To many developers of technologies that affect public health or the environment, “risk communication” means persuading the public that the potential risks of such technologies are small and should be ignored.
Topic
What "risk communication" should mean and how it should be designed, given how lay people actually process information about technological risks.
Framework
Highlight Noteworthy. The author critiques a common (persuasion-oriented) approach to risk communication and proposes a different one based on how people process information.
Main Point
Risk communication shouldn't mean persuading the public to dismiss risks; it should help people make informed decisions, which requires understanding how the public perceives risk and recognizing that people interpret new information through their existing beliefs — so messages must be designed accordingly.
P1: The wrong view of risk communication
Many technology developers treat "risk communication" as persuasion: they argue lay people misjudge exotic vs. mundane hazards. As a result, lay people see "risk communication" as expert brainwashing.
P2: A better view of how lay people perceive risk
The actual goal should be enabling informed decisions, which requires understanding lay perception. Lay definitions reflect ethical concerns more than experts' do — for example, lay people weight risks to children more heavily than risks to consenting adults. But asked to rank annual fatalities directly, lay people give reasonable estimates. Studies that claim lay people misjudge exotic risks often use questionable methods. A recent study found lay people, given facts and time, understood electromagnetic field risks well enough to make informed decisions.
P3: How to design risk communication
Risk communication should be based on the principle that people process new information in the context of existing beliefs. People who know nothing about a topic find messages incomprehensible; those with mistaken beliefs are likely to misconstrue messages. Communicators must know recipients' knowledge and beliefs to design messages that aren't dismissed or misinterpreted. A radon study showed that brochures designed using interviews and questionnaires beat a government brochure written without that preparation. Careful preparation lets communicators produce balanced material.