Insights into the reception and acceptance of risk messages: nuclear emergency communication

Perko, Tanja; Thijssen, Peter; Turcanu, C.; Gorp, Baldwin Van

doi:10.1080/13669877.2013.875933

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Outcomes from four studies were reported across multiple papers. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Therefore, while the total number of papers included was 41, the total number of studies included was 31. Twenty-four studies were undertaken with US or Canadian populations and 11 with European populations.…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 In contrast, public information campaigns can increase knowledge, 59,66 which may increase receptivity to future messages when a threat becomes more apparent. 27 Certainly, in the literature we have reviewed, perception of risk appears to be an important predictor of behaviour, influencing: acceptance of messages, 28 taking preparatory measures (fewer in those with high radiation risk perception), 36 selfevacuation 48 and information seeking. 60 Communicating with the public while perceptions of risk are low may result in messages being ignored.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…52 A series of studies demonstrated that acceptance of information during an incident was predicted by one's level of agent-specific knowledge, trust in the message source, 27,62 whether the disaster is assumed to have low potential to cause personal harm and being from a directly affected population. 28 Regarding information preferences of different subgroups, Bass 63 found low literacy (mostly ethnic minority) survey respondents fell into three categories based on their perceptions of information sources and anticipated adherence: those most likely to trust that information is accurate and to adhere to sheltering instructions despite believing that authorities are unlikely to provide them with the same level of support as they do others; those least likely to adhere or prepare out of distrust in authorities and their information and; those likely to adhere to sheltering instructions given by local, but not national sources.…”

Section: Perceived Credibility Of Information Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How to inform the public about protective actions in a nuclear or radiological incident: a systematic review

Gauntlett

Amlôt

Rubin

2019

The Lancet Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/objective How the public behave following a nuclear emergency will help to determine overall levels of morbidity and mortality. Pre-event education might help to shape behaviour, but how best to engage people with emergency communications for low likelihood, high impact events is unknown. We conducted a systematic review to identify factors which predict behaviour in preparation for a nuclear incident; factors which predict behaviour in the immediate aftermath of a nuclear incident; and preferences among members of the public for information designed to educate them about actions to take in the event of a nuclear incident. Method We searched multiple databases for relevant papers. Papers were included if: they included a sample of the general public, related to an actual or hypothetical radiation incident, explored factors associated with pre-or post-incident behaviour or preferences for information receipt; used self-report or objective outcome data; and were published in English. Results We included sixteen studies which reported factors associated with preparatory behaviour, 23 for factors associated with post-incident behaviour and 26 studies which examined information preferences. In general preparedness, behaviour was predicted by factors including perceived coping efficacy and having children amongst others, but a lack of preparedness was attributed to fatalistic attitudes. Importantly, for pre-incident communications to be accepted and recommendations adhered to, the source must be trusted and perceived to be credible, though it is notable that family needs, such as collecting children from school, are a stronger predictor of behaviour in a nuclear emergency than communicated directives from authorities. Conclusions If pre-incident education about nuclear incidents is to be used, a number of factors, including the source and method of communication, as well as the content and format of messaging, may increase public engagement with messages and promote the uptake of protective behaviours in a radiation event.

show abstract

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perceived Credibility Of Information Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to inform the public about protective actions in a nuclear or radiological incident: a systematic review

Gauntlett

Amlôt

Rubin

2019

The Lancet Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the main lessons learned in the two days long measurement campaign after a radiological emergency in Fleurus, Belgium (2008) was that more attention should be paid to communication in the waiting rooms (Perko et al, 2014). Waiting rooms proved to be a bottleneck of the emergency.…”

Section: How To Address Uncertainty In Waiting Roomsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance on communicating about uncertainties in nuclear emergency management

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the European project CONFIDENCE, an extensive research programme has been conducted on a range of different tools, including Apps, SMS, numerical, narrative or mixed news messages and videos linked to uncertainty communication following potential nuclear or radiological emergencies. For this purpose, qualitative and quantitative research methods were applied in different European countries. Based on the results of these studies, we have formulated guidelines for efficient and effective communication about uncertainties that can be used in nuclear or radiological emergencies.

show abstract

“…But there are several obstacles to a successful risk communication. These include: social and psychological factors that influence how people perceive risks (Douglas, 1982, Fischhoff, 1995, Perko et al, 2014b, Renn, 2003, Siegrist et al, 2000, Sjöberg, 2003, Slovic, 2010, distrust between public and communicators (Earle and Siegrist, 2006, Loefstedt and Six, 2008, Renn, 2003, Sjoberg, 2001, Slovic, 2010, Trumbo and McComas, 2003, Viklund, 2003, uncertainties and knowledge gaps in risk assessment and news media (Chauvin et al, 2008, Chryssochoidis et al, 2009, Covello and Sandman, 2001, Poumadere, 1995.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How did media present the radiation risks after the Fukushima accident: a content analysis of newspapers in Europe

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any activity that might result in exposure of a population to contaminants requires communication of the associated risks. This communication is complicated by several factors including public perceptions, distrust, uncertainties in risk assessment and news media. These factors are especially prominent in communication of risks from ionizing radiation. A number of guidelines about the communication of risks related to radiation exposures have been made by national and international authorities and other stakeholders. The present paper investigates whether those guidelines were followed and evaluates how the radiation risk related information was presented in European newspapers and Russia in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident. It examines the use of measurement units and risk comparisons, the quality of the statements on radiation risk related issues and the use of visual materials in 1340 newspaper articles from Belgium, Italy, Norway, Russia, Slovenia and Spain. Our results indicated several misinterpretations and misrepresentations of radiological risks in the newspaper articles. We also show an inconsistency in the information that was reported with advice provided to risk communicators (e.g. authorities and experts) in the guidelines. The results suggest that risk communicators should improve their communication practices regarding radiological risks, in order to improve emergency management response.

show abstract

Insights into the reception and acceptance of risk messages: nuclear emergency communication

Cited by 20 publications

References 36 publications

How to inform the public about protective actions in a nuclear or radiological incident: a systematic review

How to inform the public about protective actions in a nuclear or radiological incident: a systematic review

Guidance on communicating about uncertainties in nuclear emergency management

How did media present the radiation risks after the Fukushima accident: a content analysis of newspapers in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About