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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
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.
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.
Kahan, D. M. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463(21).
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smit, H., & Braman., D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174.
Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
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.
Further Reading/Resources
Benson, B. (2016). Cognitive bias cheat sheet: Because thinking is hard. https://medium.com/better-humans/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18 (Last accessed, March 7, 2021).
Corner, A., Lewandowsky, S., Phillips, M., & Roberts, O. (2015). The Uncertainty Handbook. University of Bristol. https://climateoutreach.org/reports/uncertainty-handbook/
Dubner. (2011). Risk = Hazard + Outrage: A Conversation with Risk Consultant Peter Sandman. Freakonomics, November 29. https://freakonomics.com/2011/11/29/risk-hazard-outrage-a-conversation-with-risk-consultant-peter-sandman/ (Last accessed March 4, 2021).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91628-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91627-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91628-2
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)