Using Time Intervals Between Expected Events to Communicate Risk Magnitudes

Weinstein, Neil D.; Kolb, K H; Goldstein, Bernard D.

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00792.x

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These include risk ladders, pie charts, dots, and community risk scales (Hammitt, 1990;Gutteling and Wiegman, 1996;Sandman et al, 1994;Weinstein et al, 1996;Calman and Royston, 1997;Siegrist, 1997;Florig et al, 2001;Morgan et al, 2001). Verbal analogies, such as comparing a risk to its equivalent in time, distance, population, or games of chance, have also been used to present risk information (Weinstein et al, 1996). For example, Wilson and Crouch (2001) have characterized nearly two dozen specific actions or timing events that would result in a ''one-in-a-million'' risk (see Table 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this latter effort in particular (i.e., putting risk data into appropriate context), various approaches have been developed or recommended to help convey risk magnitudes, including the use of risk comparisons, risk rankings, verbal analogies, and a host of other visual aids (e.g., risk ladders, pie charts, dots, community scales) (Hammitt, 1990;Gutteling and Wiegman, 1996;Sandman et al, 1994;Weinstein et al, 1996; Calman and Royston, 1997; Siegrist, 1997;Florig et al, 2001. Although there has been some attempt to test or compare empirically these alternative risk communication methods, it remains unclear as to which approach is the most useful or appropriate under different circumstances (Roth et al, 1990;Slovic et al, 1990;Weinstein and Sandman, 1993;Freudenburg and Rursch, 1994;Sandman et al, 1994;Johnson, 2002Johnson, , 2003aJohnson, , 2004.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variety of fact sheets, handbooks, and other types of publications are also available that summarize the important aspects and pitfalls of health risk communication (Fessenden-Raden et al, 1987;Sandman, 1987;Covello et al, 1989;Hance et al, 1989Hance et al, , 1990Weinstein et al, 1989;Patton, 1993;Chess and Hance, 1994;Lundgren, 1994). According to these publications, some of the key principles for increasing the effectiveness of risk communication efforts include: (1) engage in a dialogue with the audience, (2) explain risk information, (3) simplify and personalize risk messages, (4) recognize the validity of public concerns, (5) address data uncertainty, and (6) put risk data into appropriate context.For this latter effort in particular (i.e., putting risk data into appropriate context), various approaches have been developed or recommended to help convey risk magnitudes, including the use of risk comparisons, risk rankings, verbal analogies, and a host of other visual aids (e.g., risk ladders, pie charts, dots, community scales) (Hammitt, 1990;Gutteling and Wiegman, 1996;Sandman et al, 1994;Weinstein et al, 1996; Calman and Royston, 1997; Siegrist, 1997;Florig et al, 2001. Although there has been some attempt to test or compare empirically these alternative risk communication methods, it remains unclear as to which approach is the most useful or appropriate under different circumstances (Roth et al, 1990;Slovic et al, 1990;Weinstein and Sandman, 1993;Freudenburg and Rursch, 1994;Sandman et al, 1994;Johnson, 2002Johnson, , 2003aJohnson, , 2004.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

Williams¹

2004

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to communicate effectively the degree or magnitude of public exposures or health risks is essential for risk assessors and risk managers. Various guidelines exist for communicating environmental and public health risks, including recommended approaches for putting risk data into proper context. Although it remains unclear as to which approach is the most useful or appropriate under different circumstances, risk comparisons are a popular choice for conveying the significance of or providing a better perspective on a particular chemical exposure or health risk. In this paper, several different types of risk comparisons are described that are frequently used in the private and public sectors, and these are illustrated using a variety of examples from the literature. These approaches include: (1) intrachemical comparisons, (2) interchemical comparisons, (3) comparisons to background levels of risk, (4) comparisons to theoretical risks or safety levels, and (5) comparisons to other actions or activities. The primary purpose of this paper is to summarize and briefly discuss the advantages and limitations of these risk communication approaches. The evolving field of risk communication is also discussed, including ongoing research on public risk perceptions and alternative methods for communicating risk magnitudes and data uncertainties. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology IntroductionThe ability to communicate effectively the degree or magnitude of public exposures or health risks is essential for risk assessors and risk managers (Williams, 2000). Risk communication is the process of conveying information about an exposure, risk, or risk management decision (NRC, 1989). More specifically, risk communication can be defined as ''any public or private communication that informs individuals about the existence, nature, severity, or acceptability of risks '' (Plough and Krimsky, 1987). Communicating risks often involves interpreting available scientific evidence, and describing and summarizing scientific knowledge about exposure and risk issues (NRC, 1989). Risk communication can also be used to influence public opinion or choice, or to arouse or alleviate public concerns about a risk issue (Kasperson et al., 1988;Sandman, 1993). The history of risk communication as applied to environmental and public health risks has not been fully documented, but has clearly evolved through several developmental stages over time (Fischhoff, 1995) and may have been influenced by the desire to gain acceptance for decisions grounded in risk assessment methods (Plough and Krimsky, 1987) or the organizational adaptation of chemical manufacturers to external pressures (Chess, 2001).Over the last 20 years, various guidelines have been published for communicating environmental and public health risks. For example, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has produced several risk communication reports and case studies as part of their mission to explain the public health hazards associated...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

Williams¹

2004

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A quantitative risk can be presented in various ways beyond just a bald statement of a risk number over time. Simply changing the characterization to how much time will lapse for each adverse effect will alter perception of the intensity of risk in a more understandable way (131). Risk can also be characterized as a change from background, rather than an absolute.…”

Section: Risk Characterizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in Risk Assessment and Communication

Goldstein

2005

Annu. Rev. Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Words risk characterization, exposure assessment, dose-response analysis, precautionary principle, environmental justice, long-term stewardship ■ Abstract Risk analysis continues to evolve. There is increasing depth and breadth to each component of the four-step risk-assessment paradigm of hazard identification, dose-response analysis, exposure assessment, and risk characterization. Basic conceptual approaches to understanding how people perceive risk are being tested against a growing body of empirical observations, many involving stakeholders. Emerging ideas such as the precautionary principle have provided challenges that have led to a rethinking of the role of risk assessment in environmental health. Newer problems, such as intergenerational issues posed by long-lasting radiation pollution, environmental justice, and the assessment and communication of risks related to terrorism, have spurred innovative approaches to risk analysis.

show abstract

“…Rather than saying that there is a 1 in 100 chance next year of damage from a severe hurricane, reframe the same probability by saying that the chance that one's property will be damaged from a hurricane in the next 25 years is greater than 1 in 5. Empirical studies have shown that data presented in this fashion leads individuals to take protective measures (Slovic, Fischhoff and Lichtenstein 1978;Weinstein, Kolb, and Goldstein 1996).…”

Section: Supplementing the Guiding Principles In Addressing These Chamentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral economics and insurance: Principles and solutions

Kunreuther¹,

Pauly²

2015

Research Handbook on the Economics of Insurance Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Established in 1984, the Wharton Risk Management and Decision ProcessesCenter develops and promotes effective corporate and public policies for low-probability events with potentially catastrophic consequences through the integration of risk assessment, and risk perception with risk management strategies. Natural disasters, technological hazards, and national and international security issues (e.g., terrorism risk insurance markets, protection of critical infrastructure, global security) are among the extreme events that are the focus of the Center's research.The Risk Center's neutrality allows it to undertake large-scale projects in conjunction with other researchers and organizations in the public and private sectors. Building on the disciplines of economics, decision sciences, finance, insurance, marketing and psychology, the Center supports and undertakes field and experimental studies of risk and uncertainty to better understand how individuals and organizations make choices under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Risk Center research also investigates the effectiveness of strategies such as risk communication, information sharing, incentive systems, insurance, regulation and public-private collaborations at a national and international scale. From these findings, the Wharton Risk Center's research team -over 50 faculty, fellows and doctoral students -is able to design new approaches to enable individuals and organizations to make better decisions regarding risk under various regulatory and market conditions. The Center is also concerned with training leading decision makers. It actively engages multiple viewpoints, including top-level representatives from industry, government, international organizations, interest groups and academics through its research and policy publications, and through sponsored seminars, roundtables and forums.More information is available at

show abstract

Using Time Intervals Between Expected Events to Communicate Risk Magnitudes

Cited by 18 publications

References 8 publications

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

Health risk communication using comparative risk analyses

Advances in Risk Assessment and Communication

Behavioral economics and insurance: Principles and solutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About