Strategic Risk Communication Involving Environmental Health Issues

1. 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

2. 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 by-products of social, cultural, and psychological influences (Slovic, 1999)

3. 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.

4. “[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)

5. The Challenge of Risk Communication • How do we communicate complex science-based health or environmental risk information to help audiences make the best decisions?

6. 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)

7. 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.

8. 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?

9. 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)

12. 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.

13. 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

14. In the face of scientific information, why do people behave irrationally?

15. What Do You Fear Most? • Driving? • Smoking? • Flying? • Eating? • Boating? • Guns? • Alcohol? • Lightning? • Big Trucks? • Flu? • Lightening?

16. Annual Deaths/Risk • Smoking? (435,000 deaths) • Eating? (365,000 deaths-diet and inactivity) • Alcohol? (85,000 deaths) • Driving? (42,000 deaths) • Flu? (36,000 deaths) • Guns? (29,000 deaths) • Big Trucks? (5,000 car-truck deaths) • Boating? (1,643 deaths) • Flying? (176 deaths) • Lightening? (43 deaths)

17. 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) Some Factors Influencing Risk Perceptions

18. 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.

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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)

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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)

26. Why Does It Matter? • When individuals distrust the source, they distrust the information. • They also often perceive the risks as more severe.

27. When Should Risk Communication Occur? • “Should we wait until we’re certain?” • Proactive vs. reactive risk communication

28. 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

29. 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

30. Developing Risk Messages • Now that you’ve decided to communicate, what should your message include?

31. Message Strategies • Persuasive • Balanced • Narrative • Dialectical

32. (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)

34. (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).

36. (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)

38. (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)

42. 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

43. Additional Message Elements • Risk severity • More severe risks gain more attention, but can go too far • 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 • 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)

44. Where Should Risk Communication Occur?

45. 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), 443-461. • 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), 267-286. • 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, 567-574, 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). Communication Monographs, 61(2), 113-134.