Название: Communicating in Risk, Crisis, and High Stress Situations: Evidence-Based Strategies and Practice
Автор: Vincent T. Covello
Издательство: John Wiley & Sons Limited
Жанр: Отраслевые издания
isbn: 9781119081791
isbn:
disseminating risk information through multiple traditional and social platforms.
3.4.2 Negative Dominance Theory
Negative dominance theory states that people under stress put much more weight on negative information than on positive information. Three to five positive messages are typically needed to offset negative information. Information provided to stakeholders should not contain unnecessary negatives and it should emphasize what is being done over what is not.
3.4.3 Mental Noise Theory
Mental noise theory states the ability of stressed and upset individuals to process risk‐related information is reduced by as much as 80%‐100%. Mental noise distracts individuals from the task at hand and diminishes their ability to effectively hear, understand, and remember messages. Constructing and delivering effective messages in high stress, and high concern situations are radically different from constructing and delivering effective messages in low stress, low concern situations. At a minimum, messages in high stress, high concern situations must initially be kept short and simple (the KISS principle, Keep It Short and Simple).
3.4.4 Risk Perception Theory
Risk perceptions are the subjective judgments people make about the characteristics and severity of a risk. Risk perceptions are also subject to the beliefs a person holds regarding a risk, including the definition, probability, and outcome of the risk. Risk perception theory recognizes that risk is not an objective phenomenon perceived in the same way by all interested parties. Instead, it is a social and cultural construct with its roots deeply embedded in personal experiences and a specific social, economic, political, and cultural context. A variety of scientific, psychological, social, economic, political, and cultural factors determine which risks will ultimately be selected for individual, group, and societal attention and concern.
Evidence about the magnitude of possible adverse consequences is only one of many factors influencing public decisions about the acceptability of a risk. The level of risk, as assessed by technical, engineering, and scientific professionals, is only one among several variables that determines acceptability. Deciding which risks are acceptable is typically based more on risk perception factors than on scientific facts. Much of the risk communication literature focuses on these risk perceptions factors
Risk perception factors profoundly affect the ability of people to make informed decisions about risk‐related issues. Table 3.6 contains a list of the 20 most important risk perception factors. Each factor is described in more detail below.
1 Trust in responsible authorities and institutions: People are often more concerned about activities or actions where the responsible assessor or manager is perceived to be untrustworthy (e.g., individuals, organizations, or institutions that have a clear conflict of interest) than they are about activities or actions where the responsible assessor or manager is perceived to be trustworthy (e.g., trust in first responders, such as fire department personnel).
2 Voluntariness: People are often more concerned about activities and actions that are perceived to be involuntary, coerced, or imposed on them (e.g., exposure to chemicals or radiation from an accident at an industrial facility) than about activities or actions that are perceived to be voluntary or chosen (e.g., smoking, sunbathing, talking on a cellphone while driving, or mountain climbing).
3 Scope/catastrophic potential: People are typically more concerned about activities and actions perceived to be cataclysmic and where harm, fatalities, and injuries are grouped in time and space (e.g., harm, fatalities, and injuries resulting from a major release of toxic chemicals or radiation) than about activities or actions where harm, fatalities, and injuries are scattered, occur over a long period, or are random in time and space (e.g., automobile accidents).
4 Familiarity/exotic: People are typically more concerned about activities or actions perceived to cause harm and perceived to be unfamiliar (e.g., leaks of chemicals or radiation from waste disposal facilities; outbreaks of unfamiliar infectious diseases such as Zika, West Nile Virus, and Ebola) than about activities or actions that are familiar and routine (e.g., household accidents).
5 Understanding/visibility: People are often more concerned about activities or actions perceived to be characterized by invisible or poorly understood exposure mechanisms or processes (e.g., long‐term exposure to low doses of toxic chemicals or radiation) than about activities or actions perceived to be characterized by visible and apparently well‐understood exposure mechanisms or processes (e.g., pedestrian accidents or slipping on ice).
6 Uncertainty: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived to cause harm and are perceived to have unknown causes or uncertain risks (e.g., mysterious outbreaks of illnesses; risks from a radioactive waste facility designed to last 20,000 years) than about activities or actions that are perceived to cause harm and that are perceived to have known causes and for which there are relatively certain risk‐related data (e.g., actuarial data on automobile accidents).
7 Controllability (personal): People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived as outside their control (e.g., flying in an airplane; exposure to releases of toxic chemicals or radiation from an accident at an industrial facility) than about activities or actions that are perceived to be under their personal control (e.g., driving an automobile or riding a bicycle).
8 Effects on children: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived to adversely affect children or specifically put children in the way of harm or risk (e.g., asbestos in school buildings; milk contaminated with radiation or toxic chemicals; children’s food contaminated with pesticide residues; pregnant women exposed to radiation or toxic chemicals) than about activities or actions engaged in by adults and that are not perceived to specifically put children in the way of harm or risk (indoor air pollution in office buildings).
9 Effects manifestation: People are often more concerned about risks that have delayed effects (e.g., the development of cancer after exposure to low doses of chemicals or radiation) than about risks that have immediate effects (e.g., poisonings).
10 Effects on future generations: People are often more concerned about activities or actions perceived to pose significant risks to future generations (e.g., genetic effects related to exposure to toxic chemicals or radiation) than activities or actions perceived to pose no special significant risks to future generations (e.g., skiing accidents).
11 Victim identity: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived to cause harm and that impact identifiable victims or a named person (e.g., a worker exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals or radiation; a child who has fallen in a well) than about risks that are statistical and impact persons that are nameless or faceless (e.g., statistical deaths related to automobile accidents).
12 Pleasurable/Dreaded: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived as unpleasant, dreaded, or evoke a response of fear, terror, or anxiety (e.g., exposure to radiation or chemicals that can cause cancer or birth defects) than to activities or action risks that are perceived to be pleasurable, not especially dreaded, or do not evoke a special response of fear, terror or anxiety (e.g., using recreational drugs, common colds, or household accidents).
13 Awareness/Media attention: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived to cause potential harm and for which there is high public awareness and media СКАЧАТЬ