Transcript Slide 1
Communication Risk to the Public Seven Guides to Communicating Risk November 5, 2008 – Mexico City NanoMex’ 08 – © Berube 2008 David M. Berube •Professor, Department of Communication North Carolina State University •Coordinator NCSU Public Communication of Science and Technology Project •PI – NSF – NIRT Intuitive Nanotoxicology and Public Engagement - CEINT – Duke University http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/pcost/index.html COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA Teaching risk communication for two decades in CRDM (Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media) doctoral program, NCSU. Written extensively in the rhetoric of emerging technologies, esp. nanotechnology (including NanoHype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. NY: Prometheus Books. 2006. Author of the White Paper on Risk Communication for NNCO, NNI. Consult in risk and crisis communication with trade organizations, marketing groups, and industries. FUNDAMENTALS – 5 BIG LESSONS. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The public is non-rational. They are cognitive misers. The public uses mental shortcuts called heuristics to make sense of the world around us. Heuristics produce biases, such as probability neglect. The public is blissfully ignorant in science and technology policy (often by choice). Communicate with them only a. to foster trust through transparency and b. when you need to. FOUR AREAS OF RESEARCH 1. 2. 3. 4. Where are people getting their information? Who are the stakeholders and what roles do they play? Who needs to be engaged? What is happening in risk communication research? 1. NEW DATA ON NET-NEWSERS 1. 2. 3. 4. Data indicates demographics favor net-newsers in the USA (Pew data). Net resources amplify risk messages though they could also attenuate them. Design web resources as digital media NOT as text. Staying on course with the evolving media: Social networking services (SNS), Twitter (microblogging), sliver TV, Second Life…. TV and Internet News Consumption 80 % consumption from each medium 70 60 50 TV 1998 TV 2008 40 WWW 1998 WWW 2008 2 1 30 20 10 0 18-24 25-29 30-34 Age Range 35-49 50-64 65+ 2. STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT EQUAL. 1. Public is generally disinterested (70%). 2. Public is overwhelmingly disinterested in science and technology policy (90%). 3. Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive. 4. Engagement is not for everyone. 5. Embrace the fact you will never succeed totally. PERCEIVED RISKS OF NANO: AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS? 80 Unaware Aware 70 Respondents (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Loss of privacy Lead to arms race Loss of jobs Self-replicating May be used by robots terrorists Hart 2007 New health problems More pollution 3. ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES. 1. Audiences process frames through their own perceptual filters, i.e., audiences use religious beliefs, moral schema, etc. 2. Perceptions are just that – the role of opinion – attitude – perception – behavior. 3. Determine your audience (the 7-10 percent solution). SCIENCE TELEVISION Positive Outcomes Elite Audiences Mass Audiences Low Message Exposure High 4. RISK COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 1. Popular culture is not affecting perception significantly. When enough is enough. Risk has a negative valence. Boomerang effects. 2. Central and peripheral routes (Petty & Cacioppo). Tell stories. Narratology is the game (link to affect heuristic). 3. The role of uncertainty in risk assessment and its effects on public communication. 4. Risk fatigue is real. Findings from health communication (Surrey project). November 5, 2008 – Mexico City NanoMex’ 08 - © Berube 2008 COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 06-595, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement. THANKS dmberube @ncsu.edu