Unit 7 P1 Risk Communication
INTRODUCTION
Risk communication is an integral part of the risk analysis process and has been defined as an interactive process for exchanging information and opinions between risk evaluators, risk managers and other interested parties.
Risk communication is the process by which information and opinions regarding hazards and risks are gathered from potentially affected and interested parties, and by which the results of the risk assessment and proposed risk management measures are communicated to the decision makers and interested parties in the importing and exporting countries.
Risk communication is a multidimensional and iterative process that should ideally begin at the start of the risk analysis and continue throughout
Goals …show more content…
of risk communication
-To promote awareness and understanding of the specific issues under consideration during the risk analysis process, by all participants,
- To promote consistency and transparency in arriving at and implementing risk management decisions,
- To provide a sound basis for understanding the risk management decisions proposed or implemented,
- To improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the risk analysis process,
- To contribute to the development and delivery of effective information and education programmes,
- To foster public trust and confidence in decision-making institutions,
- To promote the involvement of all interested parties in the risk communication process,
- To exchange information on the knowledge, attitudes, values, practices and perceptions concerning risks.
The literature on risk communication is large and diverse. Various disciplines, including psychology, cognitive science, communication and mass media studies, sociology, management science, decision sciences, and various health-related disciplines, have made contributions to the body of work that currently exists on risk communication. Studies vary along many dimensions, including:
The types of risks that are focused on, which span a vast panoply of health, safety, and environmental risks–including natural and technological hazards
Salient characteristics associated with risks, including their frequency and severity, uncertainty with respect to the risks themselves and to outcomes resulting from their occurrence, and other attributes of risks (e.g., familiar, exotic, dreaded or deadly)
Risk communication time frames, which range from very short-term (e.g., warnings that some disaster will strike within minutes or hours) to long-term (e.g., risk communications focusing on the long-term health risks associated with smoking or poor diet)
Elements in the risk communication process that are considered (e.g., source, message, channel, and receiver characteristics and combinations of those elements)
Models used to describe and explain the risk communication process
Factors associated with risk communication successes and failures
Dependent variables and outcomes of interest, which range from risk perceptions and changes in those perceptions to specific actions that can be taken in response to risk communication messages, such as self-protective and risk-management activities
Risk Communication as Process
There are many models of the risk communication process, virtually all of which have their basis in Lasswell’s (1948) original characterization of communications as involving six elements: source, channel, message, receiver, effect, and feedback. As summarized by Tierney, Lindell, and Perry (2001: 84-85), the process can be thought of as encompassing the following steps or stages:
[I]nformation about an actual or potential disaster can come from physical cues or from social sources such as authorities, news media, and informal groups. The information can be transmitted face-to-face or through different technological channels (print or electronic) to different demographic segments of the community, producing a range of psychological and behavioral effects…the effects on the recipient take place in a sequence of stages, including exposure to the information, attention to it, comprehension of its meaning, and acceptance of its accuracy and relevance for the receiver.
Once received, the information produces both cognitive and affective responses among information recipients. Ideally, those information recipients then take some action, which in turn produces feedback and possible subsequent behavioral adjustment.
From the perspective of the individual who is the intended recipient of risk information, the risk communication process involves a series of stages, described by different researchers as hearing the information, understanding it, and perceiving its relevance (Nigg, 1982); attention, comprehension, acceptance, retention, and action (Lindell and Perry, 1992); and hearing, understanding, believing, and personalizing the risk (Mileti and Fitzpatrick, 1993).
Risk communication campaigns that are not able to provide answers for those questions are unlikely to succeed in gaining attention and motivating action. Effective efforts are those that help message recipients’ move through the entire process, from understanding the hazard to taking action to reduce their risks.
In developing and carrying out their risk communication strategies, advocates must think in terms of the entire risk communication process, taking into account all elements that are necessary for effective risk communication. Working through the stages of the general model of communications outlined above, ensuring that risk communication efforts have an impact involves selecting the best sources for the release of information; taking information channels into account, crafting appropriate messages, visuals, and other media for communicating risk; having an understanding of which message recipients are being targeted and what the needs and capabilities of those target audiences are; and specifying what effects or actions the message is intended to produce (for example, stimulating preparedness).
The communication process must clearly identify the target audience to which the information is to be communicated, the message, the source and the most efficient communication channel. In many cases, effective communication requires multiple strategies and communication channels.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUDIENCE
Part of the communication strategy is to identify the various stakeholders and to establish the bases for communication, taking into consideration the characteristics of each audience (general public, consumers, risk analysts, legal analysts, risk managers and other interested parties). It is important to clearly establish who the stakeholders are right from the beginning of the communication process, and indeed from the start of the risk analysis process, and to heed their concerns. Stakeholders can be grouped into three categories:
- Official sector,
- Importation beneficiaries,
- Risk recipients.
THE MESSAGE
When targeting the general public and the various interested groups it is necessary to analyse the factors involved in risk perception, as this allows the message to be targeted more efficiently at each group7, 2. Table 1 details the qualitative factors involved in risk perception.
For communication to be effective, it is suggested that for every risk analysis study, three types of report should be drawn up to target different audiences:
- A full and detailed report containing the full text of the study, references to scientific literature, data used and conclusions. Quantitative studies should include the probability model used and the values and distributions for each parameter. The full report is targeted at other analysts and must enable them to understand the scientific basis of the study and its conclusions, and must be sufficiently detailed to allow the model and its results to be reproduced.
- An executive summary targeted at decision-makers containing the most important aspects of the study and the recommendations.
- A report targeted at the general public and at sectors interested in the decision.
The text must be clear, concise, unambiguous and comprehensible to any reasonably educated lay person, whether or not they have scientific knowledge.
Most countries (13 countries, 93%) state that they produce a detailed report of the risk analysis process, as well as an executive summary. Eight countries (57%) also produce a report for the general public
Risk communication activities have different objectives. In some cases, risk communication efforts seek to inform audiences about a particular risk in order to influence risk decisions. In others, the goal is to influence message recipients to undertake some specific action with respect to the risk—for example, to evacuate in the face of an immediate threat, purchase insurance, or retrofit a home (Covello, et al., 1987;
Morgan and Lave, 1990). Some risk communication efforts center on trying to make a particular risk more salient to audiences and to make them more concerned. Other risk communication efforts may try to calm audiences down and address their concerns in order to limit unnecessary or unrealistic fears about a particular threat. The lastmentioned type of risk communication challenge is probably best illustrated by the
case of the 1990 Iben Browning earthquake “prediction.” The Browning prediction, which forecasted a large-scale seismic event in the Central U.S. in December 1990, gained salience with many audiences, including mass media outlets. Most likely, the public response to this prediction would have been more measured and skeptical had the scientific community been quicker to inform the public of its lack of scientific validity.
Characteristics of Effective Risk Communication Messages
Consistency in message content is extremely important. Inconsistencies lead to misunderstanding and inaction. The information provided should be consistent across time, as well as across different message sources and channels.
The information that is provided should be accurate, timely, and complete. In situations in which incomplete or contradictory information may have been provided, those discrepancies should be explained. Complete accuracy throughout documents and messages is key. Indeed, even small or seemingly unimportant inaccuracies may call into doubt the reliability of the entire message.
The language used in risk communication messages should be clear, simple, and easy to understand. In other words, technical jargon and unfamiliar terminology should be avoided to the greatest extent possible.
Messages should convey a sense of confidence in the information that is being provided. Confidence and a sense of certainty should be maintained even in situations involving probabilities and ambiguous information. Message recipients should not be left with doubts about whether to take the information seriously.
The importance of certainty and confidence extends both to the information conveyed and to the way in which it is conveyed—including the behavior of official spokespersons.
Messages should be released as frequently as possible. Frequency influences both attentiveness to and belief in the information that is being communicated.
Messages should contain information about the anticipated event, its likelihood, and its probable effects in as much detail as possible. It is not sufficient to merely provide general information on when and where earthquakes may occur. Detailed information should be provided on the earthquake and on various types of seismic effects, such as fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and damage to the built environment.
Message content should include information on the location of relevant risks and hazards. Risk information that is geographically specific encourages message recipients to personalize these risks.
Messages should also contain specific guidance on what people should do with respect to the hazard and when they should take those actions. Along those same lines, the message should inform audiences about where they can go for additional information and assistance with carrying out recommended measures.
Message Recipients
Effective risk communication and public education campaigns are those that can reach, can be easily understood, and can be acted on by their target audiences. Again, accomplishing these goals presents a significant challenge, particularly in a diverse society. This section contains a series of brief discussions on things that advocates should take into account in developing their risk communications strategies. Those points include understanding how message recipients deal with risk-related information, particularly probabilistic information; developing strategies for communicating both with key actors and opinion leaders and with the public; and understanding audience diversity.
Recognizing Audience Diversity
In his paper “Thinking About Audiences,” Peter May established a typology for classifying advocacy groups. These groups include governmental decision makers at the authoritative policy, managerial, and policy influence levels; private-sector decision makers at both authoritative and policy-influencing levels; professional influence sources, including consulting engineers, planners, insurers, and other types of advisors who can play an advocacy role in seismic safety; and external sources of influence, consisting of those groups that have a stake or interest in seismic safety issues. This list is already quite broad, but it could be broadened further to include nonprofit organizations with significant hazard-related advocacy responsibilities, such as the Red Cross. Professional influence sources also include university-based researchers with relevant expertise.
COMMUNICATION SOURCE
People receive information on hazards of all kinds from a wide range of sources, including informal sources such as friends, family members, co-workers, and neighbors; mass media outlets; new communications media, such as the Internet; the scientific community; government sources; private-sector sources, including corporations and advertising; and their own personal experiences. At any given time, individuals and groups may be actively involved in seeking out hazard-related information, or they may merely passively receive that information in the course of their everyday activities.
Information obtained from the media and other “impersonal” sources is confirmed, reinforced, or revised through informal contacts and conversations. The reverse is also true: when people obtain information through their informal ties, they may seek verification or additional information through formal channels. These various formal and informal sources may convey erroneous as well as accurate information, and the information obtained may be consistent or inconsistent. Various information sources may contradict one another, and information that is disseminated through formal channels may be further distorted—or further clarified—through informal communications networks.
There is, in other words, considerable amount of complexity and “noise” in the entire process of disseminating information on risk. The challenge for those involved in the risk communication process is to cut through the noise with strong “signals” for message recipients. With respect to message sources, this involves first understanding what sources people typically use to obtain their information on earthquake hazards, and then using those sources and making sure that the information that is disseminated is clear, consistent, and credible. It also involves being ready to use information sources effectively when situations and events develop that stimulate information-seeking among members of the public. Seismic safety advocates must always be concerned with maintaining and enhancing source credibility. They face two key challenges with respect to the information sources they use in risk communication campaigns. The first is to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of the organizations that are providing seismic hazard information. The second is to identify spokespersons that audiences perceive as trustworthy. The discussions that follow provide advice on how advocates can surmount these challenges.
Factors Influencing the Credibility of Sources and Spokespersons
People are bombarded daily with information of all types from a wide range of sources.
One major challenge they face in dealing with excessive amounts of information is to decide which sources are credible and trustworthy and which should be ignored.
Obviously, people listen to, value, and in general are more likely to act on information they receive from sources that they trust as reliable. Conversely, these individuals tend to discount information that comes from untrustworthy sources. Even complete and accurate information will be rejected if the information source is not considered credible.
Risk communication thus involves two interrelated challenges: determining which sources people consider credible, and using those sources effectively in seismic safety campaigns; and taking steps to ensure that the agencies, organizations, and individuals involved in communicating about seismic hazard maintain high levels of credibility. In a related vein, advocates should guard against doing things that are likely to damage their credibility.
What makes an information source credible? Put another way, what are the factors that damage the credibility of sources? In a publication on risk communication, the National
Research Council (1989) discussed several factors that stand in the way of effective risk communication due to their impact on source credibility: (1) taking positions that appear to audiences as unjustified, in light of what people consider to be reasonable; (2) gaining a reputation for deceit, misrepresentation, or lack of full disclosure of information; (3) making statements and taking actions that contradict previous positions; (4) communicating risks in ways that appear to be self-serving; and (5) putting out messages that contradict information provided by other sources.
Turning more specifically to attributes and behaviors that make individuals more credible as spokespersons, Renn and Levine (1991) argue that several factors are associated with being a good risk communications spokesperson: the ability to admit uncertainty; the public perception that the spokespersons are competent, expert, honest, altruistic, and objective; the physical attractiveness and overall appearance of the individual; and the person’s ability to respond to the emotions of audience members. They also note that message recipients assign more credibility to people who are similar to them—something advocates should keep in mind in selecting spokespersons to communicate with diverse groups within the population. On the negative side, individuals are seen in a negative light if they appear arrogant and indifferent, if they are seen by target audiences as outsiders, or if they come across as too technical.
COMMUNICATION CHANNEL
Even the best-crafted message is useless if it fails to reach the intended audience. Communication channels consist of the various means through which hazard-related information is disseminated. Channels include both interpersonal communication networks and mass media sources. Focusing on the variety of ways information can be conveyed to the public and groups within the population, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services report on risk communication (2001) discusses a wide variety of “vehicles” that can be used in risk communication activities.
These different vehicles employ both person-to-person and mass media information dissemination. Person-to-person communication channels include public hearings, conferences, workshops, courses, and door-to-door canvassing. Communication vehicles that employ the mass media include news conferences, talk shows, public service announcements, press briefings, feature articles, and newspaper advertisements. Complementing and supplementing formal risk communication efforts are the informal interpersonal channels that people routinely employ in the workplace, neighbourhoods, and among family members.
As a general rule, experts on risk communication stress the importance of using multiple channels for information dissemination, rather than relying on one or two sources (Nathe, et al, 1999). A well-designed risk communication campaign is one that employs both person-to-person and mass media communication strategies. Ideally, campaigns should be designed and timed so that both types of channels are addressed simultaneously and various vehicles of communication are used within each. At the same time, as discussed in the following section on messages and message content, care needs to be taken to ensure that the messages that are conveyed through various channels are consistent and mutually reinforcing.
Socio-Economic Factors Affecting the Use of Different Information Sources
Some mass media are almost universally used in U. S. society, but there is also quite strong evidence for differential media use among different age, ethnic and racial, and income groups. Television is the most commonly used mass medium in the U.S., with
94% of the population reporting television use. Prime-time television and cable television reach slightly smaller audiences (82% and 73%, respectively). Eighty-four percent of the population reports listening to the radio, 79% read newspapers, and about
52% of the population report using the Internet. While television, prime-time television programs, and cable use do not vary much across ethnic groups in the U.S., variations areevident among these groups in radio listening, newspaper reading, and Internet use. For example, while 67% of Asian-Americans use Internet information sources, only 41% of
Spanish-speaking Americans report Internet usage.
Radio use, newspaper reading, and Internet use are directly related to both education and income. That is, the higher the income and educational level, the greater the reported use of these media. These differences are particularly evident with respect to the Internet. In the case of income, for example, only18% of those with household incomes of less than
$10,000 use the Internet, while 74% of those with household incomes of $50,000 or more report Internet usage. Around 16% of those who never graduated from high school use the web, while that percentage exceeds 76% for college graduates. Age is also associated with differential media use; younger populations are more likely to utilize radio and
Internet information sources. While ninety percent of the 18-24-year-old age group listen to radio, 61% of those over 65 do so. There is also a strong inverse relationship between age and Internet use. While 60-64% the population between 18 and 54 reports using the
Internet, those percentages drop to 49% for those 55 to 64 and 15% for those over 65.
Patterns of media penetration and differential media use are important considerations for those who are designing risk communication campaigns. As a general rule, overall coverage of the population is greatest for television and lowest for the Internet.
Newspaper-based seismic educational campaigns will fail to reach one out of every five
US residents (and 40% of non-high-school graduates), simply because many people don’t read newspapers. Similarly, owing to the persistence of the “digital divide,” campaigns based solely or primarily on Internet dissemination of information will miss large segments of the population. (Statistics taken from Congressional Information Service,
Inc. 2003a; 2003b).
The Challenge of Communicating About risk product and conditions
One major set of concerns centres on ways of effectively targeting audiences. Thus, one overriding challenge is to provide information in ways that motivate people to take the threat seriously. Because many audiences are likely to be confused about the product or condition, even in high-risk areas, risk communication messages must be informative, rich in educational content, and designed in ways that enhance learning and the retention of relatively complex information. Along these same lines, strategies must be customized in ways that address variations in hazard.
A second set of challenges centre on the nature of the product or condition itself. events, and risk communication strategies should be designed accordingly.
Additionally, risk communication strategies must address and surmount problems associated with the communication of uncertainties. Finally, the approaches adopted for communicating product risk and mobilizing public support strategies must be designed to overcome apathy and anticipate and neutralize organized opposition.
CONCLUSIONS
Risk communication is possibly one of the most difficult phases of the risk analysis process to carry out effectively. Effective communication calls for dedication and effort and is not something that happens by itself. Merely disseminating information without regard for communicating the complexities and uncertainties of risk does little to ensure effective risk communication. A well-managed communication strategy will ensure that messages are constructively formulated, transmitted and received. Once a decision has been taken it is important to communicate it. If those concerned understand how a decision was reached they are more likely to accept it, even where they disagree with it. This makes communication the cornerstone of transparency.
References
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2001. Risk Communication Guide for State and Local Agencies. Sacramento: State of California: Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services.
Covello, V. T., D. von Winterfeldt, and P. Slovic. 1987. “Communicating scientific information about health and environmental risks: Problems and opportunities from a social and behavioral perspective.” Pp. 39-61 in V. T. Covello, L. B. Lave., A Moghissi, and V. R. R. Uppuluri (Eds.) Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and
Decision Making. New York: Plenum.
Gutteling, J. M. and Oene Weigman. 1996. Exploring Risk Communication. (Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, Volume 8). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Kasperson, R. and P. J. M. Stallen. 1991. Communicating Risks to the Public:
International Perspectives. Boston: Kluwer.
Mileti, D. S. and C. Fitzpatrick. 1994. Public risk communication.” Pp. 71-84 in R. R.
Dynes and K. J. Tierney (Eds.) Disasters, Collective Behavior, and Social Organization.
Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press
KARATINA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
COURSE TITLE: COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
UNIT TITLE: COMMUNICATION ABOUT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COURSE CODE: CMM 209
TASK: GROUP WORK
BRENDA ANONO BCP/1886/12
CECILLIA NDERITU BCP/1157/12
LINETT MAINA BCP/7003/12
FACILITATOR: MR ONINDO
COMMUNICATING ABOUT RISK PRODUCT AND CONDITIONS. LINKING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO RESEARCH IN COMMUNICATION IN ORDER TO DEVELOP NEW KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SCIENCE COMMUNICATION
Risk communication is an integral part of the risk analysis process and has been defined as an interactive process for exchanging information and opinions between risk evaluators, risk managers and other interested parties.
Risk communication is the process by which information and opinions regarding hazards and risks are gathered from potentially affected and interested parties, and by which the results of the risk assessment and proposed risk management measures are communicated to the decision makers and interested parties in the importing and exporting countries.
Risk communication is a multidimensional and iterative process that should ideally begin at the start of the risk analysis and continue throughout
Goals …show more content…
of risk communication
-To promote awareness and understanding of the specific issues under consideration during the risk analysis process, by all participants,
- To promote consistency and transparency in arriving at and implementing risk management decisions,
- To provide a sound basis for understanding the risk management decisions proposed or implemented,
- To improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the risk analysis process,
- To contribute to the development and delivery of effective information and education programmes,
- To foster public trust and confidence in decision-making institutions,
- To promote the involvement of all interested parties in the risk communication process,
- To exchange information on the knowledge, attitudes, values, practices and perceptions concerning risks.
The literature on risk communication is large and diverse. Various disciplines, including psychology, cognitive science, communication and mass media studies, sociology, management science, decision sciences, and various health-related disciplines, have made contributions to the body of work that currently exists on risk communication. Studies vary along many dimensions, including:
The types of risks that are focused on, which span a vast panoply of health, safety, and environmental risks–including natural and technological hazards
Salient characteristics associated with risks, including their frequency and severity, uncertainty with respect to the risks themselves and to outcomes resulting from their occurrence, and other attributes of risks (e.g., familiar, exotic, dreaded or deadly)
Risk communication time frames, which range from very short-term (e.g., warnings that some disaster will strike within minutes or hours) to long-term (e.g., risk communications focusing on the long-term health risks associated with smoking or poor diet)
Elements in the risk communication process that are considered (e.g., source, message, channel, and receiver characteristics and combinations of those elements)
Models used to describe and explain the risk communication process
Factors associated with risk communication successes and failures
Dependent variables and outcomes of interest, which range from risk perceptions and changes in those perceptions to specific actions that can be taken in response to risk communication messages, such as self-protective and risk-management activities
Risk Communication as Process
There are many models of the risk communication process, virtually all of which have their basis in Lasswell’s (1948) original characterization of communications as involving six elements: source, channel, message, receiver, effect, and feedback. As summarized by Tierney, Lindell, and Perry (2001: 84-85), the process can be thought of as encompassing the following steps or stages:
[I]nformation about an actual or potential disaster can come from physical cues or from social sources such as authorities, news media, and informal groups. The information can be transmitted face-to-face or through different technological channels (print or electronic) to different demographic segments of the community, producing a range of psychological and behavioral effects…the effects on the recipient take place in a sequence of stages, including exposure to the information, attention to it, comprehension of its meaning, and acceptance of its accuracy and relevance for the receiver.
Once received, the information produces both cognitive and affective responses among information recipients. Ideally, those information recipients then take some action, which in turn produces feedback and possible subsequent behavioral adjustment.
From the perspective of the individual who is the intended recipient of risk information, the risk communication process involves a series of stages, described by different researchers as hearing the information, understanding it, and perceiving its relevance (Nigg, 1982); attention, comprehension, acceptance, retention, and action (Lindell and Perry, 1992); and hearing, understanding, believing, and personalizing the risk (Mileti and Fitzpatrick, 1993).
Risk communication campaigns that are not able to provide answers for those questions are unlikely to succeed in gaining attention and motivating action. Effective efforts are those that help message recipients’ move through the entire process, from understanding the hazard to taking action to reduce their risks.
In developing and carrying out their risk communication strategies, advocates must think in terms of the entire risk communication process, taking into account all elements that are necessary for effective risk communication. Working through the stages of the general model of communications outlined above, ensuring that risk communication efforts have an impact involves selecting the best sources for the release of information; taking information channels into account, crafting appropriate messages, visuals, and other media for communicating risk; having an understanding of which message recipients are being targeted and what the needs and capabilities of those target audiences are; and specifying what effects or actions the message is intended to produce (for example, stimulating preparedness).
The communication process must clearly identify the target audience to which the information is to be communicated, the message, the source and the most efficient communication channel. In many cases, effective communication requires multiple strategies and communication channels.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUDIENCE
Part of the communication strategy is to identify the various stakeholders and to establish the bases for communication, taking into consideration the characteristics of each audience (general public, consumers, risk analysts, legal analysts, risk managers and other interested parties). It is important to clearly establish who the stakeholders are right from the beginning of the communication process, and indeed from the start of the risk analysis process, and to heed their concerns. Stakeholders can be grouped into three categories:
- Official sector,
- Importation beneficiaries,
- Risk recipients.
THE MESSAGE
When targeting the general public and the various interested groups it is necessary to analyse the factors involved in risk perception, as this allows the message to be targeted more efficiently at each group7, 2. Table 1 details the qualitative factors involved in risk perception.
For communication to be effective, it is suggested that for every risk analysis study, three types of report should be drawn up to target different audiences:
- A full and detailed report containing the full text of the study, references to scientific literature, data used and conclusions. Quantitative studies should include the probability model used and the values and distributions for each parameter. The full report is targeted at other analysts and must enable them to understand the scientific basis of the study and its conclusions, and must be sufficiently detailed to allow the model and its results to be reproduced.
- An executive summary targeted at decision-makers containing the most important aspects of the study and the recommendations.
- A report targeted at the general public and at sectors interested in the decision.
The text must be clear, concise, unambiguous and comprehensible to any reasonably educated lay person, whether or not they have scientific knowledge.
Most countries (13 countries, 93%) state that they produce a detailed report of the risk analysis process, as well as an executive summary. Eight countries (57%) also produce a report for the general public
Risk communication activities have different objectives. In some cases, risk communication efforts seek to inform audiences about a particular risk in order to influence risk decisions. In others, the goal is to influence message recipients to undertake some specific action with respect to the risk—for example, to evacuate in the face of an immediate threat, purchase insurance, or retrofit a home (Covello, et al., 1987;
Morgan and Lave, 1990). Some risk communication efforts center on trying to make a particular risk more salient to audiences and to make them more concerned. Other risk communication efforts may try to calm audiences down and address their concerns in order to limit unnecessary or unrealistic fears about a particular threat. The lastmentioned type of risk communication challenge is probably best illustrated by the
case of the 1990 Iben Browning earthquake “prediction.” The Browning prediction, which forecasted a large-scale seismic event in the Central U.S. in December 1990, gained salience with many audiences, including mass media outlets. Most likely, the public response to this prediction would have been more measured and skeptical had the scientific community been quicker to inform the public of its lack of scientific validity.
Characteristics of Effective Risk Communication Messages
Consistency in message content is extremely important. Inconsistencies lead to misunderstanding and inaction. The information provided should be consistent across time, as well as across different message sources and channels.
The information that is provided should be accurate, timely, and complete. In situations in which incomplete or contradictory information may have been provided, those discrepancies should be explained. Complete accuracy throughout documents and messages is key. Indeed, even small or seemingly unimportant inaccuracies may call into doubt the reliability of the entire message.
The language used in risk communication messages should be clear, simple, and easy to understand. In other words, technical jargon and unfamiliar terminology should be avoided to the greatest extent possible.
Messages should convey a sense of confidence in the information that is being provided. Confidence and a sense of certainty should be maintained even in situations involving probabilities and ambiguous information. Message recipients should not be left with doubts about whether to take the information seriously.
The importance of certainty and confidence extends both to the information conveyed and to the way in which it is conveyed—including the behavior of official spokespersons.
Messages should be released as frequently as possible. Frequency influences both attentiveness to and belief in the information that is being communicated.
Messages should contain information about the anticipated event, its likelihood, and its probable effects in as much detail as possible. It is not sufficient to merely provide general information on when and where earthquakes may occur. Detailed information should be provided on the earthquake and on various types of seismic effects, such as fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and damage to the built environment.
Message content should include information on the location of relevant risks and hazards. Risk information that is geographically specific encourages message recipients to personalize these risks.
Messages should also contain specific guidance on what people should do with respect to the hazard and when they should take those actions. Along those same lines, the message should inform audiences about where they can go for additional information and assistance with carrying out recommended measures.
Message Recipients
Effective risk communication and public education campaigns are those that can reach, can be easily understood, and can be acted on by their target audiences. Again, accomplishing these goals presents a significant challenge, particularly in a diverse society. This section contains a series of brief discussions on things that advocates should take into account in developing their risk communications strategies. Those points include understanding how message recipients deal with risk-related information, particularly probabilistic information; developing strategies for communicating both with key actors and opinion leaders and with the public; and understanding audience diversity.
Recognizing Audience Diversity
In his paper “Thinking About Audiences,” Peter May established a typology for classifying advocacy groups. These groups include governmental decision makers at the authoritative policy, managerial, and policy influence levels; private-sector decision makers at both authoritative and policy-influencing levels; professional influence sources, including consulting engineers, planners, insurers, and other types of advisors who can play an advocacy role in seismic safety; and external sources of influence, consisting of those groups that have a stake or interest in seismic safety issues. This list is already quite broad, but it could be broadened further to include nonprofit organizations with significant hazard-related advocacy responsibilities, such as the Red Cross. Professional influence sources also include university-based researchers with relevant expertise.
COMMUNICATION SOURCE
People receive information on hazards of all kinds from a wide range of sources, including informal sources such as friends, family members, co-workers, and neighbors; mass media outlets; new communications media, such as the Internet; the scientific community; government sources; private-sector sources, including corporations and advertising; and their own personal experiences. At any given time, individuals and groups may be actively involved in seeking out hazard-related information, or they may merely passively receive that information in the course of their everyday activities.
Information obtained from the media and other “impersonal” sources is confirmed, reinforced, or revised through informal contacts and conversations. The reverse is also true: when people obtain information through their informal ties, they may seek verification or additional information through formal channels. These various formal and informal sources may convey erroneous as well as accurate information, and the information obtained may be consistent or inconsistent. Various information sources may contradict one another, and information that is disseminated through formal channels may be further distorted—or further clarified—through informal communications networks.
There is, in other words, considerable amount of complexity and “noise” in the entire process of disseminating information on risk. The challenge for those involved in the risk communication process is to cut through the noise with strong “signals” for message recipients. With respect to message sources, this involves first understanding what sources people typically use to obtain their information on earthquake hazards, and then using those sources and making sure that the information that is disseminated is clear, consistent, and credible. It also involves being ready to use information sources effectively when situations and events develop that stimulate information-seeking among members of the public. Seismic safety advocates must always be concerned with maintaining and enhancing source credibility. They face two key challenges with respect to the information sources they use in risk communication campaigns. The first is to ensure the credibility and legitimacy of the organizations that are providing seismic hazard information. The second is to identify spokespersons that audiences perceive as trustworthy. The discussions that follow provide advice on how advocates can surmount these challenges.
Factors Influencing the Credibility of Sources and Spokespersons
People are bombarded daily with information of all types from a wide range of sources.
One major challenge they face in dealing with excessive amounts of information is to decide which sources are credible and trustworthy and which should be ignored.
Obviously, people listen to, value, and in general are more likely to act on information they receive from sources that they trust as reliable. Conversely, these individuals tend to discount information that comes from untrustworthy sources. Even complete and accurate information will be rejected if the information source is not considered credible.
Risk communication thus involves two interrelated challenges: determining which sources people consider credible, and using those sources effectively in seismic safety campaigns; and taking steps to ensure that the agencies, organizations, and individuals involved in communicating about seismic hazard maintain high levels of credibility. In a related vein, advocates should guard against doing things that are likely to damage their credibility.
What makes an information source credible? Put another way, what are the factors that damage the credibility of sources? In a publication on risk communication, the National
Research Council (1989) discussed several factors that stand in the way of effective risk communication due to their impact on source credibility: (1) taking positions that appear to audiences as unjustified, in light of what people consider to be reasonable; (2) gaining a reputation for deceit, misrepresentation, or lack of full disclosure of information; (3) making statements and taking actions that contradict previous positions; (4) communicating risks in ways that appear to be self-serving; and (5) putting out messages that contradict information provided by other sources.
Turning more specifically to attributes and behaviors that make individuals more credible as spokespersons, Renn and Levine (1991) argue that several factors are associated with being a good risk communications spokesperson: the ability to admit uncertainty; the public perception that the spokespersons are competent, expert, honest, altruistic, and objective; the physical attractiveness and overall appearance of the individual; and the person’s ability to respond to the emotions of audience members. They also note that message recipients assign more credibility to people who are similar to them—something advocates should keep in mind in selecting spokespersons to communicate with diverse groups within the population. On the negative side, individuals are seen in a negative light if they appear arrogant and indifferent, if they are seen by target audiences as outsiders, or if they come across as too technical.
COMMUNICATION CHANNEL
Even the best-crafted message is useless if it fails to reach the intended audience. Communication channels consist of the various means through which hazard-related information is disseminated. Channels include both interpersonal communication networks and mass media sources. Focusing on the variety of ways information can be conveyed to the public and groups within the population, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services report on risk communication (2001) discusses a wide variety of “vehicles” that can be used in risk communication activities.
These different vehicles employ both person-to-person and mass media information dissemination. Person-to-person communication channels include public hearings, conferences, workshops, courses, and door-to-door canvassing. Communication vehicles that employ the mass media include news conferences, talk shows, public service announcements, press briefings, feature articles, and newspaper advertisements. Complementing and supplementing formal risk communication efforts are the informal interpersonal channels that people routinely employ in the workplace, neighbourhoods, and among family members.
As a general rule, experts on risk communication stress the importance of using multiple channels for information dissemination, rather than relying on one or two sources (Nathe, et al, 1999). A well-designed risk communication campaign is one that employs both person-to-person and mass media communication strategies. Ideally, campaigns should be designed and timed so that both types of channels are addressed simultaneously and various vehicles of communication are used within each. At the same time, as discussed in the following section on messages and message content, care needs to be taken to ensure that the messages that are conveyed through various channels are consistent and mutually reinforcing.
Socio-Economic Factors Affecting the Use of Different Information Sources
Some mass media are almost universally used in U. S. society, but there is also quite strong evidence for differential media use among different age, ethnic and racial, and income groups. Television is the most commonly used mass medium in the U.S., with
94% of the population reporting television use. Prime-time television and cable television reach slightly smaller audiences (82% and 73%, respectively). Eighty-four percent of the population reports listening to the radio, 79% read newspapers, and about
52% of the population report using the Internet. While television, prime-time television programs, and cable use do not vary much across ethnic groups in the U.S., variations areevident among these groups in radio listening, newspaper reading, and Internet use. For example, while 67% of Asian-Americans use Internet information sources, only 41% of
Spanish-speaking Americans report Internet usage.
Radio use, newspaper reading, and Internet use are directly related to both education and income. That is, the higher the income and educational level, the greater the reported use of these media. These differences are particularly evident with respect to the Internet. In the case of income, for example, only18% of those with household incomes of less than
$10,000 use the Internet, while 74% of those with household incomes of $50,000 or more report Internet usage. Around 16% of those who never graduated from high school use the web, while that percentage exceeds 76% for college graduates. Age is also associated with differential media use; younger populations are more likely to utilize radio and
Internet information sources. While ninety percent of the 18-24-year-old age group listen to radio, 61% of those over 65 do so. There is also a strong inverse relationship between age and Internet use. While 60-64% the population between 18 and 54 reports using the
Internet, those percentages drop to 49% for those 55 to 64 and 15% for those over 65.
Patterns of media penetration and differential media use are important considerations for those who are designing risk communication campaigns. As a general rule, overall coverage of the population is greatest for television and lowest for the Internet.
Newspaper-based seismic educational campaigns will fail to reach one out of every five
US residents (and 40% of non-high-school graduates), simply because many people don’t read newspapers. Similarly, owing to the persistence of the “digital divide,” campaigns based solely or primarily on Internet dissemination of information will miss large segments of the population. (Statistics taken from Congressional Information Service,
Inc. 2003a; 2003b).
The Challenge of Communicating About risk product and conditions
One major set of concerns centres on ways of effectively targeting audiences. Thus, one overriding challenge is to provide information in ways that motivate people to take the threat seriously. Because many audiences are likely to be confused about the product or condition, even in high-risk areas, risk communication messages must be informative, rich in educational content, and designed in ways that enhance learning and the retention of relatively complex information. Along these same lines, strategies must be customized in ways that address variations in hazard.
A second set of challenges centre on the nature of the product or condition itself. events, and risk communication strategies should be designed accordingly.
Additionally, risk communication strategies must address and surmount problems associated with the communication of uncertainties. Finally, the approaches adopted for communicating product risk and mobilizing public support strategies must be designed to overcome apathy and anticipate and neutralize organized opposition.
CONCLUSIONS
Risk communication is possibly one of the most difficult phases of the risk analysis process to carry out effectively. Effective communication calls for dedication and effort and is not something that happens by itself. Merely disseminating information without regard for communicating the complexities and uncertainties of risk does little to ensure effective risk communication. A well-managed communication strategy will ensure that messages are constructively formulated, transmitted and received. Once a decision has been taken it is important to communicate it. If those concerned understand how a decision was reached they are more likely to accept it, even where they disagree with it. This makes communication the cornerstone of transparency.
References
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. 2001. Risk Communication Guide for State and Local Agencies. Sacramento: State of California: Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services.
Covello, V. T., D. von Winterfeldt, and P. Slovic. 1987. “Communicating scientific information about health and environmental risks: Problems and opportunities from a social and behavioral perspective.” Pp. 39-61 in V. T. Covello, L. B. Lave., A Moghissi, and V. R. R. Uppuluri (Eds.) Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and
Decision Making. New York: Plenum.
Gutteling, J. M. and Oene Weigman. 1996. Exploring Risk Communication. (Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, Volume 8). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Kasperson, R. and P. J. M. Stallen. 1991. Communicating Risks to the Public:
International Perspectives. Boston: Kluwer.
Mileti, D. S. and C. Fitzpatrick. 1994. Public risk communication.” Pp. 71-84 in R. R.
Dynes and K. J. Tierney (Eds.) Disasters, Collective Behavior, and Social Organization.
Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press
KARATINA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
DEPARTMENT: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
COURSE TITLE: COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
UNIT TITLE: COMMUNICATION ABOUT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COURSE CODE: CMM 209
TASK: GROUP WORK
BRENDA ANONO BCP/1886/12
CECILLIA NDERITU BCP/1157/12
LINETT MAINA BCP/7003/12
FACILITATOR: MR ONINDO
COMMUNICATING ABOUT RISK PRODUCT AND CONDITIONS. LINKING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO RESEARCH IN COMMUNICATION IN ORDER TO DEVELOP NEW KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SCIENCE COMMUNICATION