The Evolving Field of Risk Communication

Dominic H. P. Balog‐Way, Katherine A. McComas, John C. Besley

Risk Analysis · 2020 · 204 citations · 210 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

Risk communication, highlighted by the Society for Risk Analysis’s 40th anniversary, warrants a comprehensive review of its current state and future directions. The review aims to evaluate recent debates about the current state and future directions of risk communication. The authors conduct a literature review of prominent cognitive, cultural, and social risk communication scholarship published since 2010. The review concludes that defining a single generic version of risk communication is less productive than exploring its multiple forms, emphasizing trust, transparency, social media, message framing, evaluation, audience factors, and the need to nurture its interdisciplinary tradition.

Abstract

Abstract The 40th Anniversary of the Society for Risk Analysis presents an apt time to step back and review the field of risk communication. In this review, we first evaluate recent debates over the field's current state and future directions. Our takeaway is that efforts to settle on a single, generic version of what constitutes risk communication will be less productive than an open‐minded exploration of the multiple forms that comprise today's vibrant interdisciplinary field. We then review a selection of prominent cognitive, cultural, and social risk communication scholarship appearing in the published literature since 2010. Studies on trust in risk communication messengers continued to figure prominently, while new research directions emerged on the opportunities and critical challenges of enhancing transparency and using social media. Research on message attributes explored how conceptual insights particularly relating to framing, affective and emotional responses, and uncertainty might be operationalized to improve message effectiveness. Studies consistently demonstrated the importance of evaluation and how varying single attributes alone is unlikely to achieve desired results. Research on risk communication audiences advanced on risk perception and multiway engagement with notable interest in personal factors such as gender, race, age, and political orientation. We conclude by arguing that the field's interdisciplinary tradition should be further nurtured to drive the next evolutionary phase of risk communication research.

References

210