Upload
leishman-associates
View
322
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
When Facts Fail When Facts Fail --Risk perception, Communication Risk perception, Communication
and Radiationand Radiation
ARPS Conference, Adelaide, 18 October 2010ARPS Conference, Adelaide, 18 October 2010
Simon ClarkeCommunication Director
Key propositions
Radiation professionals need to be ready to communicate about the radiation risks they manage
Scientific facts alone will not always be enough to convince the audience
Emotional (affective) aspects of communication are essential
Psychology and risk
Why is cancer scarier than heart disease, (and radiation is the scariest carcinogen) yet heart disease is more likely to kill us.
Why does nuclear radiation scare people more than solar radiation?
Do you believe pesticides present a serious risk to public
health?
Do you believe people using mobile phones when driving
create a serious risk to public health?
So, how did you go?
Our brains are hard-wired to react to risko The amygdala reacts before the cortex thinkso i.e. fear overcomes reasono Fight, flee or freeze
We make decisions without all the facts
We take mental short-cuts
What are these mental shortcuts?
Framingo ‘Emissions reduction scheme’ or ‘a great big new tax’
o ‘No safe level of radiation’ (e.g. Medical Practitioners Against War)
The fallacy of the small sampleo ‘What one study shows must be true of everything’
Statistical patternso ‘You can’t throw 100 heads in a row’
Risk/benefit trade-offo We place more weight on risk
Risk perception factors
Trust matters; breach of trust matters more
o Process matters
Judgements about risk and benefit
o Benefit perceived, risk played down; and vice versa
Control and choice
o The more we have the safer we feel
Natural versus man-made risk
o We tolerate natural risk, sometimes wrongly
o E.g. many people fear radiation from uranium mines more than they fear radon beneath homes
Familiar or new?
o New risks will worry you more
Risk perception factors
Uncertainty
o The greater the uncertainty, the greater the fear, the stronger the risk feels
Catastrophic or chronic
o Chernobyl versus melanoma
Can it happen to me?
o The risk looks bigger if you think it can happen to you
Personification
o The closer the identification, the greater the perception of risk
Risks to children
o The biggest fear factor
‘Unequal distribution of risk is unfair’
Perceived relative risks ((FischoffFischoff
and and SlovicSlovic))
Perception is reality
Meltdown in credibility and trust
IAEA and risk communication
Inadequate communication increases risk of physical harm beyond actual radiological consequences
Poor communication after Chernobyl accident resulted in:
o Elements of panico Perception of inevitable catastrophic effects of
radiation
e.g. unwarranted increase in number of abortions
e.g. significant increase in depressive illness with consequential / associated physical illness
“All serious nuclear and radiological emergencies have resulted in the public
taking some actions that were inappropriate or unwarranted, and resulted in
significant adverse psychological and economic effects. These have been the
most severe consequences of many radiological emergencies. These effects
have occurred even at emergencies with few or no radiological
consequences and resulted primarily because the public was not provided
with understandable and consistent information from official sources.”
- from IAEA Manual for First Responders to a Radiological Emergency
Case study – Sydney dust storm 2009
Alarmist claims that uranium from OD tailings would harm people
o Likened to James Hardy asbestos
Various agencies analysed the dusto No measurable concentration of uraniumo Minute amounts of other radionuclideso Greatest risk from silicates
Absence of official communicationo Claims left unchallenged may cause uncertainty and
fear
Helping people make healthier choices
‘Mental models’ approach
1) Determine what the ‘experts’ think people need to know to reduce risk (expert mental model)
2) Ask a sample of the audience what they know, what they don’t know, and what they want to know (real world mental model)
A guide for the radiation debate
Individuals and societies do not always act rationally
Demonstrate trustworthy behaviour; use processes to build trust; avoid breaching trust
Share control and enhance choice
Frame messages that respect and account for how people hear and use them
Offer facts in emotionally relevant ways
Reflect audience perceptions, interests, concerns
When Facts Fail When Facts Fail --Risk perception, Communication Risk perception, Communication
and Radiationand Radiation
Simon ClarkeCommunication Director