Nan

oM

ex’ 0

8 –

© B

eru

be 2

00

8

Nove

mb

er

5, 2

00

8 –

Mexic

o C

ity

Communication Risk to the Public - Seven Guides to Communicating Risk

David M. Berube

•Professor, Department of Communication

North Carolina State University

•CoordinatorNCSU Public

Communication of Science and Technology Project

•PI – NSF – NIRTIntuitive

Nanotoxicology and Public Engagement

- CEINT – Duke University

http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/pcost/index.html

COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLICAND THE MEDIA

Teaching risk communication for two decades in CRDM (Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media) doctoral program, NCSU.

Written extensively in the rhetoric of emerging technologies, esp. nanotechnology (including NanoHype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz. NY: Prometheus Books. 2006.

Author of the White Paper on Risk Communication for NNCO, NNI.

Consult in risk and crisis communication with trade organizations, marketing groups, and industries.

FUNDAMENTALS – 5 BIG LESSONS.

1. The public is non-rational. They are cognitive misers.

2. The public uses mental shortcuts called heuristics to make sense of the world around us.

3. Heuristics produce biases, such as probability neglect.

4. The public is blissfully ignorant in science and technology policy (often by choice).

5. Communicate with them only a. to foster trust through

transparency andb. when you need to.

1. Where are people getting their information?

2. Who are the stakeholders and what roles do they play?

3. Who needs to be engaged?4. What is happening in risk

communication research?

FOUR AREAS OF RESEARCH

1. NEW DATA ON NET-NEWSERS

1. Data indicates demographics favor net-newsers in the USA (Pew data).

2. Net resources amplify risk messages though they could also attenuate them.

3. Design web resources as digital media NOT as text.

4. Staying on course with the evolving media: Social networking services (SNS), Twitter (micro-blogging), sliver TV, Second Life….

TV and Internet News Consumption

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

18-24 25-29 30-34 35-49 50-64 65+

Age Range

% c

on

su

mp

tion

fro

m e

ach

med

ium

TV 1998

TV 2008

WWW 1998

WWW 2008

12

2. STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT EQUAL.

1. Public is generally disinterested (70%).

2. Public is overwhelmingly disinterested in science and technology policy (90%).

3. Prepare the public for a trigger event (contagion). Inoculate the public. Anchor a positive.

4. Engagement is not for everyone.5. Embrace the fact you will never

succeed totally.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Loss ofprivacy

Lead to armsrace

Loss of jobs Self-replicating

robots

May be usedby terrorists

New healthproblems

Morepollution

Res

pond

ents

(%)

UnawareAware

PERCEIVED RISKS OF NANO:AWARE VS. UNAWARE RESPONDENTS

HOW IMPORTANT IS AWARENESS?

Hart 2007

1. Audiences process frames through their own perceptual filters, i.e., audiences use religious beliefs, moral schema, etc.

2. Perceptions are just that – the role of opinion – attitude – perception – behavior.

3. Determine your audience (the 7-10 percent solution).

3. ENGAGE THE RIGHT AUDIENCES.

EliteAudiences

MassAudiences

Low HighMessage Exposure

Posi

tive

Out

com

es

SCIENCE TELEVISION

4. RISK COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

1. Popular culture is not affecting perception significantly. When enough is enough. Risk has a negative valence. Boomerang effects.

2. Central and peripheral routes (Petty & Cacioppo). Tell stories. Narratology is the game (link to affect heuristic).

3. The role of uncertainty in risk assessment and its effects on public communication.

4. Risk fatigue is real. Findings from health communication (Surrey project).

N

an

oM

ex’ 0

8 -

© B

eru

be 2

00

8

Nove

mb

er

5, 2

00

8 –

Mexic

o C

ity

COMMUNICATING RISK TO THE PUBLICAND THE MEDIA

This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, NSF 06-595, Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team (NIRT): Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement.

THANKSdmberube@ncsu.edu