Abstract of Meeting Paper

The 1996 Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis-Europe

Evaluating Risk Communication at a Nuclear Plant: A Defence of the Psychometric Approach. Terence Lee

Independent samples were interviewed before and after visits to the Visitors Centre exhibition at the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing Plant.

Data from a verbal knowledge questionnaire and a pictorial recognition test were analysed by ANOVAS (which included attitude measures as co-variates). Results showed that knowledge of nuclear power increases significantly across all categories of visitor. The cognitive gains from individual exhibits were compared

Before/after changes in attitudes towards nuclear power were also measured using a 30-item Likert type scale. Results were factor analysed to reveal five sub-scales and these were interpreted as (i) Economic and technical; (ii) Health and safety; (iii) Emotional; (iv) Environmental; and (v) Passive acceptance. ANOVAS showed that positive (i.e. 'expected') changes were effected in the economic/technical aspects of nuclear power and in its environmental impact. However, health and safety attitudes changed negatively for women, although positively for men. The emotional attitude did not change for any grouping except younger visitors, who changed in a negative direction.

The psychometric approach to risk communication exemplified by this study has been criticised in an influential article by Otway & Wynne (Risk Analysis, 9, 141-145, 1989). For example, it was alleged that psychometric methods do not consider the social context of the communication; are 'top-down' and therefore 'manipulative'; and their practitioners are usually urging acceptance in siting disputes over hazardous facilities. The authors appear to argue that the resolution of such conflicts is what risk communication is for - and that the best way of researching it is by case study methods. This is a severely limited perspective of the field.

Arguments will be presented to rebut criticisms of the psychometric method and to urge risk communication researchers to connect with the extensive scientific literature on the processes of persuasive communication.