Communicating complex risks
The increasing complexity of the socio-technical systems that characterise 21st century life has led to a multiplication in the risks we all face, every day. A good example of this can be seen with the increase in ‘food miles’ over the past half century – the increased complexity inherent in sourcing food from the other side of the world, rather than the local farm, has led to an increased volume of risks. Indeed, it is within the food and drink industry that the multiplication of risks has perhaps been felt most profoundly in the last few years and various high-profile product recalls and food related-health scares have highlighted the increasingly vital role food scientists and technologists play when it comes to communicating with the public around food safety issues. It’s no overstatement to say that communicating risk to public audiences can seem like a fraught business. The reality is that if it’s a battle between facts and emotions, emotions always win. It’s a mistake to base your communications on logic, like statistics, when the emotional aspects of a risk situation can be much more dominant. This can be extremely difficult for the scientifically-minded to accept. Logic can falter again when inviting consumer audiences to assess relative risks: repeatedly, research demonstrates that perceived risks from sensational events (explosions, aeroplane crashes, tower block fires) are vastly over-estimated, while more commonplace risks (heart disease, car accidents etc) are greatly underestimated. Statistical evidence doesn’t persuade the public to hold a different view. By combining its experience and the findings of research on the subject, Razor works to four golden rules for communicating relative risk: 1. Compare like with like 1. Compare like with like By ignoring risk perception factors – and concentrating purely on probability – communicators are in danger of alienating their audience, and blocking the understanding of their message. An example of this is common use of the phrase ‘you’re more likely to be struck by lightning’. Even if contracting E. coli from a school dinner shares the same probability of being struck by lightning (say, one case in a million), an understanding of risk perception shows us that this will not work as a comparison. Being a natural occurrence (i.e. an ‘act of God’), being struck by lightning is a more acceptable risk than contracting E. coli (which is seen as the result of a failure of a manmade system). When considering activities against which to relate a risk, it’s key that the risk perception profile is similar. 2. Don’t trust statistics Evolutionary psychologists believe that humans have evolved to instinctively understand numerical relationships when expressed as whole numbers. This method of expressing probabilities is called Natural Frequencies. Therefore a risk of ‘1 in 10,000’ is more easily understood that ‘0.01%’. This is particularly important when communicating the increase or decrease in the risk associated with an activity: “risk rises from one case in 10,000 to two cases in 10,000” is better than stating that there has been a “100% increase in risk.” Consider a recent Daily Mail headline – ‘How pills for your headache could kill’ – reporting that ‘patients taking Ibuprofen to treat arthritis face a 24 percent increased risk of suffering a heart attack.” Expressed as a natural frequency, Ibuprofen used to treat arthritis could be expected to raise the rate of heart attacks by one attack for every 1,005 people taking the drug. When communicating the risk associated with an activity, it’s also important to lay out: - The baseline risk (what the risk would be without the factor you’re talking about – i.e. if smoking increases lung cancer, what’s the risk of contracting lung cancer without smoking?) - Who the risk applies to (is it the population in general, or is it men aged 50 plus?) - Factor responsible for the increase / decrease (in other words, explain the mechanism – again taking the smoking example, what is causing the increased risk of lung cancer?). 3. One way is the wrong way Firstly, the way people perceive risk is very much linked to their ‘world view’ – or, ‘frame of reference’ (a complicated psychological equation determined by beliefs, experience and preconceptions). All the members of a group frequently share a particular frame of reference. The way a risk is communicated therefore needs to fit with that group’s frame of reference. What are their pre-conceptions? What factors will influence the credibility they give to the data? It’s important that messages around risk are tailored for each audience. Secondly, the communication of relative risk should be a two way (rather than a unidirectional) process. Involving the public in the formulation of communication surrounding –and even assessment of – a risk can massively increase the credibility of your argument. 4. Use a trustworthy source Equally, members of the public are becoming increasingly sophisticated consumers of research: they want to know how the research has been funded, and who stands to benefit. It is quite clear that one of the key barriers to overcome in the communication of relative risk is the ‘well, they would say that’ factor. This can be overcome by: - Getting third party endorsement from a credible source (consumer group, charity, university) Unfortunately, there is no ‘right answer’ when communicating with the public around complex risks. It’s important to remember that, no matter how good your communication, people will not necessarily be converted to your point of view. But, by using the four golden rules outlined above, those tasked with communicating difficult or complex messages can help increase audience understanding which, in turn, can help ensure that important information stands the best chance of getting through. Chris Woodcock is managing director of Razor, specialists in risk, issues and crisis management. Tel: 00 44 1869 353 800 or visit www.razor-pr.com
•Date: 25th Jan 2007• Region: UK/World •Type: Article •Topic: Crisis comms |
