Risk Communication

Risk Communication Tee L. Guidotti George Washington University Center for Risk Science and Public Health

The Keys to Effective Risk Communication Effective environmental risk communication rests on three essential pillars: • Accurate information distilled into accessible knowledge • Presented in an accessible form for the intended audience, consistent with their experience and language, • In an empathic and caring manner. Where did this formulation come from?

The Authority: Aristotle • The basic principles are ancient • Derived from Rhetoric • Logos -  • Ethos -  • Pathos -  • These principles underlie effective human communication in general!

Three modes of communication All forms of effective communication use these principles but they should not be confused. • Crisis communication • Used in an emergency • No time to lay new groundwork • Highly-charged situations • Corporate communication • Conveying a message about the organization • Essential but not about the person receiving it These modes of communication are important but they are not risk communication. Why do all corporate communication consultants have the same goofy smile on their pictures?

Risk Communication Risk communication conveys information that people can use to protect themselves and their families from adverse risk. • It is about supplying the information that people need, not what the expert thinks is important. • It involves frameworks for thinking things through. • It is not fundamentally about persuasion or advocacy. • It is hardest to do in an emergency. We don’t use this book but it has an expressive cover.

The Basics • Risk communication is important in times of uncertainty - public needs to know but is unsure • Fear of unknown • Lack of reliable or consistent information • Scientific uncertainty • Misinformation from media, rumor • Fear of persistent effects • Distrust of authority • Cultural and individual “folk science” • Acceptable risks

Everything depends on perspective • Things look different when one is on the receiving end. • Can be very scary if you cannot interpret the picture. • Start from where the speaker is. • Figure out what they believe they need to know. • Don’t assume the expert position is “truth”. This is a pelican lunging at the camera.

What Determines When a Risk is Acceptable?

Acceptability of Risk - 1 • Low impact • Familiarity • Understanding of risk • Predictability • Controllability (may be an illusion!) • Voluntary assumption • Obvious benefit

Acceptability of Risk - 2 • No impact on children • Anonymity of victim (no visible identify of those affected) • Not a dreaded outcome • Institutional trust • No media attention • History of tolerating risk • Equity (no maldistribution of risk)

Acceptability of Risk - 3 • Reversibility • No personal or family stake in outcome – • No obvious responsible party The risks people worry about most have the opposite features: dread, visible victim, known perpetator, high stakes for family, unfairness.

Some “publics” There is no one “public”! • Activists (may be different sides) • New families, concerned parents • Ethnic, class and race divide us (be aware of environmental justice issues) • Business and political leaders • Elderly • Harmonica players

Be skeptical of cultural stereotypes • People view the world in different ways • Culture is a context that admits many variations • This is addressed by “mental modeling” approach • Education • Learned view of world • Family experience • Individual experience • Shared knowledge in community • Expectations for future • Trust in players, agencies Tamagawa Alpine Horn Club during a summer festival in Atsugi, Japan 2004

What is the difference between these two disasters? Recovery efforts after Hurricane Floyd, NC 2001 Rescue efforts after explosion in plastics factory, Scotland

Natural Disasters “Act of God” without human agent Liability limited Less blaming except for lack of preparedness Rapid recovery Empathy, cooperation Technological Disasters “Act of man”: human agent responsible Legal, moral liability Blaming Prolonged process litigation Community approbation Natural v. Technological Disasters

Risk Perception • People perceive risks according to: • Their culture, collective experience, family • Their personal experience, personal stake • Their fears, anxieties, uncertainties, phobias • Their values, priorities, ethics, and morality • The mind uses shortcuts to figure out problems: this is called heuristics • One heuristic is to reduce things to questions of right and wrong • A major driver of risk perception, therefore, is moral sensibility

Risk Perception has a Moral Dimension! • Experts see risk in terms of probabilities. • “Real people” (publics) perceive risks as having a moral dimension. • People project mortality, good and evil, onto the stakeholders. • This is not always rational or pretty. (See right.) Reproduced from a really weird website, by an artist who is probably a nutcase.

“Moral” Issues in Risk Perception • Outrage factor (Sandeman) • Voluntary v. involuntary assumption of risk • Natural v. industrial (technological) • Equity (fairness) – less of an issue for water distribution! • Familiarity and tolerance • Trust

“Moral” Issues in Risk Management • Dread outcome • e.g. cancer, or brain damage due to lead • Knowable v. unknowable • people also make up their own explanations! • Moral relevance • who decides? • negligence and indifference • concealment

U.S. EPA’s Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication • Accept, involve public as legitimate partner • Plan carefully and evaluate performance • Listen to the audience • Be honest, frank and open • Coordinate, collaborate with other credible sources • Meet the needs of the media • Speak clearly and with compassion After Covello; originally prepared for U.S. EPA. 7

Caveats! • We do not necessarily agree with all of these as written. • These are skills, not strategies. • They will make you a better communicator but you have to know what it is you are communicating. • Know your audience, preferably before you walk in the door!

1. Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner • In a democracy, people expect the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their lives. • Demonstrate respect for the public. • Public will hold you accountable, whether you are a public servant or not. • The tricky bit is how to “involve” them.

Tips • Once you step on the platform, you own the problem! • Do not attempt to diffuse concern or preempt action. • Help and inform - never try to manipulate. • People want the opportunity to participate but will not necessarily actually do so. • Those who do often have an agenda. • Agendas are sometimes good.

2. Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. • Begin with clear, explicit objectives. • Evaluate information ahead of time, be aware of weaknesses in data, knowledge. • Recognize different “publics” and speak to each but don’t pander. • Learn when to speak in sound bites and when not to. • Pretest your message when possible.

Tips • Don’t be a slave to talking points at a public meeting. • Pretest your message with typical people. (Definitely before going on TV.) • Beware of small, seemingly “unimportant” community meetings. • “We need to do further studies” sounds evasive to the public.

3. Listen to the audience’s specific concerns • Listen to the audience and identify their concerns. • Do not assume what people know, think or want to be done. • Recognize and honor people’s emotions: this is about respect, not validation • Recognize concerns for fairness, trust, credibility, competence, control, caring, morality.

Tips • Never go to a meeting unprepared. • People will look for meaning in what you say, how you say it and how you are dressed. • People come to the table with prior life experience, beliefs, personal knowledge etc. • People will read in all kinds of concerns, myths and meaning that you never intended.

4. Be open, honest and frank. • Trust and credibility are your most important assets. • Once lost, trust is impossible to regain. • Physicians have higher credibility, govt agencies and lawyers lower, in general. • Admit uncertainty or mistakes. • Do not speculate or distort level of risk.

Tips • Distrust of public officials is almost universal. • Strategies to build trust in an agency usually fail. • Don’t overintellectualize the argument. • Watch your body language (90% of communication. • Be culturally sensitive but appropriate.

5. Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. • Develop relationships with other stakeholders. • Coordinate messages so that public hears a consistent interpretation. • Avoid public disagreements but acknowledge uncertainty. • Never be blind-sided with new information. • Monitor media not just technical sources.

Tips • Don’t make a big deal of correcting the record if a detail is not important. • If others do not coordinate their message with yours, don’t argue. • Be respectful to the other party but state your position clearly and your reasons. • Let them take the flack for inconsistency, not you. • If you are not prepared, don’t go unless you absolutely have to.

6. Meet the needs of the media • Acknowledge that media have a legitimate role and need for information. • Understand behaviour of media: need simplicity, conflict, “hook” for stories • Prepare media materials in advance. • Be accessible to media. • Establish relationships with media reps.

Tips • Learn to speak in sound bites. Practice the skill. • Don’t be the story. • Media materials should be sufficient for a reporter to write the whole story. • Supply a “hook” that media can use. • If a reporter uses you as a reliable source when they need one, more likely to come to you when you need to get your word out.

7. Speak clearly and with compassion • Avoid technical language and jargon. • Be sensitive to local norms and expectations. • Use concrete examples, vivid metaphors. • Be sure that examples are relevant and simple. • Respond to emotion; acknowledge tragedy and anxiety.

Tips - 1 • This is not the time to challenge core community attitudes and beliefs. • Understand that people may engage in actions counter to their interests if they are emotionally engaged in an issue. • People respond to stories, not theory or facts. • Use universal examples.

Cardinal Sins of Risk Communication - 1 • Detachment and remaining aloof. • Ignoring people’s feelings. • Explanations in jargon. • Bureaucratic presentation. • Public is rarely interested in process • Wrong spokesperson at a public meeting. Many of these traits are common among scientists and engineers. They need help.

Cardinal Sins of Risk Communication - 2 • Not coordinating message. • Withholding information. • Mixed messages. • Failure to follow-up. • Denying a mistake. • Faking an answer. Identity concealed to protect the perpetrator. Adapted from Chess C. Center for Environmental Management, Tufts Univ., 1990.

A critique of conventional risk communication… • Puts too much emphasis on the voice of the communicator. • Not enough emphasis on the values of the audience. • Assumes that there is a clearly evident “truth” and that the problem is one of persuasion. • Treats culture as a barrier rather than an organizing structure for people’s lives. • Considers only one item on what may be a very complicated and long agenda. • Plays into the “win or lose” mentality of a polarized community. • Has become its own script – public now knows all the moves!

Alternatives • Treat public as an equal with expert • Learn what the listener needs to know • Consider culture to be “channel” of communication, not a barrier • Focus on life experience of listener, not education • Treat educational level as a formality, not as a barrier to communication

Tactics • Putting a risk in perspective • Concept of risk may become “overinflated” • Do not abruptly puncture the balloon of inflated risk perception • Poking holes to pop balloons just leads to anger and denial. • Deflate perception of a risk very slowly • Environmental activists and NGOs • Often deeply invested in the problem, don’t want the agenda changed

Deflating Balloons Without Popping Them • This is a famous trick • Steps: • Balloon has to be partly deflated already. • Pick the part of balloon under least stress: at knot and directly opposite. • Lubricate pin or skewer. • Use gentle pressure and twist. Balloon skin will seal itself around skewer. • Remove slowly. Air will leak out of hole. • This is a great metaphor for deflating an issue. Deflated balloons leak slowly, public opinion calms down, realism ensues. Pricked balloons pop violently, public is upset, denial ensues.

Dealing with Heckling, Interruptions Responding to : • convey empathy • express skepticism • don’t flatly contradict speaker • never restate the problem in objective, unemotional terms • never cut someone off • gently speak along with them as they wind down • restate concerns expressed

Risk Communication