Platitudes and Comparisons: A Critique of Current (Wrong) Directions in Risk Communication

Abstract

The current directions in risk communication research and practice have been staked out by Covello and Allen’s “seven cardinal rules”¹ and by Covello, Sandman and Slovic’s guide to the use of risk comparisons.² We argue that these directions lead to increased conflict over risk management rather than to effective risk communication. The “seven cardinal rules” are wrong because they are platitudes that assume an idealized state in which the public is as involved and concerned about the hazard as its managers are. The guide to the use of risk comparisons is wrong because it assumes that risk comparisons are as useful to the public as they are to hazard managers. These errors in plotting the path of risk communication result from the adoption of the hazard manager’s frame or way of defining the risk problem rather than the appropriate public frame. These two frames differ on three basic dimensions: (1) level of involvement, (2) degree of personal relevance, and (3) level of information processing ability. Hazard managers tend to be high on these dimensions, most members of the public low. Risk comparisons, therefore, are appropriate for communicating with hazard managers but not with the public. A map of alternative directions toward effective public risk communication is provided.