Risk Communication

Overview
Risk communication informs people about potential hazards to their person, property, or safety. [7] It deals with the nature of risk or expressing concerns, opinions, or reactions to risk messages or to legal and institutional arrangements for risk management. [7] Risk communication uses verbal, written, or visual messages to present relevant information.[7] These messages serve two basic functions: to assuage fears and inspire urgency. Reassurance is necessary when risk is low, but fear is high. [7] Urgency is called for when risk is high, but fear is low. [7] This information is relayed back and forth between experts and the public. [7] Traditionally, experts have assumed the role of educator while the public is expected to listen and learn. [7] That model is being replaced by a more collaborative and egalitarian one [7]. Risk communicators are charged with helping residents of affected communities understand how to assess and manage risk, form scientifically valid perceptions of likely hazards, and participate in making decisions about risk management.[8]

What is risk?
Risks are judgments concerning the likelihood, severity, or importance of a threatening event or condition. [8] Risks can be classified as short or long-term. [8] Short-term risks are those that: [8] Long-term risks are projected to become more likely and/or more harmful for future generations. [8] Risks can be classified under multiple categories, including but not limited to: [8] These categories of risk manifest in many different industries, such as toxicology, engineering, statistics, and epidemiology. [8]
 * 1) Are possibly harmful
 * 2) Are likely to occur in the foreseeable future
 * 3) Are consistently severe and threatening events
 * Health
 * Safety
 * Environment
 * Family
 * Community
 * Trust
 * Benefits
 * Control
 * Fairness
 * Respect
 * Accountability

Development of Risk Communication
The first stage was simply to ignore the public. [1] In this stage, the public was perceived as hopelessly stupid, and irredeemably irrational. [1]  The government's job was to protect; people were expected to listen. [1] When this proved ineffective, society learned how to explain risk data better. [1] Many organizations are stuck here today because they struggle to explain data and concepts related to risk. [1] Here, risk communicators realized that motivation is the key to learning. [1] The third stage is built around community dialogue. [1] It is rooted in the fact that risk is more than just numbers; it is a combination of hazard and outrage. [1] This framework allows risk communicators to consider every possible factor in the public’s definition of risk. [1] It also served to expand the scope of risk communication from merely explaining numbers to reducing (or increasing) outrage. [1] The fourth and final stage is a goal to strive for: treating the public like a full partner. [1]

Modes of Risk Communication
The evolution of risk communication gave rise to four distinct philosophies: [2]

Motivation
People take risks for three reasons: as an end in itself, as a means to an end, and as a response to vulnerability. [10] Risk-taking, for its own sake, is all about excitement and thrill. [10] It is typified by high-risk leisure sports such as mountain climbing, skydiving, and bungee jumping. [10] Participants enjoy seeking and overcoming challenges. [10] They strive to push or exceed their limits, gaining heightened feelings of autonomy, self-worth, meaning, and confidence in the process. [10] Taking risks as a means to an end is driven by a particular purpose, everything from material gain to identity development. [10] The latter is prevalent among aid workers, who see their work as important and well worth the risk. [10] In some cases, people take high risks out of sheer desperation. [10] They do not see any other desirable alternatives and feel pressed to make a decision in a situation that is experienced as unbearable. [10]

Control
Risk-taking is a balancing act between gains and losses enacted through social ideologies. [10] People do not weigh risks in a vacuum; they must navigate larger, unequal social processes such as gendered social structures, organizational structures, and market competition. [10] The resulting state of ambivalence, known as risky freedom, is where people take future-oriented risks with little knowledge of or control over the world. [10] To compensate, many people combine faith and hope with careful preparation before taking risks. [10] In the face of limited resources and high risk, people will go to great lengths to succeed, even ignoring credible information about negative outcomes. [10]

Reflexivity
Large parts of everyday activities involve deep-seated routines. [10] For disadvantaged people, events and available options are limited and negotiated. [10] Thus, communicators must address underpinning social conditions if they hope to change these adverse behaviors. [10] Conversely, the process of learning and routinizing risk-taking refers to how both the risk-taking activity itself and the skills needed to master the risks change one’s experience of risky activity, gradually changing one's conception of risk. [10] Development and protection of identity Personal discovery is a key motivation for risk-taking, particularly with adolescents. [10] They view risk-taking as a statement of agency, a way of fitting in. [10] They are excited by taboos and feel responsible and mature when they succeed. [10] At times, this drive can interfere with effective risk communication. Risk measures are sometimes ignored in favor of other needs that are immediate and pressing. [10] Threats to coping mechanisms or to valued lifestyles are staunchly resisted, no matter the cost. [10] In a 2014 study conducted by Wigginton and Lafrance, mothers used personal experiences to challenge medical knowledge about smoking and protect their identities. [10] This study demonstrates that risk-taking in these cases is not based on a lack of knowledge, but on the different ways in which people make sense of their life. [10]

Risk Perception
Risk perceptions are beliefs held by individuals regarding the probability and severity of potential risks. [6] Communicators must take these factors into account when planning and drafting their materials.

Mental Shortcuts
Everyone—expert or not—uses mental shortcuts to calculate risk. [1] Events that we are constantly reminded of, or that are easily recalled are considered riskier than those that aren’t. [1] Apathy can indicate a true lack of interest, serve as a psychological defense mechanism, or come from prior negative experiences. [1] If people consider a risk to be irrelevant or feel that their voices are ignored, apathy is likely to set in. [1] Overconfidence and unrealistic optimism can also lead people to ignore or dismiss risk information. [1] Most people consider themselves less likely than average to, for example, get cancer, lose their job, or get mugged. [1] Data that is probabilistic in nature, that deals with unfamiliar subjects, or is presented in unfamiliar ways can be hard for non-experts to understand. [1] The inherent uncertainty of this data conflicts with the public's demand for scientific certainty. [1] Yet not even that is enough at times. Beliefs, once strongly formed, change very slowly, and they can be extraordinarily persistent in the face of contrary evidence. [1]

Outrage factors
People use a variety of different mechanisms to consider and manage risks. [1] These so-called outrage factors are not distortions, but legitimate aspects of public risk assessment. [1] When present, outrage can be a powerful thing. [1] It predisposes an individual to react emotionally (e.g., with fear or anger), which can then amplify levels of worry. Outrage also tends to distort perceived hazard. Since acceptability varies from person to person, individuals will weigh these outrage factors according to their own values, education, personal experience, and stake in the outcome. [1] Lejano and Stoklis have condensed these factors into several dichotomies: [1]

Expert vs. Lay Knowledge
The difference between expert and lay knowledge is a persistent issue in risk communication. While experts tend to assess risks in terms of numeric values and mathematical probabilities, laypeople are more concerned about personal consequences. [7] Therefore, laypeople consider situations that are potentially deadly, likely to affect people in the future, or that they have limited control over to be much worse than experts do. [7] The variance between expert and layperson can be further broken down as follows: [3]

Goals of Risk Communication
There are two basic goals of risk communication. The first is to ease public concern if there is a low-risk, easily mitigated situation (or to arouse concern if the opposite is true). [7] The second goal is to give guidance on how to respond. [7] Uncertainty elicits fear and confusion, especially if the event is something truly catastrophic, like a terrorist attack or pandemic. In these situations, it is vital for risk communicators to convey a sense of confidence and competence. If that is accomplished, people are more likely to feel informed, fairly treated, and free and able to solve whatever communication difficulties arise. [7]

Obstacles to Effective Risk Communication
Risk communication can be an uphill battle at times. Many barriers can stall or subvert attempts to guide public response. The first barrier is the process of scientific research, which is contradictory, dynamic, and multifaceted. [6] Laypeople do not always understand this process as experts do. [6] Moreover, risk information often includes numerical information that people struggle to interpret. [6] Even the term “risk” is a point of contention. [7] Experts might interpret something like "one in a million” objectively, but laypeople will see that unfortunate one as someone they know. [7] Because of this, the public will often personalize risk with the same conviction that most scientists depersonalize it. [7]

Unsuitable Communicators
When a crisis hits, or there is an ongoing cause for concern, people look to experts for answers. The problem is that those expected to step up are usually scientists with little or no communications training, or public relations specialists who are mainly there to do damage control. [2] Indeed, risk communication shares with technical communication the problem of the scientist or engineer as a risk communicator. [2]

Difficulty Communicating Uncertainty
Uncertainty is part and parcel of scientific and technical research, but laypeople have a hard time accepting that. [7] The result is that officials must acknowledge and explain uncertainty to a public that thinks scientific findings are precise, repeatable, and reliable. [7] To make matters worse, the public often conflates correlation with causation, creating ample space for misunderstandings. [7]

Research Gaps
Even today, there is a lot to learn about risk. For example, most environmental risk assessments to date have focused on cancer. [1] There have been fewer studies on other types of adverse health impacts. [1] It is sometimes possible to place quantitative bars on a risk assessment, but that isn’t always enough. [1] More often, this practice leaves people confused and dissatisfied. [1] In crisis situations, experts are often forced to make decisions in very short order. [1] Confounding factors can make it difficult, if not impossible, to reach definitive conclusions about cause and effect. [1] Consequently, the outcomes of most risk assessments are estimates at best, with varying degrees of uncertainty about the actual nature of the risk. [1] This is a frequent source of discomfort for laypeople, who may use these uncertainties [to] justify conflicting--and potentially inaccurate--interpretations of data. [1]

Distrust
Distrust can result from multiple sources. These sources include: [1]
 * Disagreements among experts
 * Lack of coordination among risk management organizations
 * Inadequate training of experts and spokespersons in risk communication skills
 * Insensitivity to the requirements for effective communication, public participation, dialogue, and community outreach
 * Mismanagement and neglect
 * A history of frequent distortion, exaggeration, secrecy, or worse

Ineffective Approach
Risk communication is rooted in technocratic principles that treat message delivery like a set of instructions. [2] The reality, however, is that that approach is not applicable to risk communication. [2] When officials don't see this, they create a discrepancy between the actual probability of an outcome and the public's perception of a risk. [6]

Inertia, Stubbornness, and Cynicism
Strongly held beliefs can be hard to budge. STEM fields are dominated by people who prefer clear boundaries, logical approaches, and unemotional situations and who typically avoid public outreach. [1] On top of that, scientists—particularly environmental ones—are convinced that they and they alone know how to do their jobs. [1] That attitude makes them resistant to change and loathe to confront people and their psychological problems. [1]   Furthermore, many experts remain skeptical about the effectiveness of risk communication. [1] They believe that people are irrational and hysterical and that they will stay that way no matter what. [1] Finally, there is the matter of personal comfort and self-esteem. [1] All manner of expert—managers, researchers, officials, etc—grow used to doing things one way, and to being treated with deference. [1] They sometimes chafe at sharing control with citizens—especially with angry, hostile, and irrational ones. [1] As such, they frequently put a higher premium on self-preservation than on organizational goals. [1]

Selective Reporting
Journalists are highly selective in reporting about risk, and particularly inclined toward stories that involve people in unusual, dramatic, confrontational, negative, or sensational situations. [1] On the other hand, journalists pay little heed to stories about risks that affect many more people each year but are less dramatic (e.g. heart disease and diabetes). [1] Furthermore, many media stories about risk contain substantial omissions, or present oversimplified, distorted, inaccurate information. [1] However, media outlets are not entirely to blame for these issues. Organizational constraints like tight deadlines and lack of time or space make it hard to convey a full and complete story about risk. [1] Journalists often see their job as simply to present opposing views as equally as possible, without regard for merits. [1] Nor, in most cases, do they have the background to interpret complex data. [1] The end result is that stories may contain inadvertent distortions of reality, or tend to mislead, or even be just plain wrong. [1]

Short-term Thinking
At the societal level, people rarely act to address a risk until they experience unacceptable harm. [5] Only then do they attempt to reduce the risk or the associated harm. [5] This tendency makes it difficult for risk communicators to instill a sense of urgency regarding slow-onset, long-term problems. [5]

The Confidence Trap
A related consequence of short-term thinking is what David Runciman calls the confidence trap. [5] From studying crises like the Great Depression, the Cold War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Runciman concludes that democracies believe they can always survive and rebuild post-crisis. [5] This overconfidence leads to complacency and unwillingness to address issues previous to the crisis. [5] That does not imply stupidity, but the opposite. As Runciman explains, democracies have failed to act because they know they can weather the storm and will take the necessary action when required. [5]

Communication Boundaries
Attempts to communicate risk information are sometimes hampered by natural and artificial constraints. These include geological and landscape features, man-made structures, administrative structures, the ethnic composition and social relationships around a place, and economic class. [5]

Cultural Misunderstandings
Effective risk communication is particularly challenging in a global context. What is acceptable to one culture might be deeply troubling to another. For example, visual information on risk is often high context. [9] The viewer is expected to infer relationships between various elements without much (if any) assistance. [9] This works well for members of high-context cultures like Japan and China but is less effective in low-context cultures like the United States and Great Britain. [9] Collectivism vs individualism is another important point of conflict. [9] Fields like public health, for example, are inherently collectivistic due to their concern with broad, large-scale trends. [9] This can cause friction in highly individualistic cultures. [9] The 2014 Ebola outbreak is one such example. [9] Visual aids caused panic in the United States because they appeared to show that cases of infection and death were increasing…with no indication of decline…[and were] spreading across continents. [9] Risk communicators must develop an awareness of cultural perceptions when designing visual information for international audiences.

Characteristics of Effective Risk Communication
Effective risk communication requires preparation, perseverance, and a strong understanding of the intended audience. Communicators must provide risk info in a way that reduces exposure to agents of morbidity, mortality, or injury. [8] On top of that, this information must transcend barriers of literacy, language, and ethnicity. [8] As with technical communication, risk communication is concerned with clear and concise information. [8] That means avoiding jargon, translating or defining technical terms, using active voice, writing short sentences, and providing “a clear and organized structure” using headings and other formatting tools. [8]

Risk communication presents a unique set of challenges for technical communicators. The EPA emphasizes the following points in their handbook, “Risk Communication in Action”: [8] The EPA has also developed seven cardinal rules for risk communication: [8] Rule 1. Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. Rule 2. Listen to the audience. Rule 3. Be honest, frank, and open. Rule 4. Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. Rule 5. Meet the needs of the media. Rule 6. Speak clearly and with compassion. Rule 7. Plan carefully and evaluate performance.

Communication Fundamentals
Effective risk materials are the result of careful research and strong public outreach. These fundamentals are essential to accomplish this task.

1. Developing Goals and Key Messages
It is not possible to prepare [the audience] for any eventuality. [7] Informing the public of the problem and specific dangers, providing guidance on appropriate responses, and easing concerns are achievable goals. [7]

2. Staying On Message

 * Raise your points often enough that your audience leaves with a clear understanding of the message you wanted them to hear. [7]
 * Take opportunities to begin or end statements with a reiteration of your message. [7]
 * Don’t be so repetitious with a single message that you appear to be trying to convince people of something that isn’t true. [7]
 * Don’t repeat your messages word-for-word every time you answer a question. [7]

3. Developing Accurate and Timely Information
Waiting for a complete picture before releasing information to the public can create an information vacuum that will almost certainly be filled with rumor and speculation. [7] Yet to release unverified and possibly inaccurate information “runs the risk of misleading the public and undermining credibility. [7] Risk communication should be simple, straightforward, and realistic, and be delivered with brevity, clarity, and effectiveness. [7] 4. Communicating Complex Information
 * Info must be relevant and easily understood [7]
 * Avoid acronyms and jargon and provide careful definitions in advance [7]
 * Answer not only the question, “How much?”, but also the question “Will it hurt me?” to ensure the information is relevant. [7]
 * Use familiar frames of reference to explain how much, how big or how small and try to create a mental picture of such measures as parts per billion or tons per day. [7]
 * Numeric analogies are powerful; use them. [7]
 * If information is not known or not available, the best thing to do is to honestly admit it. Saying “I don’t know” is an acceptable response and can actually build credibility. [7]
 * Give as much information as possible to emphasize that uncertainty is part of the process and that the answers available now may not be the final answers. [7]
 * If an audience demands 100% certainty, they are more than likely questioning the underlying values and process, not the science. Try to identify the real concerns behind the demand for certainty and address them. [7]

Numbers
Numbers can be a highly effective means of conveying information. [6] Compared to verbal expression, they: The most common numerical forms are percentages and frequencies. [6]
 * Convey magnitude of risks and benefits more clearly [6]
 * Create less variation in perception. [6]
 * Are easier to imagine [6]
 * Elicit vivid imagery [6]
 * Stimulate more emotions [6]
 * Are more trusted and satisfactory [6]
 * Increase awareness without raising anxiety [6]

Visuals
The effectiveness of a display depends on several factors:
 * 1) The display characteristics (e.g., use of colors, width of lines, or type and spacing of legends) [4]
 * 2) Conditions of presentation (e.g., lighting or time pressure) [4]
 * 3) Data complexity (e.g., number of data points or configuration of the display) [4]
 * 4) The task (i.e., purpose, for example, to assess trends) [4]
 * 5) User characteristics (e.g., cognitive styles), and 6) the criterion for choosing the display (e.g., speed of performance or accuracy) [4]

Graphs
To be useful, graphs must communicate different risk characteristics, such as: Using multiple graphs
 * 1) Risk magnitude (i.e., how large or how small is the risk) [4]
 * 2) Relative risk (i.e., comparing magnitude of two risks) [4]
 * 3) Cumulative risk (i.e., observing trends over time) [4]
 * 4) Uncertainty (e.g., estimating amount of variability and range of scores) [4]
 * 5) Interactions (e.g., synergy), among risk factors [4]
 * 1) Highlight differences. Help the observer see the changes or differences from graph to graph in the legends or symbols. [4]
 * 2) Use distinctive legends. Legends of similar graphs should highlight their distinctive features. [4]
 * 3) Be consistent. When plotting the same data in different ways or plotting different data as a function of the same variables, keep elements of the graphs (e.g., colors and legends) consistent. [4]

Use of color
Color can dramatically shape risk perception in visual representations. [9] Warm colors (such as red, orange, and yellow) are routinely interpreted as active, hot, vibrant, emotional, and sharp, while cool colors (blue, green, white, purple) are considered peaceful, gentle, and calming. [9] The rhetorical impact of color choice, then, is an important design choice for technical communicators who construct visuals used to convey aspects of risk to audiences of different cultures. [9]

Affective processing theory
People operate within two systems: cognitive and affective. [6]

Construal theory
Construal theory states that people make decisions by forming abstract mental concepts of what relevant decision factors and outcomes will be like in the future. [5] Long term risks are harder to conceptualize than short term risks because they have a higher psychological and temporal distance. [5] An event like climate change is both long-term risk and global phenomenon, one that will happen in the far-off future but also somewhere else. [5] Consequently, the further away an event seems to be, the greater the psychological distance [5]. That distance makes it hard for people to be concerned or act. [5]

Expected utility theory
Expected utility theory involves benefits and costs at different points in time. [5] Agents that expect to consume more in the future place greater value on consumption today. [5] Expected utility theory argues that people must believe that there is a significant probability of low consumption growth, that uncertainty around the net benefits of risk reduction measures is low, and that risk-reduction measures are most effective in low-consumption futures. [5]

Policy processes and focusing events
Perceptions of immediacy are highly influenced by the social, cultural, and institutional context in which they are embedded. [5] They are typically sparked by a focusing event, a sudden crisis that rallies people to action. [5] Disasters are a common example of focusing events. They are opportunities to identify new problems or to shine a light on existing ones, potentially leading to a search for solutions in the wake of apparent policy failure. [5] Action can be accelerated by opinion leaders who amplify the message or behavior to many people. [5] For instance, some areas of concern (e.g. earthquakes) have stronger networks of experts and thus longer staying power in people’s minds, while others (e.g. hurricanes) are more sparsely connected and quickly disappear from memory. [5]

Beck’s risk society
Risk society, according to Beck, is the manner in which society organizes in response to risk. [5] Whereas pre-industrial societies experienced natural disasters as divinely ordained, modern societies brought human generated risks to the fore. [5] Beck observes that, as societies became the locus of risk generation, they also became the locus of risk management. [5] Thus, modern interventions transform incalculable hazards into calculable risks. [5] Unfortunately, modern risks are unknown, not fully understood, and difficult to account for. [5] This makes it hard to name and quantify these risks, and for citizens to reassure themselves that they can continue using the technologies and behaviors that generate these risks. [5] Ultimately, our modern risk society is an uninsured society, in which protection, paradoxically, decreases, as the threat increases. [5]

Common pool resource theory
Common pool resource theory is concerned with the issue of shared resources. [5] Because anyone can access common pool resources, users are incentivized to over consume because they receive all the benefit while bearing only a fraction of the cost. [5] This theory explains why societies are so quick to do things like drive, over fish, or waste water but are reluctant to bike, fish sustainably, or conserve water. [5] The former has immediate benefits but delayed negative consequences, while the latter has immediate negative consequences but delayed benefits. [5] To manage common pool resources properly, societies must create incentives for participants to take the longer view. [5]

Strategy Questions

 * 1) Why are we communicating? [8]
 * 2) How will we listen? [8]
 * 3) Who are our target audiences? [8]
 * 4) How will we respond? [8]
 * 5) What do our audiences want to know? [8]
 * 6) Who will carry out the plans? [8]
 * 7) When? [8]
 * 8) What do we want to get across? [8]
 * 9) What problems have we considered? [8]
 * 10) How will we communicate? [8]
 * 11) Have we succeeded? [8]

Audience profiling

 * 1) What is their current level of knowledge about risk? [8]
 * 2) What do you want them to know about the risk? [8]
 * 3) What actions would you like them to take regarding the risk? [8]
 * 4) What information is likely to be of greatest interest to the audience? [8]
 * 5) What information will they probably want to know once they develop some awareness of the risk? [8]
 * 6) How much time are they likely to give in receiving and assimilating the information? [8]
 * 7) How does this group generally receive information? [8]
 * 8) In what professional, recreational, and domestic activities does this group typically engage that might provide avenues for distributing outreach products? [8]
 * 9) Are there any organizations or centers that represent or serve the audience and might be avenues for disseminating outreach products? [8]

Media distribution

 * 1) How does the audience typically receive information? [8]
 * 2) What distribution mechanisms has your organization used in the past for this audience? [8]
 * 3) Were these mechanisms effective? [8]
 * 4) Can you identify any partner organizations that might be willing to assist in the distribution? [8]
 * 5) Can the media play a role in distribution? [8]
 * 6) Will the mechanism you are considering really reach the intended audience? Ex: the internet can work well, but certain groups might have limited access to it. [8]
 * 7) How many people is the product likely to reach through the distribution mechanism you are considering? [8]
 * 8) Are sufficient resources available to fund and implement distribution via the mechanisms of interest? [8]

Follow ups

 * 1) What types of reactions or concerns are audience members likely to have in response to the outreach information? [8]
 * 2) Who will handle requests for additional information? [8]
 * 3) Do you want to indicate on the outreach product where people can go for further information? [8]

Role of technical communicators
Technical communicators are dynamic legislators of the communication process. [2] As with any genre of technical writing, early involvement is key. Through constant engagement, risk communicators gain a better understanding of the risk and can plan how it might be presented to the public. [2] They can also anticipate the public’s concern and determine how best to communicate them. [2] This sentiment is echoed by Gabrill and Simmons, who recommend the technical communicator as the one who possesses the skills to facilitate the complex process of constructing and communicating risk. [2] In fact, the risk communicator is the technical communicator in charge of communicating risk to the public and with serving as an advocate for the public. [2]

Improving public outreach
In the context of risk communication, technical communicators can be effective advocates by getting involved early and often. [2] While there is no easy rhetorical niche into which a technical communicator may fit, there is much for them to contribute. [2] One approach is to triangulate through press releases, websites, science fairs, podcasts, dramatic events, and so on. [2] Nothing can appeal to everyone, but sometimes more than one will appeal more than once to the same person, who can be more credible in some ways than the research scientist or the technical communicator in getting the word out. [2]