Transcript What is Risk? - Breast Cancer & the Environment Research Centers

Strategic Risk Communication
Involving Environmental
Health Issues

Breast Cancer and Environment
Pre-Conference
November 8, 2005
Michigan State University, Lansing, MI

Katherine McComas, PhD
Department of Communication
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
1
What is Risk?



“things, forces, or circumstances that pose
danger to people or to what they value”
(Stern & Fineberg, 1996, p. 215)
It encompasses subjective and objective
qualities
Risk judgments, to some degree, are byproducts of social, cultural, and
psychological influences (Slovic, 1999)
2
What is Risk Communication?

…An iterative process among scientists and
non-scientists about the assessment,
characterization, and management of risk.




Includes purposeful and unintentional messages
about risk,
Is multi-directional,
Encompasses verbal and nonverbal cues, and
Occurs at personal, group, organizational, community,
and societal levels.
3
“[Risk communication] enters our lives in a multitude of
forms, sometimes part of the imagery of advertising,
sometimes a local corporation’s formal statement, or its
failure to say anything, sometimes a multi-volumed and
impenetrable technical risk assessment”
(Kasperson & Palmlund, 1987, as cited in Plough & Krimsky, 1987)
4
The Challenge of Risk
Communication

How do we communicate complex
science-based health or environmental
risk information to help audiences make
the best decisions?
5
The “Rub”

“No matter how accurate it is, risk
information may be misperceived or
rejected if those who give information are
unaware of the complex, interactive nature
of risk communication and the various
factors affecting the reception of the risk
message.”

(Fessenden-Raden et al., 1987, p. 100)
6
Premise





The manner by which information is
provided,
the structure of arguments,
the persuasive nature of the message,
the sources used, and
the nature of the risk…

…all influence audience response to
environmental health risk messages.
7
Questions to Consider






How complex is the information?
What if the science is uncertain?
Are unintentional risk messages also
being sent?
Are there multiple messengers?
Do some messages conflict with others?
What are the media saying?
8
Mass Media


If most people get most
of their information
from the mass media,
what are the media
saying?
One study found that
articles in women’s
magazines discussing
breast cancer risks
tended to report
incorrect or incomplete
information (Marino &
Gerlach, 1999)
9
10
11
Effective Message Design

To communicate risk and design effective
messages, it is imperative to understand
how…


lay audiences process understand alternative
ways of characterizing environmental health
risk assessments, and
the role of message structure in influencing
perceptions and behaviors.
12
Audience Characteristics






Past experiences with the topic and information
sources
Prior knowledge of the topic
Health of the individual and family members
Where relevant, attitudes toward the
organization viewed responsible for the risk
Culture
Risk perceptions
13

In the face of scientific
information, why do people
behave irrationally?
14
What Do You Fear Most?











Driving?
Smoking?
Flying?
Eating?
Boating?
Guns?
Alcohol?
Lightning?
Big Trucks?
Flu?
Lightening?
15
Annual Deaths/Risk










Smoking?
Eating?
Alcohol?
Driving?
Flu?
Guns?
Big Trucks?
Boating?
Flying?
Lightening?
(435,000 deaths)
(365,000 deaths-diet and inactivity)
(85,000 deaths)
(42,000 deaths)
(36,000 deaths)
(29,000 deaths)
(5,000 car-truck deaths)
(1,643 deaths)
(176 deaths)
(43 deaths)
16
Some Factors Influencing
Risk Perceptions






Can I see it?
Will I know if I’m
exposed?
Are the effects
immediate?
Do scientists know and
understand the risks?
Can I control my
exposure?
Can I easily reduce my
exposure





Is my exposure
voluntary?
Is it a “dreaded” risk?
Are the risks borne
equally or fairly?
Does it pose a risk to
future generations?
Are the risks decreasing
or increasing?

(Slovic, 2000)
17
Why Does It Matter?


Understanding how people evaluate risk may
help risk communicators predict how
concerned people may be about a risk.
Under some circumstances, risk
communicators may be able to lessen
unnecessary concern by emphasizing certain
actions that people can take, for example, to
reduce or control their exposure to a risk.
18
Affect and Risk Judgments



People judge risk based not only on what they
think about it, but also on what they feel about it.
When people associate positive feelings with the
activity, they view it as less risky, and vice versa.
When people worry more, they are more likely to
seek information.

(Slovic, 1999; Griffin et al., 1999)
19
Why Does It Matter?



Emotions can override other considerations.
May help to explain gender and age-related
differences in risk perceptions.
May help to explain why vivid language,
narratives, or affective-laden imagery strongly
influence people’s reactions to risk.

(Loewenstein, 2001)
20
Optimistic Bias


When asked to rate their chances of being
harmed or experiencing a positive event, people
tend to rate their chances as above or below
average.
So, why is this called “unrealistic optimism”?

If these beliefs were not biased, in a representative
sample, claims of being below average risk, for
instance, would be balanced by claims of being
above average risk.

(Weinstein, 1989)
21
Why Causes Optimistic Bias?

People compare themselves to an incorrect norm.




People tend to have stereotypes in mind when they think about
who is usually at risk from something. If they do not fit this
stereotype, then they will downplay the likelihood of the event
happening to them.
People interpret risk information in a self-serving
manner.
People employ “ego-defensive” mechanisms to
downplay their risks.
People believe they have more control over a situation
than they really do.
22
Limiting Optimistic Bias




When comparing our chances of being exposed to a risk
to someone else’s, the more like us that someone else
is, the less we have unrealistic optimism.
When we perceive less control over our exposure to risk,
or view this exposure as less voluntary, unrealistic
optimism decreases.
Amount of information people are exposed to about a
risk, and how salient or meaningful that information is to
them personally can influence optimistic biases.
Personal exposure to a risk can reduce unrealistic
optimism.
23
Why Does It Matter?

Unrealistic optimism may hinder efforts to
promote risk decreasing behavior.

People do not think they are at risk or that the
risks pose much danger to their health and
safety.
24
Trust and Source Credibility

To what extent do individuals perceive the
source as trustworthy and/or credible?


Can depend on perceived shared values (Siegrist et
al., 2001)
Also influenced by source’s perceived





Openness
Caring/Concern
Bias
Fairness
Expertise

(Meyer, 1988)
25
Why Does It Matter?


When individuals distrust the source, they
distrust the information.
They also often perceive the risks as more
severe.
26
When Should Risk
Communication Occur?


“Should we wait until we’re certain?”
Proactive vs. reactive risk communication
27
Proactive Risk
Communication

Calls attention to a risk issue, both potential and
existing, suggests the agenda for discussion, and
provides mechanisms for information exchange

Disadvantages:


May alert people to something of which they are not aware
Advantages:



May alert people to something of which they are not aware
May allow for a much more meaningful discussion of risk
May generate more balanced discussion


(Scherer, 1991)
Can increase trust
28
Reactive Risk Communication

Does not call attention to a particular risk but
waits until there is already considerable public
and media attention about a risk issue

Advantage


Allows the public to vent about the issue
Disadvantages:




Science may be less relevant when issues become highly
emotionally charged
Places communicator in defensive position
People may not believe information that is delayed
People may not have information they need to protect their or
their family’s health and safety
29
Developing Risk Messages

Now that you’ve decided to communicate,
what should your message include?
30
Message Strategies
1.
2.
3.
4.
Persuasive
Balanced
Narrative
Dialectical
31
(1) Persuasive Approaches

Typically one-sided approach seeking to
convince audience to change attitudes and
behaviors in a particular direction.



Sometimes referred to as advocacy approaches.
Key factors influencing persuasion include
source characteristics (e.g., credibility), message
design, and audience characteristics.
Work best where there is scientific consensus
and “social” agreement about risks.

(Fischhoff, 1999)
32
33
(2) Balanced Models


Typical of mass media coverage.
Often presents multiple perspectives or opinions
but stops short of advocating a particular
position



thus frequently leaving audiences without specific
behavioral guidance.
Presents all sides as equally as possible and
then lets individuals make up their mind.
Sometimes referred to as journalistic approach
(minus the editorializing).
34
35
(3) Narrative Approaches




Stories can personalize the risk, making it
seem more “real”
Media usually highlight someone’s story
Narrative factors guide audience reaction
to the messages
Stories help disseminate shared values,
which may promote trust

(Greene & Brinn, 2003; Siegrist et al., 2001)
36
37
(4) Dialectical Models



Uses a series of questions and answers to probe
through possibilities and weigh contradictory
facts and opinions with a view to their resolution.
Does not advocate a particular position but tries
to equip audiences with tools necessary to
evaluate information.
Interactive techniques used to involve the public
in environmental decision making employ similar
strategies.

(Scherer et al., 1999)
38
39
40
41
Questions to Consider

When choosing a message strategies, risk
communication efforts should ask:


Who is the target audience?
What is the objective of the message?
Provide information
 Promote more critical thinking or informed
judgments about risk
 Promote attitude or behavior change
 Build trust among communicators and audience

42
Additional Message Elements

Risk severity


Efficacy statements


When people believe they have the
ability to change, and that the
change will indeed help, they are
more likely to adopt protective
behavior (Witte, 1994).
Comparisons


More severe risks gain more
attention, but can go too far
Work best when source is trusted
and comparisons are within the
same “family” of risks (Johnson &
Chess, 2003)
Visuals

A strong communication tool when
used thoughtfully (Lipkus &
Hollands, 1999)
43
Channel Should
Advantages
Where
RiskDisadvantages
Communication Occur?
Format
One-on-one
“House calls,”
healthcare
appointments,
internal meetings
Direct interaction,
Greater control
over message and
outcomes
Limited audience
reach
Public Forums
Seminars,
conferences, industry
and public meetings,
workshops
Direct interaction,
Greater control
over message
Limited audience
reach, Less control
over outcomes
Mass Mediated
(Non-specialized
media)
Paid ads, press
releases, media
interviews
Wide audience
reach
Less control over
message (except paid
ads), one-way,
Difficulty assessing
effectiveness
Electronic
Web sites, 1-800
hotlines, listservs,
broadcast emails
Wide audience
reach, can be
interactive
Difficultly assessing
effectiveness, can be
one-way
Direct Mail
Newsletters,
business
correspondence,
flyers
Wide audience
reach
Difficulty assessing
effectiveness, oneway
44
References


















Fessenden-Raden, J., Fitchen, J. M., & Heath, J. S. (1987). Providing Risk Information in Communities: Factors
Influencing What Is Heard and Accepted. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12(3 & 4), 94-101.
Fischhoff, B. (1999). Why (cancer) risk communication can be hard. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs,
25, 7-13.
Greene, K., & Brinn, L. S. (2003). Messages influencing college women's tanning bed use: Statistical versus narrative
evidence format and a self-assessment to increase perceived susceptibility. Journal Of Health Communication, 8(5), 443461.
Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and
processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80(2), S230.
Johnson, B. B., & Chess, C. (2003). How reassuring are risk comparisons to pollution standards and emission limits? Risk
Analysis, 23(5), 999-1007.
Lipkus, I. M., & Hollands, J. G. (1999). The visual communication of risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Monographs, 25, 149-163.
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267286.
Marino, C., & Gerlach, K. K. (1999). An analysis of breast cancer coverage in selected women's magazines, 1987-1995.
American Journal Of Health Promotion, 13(3), 163-170.
Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an Index. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 567574, 588.
Plough, A., & Krimsky, S. The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology,
& Human Values, 12 (3&4), 4-10.
Scherer, C. (1991). Strategies for communicating risks to the public. Food Technology, 45, 110-116.
Scherer, C. W., McComas, K. A., Juanillo, N., & Pelstring, L. (1999). Promoting Informed Decision-Making: The Role of
Message Structure. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, 10, 209-220.
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G. T., & Gutscher, H. (2001). Shared values, social trust, and the perception of geographic cancer
clusters. Risk Analysis, 21(6), 1047-1053.
Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield (Reprinted from
Environment, ethics, and behavior, pg 277-313, 1997). Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701.
Slovic, P. (Ed.). (2000). Perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications.
Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, H. V. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society.
Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232-1233.
Witte, K. (1994). Fear Control And Danger Control - A Test Of The Extended Parallel Process Model (Eppm).
45
Communication Monographs, 61(2), 113-134.