A Successful Communications Strategy and Risk Comparison - Research Paper Example

Introduction Risk communication is an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion on risk among risk assessors, risk managers, and other interested parties (who.int). It is an important aspect for any organization to succeed in its objective especially when it is perceived by the public to be detrimental to their well being. JDJ pharmaceutical is also facing a similar situation as it is planning to setup a pesticide plant in the vicinity of a housing area. Its previous communications regarding the project were met with a lot of resentment from the public and had to be shelved. In this report we will analyze the various theoretical aspects of risk communication with regards to the various theories and models and then apply the learning to develop a risk communication strategy whereby we can establish our goals by educating the public on the risk aspects of the project and thereby eliciting support. How public perceives and acts in the face of risk People misinterpret risk represented quantitatively. One of the reasons for this could be because most people do not understand numbers very well. Communicating risk reduction in relative terms has higher impact on people’s perceptions as compared to communicating in absolute terms. For example, the statement ‘regular checkups reduce cancer by 50%’ has a bigger impact than a statement ‘regular checkups have helped save 5 in every 10 women from’. (Young 2008). Another important aspect of risk communication is that if risk is expressed in terms of likely losses than gains, then it will have a different effect on risk perception and behavior. This shows that expressing the results of a formal assessment numerically may not always be the best way of communicating to the lay public. One of the ways of overcoming this problem has been suggested to be the use of words. For example, as per the European Union (EU) legislation the risk associated with medicines should be represented in words rather than numbers (Maule 2008). However, there was difference in perceptions of people as compared to what the regulators wanted to communicate. Hence, when the risk said ‘very rare’, the regulators associated the risk to be less than 0.01%, whereas the research based on survey of people showed that they associated the risk to be 4% (Maule 2008). Another interpretation problem with words is that individuals perceive them differently. For example, “probable” was perceived by some to have 0.01% probability while others perceived it to have .99% probability (Maule 2008). Thus, it was very important to use number and words in perfect combination to represent the right thing. It is also imperative for the communicators to first test out the different modes of communication before sending out communication to the lay public. Another observation in this context has been the finding that most people find it easy to understand data represented in frequency format rather than conditional probabilities and single event representations. Thus, an important factor that impacts people’s response to a communication is the way the data is represented statistically. Graphical displays can also be used to communicate statistical data is a more understandable way. However, again the actual understanding depends on graphical complexity and degree of risk involved (Bostrom and Lofstedt 2003). As there are no clear cut solutions to overcome the problem of misinterpretation by people, a number of studies have been conducted on understanding how people actually form judgments. This is explained by what is called heuristic forms of thinking. An insight into this can lead us to understand the best way of communication. (Breakwell 2001) First type of thinking called representativeness heuristic is a form of thinking where people form judgments based on their prior similar experiences (Maule 2008). In this type of thinking, people tend to evaluate the risk associated with an unfamiliar situation in comparison to the risk associated with a previous familiar experience. The similarity of the situation is thought to lead to the probability of occurrence of the event and the base rate is completely ignored. This leads to misinterpretation of the facts and biased views. Second thinking style, called availability heuristic, depends on the ease with which people can recall an event of the past or imagine an event happening to determine its future likelihood of happening (McComas 2006). It follows a very logical explanation because an event that comes easily to mind has definitely occurred more frequently in the past and hence has the likelihood of occurring in the future as well. However, ease of retrievability of an event depends to a great extent on its impact on a person or the personal significance attached to it. This again is a source of distortion of facts based on personal biases. The third heuristic which affects people’s judgments is the ‘affects’ heuristic. People who use this heuristic base their judgments on the feeling a situation elicits in them. Research has shown that if a particular situation elicits positive effect then it is perceived as less risky than the one that elicits a negative effect. These are emotional reactions and occur automatically before a person can start thinking logically. These strongly impact behavior of a person which is very difficult to change because of the emotional angle attached to it. There are several other heuristics not discussed here (Morgan and Morgan 2002). Based on their studies of the heuristic thinking, researchers have divided the cognitive system into two parts – system 1 and system 2. System 1 tends to be more emotional and heuristic and not in the control of an individual whereas the system 2 is more deliberate and slower and is also under a person’s conscious control. Hence, the behavior of a person depends on which system he applies to make his/her decision. (Beck 2002). Most of the people use system 1 because many times data is not available or even if it is available the person doesn’t understand it or doesn’t want to make the effort to increase his understanding. Understanding the heuristics can help us design our communications effectively because of the following reasons: The way people process information impacts their judgments. An understanding of the heuristics can give us the tools to design our communications as per their thinking patterns. When communication is confusing, people tend to fall to their system 1 for judgment. Thus, it is important to communicate clearly. Stigmatization of an event can lead to people making judgments emotionally. In these situations they cannot see the statistical evidences and thus numerical communications tend to be ineffective in such cases. An understanding of heuristics can help communicators use a mixture of strategies as it is not easy to predict which heuristic will be used by the people to make judgments. Another important aspect of behavior of people in response to notions of risk is the impact of the “dread” and the “unknown”. Researchers have found that people associate the risks attached with these two factors as high, irrespective of scientific evidences showing otherwise. (Young 2008).This can be clearly seen from the fact that people associate the risk to health from smoking as much lower than that from a nuclear reactor. This is because smoking is seen to be under ones control and does not come under the domain of the unknown as compared to a nuclear reactor. This has an important implication for risk managers. This is because most risk managers focus on communicating about hazards which they perceive as being critical to public concern, however this prioritization may not be in line with what public perceives to be hazardous based on high dread and unknown factors. Thus, the public might perceive the organization to be unconcerned about their well being. This also shows that the public takes account of factors which are generally not included in the risk assessments (Bostrom Ann and Lofstedt 2003). Research by Slovic (1992) shows that there is no perfect definition of risk and the same definition can be interpreted in different ways to give different meaning to risk. Based on research, Funtowitcz and Ravetz have concluded that there is no objective state of risk and is determined by social perceptions and political debates. Powell and Leiss suggest that there are two languages of risk – “expert” language and “public” language (Maule 2008). All this research suggests that there is no one definition of risk and risk managers should take into account both scientific as well as layman’s definitions before communicating with the public. Ways of improving risk communication The first important step in deriving a good risk communication model is to understand the dimension of risk as perceived by the public. In our context we need to understand the pesticide manufacturing risk as perceived by the public. This also necessitates the understanding of the definition by the communications team. Thus, first surveys need to be conducted among the local residents to understand what level of risk do they associate with the pesticide plant. It is important to understand the category to which it belongs - example dreaded or unknown. Scientific models like the one used by Starr to identify the dimensions of risk perception can be used (Fischhoff 2008). This will also help in identifying the information that will be most critical for the people. Researchers today are considering Mental Models Approach (MMA) as an effective way of solving risk communication problems. This approach is based on constructing mental models of lay public and those of experts for a particular hazard and then identifying and closing the gaps between the two. Research suggests that for effective conflict management parties need to take into account not only their partner’s mental models but also the potential changes in them (Vari 2003). Mental models can be designed around dependencies of one variable on the other. It is depicted graphically by arrows pointing from one variable to the other. The variable near the head of the arrow depicts the independent variable and the one near the tail depicts the dependent variable. The process involves interviewing the stakeholders on general questions like exposure, effects etc. and then moving on to specific questions. This is one way of eliciting variables. Another way is to prompt responses from the individuals by showing them pictures related to the topics you want to touch upon. Once transcribed, these responses are then coded on to the expert model of risk, adding elements raised by lay respondents which might be errors or reflections of the lay expertise (Fischhoff 2008). Once this mapping is done, these erroneous beliefs can be analyzed and focused upon. Even those which are accurate can be noted. Structured approach can also be used to design the models. Similar structured or unstructured questionnaires can be used to form decision trees exactly the same way as the risk processes. Thus, risk decisions can also be made in the same way. Both types of questionnaires have their own advantages and disadvantages. For example, structured questionnaire might miss out some points that respondents have in mind but are not covered by the questionnaire. Once MMA has been used to identify gaps, they need to be bridged and then a decision needs to be made regarding the ones to be communicated. There should however be appropriate confidence level of these beliefs. Finally information needs to be formatted; communication evaluated and then sent out. However, this model has its own limitations and thus needs to be adapted when under uncertain circumstances by taking into account views public and other stake holders. This can be done by taking the following steps: Involving stake holders in risk communication as well as management: As per Fischhoff, this is an important step as participation of public through various forums and surveys helps reducing gaps in perceptions as well as public acceptance of the decisions taken at the later stage. It also helps build public trust in the communicator. The process should be a dialogue not a monologue from organization (Lundgren, and McMakin 2009). Building trust: It is important to build trust because as per Petty and Casioppo (1984), people tend to absorb information from trusted sources in such a way that it influences their perceptions especially in risk situations. In case the public does not trust a source of information, it is generally disregarded as unreliable and self-serving and seriously reduces the effectiveness of communication as per Frewer (Maule 2008). These studies show that trust is associated with perceptions of accuracy, knowledge and concern for the public while distrust with self-interest, bias and poor past performance and thus highlight the need for communicators to address the issues of trust before going for public communication about risk. This factor also has influence on system 1 thinking people which are more common in the real world than system 2 thinking people. As these people rely on peripheral cues rather than the complex facts as per Frewer et all, they tend to be highly influenced by such external perceptions like trust. One of the ways of circumventing this problem of system 1 thinking is to develop the system 2 thinking process in the public. But this would require series of communication focused around this process over sustained periods of time. (McComas 2006). Further research on trust has brought out some facts about the characteristics of trust. There are two types of communicator biases – knowledge bias and reporting bias. Knowledge bias is the trust of the receiver in the knowledge of the communicator. If the receiver feels that the communicator does not have sufficient knowledge on the subject then there will be no impact of the communication on the receiver. In the same way all communication will be ineffective if the receiver feels that the communicator is presenting a biased report for his/her own benefit (Frewer and Miles 2003). Thus, it is very important for the communicator to have a positive perception about self with regards to knowledge and reporting accuracy in the minds of the receivers. Risk comparison is another form risk communication which can distort facts. For example, both a table-spoonful of peanut butter and 50 years living by a nuclear power plant create a one-in-a-million risk of premature deaths (Fischhoff 2008). This can be avoided by encouraging participation of stake holders. Thus, in JDJ pharmaceuticals’ case similar strategy can be adopted. The residents can be asked to participate in the risk comparison program where they will be free to choose their own dimensions. This will elicit better confidence and understanding of the different aspects of the comparisons. For example comparing pesticide production to chemical production process or production of a medicine for cancer might all be associated with similar risk intensity. However, when this comparison is done with the participation of the residents around the pesticide plant and they have the liberty of choosing their own dimensions; it will help in seeing the difference in all the three hazards. Communication needs to be designed after considering all the above aspects. However, to create a successful communications strategy, experts in the following areas will be required (Fischhoff 2008): Subject matter specialists: These people will take care of the knowledge bias as discussed in the previous sections. A subject matter with good experience and proven academic track record will elicit trust in the people and help in engaging people to the communication program. Risk and decision analysts: These analysts will help in understanding the decisions that people face and what issues are critical to them. This will help in characterizing or identifying critical issues to focus on during the communication process. Behavioral scientists: These will analyze and characterize the existing beliefs and values of the people. They will then use empirical models to design communications. There job is very important as understanding the behavioral processes of people is vital to effectively communicating to them. They are also required to prepare proper measurement procedures to be able to see whether the people have been properly understood so as to decide upon their information needs and thereby design an effective communication plan. Communications practitioners: They will be responsible for effective as well as sustainable communication program. These are the main experts responsible for execution of the program. Thus, JDJ Pharmaceuticals needs to create a team of experts according to each area of activity as described above. Qualitative assessments also affect the perceptions. This is characterized by misinterpreting the event definition because the survey questions were never understood by the respondents. Conditions for observation need to be defined. For example the risk of getting infected by malaria would be characterized by the condition of the locality (in terms of its cleanliness), access to protective aids from mosquitoes, vicinity of vegetation around the locality etc. need to be taken into account. (McComas 2006). Thus if the respondents are not made aware of these details, there will be biased answers to the survey. Thus it is very important to design surveys with unambiguous and clear questions where the respondents do not have to guess about the questions and neither the experts have to guess about the answers. This is what JDJ needs to follow for their initial investigations and surveys about the local residents’ perceptions. Conclusion After having taken into account all the theories regarding risk communications, following strategy needs to be followed by JDJ: Understand the decisions that people face in the neighborhood of the factory. Describe the beliefs and values of the people in relation to the risk. Also understand their role in risk related choices. Develop and test the communications designed to bridge the gap between the people’s perceptions and the expert views. These designed should be empirically tested before being actually rolled out. To help achieve all this, the firm should rely on a team of experts comprising of subject matter specialists, risk and decision analysts, behavioral scientists and communication practitioners. All the above strategies should be backed by ample effort on building trust on the organization both on its knowledge aspect as well as the reporting accuracy aspect. References Beck, U 1992, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, SAGE, London. Bostrom, A and Lofstedt, RE 2003, Communication risk: Wireless and Hardwired, Risk Analysis, vol.23, no.2, pp.241-48. Breakwell, GM 2001, Mental Models and Social Representations of Hazards: The Significance of Identity Processes, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 4, no. 4, pp.341- 51 Fischhoff, B 2008, ‘Risk perception and communication’, In D. Kamien (ed.), McGraw-Hill Handbook of Terrorism and Counter-terrorism. McGraw-Hill, New York. Frewer, LJ and Miles, S 2003, Temporal stability of the psychological determinants of trust: Implications for communications about food risks Health, Risk & Society, vol.5, No.3, pp.259-71 Lundgren, RM and Mcmakin, AH 2009, Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks, 4th ed. Wiley-IEEE. Maule, JA 2008, ‘Risk Communication in Organizations’, In GP Hodgkinson, WH Starbuck, The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making, Oxford University Press. McComas, KA 2006, Defining moments in risk communication Research: 1996-2005. Journal of health communication, vol.11, p.75-91. Morgan, MG and Morgan, GM 2002, Risk communication: a mental models approach, Cambridge University Press. Slovic, P 1992, ‘Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm’, In: Krimsky,S. and Golding, D. (eds) Social Theories of Risk, Praeger, Westport. Stoltenberg, CD., Petty, RE and Cacioppo, TT 1986, Process of Social Elaboration: Likelihood model of Persuasion, Advances in Consumer research, vol.11: pp.668-72. Vari, A 2003, The Mental Models Approach to Risk Research – An RWP perspective, 2003, viewed on April 26, 2010. http://www.nea.fr/rwm/docs/2004/rwm-fsc2004-7-rev1.pdf who.int, Risk Communication, viewed on April 26, 2010. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/micro/riskcommunication/en/index.html Young, I 2008, Mental Models: Aligning Design Strategy with Human Behavior, Rosenfeld Media. Read More