This is taken from an excellent
long and detailed Department of Heath document about
Communicating Risk to the Public at www.doh.gov.uk/pointers.htm
See also Health
Policies, Communicating Risk
2: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
2.1 Trust, Emotion and Openness
- Messages are usually judged first by whether
their source is trusted.
- Intentional communication is often only a
minor part of the message actually conveyed.
- Responses to messages depend not only on
content but also on manner of delivery,
especially emotional tone.
- Experts no longer command automatic trust, no
matter how genuine their expertise.
- Trust is generally fostered by openness, both
in the sense of avoiding secrecy and in being
ready to listen.
"2.2 Risk Perceptions: "Fright factors"
Risks are generally more worrying (and less
acceptable) if perceived:
1. to be involuntary (e.g. exposure to pollution)
rather than voluntary (e.g. dangerous sports or
smoking)
2. as inequitably distributed (some benefit while
others suffer the consequences)
3. as inescapable by taking personal precautions.
4. to arise from an unfamiliar or novel source
5. to result from man-made, rather than natural
sources
6. to cause hidden and irreversible damage, e.g.
through onset of illness many years after exposure
7. to pose some particular danger to small children
or pregnant women or more generally to future
generations
8. to threaten a form of death (or illness/injury)
arousing particular dread
9. to damage identifiable rather than anonymous
victims
10. to be poorly understood by science
11. as subject to contradictory statements from
responsible sources (or, even worse, from the same
source)".
"2.3 Risk and Values
One attempt to categorise overall attitudes to
risk is that of Cultural Theory. This distinguishes:
- egalitarians, who tend to see the balance of
nature as fragile, to distrust expertise and
strongly favour public participation in
decisions,
- individualists who want to make their own
decisions and see nature as robust,
- hierarchists who want well-established rules
and procedures to regulate risks and tend to
see nature as "robust within limits",
and
- fatalists who see such life as capricious and
attempts at control as futile.
To summarise:
- "The public" is not a single entity.
It is essential to consider different
possible ways of seeing risks.
- The categories suggested by Cultural Theory
can be useful in this role, though not as
rigid classifications of individuals.
- Wide acceptance may need a portfolio of
messages with conclusions supported by
different lines of argument - as well as
styles of delivery.
Box 6: Media Triggers
A possible risk to public health is more likely to
become a major story if the following are prominent
or can readily be made to become so:
1. Questions of blame
2. Alleged secrets and attempted "cover-ups"
3. "Human interest" through identifiable
heroes, villains, dupes, etc. (as well as victims)
4. Links with existing high-profile issues or
personalities
5. Conflict
6. Signal value: the story as a portent of further
ills ("What next?")
7. Many people exposed to the risk, even if at low
levels ("It could be you!").
8. Strong visual impact (e.g. pictures of
suffering)
9. Links to sex and/or crime
Full details at www.doh.gov.uk/pointers.htm
