Communicating Risk and Uncertainty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Teaching Science Students to Communicate: A Practical Guide
  • 920 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents a brief overview of some fundamental concepts in risk communication between technical experts and non-technical laypeople. It touches on core elements of risk and uncertainty when they are described, interpreted, and manipulated to persuade people to take specific actions. It focuses on what technical expert participants in risk communication enterprises can do to reflect on their own role in communication successes and failures. This material is punctuated with examples from the author’s experience of risk communication activities around Australia and the Pacific region.

Topics covered include various ways we understand risk and prioritise “risky” decisions, the importance of context and of identifying and recognising our assumptions in risk communication efforts, the necessity of explicit communication goals, and the pervasive influence of values. The chapter concludes with two activities and suggestions for further reading.

Research into risk perception and communication has been going on for decades. The volume of work is far too large to cover in a single book chapter. This chapter is a “taste test” of some of the aspects of risk communication that I have found to be among the most common and enduring. It is coloured with examples that typify how personal, ambiguous, variable, and context-dependent our views on risk can be. These examples also reveal how close the relationship between risk communication and science communication can be (e.g. in climate change debates or public health deliberations). If nothing else, I hope a reader new to risk communication will come away with a clearer impression of the potential complexity inherent in risk communication exchanges, and a deeper appreciation of the extent to which “successful” risk communication is rarely about just explaining the data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • De Groot, K. & Thurik, R. (2018). Disentangling risk and uncertainty: When risk-taking measures are not about risk. Frontiers in Psychology, 15 November 2018 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02194

  • Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., & Keeney, D. (1981). Acceptable risk. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., Van Den Broek, E., Fasolo, B., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2005). “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk Analysis, 25(3), 623–629.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463(21).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smit, H., & Braman., D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon, N. (2008). Risk, uncertainty and social controversy: from risk perception and communication to public engagement. In G. Bammer, & M. Smithson (Eds.), Uncertainty and risk: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Earthscan. Routledge. New York NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandman, P. M. (1989). Hazard versus Outrage in the public perception of risk. In V. T. Covello, D. B. McCallum, & M. T. Pavlova (Eds.), Effective risk communication: The role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations (pp. 45–49). Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sandman, P. M. (2003). Four kinds of risk communication. https://www.psandman.com/col/4kind-1.htm. Last accessed 10/2/2021.

  • Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Understanding of Science, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749.

  • Taflinger, R. F. (1996). What is evidence? http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/evidence.html (Last accessed March 7, 2021).

  • West, R. F., & Meserve, R. J. (2012). Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 506–519.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Further Reading/Resources

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rod Lamberts .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lamberts, R. (2023). Communicating Risk and Uncertainty. In: Rowland, S., Kuchel, L. (eds) Teaching Science Students to Communicate: A Practical Guide. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91628-2_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Navigation