Risk Communication

by Felix Redmill
London, U.K.

Pages 1 | 2 | 3

Risk of Rejection of the Message
Although Huff's story [Ref. 3] shows that risk communication can mislead, it is also the case that when recipients detect bias or an ulterior motive, they are likely to reject the message. Providing risk information in terms of a comparison — e.g., "the risk is about the same as that of eating a hundred grams of chocolate per day" — may be enlightening if the recipients understand the risk being referred to. Yet it has been established that if the recipients believe that the intention is to persuade them of the tolerability of the risk in question, the result is likely to be that they understand the communication but reject the message because they distrust the messenger. Thus, not only must risk information be appropriate to its context and purpose, but its framing must not be patronizing.

Trust
A key factor in the acceptance of risk information is trust in the communicator. Polls have shown that the public's trust in government and "big business" is low. The public places high trust in scientists working in academic establishments, but low trust in scientists employed by organizations with interests in getting the public to believe their messages. A perception that the message is intended to convince, rather than to inform, is almost certain to lead to rejection. As safety professionals, we need to be perceived as independent of vested interests, honest, and having the purpose of informing rather than persuading.

Taking the other point of view, as recipients of risk information, we should question its origin, its accuracy, the perspective from which it was derived, and whether the person communicating it believes it. We need to ask how appropriate it is for our purposes. I wonder what the answer would have been if my friend of the liver biopsy had asked the doctor what confidence she had in the bleeding, intervention and fatality figures that she gave him.

Risk information is unlikely to be wholly accurate, but it needs to be sufficiently accurate for its purpose. The person communicating it needs to know the limits of its accuracy and to communicate them to the recipient in a way that the recipient understands.

Uncertainty
Understanding and communicating the limits of accuracy has never been insignificant, but its importance is increasing. A great deal of risk discussion, and indeed controversy, falls within areas of uncertainty — scientific and otherwise. Funtowicz and Ravetz [Ref. 5] say that when both the stakes and the uncertainty of facts are high, scientists need to use a language in which the uncertainty and quality of information are made explicit. Yet organizations communicating risk information to the public are seldom open about the scientific uncertainty involved. Rather, they tend to play it down while emphasizing the lack of evidence of risk. However, such communication is now frequently found to lack credibility by the public, who, as a result, lose trust in the organization.

Risk analysts do not often include confidence statements in their communications, and decision-makers do not often ask for them, but it is time for safety professionalism to require them as a matter of course.

Summary
The way in which we communicate risk information is crucial to how it is received and to the decision making that depends on it. The purpose of this article is to offer reasons for why we should be more aware of our risk communication, and more conscientious in accomplishing it.

There is no single correct mode of risk communication. It is our responsibility to determine what is appropriate in the circumstances, and this requires an assessment of what the most appropriate method is. It demands attention to the details of the content and the presentation. The information first needs to be the right information for the purpose at hand, so we need to be conscious of the message and its purpose. It needs to be communicated effectively, so we must frame the message according to the intended recipients and their abilities to comprehend it. We must also understand the uncertainties behind our risk estimates, and include confidence statements in our communications, so that recipients can take them into consideration in their decision making.

This article has introduced a number of factors that might usefully be taken into account when planning and carrying out risk communication.

About the Author
Felix Redmill is a consultant in risk management, project management and quality improvement, and spent more than 20 years in industry as an engineer and manager before starting his consulting business. He has been the Coordinator of the U.K.'s Safety-Critical Systems Club since its inauguration in 1991, and has served as chairman and member of various professional committees. He has been a visiting lecturer at several universities and is a visiting professor at one. He was the Awards Banquet speaker at the 18^th International System Safety Conference in Orlando, Florida, and the Keynote speaker at the 22^nd International System Safety Conference in Providence, Rhode Island.

References

1. GMC. Charges, Case No 1A: Wisheart, James Dunwoody. Amended draft version 21/5/98. Professional Conduct Committee Hearing. General Medical Council, London, 1998.
2. GMC. DETERMINATION in the Case Against James Dunwoody Wisheart, Thursday 18 June. Professional Conduct Committee Hearing. General Medical Council, London, 1998.
3. Huff, D. How to Take a Chance. London: Pelican Books, 1965.
4. Shah, D.V., D. Domke and D.B. Wackman. "'To Thine Own Self Be True': Values, Framing, and Voter Decision-making Strategies." Communication Research, 23, 5, 509-560, 1996.
5. Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz. "Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science." In Social Theories of Risk. S. Krimsky and D. Golding, eds. Westport: Praeger, 1992.

« previous page