Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Risk communication, or the exchange of information about health, safety, and environmental hazards, occurs every day between institutions, industries, scientists, medical experts, mass media, and the general public. It serves to increase knowledge of risks like cancer, climate change, and HIV/AIDS while helping people make more informed decisions. In the event of a crisis or natural disaster, risk communication can be used strategically to motivate individuals to take immediate protective action. The siting of a potentially hazardous landfill or changing environmental regulations can spark debate in a community, and techniques for weighing risks and benefits through shared decision-making processes may also be applied to help reach consensus. Media coverage of emerging issues, such as vaccine safety, nanotechnology, and hydraulic fracturing, also influences how people perceive and respond to risk.

This entry discusses a variety of methodological approaches adopted by risk perception and communication researchers. Since the 1970s, these methods have been used to study risk communication occurring intentionally through informational messaging and persuasive campaigns, as well as unintentionally through social networks and mass media. The entry explains two prescriptive research methods commonly used to develop risk messages: the mental models approach and experiments. It also provides examples of descriptive methods for evaluating risk communication using case studies, content analyses, and surveys.

Prescriptive Research Methods

The Mental Models Approach

The mental models approach assumes that for most risks, people already hold at least some relevant knowledge and beliefs that are assembled into a mental model. These psychological representations of the world are used to simulate possible behaviors, outcomes, and ultimately draw conclusions about how one should respond to risk. Among nonexpert or lay audiences, gaps in knowledge and misunderstandings are likely to exist. For instance, some people might not know that children should not be exposed to lead or may mistakenly believe that mammograms prevent (versus detect) breast cancer.

The purpose of the mental models approach is to identify those gaps and close them with targeted information. The first step for researchers is to construct a single comprehensive model representing expert knowledge of the risk (e.g., sources of exposure to the hazard, possible effects, activities to lower one’s risk) called the influence diagram. This is achieved by conducting literature reviews, semistructured interviews, and quantitative surveys of experts, such as doctors or scientists, who possess specialized knowledge of the risk.

Next, researchers map a single lay mental model by interviewing and surveying members of the target audience. To discover incorrect beliefs and avoid biasing responses, the researcher begins with open-ended interviewing and then moves to more directive, confirmatory questionnaires. Finally, a close-ended survey is distributed to a larger, more representative sample of the intended audience. Once the two models are mapped, the researcher compares how complete, accurate, and specific lay understandings of the hazard are compared to the expert influence diagram. Risk messages can then be developed to address specific gaps, inaccuracies, and details about the threat to improve audience comprehension and response. In the final stage of development, these messages undergo expert review and audience testing to ensure accuracy and clarity before dissemination.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading