Defining Moments in Risk Communication Research: 1996–2005

Ten years ago, scholars suggested that risk communication was embarking on a new phase that would give increased attention to the social contexts that surround and encroach on public responses to risk information. A decade later, many researchers have answered the call, with several defining studies examining the social and psychological influences on risk communication. This article reviews risk communication research appearing in the published literature since 1996. Among studies, social trust, the social amplification of risk framework, and the affect heuristic figured prominently. Also common were studies examining the influence of risk in the mass media. Among these were content analyses of media coverage of risk, as well as investigations of possible effects resulting from coverage. The use of mental models was a dominant method for developing risk message content. Other studies examined the use of risk comparisons, narratives, and visuals in the production of risk messages. Research also examined how providing information about a risk's severity, social norms, and efficacy influenced communication behaviors and intentions to follow risk reduction measures. Methods for conducting public outreach in health risk communication rounded out the literature.

Notes

¹According to Leiss (1996) and others (Fischhoff, 1995; Plough & Krimsky, 1987), technical assessments dominated early approaches to risk communication. Persuasive approaches geared at increasing audience acceptance of technical assessments characterized the next phase of risk communication, which also saw a growing recognition of the importance of trust in risk communication efforts. The pervasive lack of trust in many risk management institutions ushered in the next phase, roughly since 1995, which included a greater acceptance that risk occurs in a social context (Leiss, 1996).

²In some cases, this article refers to seminal works published prior to 1996 for background purposes.

³Readers also are referred to journals that devoted special issues to risk communication, among them the Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 1999, Number 25; theJournal of Health Communication, volume 8 supplement; Risk Analysis, volume 23, issue 3; and Risk: Health, Safety & Environment, volume 10, number 3.

⁴Although some scholars prefer to differentiate public health risk communication from environmental risk communication, drawing a hard line between these two subfields may be unwarranted. Many of the most prolific scholars in what may be considered environmental risk communication are also frequent contributors to the literature on health risk communication (Gurabardhi et al., 2004), suggesting an implicit if not explicit link between these two areas. This link arguably resides not in the origin of the risk but in its potential endpoint, the injured party. For example, whether the risk of cancer originated with the voluntary use of tobacco or an involuntary exposure to toxic waste, both circumstances ultimately pose a public health risk and could be considered under the rubric of public health risk communication. So, too, do potential risks related to biotechnology, water quality, and global climate change, making their exclusion from a review of public health risk communication unnecessary.

⁵Although risk communication frequently concerns risks where a large degree of scientific consensus exists, it also is often less clear what the appropriate public response should be. Thus, whereas persuasive strategies typify the former risk communication efforts, the latter are better illustrated by efforts to provide balanced, accurate information so that people can, in a sense, make up their own minds about what constitutes acceptable risk.

⁶One exception was a study showing that knowledge of the risk may be a greater predictor of risk perception than trust or credibility (Sjoberg, 2001).

⁷This article uses the term “outreach” rather than participation or involvement to refer to the numerous formalized techniques used to communicate health risks to members of the public in organized social settings. It recognizes that public outreach has many formats and functions, ranging from simply providing health risk information to targeted audiences to fully engaging audience members in collective deliberation about health risks. Whereas the former may typify many health risk communication efforts, the latter endeavors to make audience members or stakeholders more active contributors to the characterization, assessment, and management of risk.

⁸Among challenges associated with determining what counts as “effective” or “successful” public outreach is a lack of common criteria or benchmarks for evaluation (Chess & Purcell, 1999; Rowe & Frewer, 2000). For example, some studies focus on procedural elements, such as who participated in the process, while others focus on outcomes, such as whether the process resulted in better decisions. Participants and organizers of public outreach processes also sometimes disagree on criteria for evaluating success (Santos & Chess, 2003).

⁹Others have suggested additional research agendas that merit attention (Renn, 1998b).