Seven criteria are presented for use in evaluating communications designed to explain the magnitude of a risk. The criteria are: (1) comprehension (Does the audience understand the content of the communication ); (2) agreement (Does the audience agree with the recommendation or interpretation contained in the message ); (3) dose-response consistency (Do people facing a higher dose of a hazard perceive the risk as greater and/or show a greater readiness to take action than people exposed to a lower dose of this hazard ); (4) hazard-response consistency (Do people facing a hazard that is higher in risk perceive the risk as greater and/or show a greater readiness to take action than people exposed to a hazard that is lower in risk ); (5) uniformity (Do audience members exposed to the same level of risk tend to have the same responses to this risk ); (6) audience evaluation (Does the audience judge the message to have been helpful, accurate, clear, etc. ); and (7) types of communication failures (When differnet types of failures are possible, are the failures that occur generally of the more acceptable variety ). Each of these criteria is illustrated with data collected in a test of messagemore » formats designed to explain the risk presented by radon gas in a home.« less
[1]
Timothy O'Riordan,et al.
Themes and Tasks of Risk Communication: Report of an International Conference Held at KFA Jülich
,
1989
.
[2]
Peter M. Sandman,et al.
Risk Communication
,
1988
.
[3]
Peter M. Sandman,et al.
Public Response to the Risk from Geological Radon
,
1987
.
[4]
James D. Laing,et al.
Prediction Analysis of Cross Classifications.
,
1976
.
[5]
J. Hammitt.
Risk perceptions and food choice: an exploratory analysis of organic- versus conventional-produce buyers.
,
1990,
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.
[6]
P. Rossi,et al.
Evaluation: A systematic approach, 5th ed.
,
1989
.