Communicating Risk

1. Communicating Risk Chris Clarke and Katherine E. Rowan George Mason University http://communication.gmu.edu National Press Foundation Webinar Washington, DC January 2013

2. What We Will Cover • Best ways for journalists to understand risk • Common mistakes and best practices for using narratives, statistics • Avoiding he-said, she-said coverage • Factuality vs. advocacy • Covering risk is risky

3. Good News, Bad News Journalists still matter as sources of risk information about the environment health technological issues But these days, people have lower opinions about how well journalists meet this responsibility.

5. ‘Risk Communication Theories’ • Public education is the key; journalists are important • The public won’t understandcomplexities and uncertainties….and journalists can’t explain them • The media “sensationalize risk” • Looking at number killed, hurt, ill tells the whole story.

6. The “CAUSE” Model • Think about why groups respond to risk news differently: • Lack of Confidence in sources? • Lack of Awareness of danger, of warnings? • Lack of Understanding of danger? • Lack of Satisfaction with solutions? • Lack of Enactment, action?

7. The U in CAUSE • Why is this risk or hazard hard to understand? • Complexities hard to envision: cancer incidence increases with age; why carbon dioxide levels affect temperature; risk of death from flu; risk of homicide vs. suicide. • Especially if evidence is – or appears– conflicting, uncertain • Need for (and pitfalls of) a “balanced” approach to reporting Dixon & Clarke, 2012a, 2012b; Rowan, 1999, 2003

11. Media Balance • Balance “aims for neutrality [and] requires that reporters present the views of legitimate spokespersons of the conflicting sides in any significant dispute, and provide both sides with roughly equal attention” (Entman, 1989) • [“Although] the…tradition of bringing in opposing sides is an attempt to provide balance and objectivity…it is problematic to introduce dissent into an area where science largely agrees, particularly for readers unable to evaluate where the…evidence lies” (Corbett & Durfee, 2004 p. 142)

12. False Balance? Evidence Coverage Coverage Evidence

13. How Falsely Balanced Stories Affect Audiences Perceived Certainty Self Experts Exposure to “balanced” info Perception of Divide Dixon & Clarke, 2012a

14. ‘Risk Communication Theories’ • Public education is the key. • The public won’t understand complexities and uncertainties….and journalists can explain them • The media “sensationalize risk” Looking at number killed, hurt, ill tells the whole story.

15. Risk Communication Challenges • Risk = uncertain danger; complexity = tough to communicate! • Many factors shape the ways we view risk. • We perceive immediate risks differently than we do slow-onset, gradually worsening hazards. • Telling a story with “identified victims”…. • While not losing the “big picture” (i.e. statistics)

16. Processing Immediate Risk

17. Message Framing • “Selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and [promoting] a particular interpretation, evaluation, and/or solution.” • Episodic • Concrete examples, pictures; “The individual” • Thematic • Trends, themes, statistics; “Society” • Effects: • Attribution of causality, responsibility • Public opinion

21. Example: Framing Health

22. So what are the “solutions?” How can we report risk better?

23. The “CAUSE” Model • Think about why groups respond to risk news differently: • Lack of Confidence in sources? • Lack of Awareness of danger, of warnings? • Lack of Understanding of danger? • Lack of Satisfaction with solutions? • Lack of Enactment, action?

24. The S in CAUSE • Research says people are satisfied when • They believe the hazard is SEVERE • They believe the hazard affects THEM • They believe they CAN OVERCOME the hazard • They believe the recommended action will WORK • Witte et al., 2001

25. What Can/Should Journalists Do? • “Hedging” your reporting – limitations of a particular study • Often at the end of an article (Conclusion, Limitations section) • May NOT be in the press release • May talk about sampling issues; correlation vs. causation; areas of future research • Hedging can increase journalist credibility and • help people “contextualize” information • (Jensen et al., 2011)

26. Deepen Understanding, Explain Complexities Jim Gandy WLTX Columbia, SC

27. Deepen Understanding: Key Terms • Say what a word does NOT mean • Radiation does NOT equal danger. Danger depends on the type and amount of radiation. • “Strong familial risk” is NOT the same as the risk connected to a hereditary “syndrome” • Say what it DOES mean • Radiation refers to energy moving through space. • “Strong familial risk” means more likely to develop breast cancer than those with no family risk but less likely than those with hereditary syndrome

28. Key Terms, 2 • Give a RANGE of examples, not just one. • People experience radiation from many sources including light bulbs, the sun, radios, x-rays, cosmic rays, and nuclear weapons. • The harmfulness of radiation has to do with its type and amount of exposure. • When a doctor prescribes an x-ray, the benefit of a clear image to help detect some problem usually outweighs the risk of exposure to x-ray radiation.

29. Key Terms, 3 • Discuss “false examples” to clarify a key term. • Eating lots of “fiber” helps protect you from cancer. • Fiber is plant material that passes undigested, so apples, wheat bran, and salads all have fiber. Meat does not, even “tough meat.” • Dietary fiber is plant material. Rowan, 1999

30. Deepen Understanding: Address Lay Theories • State the lay theory and acknowledge its apparent reasonableness • It seems reasonable to assume that if there are no people in your family who have cancer, your chances of getting cancer are low. • Create dissatisfaction with the lay theory • Family history is one source of cancer risk, but there are other sources. Lifestyle factors like obesity and smoking are connected to cancer.

31. Deepen Understanding: Address Lay Theories • Explain the orthodox science • Cancer is often prevented if caught early. Since early cancers may not cause symptoms, and since even people with no family history of cancer are at risk, have frequent check ups so problems can be caught and treated. Rowan, 1999, 2000, 2003

32. What Can/Should Journalists Do? • Balance with “context” • Whether/how a particular study reflects – or challenges – a larger body of research. How? • If interviewing a researcher, ask for a few citations of other articles that have explored the topic. • Cover opposing claims, but also focus on where the evidence (seems to) lie.

33. Deepen Understanding: Context Detroit Free Press Boston Globe “The gun toll we’re ignoring: Suicide” (Leon Neyfakh) What does that mean? “In 2010, number of gun deaths by suicide outnumbered homicides: 19,392 suicide 11,078 homicides “Pattern the same since 1920.” • “About 100 children die of flu each year” (Mike Stobbe, AP) • What does that mean? • Total number of deaths from flu for all ages • Total number of children in United States = 74 million • Absolute Risk = 1 in 740,000 • Most deaths among those not vaccinated

34. What Can/Should Journalists Do? • Balance with “context” • Use narrative, but don’t forget statistics! • Frequencies over probabilities • “Mobilize” the audience – where to go for more information

35. Deepen Understanding: Visuals Try presenting risk as frequencies rather than as probabilities Sources: Danziger, 2000; also Schwartz et al., 1999

36. The E in CAUSE • E stand for enactment • Make action easy and simple • Cut 100 calories a day, not lose 10 pounds. • Reporters: Report what authorities are doing to address the hazard • Routinize the solution, “embed the behavior” • Make reducing the debt automatic. • Make increasing coastal wetlands annual requirement. • Booth-Butterfield, 2003.

37. Motivating Enactment – Examples • Reporters can include “how I protect myself” information • Mention pre-packaged survival kits at stores • Where to go to find more information • Gain-framed messages most effective for prevention behavior • “Using sun screen keeps your skin healthy.” • Loss-framed messages most effective for detection behavior • “By not getting a mammogram, you are failing to take advantage of the best way for detecting breast cancer.” Banks, 1995; Salovey, 2002

38. In Summary • Risk stories about uncertain danger demand thoroughness. • Context and limitations • Mobilizing the audience • Use CAUSE to identify likely tensions. • Role of balance; “stories vs. statistics” • Read top risk reporters’ work: Leon Neyfakh, Andrew Revkin, Amanda Ripley.

39. Thanks! Katherine Rowan (krowan@gmu.edu) Chris Clarke (cclark27@gmu.edu)

40. References Cited in this Webinar • Banks, S., et al. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14, 178-184. • Booth-Butterfield, M. (2003). Embedded health behaviors from adolescence to adulthood. Health Communication, 15, 171-184. • Danziger, K. (2000). How are breast and ovarian cancer inherited? From Genetic Health, www.genetichealth.com • Dixon, G., & Clarke, C. (In press). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication. • Dixon, G., & Clarke, C. (In press). The effect of falsely balanced media representations of the autism-vaccine controversy on vaccine safety perceptions and behavior. Health Education & Behavior. • Jensen, J.D., et al. (2011). Including limitations in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of news hedging on fatalism, medical skepticism, patient trust, and backlash. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 486-503.

41. References Cited in this Webinar • Rowan, K. E. (1999). Effective explanation of uncertain and complex science. In S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating New and Uncertain Science (pp. 201-223). Mahwah, NJ. Erlbaum. • Rowan, K. E. (2000). Mass media explanations of illness. In B. Whaley (Ed.), Explaining illness. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. • Rowan, K. E. (2003). Informing and explaining skills: Theory and research on informative communication. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), The Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. • Salovey, P. et al. (2002). Message framing in the prevention and early detection of disease. In J. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA. • Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., & Welch, H. G. (1999). Risk communication in clinical practice. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, No. 25, 124-133 • Witte, K. et al. (2001). Effective health risk messages: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

42. CAUSE Model, Risk Communication, Science Communication • Rowan, K. E. (1999). Effective explanation of uncertain and complex science. In S. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating New and Uncertain Science (pp. 201-223). Mahwah, NJ. Erlbaum. • Rowan, K. E. (2003). Informing and explaining skills: Theory and research on informative communication. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), The Handbook of Communication and Social Interaction Skills. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. • Rowan, K. E. et al. (2003). The CAUSE model, Health Communication, 15, 241-254. • Rowan, K. E., et al. (2009). Risk communication education for local emergency managers. In R. Heath & D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication. NY: Taylor & Francis.

43. Risk Communication and Climate Change • Akerlof, K. L., Rowan, K. E., Fitzgerald, D., & Cedeno, A. Y. (2012). Communicating climate projections in U. S. media: Politicization of model uncertainty. Nature Climate Change, 2, 648-654. • Ding, D., Maibach, E.W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1, 462-466. • Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. www.climatechange.org. Director: Dr. Edward Maibach. • Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2008). Communication and marketing as climate change—Intervention assets. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 488-500. • Myers, T.A. et al. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113, 105-112. • Nisbet, M.C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter to Public Engagement. Environment, 51, 514-518. • Weber, E. U. (2007). Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us yet. Climate Change, 77, 103-120.

44. Communication and Health Psychology • Bandura, A. (2005). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health, Education, and Behavior, 31, 143-164. • Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die. New York: Random House. • Witte, K., et al. (2001). Effective Health Risk Messages. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Public Relations; Listening, Deliberating with Publics about Priorities, Preparedness • Besley, J. & McComas, K. (2005). Framing justice. Communication Theory, 15, 414-436. • Botan, C. (2006). Grand strategy, strategy and tactics in public relations. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public Relations Theory II. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. • McComas, K. A., Arvai, J., & Besley, J. C. (2009). Linking public perception and decision making through risk communication. In R. Heath & D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication. New York: Routledge.

45. Risk Communication: Approaches and Overviews • Finucane, M. L. Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2, 159-172. • Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & P. Slovic (Eds.), The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge. • Ripley, A. (2008). The Unthinkable. New York: Crown. • Rowan, K. E. (2010), Risk, an overview. In S. H. Priest (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Sandman, P. (1993). Responding to Community Outrage. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association. • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311-322