model for analyzing
A socio-psychological model for analyzing
risk communication processes
In this conceptual article, a theoretical framework for the socio-psychological process underlying risk information, communication and education efforts is outlined. The model identifies a set of message features (e.g., content clarity and acceptance), person characteristics (e.g., prior experience, cognitive biases, attitudes), social influences (e.g. , peers, media) and context factors (e.g., societal safety culture) which determine whether, and if so, how a particular risk communication regarding a hazard (i.e., a health & safety threat) influences individual risk assessment and management (i.e., risk appraisal, decision for preventive action and actual risk behavior and disaster preparedness). Three overlapping processes need to be considered and linked: how people deal with hazards, how risk information is processed and evaluated, and how accepted information affects risk perception, evaluation and behavior. As interactive risk communication is far more likely to be effective, two-way communication pathways are looked at as well.
A comprehensive model of the risk communication process is indispensable for several reasons: It may be utilized as a heuristic for designing respective programs, for measuring and assessing campaign outcomes, and for identifying barriers to risk awareness and attitude or behavior change. The presented framework can be elaborated and specified with regard to the problem type, the target audience, and the relevant attitudes and behaviors to be dealt with. It has proven useful in several studies about technological hazards as well as natural disasters. Further applications to different kinds of hazards and a variety of risk communication techniques would be worthwhile in order to explicate the soundness of the suggested socio-psychological approach to analyzing risk communication.
A socio-psychological model for analyzing
risk communication processes
1.1 - Tasks, types, means, situations
Communicating about hazards and the involved risks for humans and their assets is a commonplace activity which occurs in a multitude of 'arenas', ranging from systematic campaigns planned by authorities to informal exchanges in occupational or private contexts. The notion of risk communication (RC) refers to a social process by which people become informed about hazards, are influenced towards behavioral change and can participate in decision-making about risk issues. Usually this happens in a context where risk awareness and preparedness are to increased; however, sometimes the aim is to reduce concern about risks. For a systematic treatise of this very active field of research and application see, e.g., Bennet & Kalman 1999, Covello et al. 1989, Hance et al. 1990, Kasperson & Stallen 1990, Lundgren & McMakin 1998, NRC 1990, Renn 1992, Sadar & Shull 1999, The Royal Society 1992; for overviews cf. Fischhoff 1995, Fischhoff et al. 1997, Leiss 1996, Morgan et al. 1992, Plough & Krimsky 1987, Renn 1998, Rohrmann 1995(a).
Main types of RC are listed in Table 1. The aims of RC involve information, communication, education and management tasks. Many different means and procedures are used, depending on the demands of the RC situation.
1.2 - Actors and audiences
Risk communication processes involve a variety of 'actors' which may be senders, audience, or both. In addition to various risk-exposed people (employees, residents, consumers) and public authorities, further actors in the RC 'arena' are to be considered (cf. bottom of table 1), such as industry, scientific institutions, and various types of media; this alone makes RC a complex process.
Informing and communicating about risks is more likely to succeed when treated as a two-way process, when participants are seen as legitimate partners, and when people's attitudes and 'worldviews' regarding environment and technology are respected. This is particularly true in the case of risk controversies. Acceptance of risks is not an information/ education issue, it results from a societal discourse (Cvetkovich & Lofstedt 1999, Susskind & Field 1996, Wiedemann & Schuetz 2000).
Table 1: Components of the Risk Communication Process
Primary types of risk communication aims
Communication means & channels
| Situations/'arenas' in which RC occurs
| Target audiences and actors
2.1 - A structural model of the risk communication process
To design and to evaluate hazard information, risk communication and safety education programs both are demanding tasks. Practical experience may not be sufficient to ensure satisfactory results. Rather, a comprehensive theoretical framework is needed to guide risk communication efforts.
In spite of the immense literature on RC, systematic modelling of the RC process is relatively rare (cf., e.g., Earle et al. 1990, Renn 1992, Rohrmann 1992, Silverstein 1986, Powell & Leiss 1998, Zimmermann 1987) and often restricted in scope - comprehensive approaches are scarce. However, there are helpful conceptualizations in related areas such as subjective hazard evaluation (e.g., Mileti & Fitzpatrick 1991, Renn et al. 1992, Rohrmann 1994); risk-taking behavior (e.g., Trimpop 1994, Wilde 1988, Yates 1992); coping with disasters (e.g., Mulilis & Duval 1995; Paton & Long 1996, Taylor 1991); health precaution behavior (e.g., DeJoy 1996, Rogers & Prentice-Dunn 1997, Weinstein 1988, 1993); risk policy and management (e.g., Salter 1998, Slovic 1997, Vertinsky & Wehrung 1991).
The need for a sound framework becomes especially evident when RC outcomes are to be assessed (Rohrmann 1998). Thus concepts and findings from relevant research fields (social psychology, risk research, verbal communication) were integrated to develop a model of risk communication (Rohrmann 1992, 1995a, 1998).
Building a model involves two steps:
This is realized at an individual rather than collective (community) level of activities. The structural model identifies the main components of risk communication processes and specifies the factors which determine the results of risk communication efforts, referring to characteristics of the distributed messages, the conveying authority, the receiving audiences and the context in which the communication process occurs. Actually three processes overlap and need to be linked: how people deal with hazards, how risk information is processed and evaluated, and how accepted information effects risk perception, evaluation and behavior. In table 2, the 18 variable sets distinguished in the framework are listed and briefly described.
Table 2: Main components of the risk communication process
||HAZARD||The hazard (situation, event or substance) to which the people targeted in a RC process are or might be exposed to (i.e., a threat to health and safety)|
||RISK APPRAISAL (OR RE-APPRAISAL)||Awareness of hazard and acknowledgement of personal exposure; risk perception and evaluation (assumed probability, duration, severity, proximity, immediacy etc of impacts)|
||DECISION FOR PREVENTIVE ACTION||Choice between: risk-reducing behavior, new information search, no action (based on retention of received info)|
||RISK-REDUCING BEHAVIOR||Avoiding exposure or getting prepared for impacts (individual behavior and/or participating in group/community programs)|
||RISK COMMUNICATION MESSAGE - CONTENT||Message characteristics: argument strength, relevance, accuracy, clarity, etc.; focus: knowledge/attitude/behavior-focussed|
||CONTEXT OF RC||RC Source: type of institution, expert status, credibility; features of information distribution; social process of RC; "channel" characteristics (eg, brochures, TV/radio, print media, videos, www, "hotlines", personal presentations); constraints of the acting agency; also, interference with other information sources|
||CONFIRMATION EFFORTS||If information received and noticed: attempts to cross-check & validate the RC content (via same or more likely other sources), dependent on individual information needs|
||APPROVAL OF HAZARD MESSAGE||Personal acceptance of the message regarding the nature of the hazard and the involved risk for oneself|
||JUDGING EXPECTED UTILITY OF PROPOSED ACTION||Assumed effectiveness of the proposed measure to mitigate the risk (based on perceived difficulty, feasibility, costs and availability of alternative means of protection)|
||COMMUNITY / SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT||J1: attitudes and behaviors of familiy members, friends, colleagues
J2: social influence or pressure within one's social/cultural/political context
||PERSON: CONDITIONS OF EXPOSURE||Actual exposure (intensity/frequency); reasons for exposure (e.g., voluntary/non-voluntary or occupational/private); personal experience with hazard; vulnerability (person and/or assets)|
||PERSON: RISK-SPECIFIC BELIEFS||Mental model of hazard; personal relevance of risk issue; belief in controllability; optimism bias; perceived benefits of risk source; risk propensity/aversion|
||PERSON: GENERAL INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS||Age, sex, education, health, etc.; cognitive abilities; interests; resources (time, money)|
||PRIOR BELIEFS REGARDING MEASURES||Knowledge and acceptance of risk mitigation measures (cf. <I>) held by the RC addressees before the current RC process|
||PRIOR RISK PERCEPTION||Existing hazard perception and risk appraisal (cf. <B>) before current RC process|
||RISK/SAFETY 'CULTURE' OF SOCIETY||General views held in society about the significance of risks and relevance of individual health & safety|
||INSTITUTIONS FOR RISK/SAFETY/HEALTH MANAGEMENT||Public authorities and/or companies responsible for the health & safety of people (residents, employees, consumers etc) and therefore dealing with risk management|
Several conceptual distinctions are important:
The full model is presented as a graph in Fig. 1.
The proposed causal links between the variables are indicated on a global level only, that is, for sets of related aspects of the risk communication process. (Note that 'feedback loops' are assumed as well but not fully outlined here).
Figure 1: Risk Communication - Process Framework
In short, the model expresses that the final outcome variable, risk-reducing behavior <D> regarding a hazard <A>, is determined not just by the communicated messages of the information/education program <E> but the result of a complex evaluation process <B-C and G-H-I>, including prior attitudes <N, O>, and influenced by personal characteristics <K, L, M> and manifold context factors, e.g., attributes of the information source and channel features <F> utilized by the respective authority/agency <Y> as well as family/peers/friends and the community one belongs to <J>; the whole process is embedded into a culture's health and safety orientation <X>. As the feedback-loops in fig. 1 indicate, risk-reducing behavior <D> is intended to mitigate the impacts of the hazard <A>; moreover, often people will link their activitities to their social network <J> or approach relevant authorities <Y>.
This risk communication model can be elaborated and/or made specific to the problem type, the target audience, and the relevant attitudes and behaviors to be dealt with. Such a framework is essential for designing evaluations and developing pertinent instruments, as well as recognizing reasons for lack of success with risk communication campaigns.
The outlined framework has been utilized in several studies on risk communication about both technological hazards and natural disasters (Rohrmann 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000).
2.2 - Risk communication as an interactive course of action
Even though this text focuses mostly on the information-behavior chain, successful RC most likely needs to be treated as an interactive process (Leiss 1996, Renn 1992, Slovic 1996, Wiedemann & Schuetz 2000). Consequently, accessibility of institutions, feedback opportunities and interactive procedures are very important.
RC can include a whole variety of interactive procedures, depending on the nature of the social 'arena' in which it takes place and the activities persued by the addressees of RC programs; cf. the examples in table 3. In fact citizens may even initiate a RC process, for example, when they alert authorities about hazards they recognize in their environment and request information or risk mitigation measures.
Table 3: Interactive risk communication processes
Some RC situations/arenas entailing two-way communication:
Actions of RC addressees that instigate interactive processes
2.3 - Identifying barriers to effective risk communication
The risk communication process model can also be utilized to identify communication problems and obstacles to achieving the aims of a RC campaign. In fact missions such as enhancing workplace safety, reducing risky driving or improving fire preparedness and so on face many barriers. It is instructive to look at the essential steps of the persuasion and attitude change process, as studied in social psychology (e.g., Eagley & Chaiken 1993, McGuire 1985, Oskamp & Schultz 1998):
attention -> comprehension -> interpretation -> confirmation -> acceptance -> retention (--> behavior change).
Difficulties can be technical or socio-psychological in nature, ranging from information distribution and storage problems to lack of involvement and inertia. Many people's overconfidence in safety matters, unrealistic optimism and cognitive biases (Kahneman et al. 1982, McClure & Williams 1996, McKenna 1992, Rothman et al. 1996, Weinstein 1989, Weinstein & Klein 1996) add to the problem. In terms of the sender, proficient management of the RC process is essential. Creating credibility and maintaining social trust - which, once missing or lost, are not easily (re-)established - is an important mission as well (Cvetkovich & Lofstedt 1999); in this regard interactive RC approaches are vital.
In figure 2, a conceptual framework for preconditions and barriers of an effective information-behavior link are outlined. For each step of the core process (from receiving information to implementing an advised action or behavior change) both internal and external preconditions must be favourable and barriers overcome to accomplish the respective RC objectives. (This model depicts an idealized process - however, it is not assumed that each step is taking place in a linear fashion; rather, some steps might not occur at all, e.g., confirmation; or the message receiver might go back to previous steps, e.g,., from retention to attention). In the light of this complex process, assuming a straight 'conversion' of information into behavior would be "unrealistic optimism" on a meta level!
Figure 2: Informing about the risks from hazards:
A framework for the information behaviour link
Again, such a model is very useful in guiding analyses of the reasons for insufficient outcomes of a risk communication program. Furthermore, it can be utilized to anticipate problems and counterbalance them by creating a favourable risk communication context.
3.1 - Reasons for empirical evaluation studies
It is obvious that risk information/communication/education campaigns deal with important aims: human safety, health and sometimes even survival may be at stake, as well as social relations in a community in case of conflicts about hazard evaluation and risk management. Consequently it is crucial that pertinent risk communication activities actually achieve their goals. To provide evidence for this, empirical evaluation research is necessary. "Evaluation" means the scientific assessment of the content, process and outcomes of an intervention and their assessment according to defined criteria (Fink 1995, Patton 1997; see Rohrmann 1992, 1998 or Weinstein et al. 1992 with respect to RC). Systematic empirical investigations are required in order to prove the effectiveness of risk communication - simple experience is not sufficient (in fact even theoretically sound risk communication efforts might not work in practice). Furthermore, evaluation results can demonstrate not only whether but also why a program works (or not) and thus guide the improvement of RC. Also, as campaigns are laborious and usually rather expensive (in terms of costs, personnel and time), evaluation can help to justify the efforts.
While systematic program evaluations could provide very valuable confirmation, empirical evaluation research in this field is still limited (Covello et al. 1989, Fischhoff 1995, Rohrmann 1998). Actually, empirical evaluability regarding risk communication effectiveness should be incorporated into a program in advance.
3.2 - Methodological and conceptual conclusions for further research
The conceptual framework presented in this article is by no means exhaustive and complete. While it proved to be a very useful heuristic for designing RC research (and was made more comprehensive after each project), the empirical studies also indicated shortcomings - thus further research is warranted to better understand the prerequisites of effective risk communication.
In table 4, a list of pertinent research topics is presented, related to the components of RC processes, the means employed in RC, and the validity of results achieved by RC programs.
Key points include that conceptual RC frameworks should reflect the mental models (Atman et al. 1994, Bostrom et al. 1992, Jungermann et al 1988) and situational needs of people; that RC campaigns need to address cultural factors because of large cross-cultural differences in risk perception (Earle & Cvetkovich 1997, Rohrmann & Renn 2000, Steg & Sievers 2000, Vaughan 1995); and that risk communication via "new media" (E-mail, CD-Rom, the WWW; cf. e.g. Frisch et al. 1995, Fischer 1999, Joyce 1999, Quarantelli 1997) is not yet sufficiently researched in socio-psychological terms.
Table 4: Understanding risk communication: Primary research needs
Factors influencing risk communication processes
Means of risk communication
Validity of risk communication effects
Further research will explicate to what degree a general RC model can be valid for diverse communication contexts (such as one-way information campaigns via print or electronic media versus interactive/participative RC), different communication goals (e.g., increasing awareness and preparedness for fires or alleviating concerns about the risks from chemical facilities) and different hazard types (e.g., those posing a threat to individuals or communities, or involuntary versus self-determined ones).
So far the focus has been on the individual level of risk communication processes. However, community level processes need to be addressed as well (cf., e.g., Levine 1996, Schuetz & Wiedemann 1991); this will require advanced analytical processes.
Finally - given how important and demanding both implementation and evaluation of risk communication programs are - interdisciplinary co-operation across areas and between social science and public authorities is highly recommended.
I wish to thank John Handmer (Enfield/England), Douglas Paton (Palmerston/New Zealand) and Holger Schuetz (Juelich/Germany) for their constructive feedback and Lidia Ferraro (Melbourne/ Australia) for her comprehensive help with literature research.
Atman, C. J., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1994). Designing risk communications: Completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes (part 1). Risk Analysis, 14, 779-788.
Bennett, P., & Kalman, K. (1999). Risk communication and public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1992). Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 85-100.
Covello, V. T., McCallum, D. B., & Pavlova, M. (1989). Principles and guidelines for improving risk communication. In V. T. Covello, D. B. McCallum, & M. Pavlova (Eds.), Effective risk communication (pp. 3-16). New York: Plenum.
Cvetkovich, G., & Lofstedt, R. (1999). Social trust and the managment of risk. London: Earthscan.
DeJoy, D. M. (1996). Theoretical models of health behavior and workplace self-protective behavior. Journal of Safety Research, 27, 61-72.
Eagly, A. H., , & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt-Brace.
Earle, T. C., & Cvetkovich, G. (1997). Culture, cosmopolitanism, and risk management. Risk Analysis, 17, 55-.
Earle, T. C., Cvetkovich, G. T., & Slovic, P. (1990). The effect of involvement, relevance and ability on risk communication effectiveness. In K. Borcherding, O. I. Larichev, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary issues in decision making (pp. 271-291). Amsterdam: North Holland.
A. (1995). The survey handbook. Newsbury Park: Sage.
Fischer, H. W. (1999). Using cyberspace to enhance disaster mitigation, planning and response: Opportunities and limitations. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 14, 60-64.
Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15, 137-146.
Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (1997). Risk perception and communication. In R. Detels, J. McEwen, & G. Omenn (Eds.), Oxford textbook of public health (pp. 987-1002). London: Oxford University Press.
Frisch, J. D., Lichty, P. D., McDaniel, M. F., Rodgers, K. G., & Lambert, C. E. (1995). High technology risk communication: Using fax-on-demand, broadcast fax and voice-mail to communicate with industry neighbors. Honolulu: Contribution SRA 1995 Conference.
Hance, B. J., Chess, C., & Sandman, P. M. (1990). Industry risk communication manual. Boca Raton: Lewis.
Joyce, E. B. (1999). Disaster information on the web: providing an efficient index to current and reliable information. Paper presented at the Proceedings, Australian Disaster Conference, Canberra.
Jungermann, H., Schuetz, H., & Thuering, M. (1988). Mental models in risk assessment: informing people about drugs. Risk Analysis, 147-155.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: University Press.
Kasperson, R. E., & Stallen, P. M. (Eds.). (1990). Communicating risks to the public. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Leiss, W. (1996). Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. AAPSS Annals, 545, 85-94.
Levine, D. W. (1996). Why choose one level of analysis? And other issues in multilevel analysis. Environment and Behaviour 28, 237-255.
Lundgren, R., & McMakin, A. (1998). Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environemntal, safety, and health risks. Columbus: Battelle Press.
McClure, J., & Williams, S. (1996). Community preparedness: Countering helplesness and optimism. In D. Paton & N. Long (Eds.), Psychological aspects of disasters (pp. 237-307). #: Dunmore Press.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitude and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 223-346). New York: Random House.
McKenna, P. (1992). It won't happen to me: Unrealistic optimism or illusion of control? British Journal of Psychology, 83, 1-12.
Mileti, D. S., & Fitzpatrick, C. (1991). Communication of public risks: its theory and its application. Sociological Practice Review, 20-28.
Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Lave, L., & Atman, C. J. (1992). Communicating risk to the public. Environmental Science and Technology, 26, 2048-2056.
Mulilis, J. P., Duval, T. S. (1995). Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: A person-relative-to-event (PrE) model of coping with threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25:1319-1339.
National Research Council (USA). (1990). Improving risk communication. Washington: National Academy Press.
Oskamp, S., & Schultz, W. P. (1998). Applied social psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Paton, D., Long, N., eds. (1996). Psychological aspects of disasters: Impact, coping and intervention. Palmerston/NZ:: Dunmore Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation. London: Sage.
Plough, A., & Krimsky, S. (1987). The emergence of risk communication studies in science and political context. Science, Technology and Human Values, 12, 4-10.
Powell, D., Leiss, W. (1998). Mad cows & Mother's milk: The perils of poor risk communication. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Quarantelli, E. (1997). Problematical aspects of the information/communication revolution. Disaster Prevention and Management, 6, 94-106.
Renn, O. (1992). Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with the public. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 29, 465-519.
Renn, O. (1998). The role of risk communication and public dialogue for improving risk management. Risk, Decision and Policy, 3, 5-30.
Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 137-160.
Rogers, R. W., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1997). Protection motivation theory. In D. Gochman (Ed.), Handbook of health behavior research: Personal and social determinants (pp. 113-132). New York: Plenum.
Rohrmann, B. (1992). The evaluation of risk communication effectiveness. Acta Psychologica, 81, 169-192 (a).
Rohrmann, B. (1994). Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 150-163.
Rohrmann, B. (1995)<a>. Effective risk communication for fire preparedness: A conceptual framework. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 10, 43-48.
Rohrmann, B. (1995)<b>. Technological risks: Perception, evaluation, communication. In R. E. Mechlers & M. G. Stewart (Eds.), Integrated risk assessment: Current practice and new directions (pp. 7-12). Rotterdam: Balkema.
Rohrmann, B. (1996). Fire risk communication - A psychological perspective. Paper for "Fire Australia", Melbourne.
Rohrmann, B. (1998). Assessing hazard information/communcation programs. Australian Psychologist, 33, 105-112.
Rohrmann, B. (1999). Community-based fire preparedness programmes: An empirical evaluation. The Australiasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 1 (http://www.massey.ac.nz/~trauma/issues/1999-1/rohrmann.htm).
Rohrmann, B. (2000). Critical assessment of information on bushfire preparedness for residents. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 15, 14-19.
Rohrmann, B., & Renn, O. (2000). Risk perception research - An introduction. In O. Renn & B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural risk perception (pp. 11-54). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rothman, A. J., Klein, W. M., & Weinstein, N. D. (1996). Absolute and relative biases in estimations of personal risk. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1213-1236.
Sadar, A. J., & Shull, M. D. (1999). Environmental risk communication: Principles and Practices for Industry. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
Salter, J. (1998). Risk management in the emergency management context. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 13, 22-28.
Schuetz, H., Wiedemann, P. 1991. Tasks and levels of risk communication. Contribution to the 13th SPUDM Conference, Fribourg, August 1991.
Silverstein, M. E. (1986). A comprehensive communication model for disaster management. Search, 17, 18-20.
Slovic, P. (1996). Experts must respect and include citizens in decisions on risk. Environmental Health, 1/96, 7-8.
Slovic, P. (1997). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, & K. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.), Environment, ethics, and behavior (pp. 277-). San Francisco: The New Lexington Press.
L., & Sievers, I. (2000). Cultural theory and individual perceptions of environmental risks. Environment and Behavior, 32, 250-269.
Susskind, L., & Field, P. (1996). Dealing with an angry public: The mutual gains approach to resolving disputes. New York: The Free Press.
Taylor, A. J. (1991). A pattern of disasters and victims. Disasters 14, 291-300.
The Royal Society. (1992). Risk: analysis, perception and management. London: The Royal Society.
Trimpop, R. M. (1994). The psychology of risk taking behavior. Amsterdam : New Holland.
Vaughan, E. (1995). The significance of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity for the risk vommunication process. Risk Analysis, 15, 169-180.
Vertinsky, I. B., & Wehrung, D. A. (1991). Risk perception and drug safety evaluation. RISK - Issues in Health and Safety, 281, 135-146.
Weinstein, N. (1988). The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 355-386.
Weinstein, N. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246, 1232-1233.
Weinstein, N. D. (1993). Testing four cometing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 12, 324-333.
Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 1-2.
Weinstein, N. D., Roberts, N., & Pflugh, K. (1992). Evaluating personalized risk messages. Evaluation Review, 16, 235-247.
Wiedemann, P. M., & Schuetz, H. (2000). Developing dialogue-based communication programs (Studies in Risk Communication 79). Juelich: Research Center Juelich.
Wilde, G. J. S. (1988). Risk homeostasis theory. Ergonomics, 31, 491-506.
Yates, J. F. (1992). Risk-taking behavior. Chichester: Wiley.
Zimmermann, R. (1987). A process framework for risk communication. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12, 131-137.
Massey University, New Zealand
Last changed October