Risk communication

  • R. Shepherd
  • L. J. Frewer


One of the major issues arising in risk management is the communication between different parties involved. This often comes down to the problem of communication between the scientists, experts and regulators on the one hand and the public on the other. This is not always a straightforward procedure and this chapter will include some consideration of the research which has tried to address the problems in this area.


Risk Perception Risk Communication Risk Information Source Credibility Optimistic Bias 
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. Alhakami, A.S. and Slovic, P. (1994) A psychological study of attitudes. Risk Analysis, 14 (6), 1085–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruhn, C.M., Schutz, H.G. and Sommer, R. (1986) Attitude change toward food irradiation among conventional and alternative consumers. Food Technology, 40 (1), 86–91.Google Scholar
  3. Chess, C., Saville, A., Tamuz, M. and Greenburg, M. (1992) The organizational links between risk communication and risk management: the case of Sybron chemicals Inc. Risk Analysis, 12 (3), 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Covello, V.T., von Winterfeldt, D. and Slovic, P. (1986) Risk communication: a review of the literature. Risk Abstracts, 3, 171–182.Google Scholar
  5. Crouch, E.A.C. and Wilson, R. (1982) Risk/Benefit Analysis, Balinger, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Dake, K. (1991) Orientating dispositions in the perception of risk: an analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 22 (1), 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunlap, R.E. and Beus, C.E. (1992) Understanding public concerns about pesticides: an empirical examination. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fessenden-Raden, J., Fitchen, J.M. and Heath, J.S. (1987) Providing risk information in communities: factors influencing what is heard and accepted. Science, Technology and Human Values, 12, 94–101.Google Scholar
  9. Fischhoff, B. (1985) Environmental reporting: what to ask the experts. The Journalist, Winter, 11–15.Google Scholar
  10. Fischhoff, B., Bostrum, A. and Quadrel, M.J. (1993) Risk perception and communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 14, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flynn, J., Slovic, P. and Mertz, C.K. (1993) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13 (6), 643–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frewer, L.J. and Shepherd, R. (1994) Attributing information to different sources: effects on the perceived qualities of the information, on the perceived relevance of the information, and on attitude formation. Public Understanding of Science, 3 (4), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frewer, L.J., Raats, M.M. and Shepherd, R. (1993/4) Modelling the media: the transmission of risk information in the British press. Institute of Mathematics and its Applications to Technology and Industry, 5, 235–247.Google Scholar
  14. Frewer, L.J., Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. (1994) The interrelationship between perceived knowledge, control and risk associated with a range of food related hazards targeted at the self, other people and society. Journal of Food Safety, 14, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jasanoff, S. (1993) Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 13 (2), 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kasperson, R.E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., et al. (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8 (2), 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kraus, N., Malmfors, T. and Slovic, P. (1992) Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgements of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12 (2), 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. et al. (1978) Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGuire, W.J. (1985) Attitudes and attitude change. In: Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd edn, Vol. 2, pp. 233–346. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  20. National Research Council (1989) Improving Risk Communication. National Research Council, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  21. Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenberg, J. (1978) A question of ethics: the DNA controversy. American Educator, 2, 27–30.Google Scholar
  23. Ruckelshaus, W.D. (1985) Risk, science, and democracy. Issues in Science and Technology, 1 (3), 19–38.Google Scholar
  24. Sharlin, H.I. (1986) EDB: a case study in communicating risk. Risk Analysis, 6, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharlin, H.I. (1987) Macro-risks, microrisks and the media: the EDB case. In: Johnson, B.B. and Covello, V.T. (eds) The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 183–198.Google Scholar
  26. Slovic, P. (1986) Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 6 (4), 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Slovic, P. (1987) Perception of risk. Science, 230, 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. (1982) Facts versus fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 463–489.Google Scholar
  29. Slovic, P., Kraus, N. and Covello, V. (1990) What should we know about making risk comparisons? Risk Analysis, 10, 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, M.E., van Ravenswaay, E.O. and Thompson, S.R. (1988) Sales loss determination in food contamination incidents: an application to milk bans in Hawaii. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70, 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stamm, K. and Dube, P. (1994) The relationship of attitudinal components to risk in the media. Communication Research, 21, 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In: Hogarth, R.M. and Reder, M.W. (eds) Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology, pp. 67–94. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  34. Van Ravenswaay, E.O. and Hoehn, J.P. (1991) The impact of health risk information on food demand: a case study of Alar and apples. In: Caswell, J. A. (ed.) Economics of Food Safety. Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, pp. 155–174.Google Scholar
  35. Weterings, R.A.P.M. and Van Eijndhoven, J.C.M. (1989) Informing the public about uncertain risks. Risk Analysis, 9 (4), 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wiegman, O., Gutteling, J.M., Boer, H. and Houwen, R.J. (19) Newspaper coverage of hazards and the reactions of readers. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 844–852.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Shepherd
  • L. J. Frewer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations