Jingyi Wang

Dr. Richard Craig

COMM600

02 October 2022

Sub-field Description Paper: Risk Communication

Risk communication is the real-time exchange of information, advice, and

opinions between experts or officials and people facing threats to their survival,

health, or economic or social well-being (World Health Organization, 2017). The

purpose of this paper is to make a detailed description of the field of risk

communication.

Development of Risk Communication

The development of risk communication has gone through four evolutionary

stages. Since the late 1960s, risk communication was not yet the focus of research, but

existed as an integral part of risk assessment and a key component of risk

management, and there was no clear definition of the conceptual content of risk

communication. At this stage, experts and government officials generally believed

that the public was ignorant (Covello & Sandman, 2001). For the government, they

should protect the public health and environment, but never involve the public in risky

decisions. At this time, the function of risk communication was positioned to inform,

persuade, and educate the public to understand and accept expert definitions and

explanations of risk issues (Covello & Sandman, 2001). It was not until 1980 when

the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) was founded and held its first annual meeting,
that participants made the insightful finding that public perceptions of risk differed

significantly from expert assessments based on psychometric measures (Thompson,

Deisler, & Schwing, 2005). However, the term risk communication first appeared in

the literature in 1984 (Fischhoff, 1984).

The second stage of risk communication is learning how to better interpret risk

data. the basic idea of risk communication in the 1980s and early 1990s was that

understanding risk perception would enable researchers to develop risk

communication models and experiments and design more effective risk

communication (Gurabardhi, Gutteling& Kuttschreuter, 2004). In the early years,

there was a search for the most appropriate message for the goal of risk

communication: aligning public perceptions of risk with those of risk experts (Liu&

Smith 1990). Reducing the fear of risky technologies and thus reducing public

resistance to the technology field (Fischhoff, 1995). However, facts and research have

proven that such an approach does not quell the public's anger. Explaining data to the

public is not an easy task for the speaker, and such one-way messaging does not calm

the public (Cvetkovich, Vlek, and Earle. 1989).

Thus, risk communication entered the third phase. In 1988, the article Seven

Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication was issued (Covello, 1988). At this point, the

issue concerning risk communication was not primarily whether people understood

the risk data, but rather whether the population was angry or upset. The essence of

risk communication was no longer simply to explain specialized risk data, but also to

influence the emotions of the public. At this stage, the emphasis of risk
communication is on listening. Professionals or governments should first listen to

people's anger and fears and acknowledge their concerns from their point of view,

thus allowing the public to perceive and listen to professional risk data.

From the 1990s to the present, the conceptual and theoretical body of risk

communication is undergoing continuous refinement. Risk communication has also

evolved into its fourth stage. In the fourth stage, risk communication treats the public

as a full partner (Covello & Sandman, 2001). The public is empowered. The National

Academy of Sciences defines risk communication as an interactive process in which

individuals, groups, and institutions exchange information and opinions; this process

not only directly conveys risk-related information, but also includes expressing

concerns, opinions, and reactions to risk events (1989).

Major areas of inquiry

Risk communication is a complex interdisciplinary academic field that is part of

risk management and is related to areas such as crisis communication. The rise of the

field of risk communication has also given rise to the rise of crisis communication

research. Risk communication is often confused with crisis communication; however,

risk communication and crisis communication have their own issues and concerns.

Risk communication has a tradition of focusing on information presentation,

persuasion, and strategic messaging (Telg, 2010).

In terms of content, the study of risk communication has received particular

scholarly attention in the areas of disaster preparedness, public health, and response to

major global catastrophic risks (Rahman & Munadi, 2019). In many cases, the public
health field requires risk communication on a daily basis. Whenever a crisis occurs,

communicators must make a crisis response and prepare the public with information

to prevent risks and help people make the best decisions for their health and well-

being. Therefore, risk communication is also closely related to health communication.

The main research questions in this area are how to improve risk communication and

how to ensure that it is effective and well-informed. Since risk communication is an

interaction between individuals and professional organizations exchanging

information, the trust and credibility of information in the risk communication process

has been extensively studied (Lofstedt 2003).

Leading Scholars and Contributions

Dr. Baruch Fischhoff is a leader in the field of risk communication. His research

focuses on judgment and decision-making, including risk perception and risk analysis.

In 1984, he first formally introduced the concept of risk communication in his paper

Defining risk. Baruch Fischhoff demonstrated the importance of evaluating risk

information through his ongoing research on risk communication and wrote

Evaluating science communication (Fischhoff, 2019).

Dr. Vincent Covello is a world authority on risk and crisis communication. In

Risk assessment methods: approaches for assessing health and environmental risks,

Vincent Covello assesses the strengths and limitations of methods and databases. The

book provides a comprehensive reference for risk assessment (Covello & Merkhofer,

1993).

Dr. Peter M. Sandman is also a leading authority on risk communication. He is

the creator of the "Risk = Hazard + Outrage" formula for risk communication

(Sandman, 1993). Dr. Sandman argues that the engine of risk response is outrage

(Sandman, 1987).

Key theories in Risk Communication

The four basic communication theories that form the foundation of risk

communication (Covello, 2021):

Trust Determination Theory: People often find it difficult to trust the

messenger of information in uncomfortable situations. Therefore, academics,

governments, and risk assessors need to build trust with the public over time.

Mental Noise Theory: Distracted people have difficulty hearing, understanding,

and remembering messaging. Therefore, messages delivered to such people should be

brief and concise. Visual aids should be used and repeated use is recommended to

help people remember.

Negative Dominance Theory: People under stress are likely to view all

situations from a negative perspective. Communication should avoid too many

negative words.

Risk Perception/Outrage Theory: Public concern is strongest when the

situation is involuntary, unhelpful, and outside of personal control. Communication

should focus on the level of potential for extreme emotional reactions.

About the methodologies of risk communication, research shows that the

methods used are of many kinds. Of the 349 essays in the sample, almost half (43%)

reflected desk research or narrative essays. Nearly 21% of the articles described
methods for collecting public perceptions or opinions, and a quarter of the articles

mentioned other types of data analysis (case studies, experiments, content analysis,

mixed types, etc.) ((Gurabardhi, Gutteling& Kuttschreuter, 2004).

Controversies within Risk Communication

Today, the biggest debates about risk communication are often about trust

between the communicating parties. As mentioned in the previous section, the fourth

stage of risk communication today is trying to see the audience as full partners.

However, such a desirable goal is difficult to achieve. A major reason is that

stereotypes between individuals and organizations are difficult to change.

Organizations habitually view people as recipients of the information. Habit and

inertia hinder the effectiveness of risk communication. One of the biggest

controversies regarding the effectiveness of risk communication actions is that the

response to risk communication is influenced by the trust towards those who are

responsible for providing information. (Earle and Cvetkovic, 1995). This distrust of

policymakers and industry officials stems from a history of past or social alienation

(Siegris, 2000). Often, such distrust is deep-rooted and difficult to resolve.

Exciting applications with Risk Communication

Applications related to risk communication can be seen in several areas. In the

area of food safety, for example, the growing public interest in food safety has placed

greater demands on risk communicators. Today, through the organization of joint

FAO/WHO expert consultations, risk communication engages the public and other

interested parties in an interactive dialogue and explains the magnitude and severity of
risks associated with foodborne hazards clearly and understandably to convey

credibility (World Health Organization. 1995).

The use of risk communication is even more evident in the Covid-19 virus

epidemic. During this period, several COVID-19 risk assessment tools emerged that

helped people ask questions about symptoms and allowed them to provide travel

history and contact information to obtain a risk analysis (Chaturvedi. A, 2020). Some

apps also verify symptoms and notify users if they are near a confirmed positive

patient. The tracking is done through a graph generated by Bluetooth and the location

provided by the user. Thus, risk communication is represented at this point, and it

helps people at risk to protect themselves.

Fruitful directions for future research

As technology evolves, the future of risk communication is very visible.

Advances in computer technology and changes in emerging technologies promise to

potentially change the accessibility and increase the interactivity of information.

Through social media, people can more easily express their sentiments about risk and

communicate information. And through computers and the Internet, experts,

academics, and governments have more ways to provide cognitive support. Future

research could focus on technology-based risk communication early warning systems

and discuss the positive and negative effects of technology on risk communication.
References

Chaturvedi. A. (2020) Top 10 popular smartphone apps to track COVID-19 Available

from Geospatial World: https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/popular-apps-

COVID-19/

Covello, & Merkhofer, M. W. (1993). Risk assessment methods: approaches for

assessing health and environmental risks. Plenum Press.

Covello, V, & Sandman, P.M. (2001). Risk communication: Evolution and

Revolution. Solutions to an Environment in Peril Baltimore, John Hopkins

University Press, 2001 pp. 164–178

Covello, V.T, (2021) "An Overview of Risk Communication," in Communicating in

Risk, Crisis, and High Stress Situations: Evidence-Based Strategies and Practice,

IEEE, 2022, pp.33-67, DOI: 10.1002/9781119081753.ch3.

Covello, V.T. & Allen, F.W. (1988). Seven cardinal rules of risk communication. OPA-

87-020.

http://www.wvdhhr.org/bphtraining/courses/cdcynergy/content/activeinformation

/resources/epa_seven_cardinal_rules.pdf [29 July 2011]. Washington, DC: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

Cvetkovich, G., C. A. J. Vlek, and T. C. Earle. (1989). Designing technological hazard

information programs: Towards a model of risk-adaptive decision making. In

 Social decision methodology for technological projects, edited by C. A. J. Vlek

and G. Cvetkovich, 253-76. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Earle T, and Cvetkovich G. (1995) Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society

(Westport, CT: Praeger).

Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of

process. Risk Analysis 12:137-45.

Fischhoff, B. (2019). Evaluating science communication. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7670–7675.

Fischhoff, B., Watson, S.R. & Hope, C. Defining risk. Policy Sci 17, 123–139 (1984).

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00146924

Gurabardhi, Gutteling, J. M., & Kuttschreuter, M. (2004). The Development of Risk

Communication. An Empirical Analysis of the Literature in the Field. Science

Communication, 25(4), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004265148

Improving risk communication. (1989). National Academy Press.

Liu, J. T., and V. K. Smith. (1990). Risk communication and attitude change: Taiwan’s

national debate over nuclear power. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 3:331-49.

Lofstedt, R. (2003). Risk communication: Pitfalls and promises. European Review,

11(3), 417-435. doi:10.1017/S106279870300036X

Rahman, A; Munadi, K (2019). "Communicating Risk in Enhancing Disaster

Preparedness: A Pragmatic Example of Disaster Risk Communication Approach

from the Case of Smong Story". IOP Conference Series: Earth and

Environmental Science. 273 (1): 012040. Bibcode:2019E&ES.273a2040R.

 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/273/1/012040. S2CID 199164028.

Sandman, P. M. (1987). Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA J., 13, 21.

Sandman, P. M. (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective

risk communication. AIHA.

Siegrist M. (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the

acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195–203.

Telg, R. (2010). RISK AND CRISIS COMMUNICATION: WHEN THINGS GO

WRONG. Retrieved from: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/WC093

Thompson, Deisler, P. F. J., & Schwing, R. C. (2005). Interdisciplinary Vision: The

First 25 Years of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA), 1980-2005. Risk Analysis,

25(6), 1333–1386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00702.x

World Health Organization. (1995). Application of risk analysis to food standards

issues: report of the Joint FAO (No. WHO/FNU/FOS/95.3. Unpublished).

World Health Organization, (2017). Communicating risk in public health

emergencies: A WHO guideline for emergency risk communication (ERC) policy

and practice. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK540732/