• Home
• Lessons
  • 1. Basic Concepts in Risk Communication
  • 2. Risk Perception, Behavior and Acceptance
  • 3. Risk Communication and Plant Protection
  • 4. Communicating Risk: Who, How, When, Where and How Often
  • 5. Module Case Study
• Topics
  • 1. Constraints to Risk Communication
  • 2. Stakeholders and Risk Communication
  • 3. Available and Appropriate Risk Communication Methods and Technologies
  • 4. Best Practices
  • 5. Best Practices for Using Social Media
  • 6. Lesson Summary
• Resources
  • Help
  • Glossary
  • Documents
  • Acknowledgements

Lesson 4: Communicating Risk: Who, How, When, Where and How Often

Topic 1: Constraints to Risk Communication

Cultural Constraints to Risk Communication

For risk communication, it is important to consider the cultural context in which risk perceptions are formed. Different cultures develop their own model for looking at the world, such as fatalism, hierarchy, individualism and egalitarianism. This cultural model influences people’s approach to, perceptions, and acceptability of risk. For example, ethnic background is known to influence how risk and traumatic events are interpreted by different groups. This suggests the need for methodologies to capture the heart of the cultural context in which risk decisions are made.

This also suggests that for communicators to be more effective, they should learn something about the cultures and ethnicities represented in any situation that requires communication. To the extent possible, cultural and social attributes that interfere with risk communication need to be identified and addressed when designing messages for target audiences. Language skills and problems with translation of words and meanings can also be limitations to effective communication. Whenever possible, key messages in the communication should be available in the languages that are represented in the stakeholder group.

Organization

The organization you work for can itself be an obstacle when communicating risk. This can result when one or more of the following situations are present in your workplace.

Emotional

Emotions can have a profound effect on risk communication. 

• Trust. The public does not equally trust all sources of information and communication. In situations where different messages are received from different sources, the public will respond to the messages from the more credible source and ignore the messages from the other sources. Factors that enhance trust and credibility include public perceptions of the communicator’s accuracy, knowledge, and concern for public welfare. Addressing the public’s concerns about risk will also facilitate trust. Distrust is associated with perceptions of bias or with failure by the communicator to provide accurate information in the past. Trust is more important under conditions of great uncertainty or when the public believes that accurate estimates of risk are unavailable. Trust also depends on the extent to which the risk assessment and risk management processes are believed to be transparent and open to public scrutiny. Once lost, trust is not easily regained. Communication is generally most effective when all sources, including those trusted most by the public, convey similar messages about the risk.
• Audience hostility. Hostile audiences present a particularly important and common constraint to risk communication. If you know in advance that the person or audience that you need to communicate with is hostile, you can choose another person or organization to deliver the message on your behalf. When confronted with a hostile audience, it is good to establish some ground rules, such as setting a short amount of time for speaking, followed by a time for questions and comments. Ask the audience to speak into the microphones on the floor so everyone can hear them. If you do not have a microphone, it is hard to argue with the one who does.

The Audience and Scientific Understanding

The popular media tells us that the public is generally ignorant of technical and scientific issues. This can lead communicators to incorrectly assume or conclude that the public does not understand science. A good communicator must keep in mind that over-reliance on scientific terminology might hide the meaning of facts to the audience. Risk messages must be scientifically accurate, but must be presented using familiar terminology. Uncertainties should be included and put into context to allow the audience to understand what is and is not known about the risk. In addition, value judgments, which are components of risk assessment and risk management decisions, should be plainly stated to ensure that the public understands the basis for decisions that are made. It is a good idea to have non-technical people review proposed messages for clarity.

Stability of Knowledge Base

In many areas of risk analysis, insufficient information is a frequent problem. When incomplete information is communicated and later shown to be incorrect, trust by the audience can be severely damaged or even destroyed. On the other hand, if you wait too long before communicating information about a particular risk, the audience might become suspicious and start to believe that you are hiding something. Public attitudes, once formed, are difficult to change because people tend to select information that supports already held beliefs. In addition, deficiencies in scientific understanding, which result in large amounts of uncertainty, are a particularly important constraint to effective risk communication. To the audience, uncertainty means that we do not know. Furthermore, disagreements between scientists can negatively impact the delivery of accurate information. Sometimes communications organizers ask for one spokesperson to deliver the message. The challenge is to provide a message with all the information but without overloading and confusing the audience.

To continue, select Topic 2 from the Topics menu above or click here.