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]