text stringlengths 59 1.12k |
|---|
OCR for page 1 Summary A NEW PERSPECTIVE Hazards of modern life surround us and so, too, does commu- nication about the risks of those hazards. News reports describe such |
hazards as pollutants in the air and in drinking water, pes- ticide residues in food, threats from radiation and toxic chemicals, and ATDS. Government and industry also send out messages |
about hazards and their risks, sometimes directly to the populace but more often through intermediaries, such as the print and broadcast media. Risk messages are difficult to formulate in ways |
that are accurate, clear, and not rn~sTeading. One reads, for example, that "radon risk can equal or exceed the 2%o risk of death in an auto accident, . . . |
for anyone who lives 20 years at levels exceeding about 25 picocuries per liter" (Kerr, 1988~. This statement places an unfamiliar risk (radon exposure in homes) in juxtaposition to a |
more familiar risk (death in an auto accident), which may help people understand the magnitude of this unfamiliar risk. But this simple comparison may be misleading because it does not |
specify the respective levels of exposure, leaves out potentially relevant nonlethal consequences, and uses language (picocuries per liter) unfamiliar to most people. This report addresses these and other problems confronting |
risk communication. 1 OCR for page 2 2 IMPROVING RISK COMMUNICATION Risk messages can be controversial for many reasons. The haz- ards they describe are often themselves centers of controversy. |
Fre- quently, there is enough uncertainty in the underlying knowledge to allow different experts to draw contradictory conclusions. Experts are frequently accused of hiding their subjective preferences behind technical jargon |
and complex, so-called objective analyses. Often a message that is precise and accurate must be so complex that only an expert can understand it. Messages that nonexperts can under- stand |
necessarily present selected information and are thus subject to challenge as being inaccurate, incomplete, or manipulative. In the past the term risk communication has commonly been thought of as consisting |
only of one-way messages from experts to nonexperts. In this report the Committee on Risk Perception and Communication takes a different perspective. Because much of the controversy seems to center |
on the content of specific messages, it was tempting to proceed along the lines of many previous discussions about risk communication and concentrate on message design. We found a focus |
on one-way messages too limiting, however. Instead, we make a crucial distinction between risk messages and the risk communication process. We see risk communication as an interactive process of exchange |
of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions. When risk communication is viewed in this way, significant, though perhaps less obvious, underlying problems can be better discerned and treated. |
We view success in risk communication in a different way also. Some take the position that risk communication is successful when recipients accept the views or arguments of the communicator. |
We construe risk communication to be successful to the extent that it raises the level of understanding of relevant issues or actions for those involved and satisfies them that they |
are adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge. Finally, it should be noted that one of the most difficult issues we faced concerned the extent to which public officials |
in a demo- cratic society should attempt to influence individuals-that is, to go beyond merely informing them concerning risks and such risk- reducing actions as quitting smoking. Government officials must |
be accountable for their decisions and will likely find their efforts to influence contested if they stray from accepted scientific views or if they challenge popular consensus. A public official |
should be aware of the political risks and of the legitimate constraints placed upon government in advocacy. Procedural strategies such as independent OCR for page 3 SUMMARY 3 review processes |
can be used to determine the appropriateness of the use of influencing techniques. Where an unusually strong degree of advocacy seems warranted, officials should seek legitimization of such actions through |
the democratic process. COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT RISE COMMUNICATION Several important misconceptions need to be dispelled before the real problems of risk communication can be addressed. Con- trary to what some |
think, there is no single overriding problem and thus no simple way of making risk communication easy. Risk mes- sages necessarily compress technical information, which can lead to misunderstanding, confusion, |
and distrust. Many people including some scientists, decision makers, and members of the public-have unrealistic expectations about what can be accomplished by risk communication. For example, it is mistaken to |
expect improved risk communication to always reduce conflict and smooth risk management. Risk management decisions that benefit some citizens can harm others. In addition, people do not all share common |
interests and values, so better understanding may not lead to consensus about controversial issues or to uniform personal behavior. But even though good risk communication cannot always be expected to |
improve a situation, poor risk communication will nearly always make it worse. It is also mistaken to think, as some do, that if people understood and used risk comparisons it |
would be easy for them to make decisions. Comparing risks can help people comprehend the unfamiliar magnitudes associated with risks, but risk comparison alone cannot establish levels of acceptable risk |
or ensure systematic minimization of risk. Factors other than the level of risk-such as the voluntariness of exposure to the hazard and the degree of dread associated with the consequences |
must be considered in determining the acceptability of risk associated with a particular activity or phenomenon. Some risk communication problems derive from mistaken beliefs about scientific research on the nature |
of how risks are assessed and managed and on risk communication itself. Scientific information, for example, cannot be expected to resolve all important risk issues. All too often research that |
would answer the question has not been done or the results are disputed. Although a great deal of research has been done on the dissemination and preparation of risk messages, |
OCR for page 4 4 IMPROVING RISK COMMUNICATION there has been much less attention devoted to the risk communication process. In addition, even when valid scientific data are available, experts |
are unlikely to agree completely about the meaning of these data for risk management decisions. Finally, it is unrealistic to expect easy identification and understanding of the values, preferences, and |
information needs of the intended recipients of risk messages. Other misconceptions involve stereotypes about the way inter- mediaries and recipients react to risk messages. It is mistaken, for example, to |
view journalists and the media always as significant, independent causes of problems in risk communication. Rather, the problem is often at the interface between science and journalism. Both sides need |
to better understand the pressures and constraints of the other instead of complaining about the sometimes disappointing results. Scientists and risk managers should recognize the importance of the part journalists |
play in identifying disputes and maintaining the flow of information during resolution of conflicts; journalists need to understand how to frame the technical and social dimensions of risk issues. It |
is also important to recognize the differences between the broadcast ant! the print media and between the national and the regional or local press corps. Finally, even though most people |
prefer simplicity to complex- ity, it is mistaken to expect the public to want simple, cut-and-dried answers as to what to do in every case. The public is not homoge- |
neous. People diner in the degree to which they exercise control over exposure to hazards or remediation of undesirable consequences, the importance they attach to various consequences, and their tendency |
to be risk averse or risk seeking. Often at least part of the public seeks considerable information about the risks they face. PROBLEMS OF RISK COMMUNICATION We distinguish two major |
types of problems in risk communica- tion. Problems deriving from institutional and political systems are problems for which little can be done beyond trying to understand them by those involved |
in risk communication. Nevertheless, these problems can have a considerable impact on actions and events. Problems of risk communicators and recipients can be addressed more directly and are therefore more |
amenable to improvement or solution. OCR for page 5 SUMMARY 5 Problems Deriving Mom the Institutional and Political Systems Several kinds of legal considerations, including statutory man- dates, liability, and |
informed consent and "right-to-know" require- ments, influence the options available to risk managers and thus the content of their risk messages. These considerations generally either limit the possible responses to |
the risk in question or require that certain actions be taken in given circumstances. For example, some- times statutes require consideration of certain factors (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide |
Act explicitly includes con- sideration of economic benefits) or the exclusion of others (the Clean Water Act specifies that the best available technology should be used regardless of the financial |
burden imposed). Although not necessar- ily problems as such, these considerations often constitute important influences on risk messages and risk communication processes. It is often difficult to understand why risk |
messages appear as they do without consideration of these factors. Communicating with citizens about risks can increase their desire to participate in or otherwise influence decisions about the control of |
those risks, thereby making risk management even more cumber- some. The interests of citizens and their motivation to participate in the political process can introduce difficult challenges when the implementation |
of risk control measures is necessarily decentralized and local preferences (generally to avoid exposure to a particular risk) preclude solutions in the broader interest. Many hazardous waste facilities operate under |
these pressures. Divided authority, not only among Congress, the executive branch, and the courts at the federal level but also among federal, state, and local or regional jurisdictions, creates incentives |
for each actor to gain as much leverage as possible from the limited portion he or she controls. Such fragmentation makes communicating about risks harder because it makes government regulation |
and risk reduc- tion programs more complex and makes it more difficult to determine who is responsible for the eventual outcomes. Government and industry spend large amounts of money on |
research, and thus their concerns are usually well reflected in the information developed by that research. Individuals and citizens' groups do not usually have the financial resources to fund research |
and thus do not enjoy this sort of access to information and influence over its generation. If a group of people that a risk corr~municator is trying to reach feels |
that the system for generating information relied OCR for page 6 6 IMPROVING RISK COMMUNICATION upon by that source does not consider the group's concerns, it may reject the information |
from that source as a basis for decisions about risks. It is reasonable to speculate that this may, in part, explain why it is so difficult to affect young people's |
attitudes and behavior about drugs and the AIDS epidemic the information presented is based on facts that they do not consider very important in the face of their immediate concerns |
of peer pressure and personal image. There also may be systematic biases in the provision of informa- tion. Those most strongly motivated to communicate about risk are often also those |
with the ' strongest interest in the decision. When- ever a personal or social decision affects interested groups or organi- zations, conflicting messages reflecting the interests of those groups or |
organizations may be expected. The U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency administrator's statement in 1984 that EDB (ethylene dibromide)'contamination was a Tong-term health problem being ade- quately handled by tolerance guidelines, |
for example, was in the news at about the same time that public health officials in Massachusetts and Florida were removing grain products with EDB contamination from grocery store shelves. |
Experts from the food industry joined in, downplaying the risks, while scientists from environmental groups criticized the government's inaction. The beliefs, predispositions, and interests of risk communicators and the groups |
they represent create incentives to slant, or even distort or misrepresent, informa- tion. This can skew messages in many different directions on the same Issue. Problems of Risk Communicators and |
Recipients The problems encountered by the sources and recipients of risk messages center on the following topics: establishing and recognizing credibility, making the messages understandable, preparing messages in an emergency, |
capturing and focusing attention, and getting in- formation. Lack of credibility alters the communication process by adding distrust and acrimony. The most important factors affecting the credibility of a source |
and its messages relate to the accuracy of the messages and the legitimacy of the process by which the contents were determined, as perceived by the recipients. Recipients' views about |
the accuracy of a message are adversely affected by (1) real or perceived advocacy by the source of a position in the message that is not consistent with a careful |
assessment of the facts; (2) OCR for page 7 SUMMARY 7 a reputation for deceit, misrepresentation, or coercion on the part , ~ . positions taken by the source that |
do not support the current message; (4) self-serving framing of information in the message; (5) contradictory messages from other credible sources; and (6) actual or perceived professional incompetence or impropriety |
on the part of the source. The perceived legitimacy of the process by which the contents of a message were determined depends on (1) the legal standing of the source |
with respect to the risks addressed; (2) the justification provided for the communication program; (3) the access afforded affected parties to the decision-making process; and (4) the degree to which |
conflicting claims are given fair and balanced review. Ideally, risk information should use language and concepts re- cipients already understand. It is difficult to present scientific and technical information that |
uses everyday language and magnitudes common in ordinary experience and that is sensitive to such psycho- Togical needs on the part of recipients as the desire for clear, decisive answers |
or the fear of the unfamiliar and unknown. Sometimes risk communicators must disseminate messages when there are not enough relevant data to allow them to draw satisfactory conclusions and there |
is no time to obtain better information. This usually occurs when an emergency requires that action be taken im- mediately or not at all or when events lead to requests |
for information prior to the completion of study or analysis. Many things compete with risk messages for attention, and it is often difficult to get the intended recipients to attend |
to the issues the risk communicator thinks are important. From the risk com- municator's standpoint, there are two aspects of this: stimulating the attention of the ultimate recipient and interacting |
with the news media and other intermediaries. There are, of course, several differ- ent ways that messages can reach the final recipients: face-to-face (physician to patient, friend to friend, within |
the family), in groups (work sites, cIassrooms), through professional or volunteer organi- zations (American Medical Association, Red Cross), through the mass media (radio, television, magazines, newspapers, direct mail, billboards), and |
through community service agencies (at libraries, hospitals, mails, fairs). Recipients of risk messages may have difficulty deciding which issues to attend to or what to do because they cannot get |
information from officials and other message sources that satisfactorily answers their questions. This can happen when authorities do not listen of the source; t3) previous statements or OCR for page |
8 8 IMPROVING RISK CO~UNICATION and therefore do not provide what the recipient considers relevant information or because the individual is unable to find a trusted source or interpreter of |
already available information. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In formulating recommendations we focused on the preparation and dissemination of formal risk messages to audiences that include nonexperts and on only two of |
the many types of risk-managing organizations: government agencies and large private corporations. Nevertheless, our recommendations are intended to attack the prob- lems of recipients of risk messages as well. The |
goal cannot be only to make those who disseminate formal risk messages more effective by improving their credibility, understandability, and so on. Such an approach might serve their interests, but |
it could well degrade the overall quality of risk communication if it merely meant that they could advance their viewpoints with greater influence. Risk commu- nication can be improved only |
if recipients are also helped to solve their problems at the same time. The risk communication process usually with many messages from many sources-can be considered successful only to the |
extent that it, first, improves or increases the base of accurate information that decision makers use, be they government officials, industry man- agers, or individual citizens, and, second, satisfies those |
involved that they are adequately informed within the limits of available knowI- edge. This does not always result in the responses a particular source might wish, nor does it always |
lead to consensus about controver- sial issues or to uniform personal behavior. People do not all share common interests and values, and so better understanding will not necessarily lead them |
all to the same conclusion. Improving risk communication is therefore more than merely crafting "better messages." Risk communication procedures as well as risk message content must be improved. Because risk |
communi- cation is so tightly linked to the management of risks, solutions to the problems of risk communication often entail changes in risk man- agement and risk analysis. Once the |
constraints, limitations, and incentives affecting the preparation and dissemination of messages- as well as how these factors become manifest in what we call the risk communication process-are understood, improvements can |
be implemented. OCR for page 9 SUMMARY . ", . · . 9 This is not to imply, however, that there is a single shortcut to improving the nation's risk |
communication efforts. The needed improvement can come only incrementally and only from careful attention to many details. Risk managers need to consider risk com- munication as an important and integral |
aspect of risk management. Four sets of recommendations are presented: (1) recommenda- tions that pertain to the processes that source organizations use to generate decisions, knowledge, and risk messages; (2) |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.