Challenges in Risk Communication: Factors of Risk Perception

One of the biggest challenges in risk communication is the single-study syndrome. This is where some reporters, NGOs and the media in particular, cherry pick, meaning that they select one piece of literature to publish, but ignore other results or viewpoints. The answer according to Steven Pinker is to stop reporting single studies, no matter how appealing they may be.

Instead we should report literature reviews and meta-analyses.³⁶ Yet it is difficult for journalists to accurately show all of the data, as they do not necessarily understand it all. Therefore, institutes such as the Science Media Centre in London and Cologne can offer a lot of support.

The relation between perception and fact is often problematic. If you compare the risk between catching a flight that ends in fatality to driving a car, the catastrophic potential is considerably different (Figure 10). For example, there are a large number of fatalities or injuries in every flight crash, opposed to only a small number of people in a car. And what about controllability?

You have no control on an aeroplane. Therefore, there is little to no personal control over the risk. There is some – and maybe you think there is a lot – of personal control over risk when driving a car. And what about media attention? There is a lot of media attention surrounding aeroplane crashes, but no or little media attention regarding car accidents. The figures from 2018 say there were 523 air traffic fatalities worldwide, in comparison to 25,100 road accident fatalities in the European Union alone. This suggests that it is not as dangerous to catch an aeroplane as people think.

There are several reasons for the overestimation of risks. For exam-ple, when you are on an aeroplane, there is no freedom of choice. Therefore, you may perceive it as being very high risk. There are lots of challenges in risk communication, as well as different factors of risk perception. We have already considered controllability, the severity of an event and the risk- benefit relationship. Is there any benefit to all this? People still typically underestimate risks. There are also other factors including who provides the information about a risk, how trustworthy the person or institution providing the information is. Then the risk is perceived in a different way. What about your personal concern surrounding the risk? If there are headlines about risks regarding children and you do not have children yourself, there is no personal connection.

36 Pinker, S. [@sapinker]. (2014, August 1). Lesson for sci journalists: Stop reporting single studies, no matter how sexy (these are probably false). Report lit reviews, meta-analyses [Tweet]. Retrie-ved 20 November, 2020 from https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/495077560787927040

___________________________

Problematic relation between perception of risks versus facts in air and motor traffic lead-ing to an over- and underestimation of actual risks. Influential factors are characteristics such as the catastrophic potential, controllability or media attention.³⁷

Keeping an eye on perceived risks means that risk perception is always situated in a cultural and societal context. Disparities between experts and laypersons cannot be resolved by the provision of information alone.

Most people believe that natural substances are safer than synthetic ones. This is merely a perception. Natural is often viewed as being synony- mous with safe. Yet, the reality is that nature produces a lot of different poisons. For example, mouldy food is the easiest way to develop liver cancer.

The myth of nature being benign means that interventions in nature and

37 International Air Transport Association (IATA). (2019). Safety Fact Sheet. Retrieved 20 November, 2020 from https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/pressroom/fact-sheets/fact-sheet---safety/;

European Commission (2019). Road Safety. Press release 04/2019. Retrieved 20 November, 2020 from https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2019-04-04-road-safety-data_en

control over risk Some personal control over risk

road accident fatalities in the European Union

health risks stemming from deviations of the natural are both perceived as very problematic. Therefore, people typically overestimate the risk of cancer due to pesticides. In comparison, they underestimate the risk of cancer from natural substances, as most people believe that natural chemicals are safer than their synthetic counterpart.

We completed a representative population survey on comparative risk estimation. Maybe you remember the EHEC outbreak here in Germany in 2011, a crisis that lead to 53 deaths and left nearly 4,000 people extremely ill. Yet within the same year, dioxin gained major media attention despite there being no health-related issue. The question is, how would you estimate your own personal risk of damage to your health when you compare these two incidents? Out of all of the people asked, 40 % told us that both risks are equally as high, and the rest told us that there is slightly or much more risk with dioxin. To clarify, dioxin is a chemical substance, and EHEC is a bacterium.

Therefore, it may well be a consequence of intuitive toxicology, because if you have bacteria in your body, you do not necessarily feel unwell.

Regarding underestimation, lifestyle risks in particular are underes-timated. There is, for example, freedom of choice. You can eat whatever you want to, therefore the risks are not so daunting. Maybe you are gaining weight, but there does not appear to be an imminent risk. Maybe there even seems to be more benefits than risks. Maybe you are passionate about food, or you enjoy smoking. You think you have the risks under control.

Similarly, the risk of driving a car seems to be a higher risk when thinking about others, but not for yourself. In the cases of UV light and obesity, possible conse quences on your health seem to be in the distance. As you grow older, you will encounter these problems, but not in the present.

Based on the 2010 Eurobarometer report, the majority of people in Europe associate food and eating with pleasure.³⁸ Yet when you are talking to a natural scientist, they will tell you about mercury, sulphate, and acryl-amide among other things. Therefore, people are sometimes afraid of what is really in their food. In a representative survey from February this year, we asked people ‘Do you believe that the quality and safety of our food tends to increase, decrease, or stay the same?’ Figure 11 shows that 42 % of the participants believed that the safety as well as the quality of food tends to decrease. 40 % believed that it stays the same and only 16 % believed that it tends to increase.

38 Special Eurobarometer Report (EFSA). (2010). Food-related risks. Retrieved 20 November, 2020 from https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/reporten.pdf

___________________________

Representative consumer survey (n = 1.011) on the quality and safety of food asking,

‘Do you believe that the quality of food tends to increase, decrease or stay the same?’

Please note that 42 % of the respondents believe that the quality and safety of foods tend to decrease.³⁹

To what extent are you personally concerned or not concerned about the following food safety topics? If we ask these questions, especially from the angle of a natural scientist, the things that you have to be afraid of include food hygiene at home or Campylobacter and Listeria. Surprisingly, people are not too concerned about this. But again, from the angle of a natural scientist, residues from plant protection products such as glyphosate and also genetically modified foods, are not very dangerous, yet people are afraid of them.

People are afraid of chemical substances but not of other things. So, is analy-tical sensitivity boon or bane?

It is very difficult to tell people, especially journalists, that just because you can measure things, that does not necessarily mean that it is danger-ous for you, as exposure and concentration must be taken into account.

If you ask people, ‘To your knowledge, are pesticide residues generally allowed in food in Germany?’, 66 % think that these pesticide residues are generally

39 Figure 11. Consumer survey on change in food quality. Adapted from Consumer Monitoring 02/2019, by The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), 2019, Retrieved 20 Novem-ber, 2020 from https://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/364/bfr-consumer-monitor-02-2019.pdf. Copyright 2019 by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR).

FIGURE 11 Change in food quality (2019)

Basis: 1,011; Figures given as percentages (compared to 08/2018: percentage points)

not allowed in food.⁴⁰ Yet in reality, very small amounts are allowed, but peo-ple are afraid of the topic.