy) was drawn. Results revealed heightened perceived risk for emergency events (i.e., domestic and public fires, earthquakes, floods, and terrorist attacks) when the event had been experienced previously plus some evidence of cross‐over effects, although these effects were not so strong. The largest country differences in perceived risk were observed for earthquakes, but this effect was significantly reduced by taking into account the objective earthquake risk. For fires, floods, terrorist attacks, and traffic accidents, only small country differences in perceived risk were found. Further studies including a larger number of countries are welcomed.     

Perceived risk,emotions, and stress in response to COVID-19: The interplay of media use and partisanship

Relationships between risk perceptions, emotions, and stress are well-documented, as are interconnections between stress, emotion, and media use. During the early COVID-19 pandemic, the public responded psychologically to the threat posed by the pandemic, and frequently utilized media for information and entertainment. However, we lack a comprehensive picture of how perceived risk, emotion, stress, and media affected each other longitudinally during this time. Further, although response to the pandemic was highly politicized, research has yet to address how partisan affiliation moderated relationships between risk, emotion, stress, and media use over time. This three-wave (N = 1021) panel study assessed the interplay of risk, emotion, stress, and media use for Americans with different political affiliations between March and May of 2020. Findings indicate that perceived risk, emotion, and stress at Time 1 predicted media use at Time 2, with predictors varying by type of media. Use of entertainment media and social/mobile media predicted later stress (Time 3), but news consumption did not. Later risk perceptions (Time 3) were not influenced by media use at Time 2. The predictors and consequences of different types of media use were notably different for Republicans and Democrats. In particular, risk perceptions predicted greater news use among Democrats but greater entertainment media use among Republicans. Moreover, social/mobile media use resulted in perceiving the risks of COVID-19 as less serious for Republicans while increasing stress over time for Democrats.     

Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies

The human population is forecast to increase by 3–4 billion people during this century and many scientists have expressed concerns that this could increase the likelihood of certain adverse events (e.g., climate change and resource shortages). Recent research shows that these concerns are mirrored in public risk perceptions and that these perceptions correlate with a willingness to adopt mitigation behaviors (e.g., reduce resource consumption) and preventative actions (e.g., support actions to limit growth). However, little research has assessed the factors that influence risk perceptions of global population growth (GPG). To contribute to this important goal, this article presents three studies that examined how risk perceptions of GPG might be influenced by textual‐visual representations (like those in media and Internet articles) of the potential effects of GPG. Study 1 found that a textual narrative that highlighted the potential negative (cf. positive) consequences of GPG led to higher perceived risk and greater willingness to adopt mitigation behaviors, but not to support preventative actions. Notably, the influence of the narratives on perceived risk was largely moderated by the participant's prior knowledge and perceptions of GPG. Contrary to expectations, studies 2 and 3 revealed, respectively, that photographs depicting GPG‐related imagery and graphs depicting GPG rates had no significant effect on the perceived risk of GPG or the willingness to embrace mitigation or preventative actions. However, study 3 found that individuals with higher “graph literacy” perceived GPG as a higher risk and were more willing to adopt mitigation behaviors and support preventative actions.     

Feeling at Risk Matters: Water Managers and the Decision to Use Forecasts

Experts contend that weather and climate forecasts could have an important role in risk management strategies for community water systems. Yet, most water managers make minimal use of these forecasts. This research explores the determinants of the use of weather and climate forecasts by surveying managers of community water systems in two eastern American states (South Carolina and the Susquehanna River Basin of Pennsylvania). Assessments of the reliability of weather and climate forecasts are not driving their use as water managers who find forecasts reliable are no more likely to use them than are managers who find them unreliable. Although larger systems and those depending on surface water are more likely to use forecasts for some (but not all) purposes, the strongest determinant of forecast use is risk perceptions. Water managers who expect to face problems from weather events in the next decade are much more likely to use forecasts than are water managers who expect few problems. Their expectations of future problems are closely linked with past experience: water managers who have had problems with specific types of weather events (e.g., flood emergencies) in the last 5 years are likely to expect to experience problems in the next decade. Feeling at risk, regardless of the specific source of that weather-related risk, stimulates a decision to use weather and climate forecasts.     

Risk Perception in Context: The Savannah River Site Stakeholder Study

Environmental managers are increasingly charged with involving the public in the development and modification of policies regarding risks to human health and the environment. Involving the public in environmental decision making first requires a broad understanding of how and why the public perceives various risks. The Savannah River Stakeholder Study was conducted with the purpose of investigating individual, economic, and social characteristics of risk perceptions among those living near the Savannah River Nuclear Weapons Site. A number of factors were found to impact risk perceptions among those living near the site. One's estimated proximity to the site and relative river location surfaced as strong determinants of risk perceptions among SRS residents. Additionally, living in a quality neighborhood and demonstrating a willingness to accept health risks for economic gain strongly abated heightened risk perceptions.The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP)The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP)The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP)     

Application of the Precautionary Principle by Senior Policy Officials: Results of a Canadian Survey

Though use of the controversial precautionary principle in risk management has increasingly been recommended as a guide for the construction of public policy in Canada and elsewhere, there are few data available characterizing its use in risk management by senior public policymakers. Using established survey methodology we sought to investigate the perceptions and terms of application of the precautionary principle in this important subset of individuals. A total of 240 surveys were sent out to seven departments or agencies in the Canadian government. The overall survey response rate was 26.6%, and our findings need to be interpreted in the context of possible responder bias. Of respondents, the overwhelming majority perceived the precautionary principle and the management of risk as complementary, and endorsed a role for the precautionary principle as a general guideline for all risk management decisions. However, 25% of respondents responded that the lack of clarity of the definition of the principle was a limitation to its effective use. The majority of respondents viewed their own level of understanding of the precautionary principle as moderate. Risk managers appeared to favor an interpretation of the precautionary principle that was based on the seriousness and irreversibility of the threat of damage, and did not endorse as strongly the need for cost effectiveness in the measures taken as a precaution against such threats. In contrast with its perceived role as a general guideline, the application of the precautionary principle by respondents was highly variable, with >60% of respondents reporting using the precautionary principle in one-quarter or less of all risk management decisions. Several factors influenced whether the precautionary principle was applied with the perceived seriousness of the threat being considered the most influential factor. The overwhelming majority of risk managers felt that "preponderance of evidence" was the level of evidence required for precautionary action to be instituted against a serious negative event. Overall, the majority of respondents viewed the precautionary principle as having a significant and positive impact on risk management decisions. Importantly, respondents endorsed a net result of more good than harm to society when the precautionary principle was applied to the management of risk.     

Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan

Nuclear power is a highly controversial and salient example of environmental risk. The siting or operating of a nuclear power plant often faces widespread public opposition. Although studies of public perceptions of nuclear power date back to 1970s, little research attempts to explain the spatial heterogeneity of risk attitude toward nuclear power among individuals or communities. This article intends to improve the knowledge about the major factors contributing to nuclear power plant risk perceptions by mapping the geographical patterns of local risk perception and examining the determinants in forming the nature and distribution of the perceived risk among potentially affected population. The analysis was conducted by a case study of the Second Nuclear Power Plant (SNPP) in Taiwan by using a novel methodology that incorporates a comprehensive risk perception (CRP) model into an ethnographic approach called risk perception mapping (RPM). First, we examined the determinants of local nuclear power risk perceptions through the CRP model and multivariate regression analysis. Second, the results were integrated with the RPM approach to map and explain the spatial pattern of risk perceptions. The findings demonstrate that the respondents regard the nuclear power plant as an extremely high‐risk facility, causing them to oppose the SNPP and reject the compensation payment to accept its continuing operation. Results also indicate that perceptions of nuclear power risk were mainly influenced by social trust, psychological and socioeconomic attributes, proximity, and the perceived effects of the SNPP on the quality of everyday life.