The document discusses risk communication and perception. It notes that risk cannot be objectively measured and involves assumptions and subjective judgments. Factors like who benefits from a risk, gut feelings, worldviews, and outrage factors influence risk perception. Effective risk communication requires understanding these factors and how the relationship between risk and benefit is perceived differently in reality versus in people's minds. A framework for risk communication includes using the risk equation to discuss toxicity and exposure, acknowledging uncertainty, and addressing people's specific concerns.

1. Risk
Communication
Kaci Buhl, MS

3. • A science-based information service for pesticides
• Toll-free phone service available:
• 10:00 – 2:00 Central time; 8:00 – 12:00 Pacific time
• Funded through a cooperative agreement with EPA
• NPIC answers ~ 12,000 inquiries per year from diverse
audiences
Call the National Pesticide Information Center

4. • To compare the toxicity of products
• To evaluate the persistence of pesticides
• To discuss specific pesticides and potential health effects
• To discuss risk to groundwater, fish, bees, or pets
• For help with confusing label statements
• To find local resources
Call the National Pesticide Information Center

5. County Extension Directory

6. Risk-Comm Training
• The science of risk perception
• A framework for risk communication
• Communication moves that build trust
o Verbally
o In writing
o On the web
• Checklists

7. The Science of Risk
Perception
Every hazard is unique
Every person is unique
Acknowledgement: Dr. Paul Slovic, University of Oregon

8. Risk
• Human beings made up the concept of “risk.”
• It cannot be objectively measured.
• Assumptions and subjective judgments are used.
• Most risk perception is determined by fast intuitive
feelings.
• The risk(s) cannot be separated from the benefit(s)
• Understanding risk perception is critical for effective
communication.

9. Results of failed risk
communication
• Frustrated scientists,
regulators, and
industrialists think the
public makes irrational
or ignorant judgments.
• The public thinks that
risks are under-
estimated to serve
someone else’s
purposes, not their
own.

10. Risk Perceptions
Process of Stigmatization Affects:
o Technologies: nuclear, chemical, bioengineering
o Places: Chernobyl, Love Canal
o Products:
 Alar – $100 million
 Tylenol – $1.4 billion
 Three Mile Island – $10 billion
Today: Ground Beef (Pink Slime); GMO foods, Water re-use
Stigma
Economic Losses ($)

11. Risk Perception Factors
• Who benefits? How much?
• Who defines the way we measure the risk?
• Gut feelings, ‘probability neglect’
• Worldview
• Other ‘outrage factors’ (dread, voluntary, etc.)?

12. Low High
Benefit
High
Low
Risk







 




 




Activities,
hazards, etc.
In the world, risk and benefit are positively correlated.
In people’s minds, they are negatively correlated.

13. According to social science research, the relationship
between risk and benefit in people’s minds is
negatively correlated.
Low High
Benefit
High
Low
Risk


















 Activities,
hazards, etc.

14. Figure 1 Perceived risks and benefits of nanotechnology and 43 other technologies, based on
503 responses to a national telephone survey. Source:Currall et al. 2006

15. 5
4
3
2
1
5
4
3
2
1
Radiation
Chemicals
Nuclear Power X-rays
Pesticides Prescription Drugs
Figure 3. Mean perceived risk and perceived benefit for medical and nonmedical sources of exposure to
radiation and chemicals. Each item was rated on a scale of perceived risk ranging from 1 (very low risk) to 7
(very high risk) and a scale of perceived benefit ranging from 1 (very low benefit) to 7 (very high benefit). Data
are from a national survey in Canada by Slovic et al., 1991.
Benefit
Benefit
Benefit
Benefit
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk

16. Risks are less likely to be
acceptable if the benefits
are hidden from view, or if
they are not fairly
distributed among those
who bear the risks.

18. Risk denial increases with perceived control
Sjoberg, L. Factors in Risk Perception. 2000. Risk Analysis 20:1 (pp1-11)

19. How is risk defined? Who decides?
Is coal mining getting safer?
Accidental deaths per
thousand coal mine
employees in the United
States
Accidental deaths per
million tons of coal mined
in the United States

20. Defining risk is an act of power
Counting fatalities gives equal weight to:
• Young and old
• Painful and painless deaths
• Voluntary and involuntary exposure(s)
• Fair (beneficial) and unfair (no benefit)
Whoever controls the definition of risk is in control:
• If you define risk one way, no action may be needed.
• If you define risk another way, major actions may be
in order.

21. Gut feelings
• Feelings about outcomes and feelings about
probabilities are often confused.
• When strong emotions are involved, there is
‘probability neglect.’

22. Strong Emotion Overcomes Probability
1% 99%
Payment to avoid a chance of electric shock is not much affected by probability
Source: Rottenstreich & Hsee:
Money, Kisses, and Electric Shock: On the Affective Psychology of Risk.
Psychological Science, 2001
$20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Prices paid to
avoid electric
shock and
$20 penalty
Shock
Money
Probability

23. Cass R. Sunstein
The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2/3); 2003
• People are prone to . . . probability neglect, especially when
their emotions are intensely engaged. When probability
neglect is at work, people’s attention is focused on the
bad outcome itself, and they are inattentive to the fact
that it is unlikely to occur.
• Probability neglect is highly likely in the aftermath of
terrorism. People fall victim to probability neglect when
the intensity of their reaction does not change much,
even with large differences in the likelihood of harm.

24. Many people lack dose-response sensitivity for exposure to chemicals
that can produce dreaded effects, such as cancer.
If large exposures are bad, small exposures are also bad.
Public
Toxicologists
HighLow
Low
High
Cancer
risk
Exposure
High
probability
of harm
Small
probability
of harm

25. Worldview
- Hierarchist (support superior/subordinate social
relations and detest civil disobedience)
- Individualists (support self-regulation, individual
achievement and reward and dislike social rules that
constrain individual initiative)
- Egalitarians (support broad distribution of power and
wealth and dislike ranked role differentiation)
- Communitarians (see nature as capricious and thus
uncontrollable)

26. Some questions that measure
worldviews (agree?)
The government should stop telling people how to live
their lives (Individualism)
The government should do more to advance society’s goals,
even if that limits the freedom of individuals
(Communitarian)
Our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth
was more equal (Egalitarianism)
We should let the experts make all the risk decisions for
society (Hierarchism)

27. People with different worldviews were asked
about their attitudes towards nanotechnology,
before and after being given information
about nanotechnology.

29. Personal ‘outrage factors’
In person’s control -----------------Out of person’s control
Voluntary ---------------------- Imposed
Beneficial -------------- Not beneficial
Natural ---------------- Man-made
Affects only adults ------------------ Affects children
Familiar ------------------ Exotic
Trusted entity ---------- Untrusted entity
Lower risk
perceived
Higher risk
perceived

31. Rank risks
from highest
(1) to lowest
(4)
Rank items from 1
(high amount of
control) to 4 (low
amount of control)
Rank items from
lowest benefit (1)
to highest benefit
(4)
Your local government
borrows money to
replace the high school ___ ___ ___
You smoke a cigar
every few months ___ ___ ___
Your family is giving
up sugar for 30 days. ___ ___ ___
You like to camp/hike
in remote wilderness
areas
___ ___ ___

32. Rank risks
from highest
(1) to lowest
(4)
Rank items from 1
(high amount of
control) to 4 (low
amount of control)
Rank items from
highest benefit (1)
to lowest benefit
(4)
Your local government
borrows money to
replace the high school 3 4 4
You smoke a cigar
every few months 1 1 3
Your family is giving
up sugar for 30 days 4 2 1
You like to camp/hike
in remote wilderness
areas
2 3 2

33. Risk Perception Factors
• Who benefits? How much?
• Who defines the way we measure the risk?
• Gut feelings, ‘probability neglect’
• Worldview
• Other ‘outrage factors’ (dread, voluntary, etc.)?
We just covered…

34. The Framework for Risk
Communication

35. Framework for Risk
Communication
• Frame as ‘risk’ rather than ‘safety’
• The risk equation as scaffolding for risk
communication
• A proposed checklist
• Tips from neuroscience

36. Risk
More risky----------------Less risky
Precautions reduce risk
Risk is higher for certain people
Harder to explain
Safety
Yes or No
No precautions necessary
Safe is safe for everyone
Easy to explain
The
impression
of safety
Careless
behaviors,
lack of
vigilance
Increased
risk
Why risk, when people ask about safety?

37. Yes
Is it Safe?
NoYes, as long
as…
Trust me.
• …You tell me about all of your
current medications, allergies and
symptoms.
• …We watch for signs like (this)
and (that), which might mean that
we should adjust the dose.
• …We do not add other
medications without talking about it
together.
• etc.
Which response
would inspire the
most trust?
Imagine asking your doctor about
a new medication… You ask…

38. Yes
Is it Safe?
NoYes, as long
as…
Trust me.
• …You tell me about all of your pest
problems, previous treatments and
sensitive sites/individuals
• …You wait X hours to return, and
ventilate right away
• …You check the bait stations
periodically to make sure they’re
secure
• …You do not add other treatments
without talking about it together…
• etc.
Now imagine someone asked about the
safety of a pesticide application…

39. Is it
safe?
The risk is low, but tell
me about your specific
concerns… • Listen
• Consider tailored
approaches
• Quickly explain why
“safe” isn’t the right
word or mindset
• Discuss risk level
and things that affect it
Re-framing the ‘safe’ question

40. Exposure
ToxicityorHazard
Informed Risk
Decision-making
The risk equation as scaffolding

41. Toxicity/Hazard X Exposure = Risk
10 X 10 = 100
10 X 50 = 500
10 X 5 = 50
10 X 1 = 10
10 X 0 = 0
5 X 10 = 50
5 X 5 = 25
Careless
behaviors,
lack of
vigilance
The power of the risk equation

42. Risk = Toxicity X Exposure
 Toxicology of active
ingredient
 Product signal word
 Dose estimate
 Effects (signs,
symptoms) reported in
the literature
 Onset, duration and
resolution of
symptoms
 Distance to application site
 Route of potential
exposure
 Physical/chemical
properties of active
ingredient
 Duration/frequency of
exposure
 Bioavailability by the route
in question
Talking about toxicity and exposure

43. Communicating Likelihood
Probability (1% chance)
vs.
Relative Frequency (1 in 100)
Acknowledgements: Dr. Paul Slovic, John Monahan, Ellen Peters, Don MacGregor

44. A patient – Mr. Jones – was evaluated for discharge from a mental health
facility. A psychologist whose professional opinion you respect has
evaluated Mr. Jones. Her conclusions, stated differently:
EITHER:
Patients similar to Mr. Jones have a 20% probability of committing an act of
violence during the first several months after discharge.
OR:
Of every 100 patients similar to Mr. Jones, 20 may commit an act of
violence during the first several months after discharge.

45. 21%
41%
0%
20%
40%
60%
20% probability 20 of 100 patients
Do not discharge
More
frightening

46. 20%
20% is pretty low.
He probably won’t hurt anyone.
20 out of 100
He could be one of those 20.
Now I’m thinking about 100 mental patients on the loose.

47. Risk Communication Checklist:
Listen, ask questions, paraphrase: ___________________
Frame as risk rather than safety: _____________________
Toxicity/Hazard information: _____________________
Exposure information: _____________________
Benefit(s) of the activity: _____________________
Action items in person’s control: _____________________
Where to get more info: _____________________

48. Finding the Sweet Spot
Threat/danger Reward/benefit
- Norepinephrine
- on alert
- Dopamine
- relaxed
0 50 100
~60
If the focus is too much on ‘threat’, learning shuts down.

49. When people experience social pain,
their IQ is decreased by up to 20%.
- Embarrassment, shame
- Disappointment, anger

50.  The brain wanders about 30% of the time.
 People tend to internalize the most dominant emotion in the room.
 Reading trumps listening, even if you try to do both.
 People learn best in 20-minute chunks.
 To maximize learning, use stories that are tangible, relatable, and
emotional. This strategy turns information into a life experience.
What else can neuroscience tell us?

51. Feel: Acknowledge the person’s feelings (i.e. fear).
Felt: Share how you felt about something similar.
Found: Share some information you found that may
have influenced your thinking on the topic.
One approach to relatable stories…

52. Framework for Risk
Communication
• Frame as ‘risk’ rather than ‘safety’
• The risk equation as scaffolding for risk
communication
• A proposed checklist
• Tips from neuroscience
We just covered…

53. Communication moves
that build trust
Verbal communication
Written communication
Writing for the web

54. Verbal communication
• Treat it like your first call or conversation of the day.
• Check your personal opinions at the door.
• Give the person your full attention.
• Set the tone for the conversation. Alarmed or calm?

55. • Ask questions and listen, building a picture of the
situation
• Clearly describe what you can/cannot do
• Start listing the person’s questions as they tell the story.
• Choose words that reflect the uncertainty in the situation.
Use words like ‘may’, ‘might have’, ‘could have’, etc.

56. LEAP over the barriers.
Listen.
Empathize.
Apologize.
Problem-
Solve.
Filters.
Values.
Experiences.
Personality.
Roles.

57. Listen.
Empathize.
Apologize.
Problem-
Solve.
LEAP over the barriers.
The
importance
of Step 1
cannot be
overstated.

59. Active listening
Minimal
Encouragements
Paraphrasing
Open-ended
questions

60. Active listening
DO NOT:
Problem-solve
Plan your
response
Give advice
Be or appear
rushed
DO:
Be attentive
Be respectful
Withhold
judgment
Ask brief
questions

61. The listening phase is over when you can paraphrase the
story/question and achieve the person’s agreement.
• That’s a complicated story. I think I understand
(paraphrase the story). Is that right? Is there anything
else?
• It sounds like you’ve been through a lot. Let me make
sure I understand. You did (this, that), and you found (this,
that), and now you’re wondering (this, that). Is that right?
Active listening

62. Listen.
Empathize.
Apologize.
Problem-
Solve.
LEAP over the barriers.
This does not imply
agreement, if done correctly.
• I can’t imagine how you must be feeling.
• I’m sorry that happened, it must be frustrating.
• I’m sorry to hear that. I’m an animal-lover too.
• My daughter has asthma, so I know what that’s like.

63. Writing about risk
involves science and regulations
Don’t be SUCH a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style – Randy Olson

64. Science
(objective)
Doing
(objective)
Communicating
(subjective)
Style
(subjective)
Substance
(objective)
Don’t be SUCH a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style – Randy Olson

65. A false choice
• Option 1: Sacrifice scientific accuracy for the sake of
communicating to everyone
• Option 2: Keep your science writing at a very high level,
maintain strict accuracy, and likely fail to reach a broad
spectrum of less technical readers
• Option 3: Achieve both accuracy and readability
o It requires a lot more time and effort. It’s not just polishing, it’s a
whole process.
o It requires the writer to have a very deep understanding of the
subject matter.
Plainlanguage.gov

66. It takes an expert
Don’t dumb down
“This is easier said than done. Writing clearly without
dumbing down is an art and it takes time to master, but that
should be your goal. In order to achieve it, you’ll need to
understand what you’re writing about on a deep level.
Anyone can dumb down, but it takes an expert not to.”
Neuroskeptic – A well-known blogger for Discover Magazine
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/10/19/science-blog/#.UnErTCTFb74

67. Sacrifice detail, not accuracy
In a 300-word piece… Use a few words to express
uncertainty. For example, say “very likely.”
In a 3000-word piece… you can describe the reasons for
the uncertainty in accessible, clear terms.
The Science Writer’s Handbook: Everything You Need to Know to Pitch, Publish, and
Prosper in the Digital Age, edited by Thomas Haden and Michelle Nijhuis 2013

68. Say the most important
things first
• Our top priority is protecting people/the environment.
• By following the procedures below, you can keep the risk
low.
(Notice, I didn’t break down
and use the word “Safe.”)
• Background: There was a situation, here are the details, we
are charged with responding… etc.

69. Break it up
• Walls of text are not inviting
• Use more headings, more white space, more visuals
• Use bullets, the shorter the better
• Use the checklist we talked about:
Risk Communication Checklist:
Listen, ask questions, paraphrase: ___________________
Frame as risk rather than safety: _____________________
Toxicity/Hazard information: _____________________
Exposure information: _____________________
Benefit(s) of the activity: _____________________
Action items in person’s control: _____________________
Where to get more info: _____________________

70. Jargon
“… Here are some unnecessarily long or ugly words
(and replacement words) that many people use a lot:”
utilize – use
currently – now
possess – have
however – but
for the purpose of – for
initiate – start
Zen and the Art of Dumbing Down Your Prose – Amy Miller, EPA Greenversations Blog
terminate – end
facilitate – help
interface – meet? Talk to?
relocate – move
retain – keep

71. Writing for the web
Factoids:
• Visitors to web pages spend 2-4
seconds, on average, deciding whether
to leave or stay.
• People with limited literacy skills tend
to skip whole paragraphs if they have
more than 3 lines.
• Links and content on the right margin
are often ignored, mistaken for
advertisements.
http://npic.orst.edu

72. www.health.gov/healthliteracyonline/

73. Write actionable content
• Write in plain language. Use your own voice.
• Put the most important information first.
• Describe the desirable behavior – just the basics.
• Stay positive and realistic.
• Provide specific action steps.

74. Display content clearly
• Limit paragraph size. Use bullets or short lists.
• Use meaningful headings with action words
• Use white space, avoid clutter
• Keep content in the center, above the fold

76. Plainlanguage.gov

77. Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of
Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]

78. Communication moves
that build trust
Verbal communication
Written communication
Writing for the web
We just covered…

80. Risk-Comm Training
• The science of risk perception
• A framework for risk communication
• Communication moves that build trust
o Verbally
o In writing
o On the web
• Checklists
We just covered…

81. Listen.
Empathize.
Apologize.
Problem-
Solve.
Risk Communication Checklist:
Listen, ask questions, paraphrase: ___________________
Frame as risk rather than safety: _____________________
Toxicity/Hazard information: _____________________
Exposure information: _____________________
Benefit(s) of the activity: _____________________
Action items in person’s control: _____________________
Where to get more info: _____________________

83. Risk
Communication
Kaci Buhl, MS
buhlk@ace.orst.edu