#RISK2122

Lecture 10: Risk Communication

Dr Tochukwu Onwuegbusi: PSY3003M Risk Module

 #RISK2122

Overview

Why communicate about risk?

Development of risk communication
Principles of persuasive communication (Cialdini)
Why it doesn’t always work
Nudging
Development of risk communication
 #RISK2122

What is risk communication?

No agreed definition, but often thought to be best

described by Leiss (1996) as:

“the flow of information and risk evaluations

back and forth between regulatory experts,
regulatory practitioners, interest groups,
and the general public”
 #RISK2122

What is risk communication?

Others (e.g., Pernet, 2013) have also defined it as:

“an integral part of risk analysis and an

inseparable element of the Risk management
framework in which risk managers, risk assessors,
interested stakeholders exchange information and
opinions concerning risk, risk-related factors and
risk perceptions.”
 #RISK2122

What is Risk Communication?

Successful risk communication is a prerequisite for

effective risk management and risk assessment.

It contributes to transparency of the risk analysis

process and promotes broader understanding and
acceptance of risk management decisions (Pernet,
2013)
 #RISK2122

Why communicate about risk?

Three imperatives (Wardman, 2008):

Normative imperative

Instrumental imperative

Substantive imperative
 #RISK2122

Why communicate about risk?

Three imperatives (Wardman, 2008):

Normative imperative  “It’s the right thing to do”
 Raise awareness/right to know so
people can make informed decisions
Instrumental imperative to manage risks in their own interests
 Citizens should be involved and have
Substantive imperative an opportunity to participate in risk
debates
 #RISK2122

Why communicate about risk?

Three imperatives (Wardman, 2008):

Normative imperative  To achieve a personal goal or objective
e.g. corporate profit vs saving lives
 Communicators are commonly in a
Instrumental imperative ‘battle for hearts and minds’ in risk
debates
Substantive imperative  Wide variety of ‘instrumental’ ends
e.g. Shell vs Greenpeace
 #RISK2122

Why communicate about risk?

Three imperatives (Wardman, 2008):

 To generate better quality in risk
Normative imperative
knowledge
 Bring different opinions about risk
Instrumental imperative together and put them into perspective
 Can serve the general good i.e. it may lead
to better outcomes and choices or resolve
Substantive imperative conflicts due to misunderstandings
 #RISK2122

Fundamental goals of risk communication

Timely
To provide
Meaningful

Relevant and
Accurate information

Targeted to a specific
In a clear and
audience
understandable terms
 #RISK2122

Goals of risk communication (Gamhewage, 2014)

Inform to build up
knowledge on hazards and Improve
risks relationships
Raise awareness
(build trust,
Warn of and trigger action to cooperation,
Inform to promote networks)
impending and current events
acceptance of risks and
management measures
All of the
Enable mutual above
Reassure the audience
dialogue and
(to reduce anxiety or
understanding
‘manage’ outrage)
 #RISK2122

What makes risk communication successful?

Successful risk communication is a prerequisite for effective risk

management and risk assessment (Pernet, 2013).

It contributes to:

Transparency of the risk analysis process and;
Promotes a better understanding and acceptance of the risk
management decisions
 #RISK2122

What makes risk communication successful?

Without monitoring and assessing outcomes on changes to knowledge, behaviour and

practice, the activities related to risk communications become
Mechanical, meaningless, and do not help manage and control risk (Gamhewage, 2014).

There are two complex issues that determine the success and failure of risk
communication:
Different perceptions of the same risk by experts and the public and;
Issues of the trustworthiness of the information and advice that is communicated
 #RISK2122
Development of risk communication
(Leiss, 1996): Three Phases

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

• 1975 – 1984 • 1985 – 1994 • 1995 onwards
“technocratic” focussed “instrumental” focussed “responsible” focussed
on getting numbers right on refining risk messages on:
• Risk matters should be • Utilised persuasive • Building trust,
deferred to experts techniques • Two-way communication,
• When failed (or faced • i.e., that it is a good deal • Making them partners in
public resistance)  led for them etc. decision etc.
to “blaming the public”
 #RISK2122
Development of risk communication
(Fischhoff, 1995)

All we have to do is tell

them the numbers All we have to
All we have to do is get do is explain
the numbers right what we
All we have to do is show mean by
All we have to do them they have accepted the numbers
is show them it is a similar risks in the past
good deal for them
All of the
All we have to do above
All we have to do make them partners
is treat them nice
 #RISK2122
Development of risk communication
(Fischhoff, 1995)

All we have to do is tell

them the numbers All we have to
All we have to do is get do is explain
the numbers right what we
Experts think risk Simply, get the risk Risk decisions made
All we have to do is show mean by
communication calculations right so in partnership with
All we have to do them they have accepted the numbers
not necessary “the public” is safe those affected
is show them it is a good similar risks in the past
deal for them
All of the
Risk communication isAll
still
wenot
haveoptimised!
to do above
All we have to do make them partners
is treat them nice
Principles of persuasive
communication

Robert Cialdini
 #RISK2122
Principles of persuasive communication
Robert Cialdini

1. Reciprocation: Be the first to give, and ensure it is

personalised and unexpected
2. Authority: People follow the lead of experts 
point out what makes you credible
3. Consensus / Social Proof: Very powerful use of
persuasion  what do others feel is acceptable?
4. Scarcity: People want more of those things they
can have less of  make it unique
5. Consistency and commitments: Activated by DRIVE
asking for small initial commitments SAFELY!
6. Liking: Yes to those they like  look for areas of
similarity
 #RISK2122

Example message: Blue dog project

 1 in 50 children are hospitalised from serious dog bites every year. Many are badly disfigured and some of
them die from horrific injuries. 75% of all dog bites are to children in their own home by a dog they know.
Most bites occur to their head, face and neck
 Many caring and responsible dog owners never thought it would be their child in hospital or their loving family
pet in the news. They just didn’t realise how often and how easily serious dog bites can happen
 Scientific evidence shows that many family dog bites occur, not because of bad dogs or owners, but because
children simply find it hard to recognise the danger signs or how to reduce the risk
 That’s why I’m volunteering to tell you about the new interactive Blue Dog CD. It offers scientifically proven
advice on teaching children to recognise the danger signs of dog bites. It’s free, fun and easy for parents and
children to learn together. I told all of my family and friends about the Blue Dog CD and now all of the
teachers and parents at my children’s school want one too.
 I never thought my dog would be a risk to children, but I’m a parent who cares deeply about the happiness of
my dog and feel responsible for the safety of my family as I am sure you do too. We can help our children to
learn how to prevent dog bites from happening to them. Will you risk the life or disfigurement of your child, or
will you sign up to get your family a free limited edition Blue Dog CD today?
So why doesn’t persuasive #RISK2122

communication always work?

 People wise-up
 The more obviously you try to persuade someone the
less likely they are to be persuaded (Lasswell, 1926)
 Deep seated distrust cannot be simply overcome by
persuasive techniques (Slovic, 1993)
 Authenticity i.e., have to be credible to have a credible
message to communicate (Fischhoff, 2005)
 #RISK2122
Other important variables: Trust
Slovic (1993)

Risk perception associated with other factors e.g., trust

 In a society with politicised and polarised views of
risk, trust is key
 Differences in risk perception and assessment not
down to public ignorance or irrationality but amplified
by systemic distrust
 Ten times harder to win trust than to destroy trust
 #RISK2122

The impact of trust…

What recent political scandals have been centred

around public trust?
Modern “responsible” approach to risk #RISK2122

communication (Fischhoff, 2005)

Three fundamental objectives:

Deliver decision relevant
Create appropriate
Credibility information in a concise
channels
comprehensible way
Modern “responsible” approach to risk #RISK2122

communication (Fischhoff, 2005)

Three fundamental objectives:

 Two-way not one-way communication
Create appropriate
channels  Risk presented in framework of “learning in
the face of uncertainty”
 Open and transparent
 Attentive to the risk management / appraisal
context – public trust etc.
 Work across stakeholders / communication
platforms
Modern “responsible” approach to risk #RISK2122

communication (Fischhoff, 2005)

Three fundamental objectives:

 Perceived as competent and proficient
Credibility  Decision process perceived as fair and
impartial
 Resources for risk – allocated efficiently
 Communications – timely and appropriate use
of recipient’s time
 Organisation as active listener: concerns and
wishes of others
 Modern “responsible” approach to risk #RISK2122

communication (Fischhoff, 2005)

Three fundamental objectives:

Deliver decision relevant to
information in a concise
comprehensible way
 Central message at the start
 Qualitative and quantitative information
 Provide supplementary information
 Highlight actions done to mitigate risk
 Acknowledge quality of the information provided
 Be cautious about inappropriate use of risk comparisons
 Contextualise risk, “precautionary”, “tenable”
 Summarise key messages & advice
 Direct to supplementary information
 #RISK2122
Beware inoculation
McGuire (1961)

Inoculation theory: strategy to protect attitudes and beliefs from

change
Beliefs and attitudes remain or strengthen in the face of counter
argument
 Global Warming
 MMR vaccines
 Alternative ‘medicine’
 Immigration
 EU membership
 #RISK2122
Beware inoculation
McGuire (1961)

 Medical inoculation: exposes a body to a weakened

virus—strong enough to trigger the production of
antibodies, but not overwhelm the body's resistance

 Attitudinal inoculation: Expose someone to weak

arguments triggers a process of counter-arguing which
eventually leads to resistance to later, stronger
persuasive messages
 #RISK2122

Nudge

 “…The inventor of behavioural economics and one of the

nation’s best legal minds have produced the manifesto
for a revolution in practice and policy. Nudge won’t
nudge you, it will knock you off your feet.”
Daniel Gilbert, Harvard University, author of Stumbling on
Happiness

 “…a must read for anyone who wants to see both our
minds and our society working better. It will improve
your decisions and it will make the world a better place.”
Daniel Kahneman, Princeton University, Nobel Laureate in Economics

What is nudging?
Helping people to make
“better” decisions about
health, wealth, and
happiness via designs to
their “choice architecture”
(i.e. physical, interpersonal
and cultural environment)
#RISK2122
Nudging is basically positive
manipulation. It’s the art of
tricking people into doing
what’s in their own best
interest (but what they, for
whatever reason, don’t do of
their own accord).
 #RISK2122

Choice architecture

 The people who organise the context in which people make decisions are called
‘choice architects’.
 In fact, most of the times we act as a choice architect.
 If you are a parent explaining the different educational options to your child, you are a choice
architect.
 If you are in charge of designing the cafeteria menu, you are a choice architect.
 A doctor describing alternative treatments to a patient, the person announcing the train’s delay and
the shop keeper deciding on which shelf to put different products; all choice architects.
 A choice architect influences the decisions other people make. The mere fact that information
is delivered in a certain way affects the choice we make. As a choice architect, you have to
assume that everything matters.
 #RISK2122

How does nudging work?

Behavioural decision making research

 People suffer from “bounded” rationality when
making judgements and decisions
 People often act intuitively instead of analytically (i.e.,
use short-cuts, take the path of least resistance)
 Particulars of a situation can frame people’s
judgments and decisions (e.g., availability)
 #RISK2122

Nudging solutions

 Exploit people’s intuitive and biased nature to get them to act as

they would if they were thinking more analytically
 A ‘nudge’ is, put simply:
“…any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour
in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly
changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the
intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not
mandates. Putting the fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning
junk food does not.”
Thaler and Sunstein (2008)
 #RISK2122

In support of nudging

 Provide a way to help people to make “better”

decisions about health, wealth, and happiness in
such a way that does not restrict their freedom to do
otherwise
 Alternative to more coercive measures such as
regulation, bans, taxes etc.
 #RISK2122

Nudging example

 A GPS is an example of a nudge; so is an

“app” that tells people how many calories
they ate during the previous day; so is a
text message, informing customers that a
bill is due or that a doctor’s appointment
is scheduled for the next day;
 So is an alarm clock; so is automatic
enrolment in a pension plan; so are the
default settings on computers and cell
phones; so is a system for automatic
payment of credit card bills and
mortgages
 #RISK2122

Other nudging examples

 In government, nudges include graphic

warnings for cigarettes; labels for energy
efficiency or fuel economy; “nutrition facts”
panels on food; the “Food Plate,” which
provides a simple guide for healthy eating
(see choosemyplate.gov);
 Default rules for public assistance programs
(as in “direct certification” of the eligibility of
poor children for free school meals); a
website like data.gov.uk, which makes a large
number of data sets available to the public
 #RISK2122

Problems and prospects

How will a life of constant nudging affect our brain

architecture?
 Do we want decision-making without reason?
 Shouldn’t we be encouraging analytic thinking for its
own sake?
 Once we know what is happening will we react
against?
 #RISK2122

Problems and prospects

 Are the values that underlie choice architecture

fundamental to those they affect?
− Who is setting these preferences?
− Need critical evaluation not just of its impacts on
behaviour, but also the social and political forces that
shape the uses of choice architecture and their
impacts
 #RISK2122

Nudge and Risk Communication

Nudge theory can be used to communicate with individuals or multiple

people (Murakami et al., 2017)

 In the field of medicine, your awareness of risk and decisions differ when you are told “the
survival rate is 90%” or alternatively that “the mortality rate is 10%.”
 The values of the 2 expressions are exactly the same, but for the patient, a “90% survival rate”
sounds encouraging, while a “10% mortality rate” is frightening.
 Both expressions are accurate and easy to understand, but the information has a different impact
depending on how it is conveyed. People passively receive the information being presented and
make a decision
 #RISK2122

Nudge and Risk Communication

Nudge theory can be used to communicate with individuals or multiple

people (Murakami et al., 2017)

 One could tell a resident that “there is a 0.1% cancer risk” or instead, inform
him/her that “though there is a 0.1% cancer risk, there is a 99.9% chance there is
no effect on you.”

 In fact, people are “nudged” according to how risk information is presented,

even though 2 expressions contain the same details.
 #RISK2122

Finally, some points to consider…

 How might you use nudging and choice architecture

within a forensic context?

 Particularly on risk communication?