Chapter 6
Risk Communication Basics

Audience reactions to risk information are sometimes surprising. Citizen reaction to risk messages is coming under increasing study by communication, psychology, and social science experts. Their findings are helping reporters to formulate stories that increase public understanding.

Acknowledgments

Much of the information in this chapter was drawn from the research of several individuals on the cutting edge of risk perception and risk communication research. Chief among them are: Vincent Covello, Columbia University, New York, New York; Michael R. Edelstein, Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, New Jersey; Baruch Fishoff, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Peter Sandman, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey; Paul Slovic, Decision Research, Inc., Eugene, Oregon. See Recommended Reading for a listing of publications and articles by these researchers and others.

Introduction

A hazardous waste management company plans to locate a new incinerator in your community. Residents are fearful of future emissions; officials declare there is nothing to worry about. A drawn-out controversy is expected. What features of citizen reaction to potential risk should you know so you can present the information in a way that helps people respond constructively?

As a reporter, you may do all you can to understand risk issues and report them clearly. Yet your audience's reactions may not be what you had expected. For example, they may not take serious hazards-like radon or high-fat diets-seriously, yet they may remain agitated about relatively insignificant hazards-like pesticide residues in food or nuclear power generation.* What's going on?

Citizen reaction to risk messages is a fascinating field coming under increasing study by communication, psychology, and social science experts. Their findings provide insights that will help you formulate your stories so they increase public understanding.

Outrage

The hazard of radon-the number of people killed--is much greater than the hazard of nuclear power. Yet Americans are much more up in arms about nuclear power. Why is this?

Risk communication experts point to a factor they call "outrage." Outrage* refers to the level of public anger and fear about an environmental risk issue. Outrage has a much greater influence on citizens' reactions to a hazard than the scientifically calculated risk.

When people become outraged, they may overreact. Conversely, if people are not outraged, they may underreact.

Outrage Factors

What causes outrage? People become outraged-fearful, angry, frustrated-if the risk is perceived to be:

involuntary: People don't like to be forced to face a risk-like trace chemicals in tap water. (But they will voluntarily assume risks-like drinking diet soda.)

uncontrollable: When preventing risk is in someone else's hands (government or industry), citizens feel helpless to change the situation. If the citizen can prevent or reduce the risk (using household chemicals properly) the risk is more acceptable.

immoral: Pollution is viewed as an evil. Therefore, people consider it unethical for governments and industries to claim that a risk is acceptable based on cost-benefit analysis or because there is "only" a low incidence of harm.

unfamiliar: An industrial process pro-ducing an unpronounceable chemical is a much less acceptable risk than some- thing more everyday, like driving a car or eating junk food.

dreadful: A risk that could cause a much-feared or dread disease (like most cancers) is seen as more dangerous than a risk that could cause a less-feared disease.

uncertain: People become uneasy when scientists are not certain about the risk posed by a hazard-its exact effect, severity, or prevalence.

catastrophic: A risk resulting in a large-scale disastrous event (plane crash, nuclear reactor meltdown), is more dreaded than a risk affecting individuals singly (auto accidents, radon).

memorable: A potential risk similar to a remarkable event imbedded in the memory, like Bhopal or Three Mile Island, is viewed as much more dangerous than the risk of some unheard-of or little-known disease.

unfair: People become outraged if they feel they are being wrongfully exposed. For example:

• exposure to a risk that people in a neighboring community or a different economic bracket are not being exposed to.
• exposure to a risk with no benefit, e.g., living next to a nuclear waste dump, but receiving no benefit from nuclear power generation. In contrast, people will assume the risk of exposure to something like medical X-rays because they perceive a benefit that equals or outweighs the risk.

untrustworthy: People become outraged if they have no confidence in the source of the risk, such as industry or government. In contrast they will accept risks from what they view as a reliable risk source, such as a doctor.

Emotional Reactions Valid

Clearly, emotions play a large role in public perception of risk. No explanation of scientific findings makes much impression if people are either hysterical or agitated.

This emotional response is viewed by many with technical training as irration-al, and they therefore ignore it or condemn it.

In fact, individual emotional responses are based on psychologically valid factors and are, from the psychological perspective, perfectly rational. When people become aware of a threat, they are naturally inclined to:

• fear the unknown.
• want to maintain control.
• protect home and family.
• be alienated by dependence on others (government, industry officials).
• protect their belief in a just world.

By contrast, technically trained officials tend to trust scientific analyses, accept the effectiveness of engineering solutions and contingency plans, and to believe that experts know best.

Thus, much of the conflict surrounding risk issues is a result of groups with vastly different values becoming pitted against one another.

Communications experts urge those involved in communicating risk--officials and reporters--to accept the reality and validity of the public's emotions, and to seek ways of communicating that take these emotions into account.

Risk Communication Guidelines

Here are some ways that reporters (and officials) can address the psychological factors influencing citizen response to hazards. The point, of course, is not to diminish legitimate concerns, or heighten illegitimate ones, but to encourage constructive action.

• Describe what individuals can do to reduce their exposure.
• Describe what industry and government are/are not doing to reduce the risk.
• Describe the benefits as well as the risks to the specific audience (not just society in general) of the substance/process of concern.
• Describe the alternatives and their risks.
• Describe what people can do to get involved in the decisionmaking process.
• Provide information that will help the audience to evaluate the risk.

Helping the Audience Evaluate Risk

Ultimately, citizens judge how dangerous a risk is and whether they should take action to reduce it. Reporters can play a key role in encouraging sound decisions by providing information that will help their audience evaluate the risk. Some fundamental information is:

• How much of the substance is the audience actually being exposed to?
• What is the likelihood of accidental exposure? What safety/back-up measures are in place?
• What is the legal standard for the substance? Is the standard controversial or widely accepted as sound?
• What health or environmental problems is the standard based on? Are there other problems that should be considered?
• Is the source of the risk information reputable? Who funded the work? What do other sources say?
• Were the studies done on a population similar to this audience?
• What are the benefits of the substance/facility? What are the trade-offs?
• How does the risk compare with other risks this audience faces?

Risk Comparisons

Risk comparisons--comparing a new, unfamiliar risk with an old, familiar one--are appealing because they provide a concrete way to express a numerical concept (such as one death in a million). Risk comparisons appear to establish a scale of severity by which people can judge whether the new risk is something to be concerned about.

However, risk comparisons must be used with great care. Often, an involuntary risk is compared with a voluntary one (e.g., the risk from nearby chemical plant emissions is compared with smoking, dietary habits, or some other lifestyle choice). Such comparing of an involuntary exposure to risk with a voluntary exposure tends not to influence people's perceptions.

If such a comparison is done in the spirit of minimizing the importance of the involuntary risk, it will generate anger.

The value of risk comparisons is also limited by the fact that risks tend to accumulate in people's minds. No matter how small the new risk, people are inclined to see it as simply one more unwelcome vexation to add to their already heavy burden of coping with modern-day problems.

Several types of risk comparisons are generally more useful than comparing involuntary risks with voluntary ones. These are:

• comparisons of similar risks.
• comparisons of risks with benefits.
• comparisons of alternative substances/methods.
• comparisons to natural background levels.
• comparisons with a regulatory standard.

Examples of risk comparisons:

• Comparisons of similar risks: How do synthetic pesticide levels in a food compare with the levels of natural pesticides found in many foods?
• Comparisons of risks with benefits: The risk to human health of using chlorine to disinfect drinking water vs. chlorine's role in protecting human life from infectious diseases.
• Comparisons of alternatives: Incineration of a waste versus landfilling it-which actually causes the most pollution of the environment?
• Comparisons to natural background levels: How does the level of a substance in a suspected contaminated area compare with natural background levels-such as the level of lead in someone's backyard compared with the average natural lead levels in soils in the United States.
• Comparisons with a regulatory standard: How does the comparison of arsenic in a city's drinking water compare with the standard set by the Environmental Protection Agency?

Concentration Analogies

Explaining chemical concentrations (parts per million, parts per billion) by using analogies (1 ppm = 1 drop of gas in an auto gas tank) appeals to the imagination and helps people understand the magnitude of a concentration.

Like risk comparisons, however, analogies can cause anger if used merely to minimize the magnitude, and thus the risk.

Analogies should be accompanied by information on the significance of the concentration-its effect on human health, the environment, etc.

See Appendix 1 for a sampling of concentration analogies.

Covering Chronic Risks

Many risk communication experts assert that people's tendency to overestimate sudden, imposed risk and underestimate chronic or lifestyle-imposed risks is reinforced by generally more extensive media coverage of accidents and disasters than of chronic situations.

These experts encourage reporters to be persistent in their coverage of the chronic risks-those due to diet, lifestyle, or home contaminants such as radon, lead, and asbestos.

Researchers are studying how to present risk messages about chronic or lifestyle risks in a manner that results in the individual taking corrective action. Findings to date are tentative.*

|| Previous Page | Next Page ||

|| Table of Contents ||

The Foundation for American Communications (FACS)
3800 Barham Boulevard, Suite 409, Los Angeles, CA , 90068
Questions? Suggestions? email us: facs@facsnet.org