Why the transformation of the risk message is a healthy sign: a model of the reception of warning messages

Abstract

In this article, we examine the communication of health risks caused by technological and natural disasters to the public. Contrary to the commonly accepted view, we argue that in the context of the risk society, the transformation and multiplication of risk messages among the public is a healthy sign. We aim to show how the recipients of risk communication can overcome the confusion that emanates from the inevitable contradictions of warning messages. We used Luhmann’s communication theory to develop a model of the analysis of personal interpretations of warning messages and examined how this explained the variations in the personal sense of risk that shaped the reception of a warning message. Our model developed Luhmann’s concepts of first- and second-order observations: direct and reflective approaches to risk messages. Using data derived from seven focus groups conducted in four Estonian cities in 2009–2010, we examined how the choice between direct and reflective approaches to risk messages was dependent on recipient’s reflection of social relations in the messages and the channels of their delivery. We found that the first response to the warning message depended on whether the information could be dealt with by first-order observation. When members of the focus group realised they needed to use a second-order observation strategy, they tended to use emotions to respond to risk messages. Our data show that defining risks and legitimising solutions in a collective discussion tended to be more important for an individual than accessing the one-dimensional official constructions of risks.

Keywords:

• risk
• sense of risk
• uncertainty
• crisis situations
• risk communication
• Luhmann

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Halliki Harro-Loit and Valeria Jakobson for their help in conducting the focus groups.

Funding

This work was supported by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) [grant no 217889] and by the Estonian Science Foundation [grants no 8347 and no 9017].

Notes

1. Luhmann defines trust as a tool to reduce complexity and uncertainty (Mizstal 1996, p. 73).

2. Tallinn is in the north of Estonia, Tartu in the south, Narva in the east and Pärnu in the west. All cities except Tartu are near the sea (with Pärnu susceptible to the extra threat of a rise in sea level). The percentage of the Estonian Russian minority group is the highest in Narva (around 95%), and relatively high in Tallinn (half of the population). These language groups have relatively few common communication channels.