On the state of the art: risk communication to the public

Bier, Vicki M.

doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(00)00090-9

Cited by 187 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies of risk perception and self-professed risk behaviour i have repeatedly shown that personal risks are generally perceived to be less dangerous than risks to society or the general public (Frewer, et al, 1994;Sjöberg, 2000a); that the layman's evaluation of risk differs from the expert's (e.g. Bier, 1999;Slovic, et al, 1991); and that risk perception differs between people of different ages, education, place of residence, and political orientation (Dekker, et al, 1997;Dietz, et al, 1998;Dunlap and Jones, 2002;Rhodes & Pirik, 2011). It has also been shown that people of different ethnicities, and men and women, vary in risk perception Flynn, et al, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability, values and heterogeneity: one step further to understand risk perception and behaviour

Olofsson

Öhman

2014

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim is to investigate differences in risk perception and behaviour among different population groups selected by gender, age, country of birth, disability, and sexual orientation in the light of general values and vulnerability. The analyses use data from two Swedish national surveys from 2005 and 2008. People with foreign background perceive controlled and dread risks as a greater threat than do native-born people, but there is no difference in behaviour when general values and vulnerability have been controlled for. Compared to women, men rate known and dread risks as lower, but controlled risks as higher. Further, men's behaviour is more risk oriented and less risk-reducing, and homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to report risk behaviour. Compared to previous studies of the so called White Male Effect done in the United States, gender does not play a similar role in Sweden. On the contrary, it seems as if gender is of less importance and that the strength of the association varies depending on type of risk or risk behavior.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vulnerability, values and heterogeneity: one step further to understand risk perception and behaviour

Olofsson

Öhman

2014

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bier (2001b), in her compilation of research on communication to the public, says that much research has been carried out on the format of the risk communication message (e.g. if verbal or numerical formats are preferred and what results various command approaches yield, e.g.…”

Section: Communication To Decision Makersmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can the usefulness of capability assessments be improved?

Lindbom¹,

Tehler²,

Frykmer³

et al. 2015

Safety and Reliability of Complex Engineered Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, translating these terms into every-day language is problematic. A meta-analysis has shown that words such as 'rare', 'unlikely', 'frequent' and 'probable' mean different things to different individuals (34) (35) . However, these comparisons do not take into account the complexity of decision making for an individual.…”

Section: Effective Translation Of Scientific Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Session 5: Nutrition communication The challenge of effective food risk communication

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A chronology of food scares combined with a rapid, unchecked, rise in lifestyle-related diseases such as obesity highlights the need for a focus on effective food risk communication. However, food risk communication is highly complex. Many factors will affect its success, including the demeanour and conduct of the source, its transparency, interaction with the public, acknowledgement of risks and timely disclosure. How the message is developed is also important in terms of language, style and pretesting with target audiences, as is the choice of appropriate channels for reaching target audiences. Finally, there are many personal factors that may affect risk perception such as previous experience, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, personality, psychological factors and socio-demographic factors, many of which remain unexplored. While there is evidence that campaigns that communicate health risk have been associated with behaviour change in relation to major public health and safety issues in the past, it is unknown at this stage whether targeting risk information based on risk-perception segmentation can increase the effectiveness of the messages.

show abstract

On the state of the art: risk communication to the public

Cited by 187 publications

References 74 publications

Vulnerability, values and heterogeneity: one step further to understand risk perception and behaviour

Vulnerability, values and heterogeneity: one step further to understand risk perception and behaviour

How can the usefulness of capability assessments be improved?

Session 5: Nutrition communication The challenge of effective food risk communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About