Mixed Messages in Risk Communication

The exchange of risk information between risk managers and affected parties is frequently hampered by differences in the understanding or interpretation of many words and phrases. Much of the terminology used by risk practitioners may have different “technical†and “colloquial†meanings, resulting in “mixed messages†in risk communication. Several words and concepts commonly used in risk management that may be resulting in these “mixed messages†are discussed. These include primary underlying concepts, such as the various meanings of the word “risk†itself, as well as the perplexity of the notions of “safety vs. zero risk†and “probability†. The potential “mixed messages†of the derived concepts of “significant vs. nonsignificant†, “negative vs. positive results†, “conservative assumptions†, “population vs. individual risk†, “relative vs. absolute risk†, and “association vs. causation†are shown to range from mild confusion to the completely opposite interpretation of these words and expressions. Suggested strategies for recognizing and mitigating the use of words and phrases which may create unnecessary confusion are presented.

[1]  Katherine E. Rowan,et al.  Why Rules for Risk Communication Are Not Enough: A Problem‐Solving Approach to Risk Communication , 1994 .

[2]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[3]  Vern R. Walker Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication , 1995 .

[4]  P. Grandjean,et al.  Risk assessment: extrapolation to individual risk. , 1988, Basic life sciences.

[5]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks , 1992, Toxicologic pathology.

[6]  S. Kaplan,et al.  On The Quantitative Definition of Risk , 1981 .

[7]  G. Taubes Epidemiology faces its limits. , 1995, Science.

[8]  P. Slovic Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  D. Patton The NAS Risk Paradigm as a Medium for Communication , 1994 .

[10]  Herbert S. Rosenkranz,et al.  Risk Assessment and Decision Making Using Test Results , 1989 .

[11]  E. Arkin Translation of Risk Information for the Public: Message Development , 1989 .

[12]  A. Fisher,et al.  Risk Communication Challenges1 , 1991 .

[13]  Julia Pet-Edwards,et al.  Risk assessment and decision making using test results : the carcinogenicity prediction and battery selection approach , 1989 .

[14]  E U Weber,et al.  Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks. , 1993, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  S. Dunwoody,et al.  Risk Information for Public Consumption: Print Media Coverage of Two Risky Situations , 1991, Health education quarterly.

[16]  S. Kafandaris Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective , 1993 .

[17]  C S Konheim Risk communication in the real world. , 1988, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[18]  S. Hansson Dimensions of Risk , 1989 .

[19]  S. Hrudey,et al.  Is there a safe level of exposure to a carcinogen? , 1995, Environmental science & technology.