Communications to Reduce Risk Underestimation and Overestimation. Peter M. Sandman,* Neil D. Weinstein,** and William K. Hallman**
The purpose of the research reported here was to determine how best to explain risk magnitude, and thus improve the correlation between risk and response. Subjects were 1402 homeowners, who read one of three hypothetical news stories about radiation exposure: a low-outrage, high-risk story; a high-outrage, low-risk story; or a low-outrage, low-risk story. The story was followed by a personal radiation test result and various types of information, and then by a feedback questionnaire focusing on perceived threat and action intentions. There were four treatments: (1) A 'base risk' condition in which subjects were given only the result and an estimate of the associated lifetime cancer risk; (2) an 'alternate risk' condition in which subjects were provided the same information, but with a test result and risk estimate 10 times higher (for the low-outrage, high-risk story) or 10 times lower (for the high-outrage, low-risk story); (3) a 'compare to normal' condition, in which subjects were given the same test result as in the 'base risk' condition, but with a comparison to normal background levels provided instead of the risk magnitude information; and (4) a 'base risk + chart' condition, in which subjects received the risk information augmented with a risk ladder, risk comparisons, and a recommended action level. Both comparisons to normal background and the chart were much more effective than the 'base risk' condition in increasing threat perception and action intentions when the risk was high and decreasing them when the risk was low. Outrage substantially increased these responses, but did not diminish the ability of comparisons to background and risk charts to reduce them.*54 Gray Cliff Road, Newton Center, MA 02159
**Department of Human Ecology, Cook College, Rugers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08904
The research summarized here was sponsored by the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation and the Office of Radiation Programs, both of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This research is one portion of Part Two of Phase III of Coopertive Agreemnt CR-814506, entitled 'Communicating Effectively about Risk Magnitudes.' The complete report of Phase III, Part Two is available from Peter M. Sandman at the address above, as are reports on Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III, Part One.
Go to: