29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Evolving Field of Risk Communication

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The 40th Anniversary of the Society for Risk Analysis presents an apt time to step back and review the field of risk communication. In this review, we first evaluate recent debates over the field's current state and future directions. Our takeaway is that efforts to settle on a single, generic version of what constitutes risk communication will be less productive than an open‐minded exploration of the multiple forms that comprise today's vibrant interdisciplinary field. We then review a selection of prominent cognitive, cultural, and social risk communication scholarship appearing in the published literature since 2010. Studies on trust in risk communication messengers continued to figure prominently, while new research directions emerged on the opportunities and critical challenges of enhancing transparency and using social media. Research on message attributes explored how conceptual insights particularly relating to framing, affective and emotional responses, and uncertainty might be operationalized to improve message effectiveness. Studies consistently demonstrated the importance of evaluation and how varying single attributes alone is unlikely to achieve desired results. Research on risk communication audiences advanced on risk perception and multiway engagement with notable interest in personal factors such as gender, race, age, and political orientation. We conclude by arguing that the field's interdisciplinary tradition should be further nurtured to drive the next evolutionary phase of risk communication research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references298

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The spread of true and false news online

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality.

            Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Construal-level theory of psychological distance.

              People are capable of thinking about the future, the past, remote locations, another person's perspective, and counterfactual alternatives. Without denying the uniqueness of each process, it is proposed that they constitute different forms of traversing psychological distance. Psychological distance is egocentric: Its reference point is the self in the here and now, and the different ways in which an object might be removed from that point-in time, in space, in social distance, and in hypotheticality-constitute different distance dimensions. Transcending the self in the here and now entails mental construal, and the farther removed an object is from direct experience, the higher (more abstract) the level of construal of that object. Supporting this analysis, research shows (a) that the various distances are cognitively related to each other, (b) that they similarly influence and are influenced by level of mental construal, and (c) that they similarly affect prediction, preference, and action. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                db729@cornell.edu
                Journal
                Risk Anal
                Risk Anal
                10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924
                RISA
                Risk Analysis
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0272-4332
                1539-6924
                20 October 2020
                November 2020
                : 40
                : Suppl 1 , Special Anniversary Issue: Risk Analysis at 40: Progress and Promise ( doiID: 10.1111/risa.v40.S1 )
                : 2240-2262
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Communication Cornell University Ithaca NY USA
                [ 2 ] Department of Advertising and Public Relations Michigan State University East Lansing MI USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ]Address correspondence to Dominic Balog‐Way, Department of Communication, Cornell University, 460 Mann Library Building, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA; db729@ 123456cornell.edu .

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0581-640X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8778-4973
                Article
                RISA13615
                10.1111/risa.13615
                7756860
                33084114
                ef68e0ee-1fe5-4cfa-ae3a-cb9042e3b6e5
                © 2020 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 26 July 2020
                : 28 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 0, Pages: 23, Words: 17969
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Original Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                November 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.6 mode:remove_FC converted:23.12.2020

                interdisciplinary,literature review,risk communication,sra anniversary

                Comments

                Comment on this article