Communicating in Risk, Crisis, and High Stress Situations: Evidence-Based Strategies and Practice. Vincent T. Covello
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Communicating in Risk, Crisis, and High Stress Situations: Evidence-Based Strategies and Practice - Vincent T. Covello страница 33

СКАЧАТЬ crashes, hazardous waste sites, accidents at industrial or nuclear power facilities) than about activities or actions that are perceived to cause harm but for which there are little awareness and media attention (e.g., on‐the‐job accidents).

      14 Fairness: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived to be characterized by an inequitable or unfair distribution of risks, costs, and benefits (e.g., inequities related to the siting of waste disposal or industrial facilities) than about activities or actions perceived to be characterized by an equitable distribution of risks, costs, or benefits (e.g., flu vaccination).

      15 Benefits: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived to have unclear, questionable, or diffused benefits (e.g., waste disposal facilities) than about activities or actions that are perceived to have obvious benefits (e.g., elective surgery).

      16 Reversibility: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived to have potentially permanent adverse outcomes or effects (e.g., nuclear war) than about activities or actions perceived to have potentially reversible adverse outcomes or effects (e.g., injuries from most sports or household accidents).

      17 Personal stake: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that they perceive place them, or their families or friends, personally and directly in the way of harm or risk (e.g., living near an industrial facility with potentially hazardous air emissions) than about activities or actions that do not place them or their families and friends personally and directly in the way of harm or risk (e.g., disposal of hazardous waste in remote places).

      18 Nature of evidence: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are based on risk assessments from human studies (e.g., risk assessments based on adequate exposure data of humans) than about activities or actions based on risk assessments from nonhuman studies (e.g., laboratory studies of the effects of potentially hazardous chemicals using mice or rats).

      19 Morality: People are often more concerned about activities or actions that are perceived to violate culturally based principles of morality and ethics (e.g., raising the price of a life‐saving prescription drug to a very high level) than about activities or actions that are perceived to be consistent with culturally based principles of morality and ethics (e.g., lying about the nationality or ethnicity of a child to protect the child from those who want to do harm because of child’s nationality or ethnicity).

      20 Human vs. natural origin: People are often more concerned about activities and actions that are perceived to cause harm and are perceived to have their origin in human actions and failures (e.g., accidents, leaks, and spills at waste disposal or industrial sites caused by negligence, inadequate safeguards, inadequate supervision, or operator error) than about activities and actions that are perceived to cause harm and that are perceived to be caused by acts of nature or God (e.g., exposure to sunshine or cosmic rays).

Factor Conditions associated with higher perceived risks, increased concerns, greater fears Conditions associated with lower perceived risks, decreased concerns, and greater fears
Trust Voluntariness Lack of trust in responsible persons Involuntary/coerced/imposed Trust in responsible persons Voluntary/chosen
Scope/catastrophic potential High catastrophic potential Low catastrophic potential
Familiarity Understanding/visibility Unfamiliar/exotic Invisible/mechanisms or process not understood Familiar/routine Visible/mechanisms or process understood
Uncertainty Effects and outcomes unknown or uncertain Effects and outcomes known
Controllability (personal) Effects and outcomes uncontrollable by the person Effects and outcomes controllable by the person
Effects on children Children specifically at risk Children not specifically at risk
Effects manifestation Delayed effects Immediate effects
Effects on future generations Significant threat to future generations Little or no threat to future generations
Victim identity/specificity Identifiable and/or specific person or victims Nameless, faceless, or statistical victims
Pleasurable/dreaded Outcomes and effects not pleasurable/dreaded Outcomes and effects pleasurable/not dreaded
Awareness/media attention Much awareness/media attention Little awareness/media attention
Fairness/equity Inequitable distribution of risks and benefits Equitable distribution of risks and benefits
Benefits Unclear benefits Clear benefits
Reversibility Personal stake Nature of evidence Morality Effects and outcome irreversible Direct and significant perceived personal risk or threat Evidence from human studies Immoral/callous/unethical Effects and outcomes reversible Little or no perceived significant personal risk or threat Evidence from laboratory studies Moral/ethical
Origin Caused by human actions or failures Caused by acts of nature or God

      Risk perception theory states that risks are more worrisome, more fearful, and less acceptable if they are perceived as having the characteristics listed in Table 3.6 and described above. Risk perception theory counters the conventional notion that “facts speak for themselves.” People commonly accept high risks but also become outraged over much less likely risks.

      Risk perception factors can change concerns, perceptions of risk, fear, and perceived dangers exponentially. They explain the aversion of parts of the public toward activities and technologies such as nuclear power, required childhood vaccinations, and genetically modified food.

      Perception factors also help to explain phenomena, such as the “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) and the “locally unwanted land use” (LULU) responses to many chemicals, nuclear, and other industrial facilities. For example, residents in communities where industrial facilities exist or are planned often become outraged if they believe government and industry officials:

      1 have excluded them from meaningful participation in the decision‐making process;

      2 have denied them the resources needed to evaluate or monitor health, safety, or environmental risks;

      3 have СКАЧАТЬ