Communicating Between the Public and Experts: Predictable Differences and Opportunities to Narrow Them

  • Michael R. GreenbergEmail author
  • Lauren C. Babcock-Dunning


Communications between experts and the public are often fraught with misunderstandings and approached with trepidation by both groups. This chapter aims to improve these communications by providing readers with a better understanding of who the “public” and “experts” are, the unavoidable differences between experts and the public that can lead to misunderstandings and friction, and suggestions for bridging the public–expert gap.


Risk Perception Risk Comparison Outrage Factor Crisis Communication Mental Noise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bond M (2009) Decision-making: Risk school. Nature 461:1189–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bureau of Land Use Management, California (2008) Public Meeting Image BL031113OR. Accessed 18 April 2010
  3. Burger J, Mayer HJ, Greenberg M, Powers C, Volz CD, Gochfeld M (2006) Conceptual site models as a tool in evaluating ecological health: The case of the department of energy’s amchitka island nuclear test site. J Toxicol Environ Health: Part A 69:1217–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conservation West (2009) State Budget Cuts Threaten Protections for Washington’s Environment, Accessed 7 August 2009
  5. Covello VT (1993) Risk communication and occupational medicine. J Occup Med 35:18–19Google Scholar
  6. Covello VT, Minamyer S, Kathy C (2007) Effective risk and crisis communication during water security emergencies-summary report of EPA sponsored message mapping workshops. EPA/600/R-07/027:US EPAGoogle Scholar
  7. Covello VT, Peters RG, Wojtecki JG, Hyde RC (2001) Risk communication, the west nile virus epidemic: Responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional and unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J. Urban Health: Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 78:382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Department of Energy (DOE) (1996) Sun Tracking Heliostats at Solar Two, Daggett, California Near Barstow. Accessed 20 May 2010
  9. Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of progress. Risk Anal 15:137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R (1996) What determines trust in information about food-related risks? underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal 16:473–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2007) Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 8:53–96Google Scholar
  12. Glik DC (2007) Risk communication for public health emergencies. Ann Rev Public Health 28:33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenberg M, Truelove H (2010) Right answers and right-wrong answers: Factors influencing knowledge of nuclear-related information. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 44:130–140Google Scholar
  14. Greenberg MR (2009a) How much do people who live near major nuclear facilities worry about those facilities? analysis of national and site-specific data. J Environl Plan Manag 52:19–937Google Scholar
  15. Greenberg MR (2009b) Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 37:3242–3249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenberg MR (2008) Environmental Policy Analysis & Practice. Rutgers University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg MR (2009c) NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Analysis 29:1242–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenberg MR, Schneider D (1996) Environmentally Devastated Neighborhoods: Perceptions, Policies, and Realities. Rutgers University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  19. Hyer RN, Covello VT (2005) Effective Media Communication during Public Health Emergencies. Geneva: World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  20. Jasanoff S (1993) Bridging the two cultures of risk Analysis. Risk Analysis 13:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keller C, Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Anal 26:631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lowrance WW (1976) Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. William Kaufmann Inc, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  24. Martin C (2009a) Public Health Image Library (PHIL) Image 11528. Accessed 20 May 2010
  25. Martin C (2009b) Public Health Image Library (PHIL) Image 11602. Accessed 20 May 2010
  26. Martin C (2009c) Public Health Image Library (PHIL) Image 11612. Accessed 20 May 2010
  27. Nagy J (2002) State Environmental Budgets Take $200M Hit. Accessed 7 August 2009
  28. NCI (2002) Making Health Communications Programs Work. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Anal 17:43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Purvis-Roberts KL, Werner CA, Frank I (2007) Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near semipalatinsk, kazakhstan: A comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Anal 27:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reynolds B, Seeger M (2005) Crisis and emergency risk communication: An integrative approach. J. Health Commun 10:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sandman PM (1989) Hazard versus outrage in the perception of risk. In: Covello VT (ed) Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Sandman PM (2006) Crisis communication best practices: Some quibbles and additions. J. of Applied Commum Res 34:257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sandman PM (2008) Simplification made Simple. Accessed 1 Nov 2008
  35. Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in switzerland. Risk Anal 26:971–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein, S (1985) Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates RW (ed) Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Westview, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  37. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19:689–701Google Scholar
  38. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D, Mertz CK, Neil N, Bartlett S (1995) Intuitive toxicology. II. expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal 15:661–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Still Picture Records Section, Special Media Archives Services Division (1979) President Jimmy Carter Leaving [Three Mile Island] for Middletown, Pennsylvania. Accessed 20 May 2010
  40. Wray R, Rivers J, Whitworth A, Jupka K, Clements B (2006) Public perceptions about trust in emergency risk communication: Qualitative research findings. International Journal Mass Emerg Disasters 24:45–75Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael R. Greenberg
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lauren C. Babcock-Dunning
    • 2
  1. 1.Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public PolicyConsortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Rutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA
  2. 2.Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public PolicyRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations