Understanding and Communicating Risk November 16, 2017 Kaci Buhl, MS
What is the National Pesticide Information Center? An objective information service for pesticides Toll free phone service available: 11:00 3:00 Eastern; 8:00 12:00 Pacific Funded through a cooperative agreement with EPA NPIC answers ~ 12,000 inquiries per year
Inquiries to NPIC in 2016
@ We answer questions about: The health effects of pesticides The environmental fate and properties of pesticides Product labels, regulations Pests and potential IPM strategies A source for science based pesticide information Toll free phone line open 8 noon, Monday Friday Email/voice mail response within one day
Key conversation moves Treat it like your first call or conversation of the day. Check your personal opinions at the door. Give the person your full attention. Set the tone for the conversation. Alarmed or calm? Choose words that reflect the uncertainty in the situation. Use words like may, might have, could have, etc.
Key conversation moves Be clear about your own role and capabilities. For example, I can t promise anything, and I can t diagnose your problem, but I d like to take down your story and do whatever I can. Ask open-ended questions that elicit story-telling. Yes-no questions make a person feel interrogated. Ask things like, Tell me from the beginning. Can you say more about that part? Is there anything else? Make sure the caller feels like you heard them. Listen without agreeing or disagreeing. Let them tell their story. Repeat things back to them.
Risk communication
Acknowledge definitions of risk When professionals say risk, we re thinking of probability. When others hear risk they may think danger. Risk is measured at the population level. (Percent of population impacted?) Risk is understood at the individual level. (Will it hurt me or not?)
Re-framing the safe question Is it safe? The risk is low, but tell me about your specific concerns Listen Quickly explain why safe isn t the right word or mindset Discuss risk level and things that affect it
Why RISK, when people ask about safety? Safety Yes or No No precautions necessary Safe is safe for everyone Easy to explain Risk More risky Less risky Precautions reduce risk Risk is higher for certain people Harder to explain The impression of safety Careless behaviors, lack of vigilance Increased risk
Imagine asking your doctor about a new medication You ask Is it Safe? Yes Trust me. Which response would inspire the most trust? Yes, as long as You tell me about all of your current medications, allergies and symptoms. We watch for signs like (this) and (that), which might mean that we should adjust the dose. We do not add other medications without talking about it together. etc. No
Now imagine someone asked about the safety of a pesticide application Is it Safe? Yes Trust me. Yes, as long as You tell me about all of your pest problems, previous treatments and sensitive sites/individuals You wait X hours to return, and ventilate right away You check the bait stations periodically to make sure they re secure You do not add other treatments without talking about it together etc. No
Psychology of Risk: Key Points Trust is critical: hard won, easily lost Risk and risk assessment are subjective and value-laden Most risk perception is determined by fast, intuitive feelings There is no such thing as true risk or objective risk. If you define risk one way, the best solution might be (this). If you define it another way, the best solution might be (that). Defining risk is an exercise of power. Paul Slovic, Decision Research and University of Oregon November 13, 2014
The Deficit Model is a trap. Lacking Knowledge
Here, have another article, app, web page.
In reality, everyone has knowledge to share. Knowledge Values/status Knowledge Values/status
The Risk Equation Risk = Toxicity X Exposure Toxicology of active ingredient Product signal word Dose estimate Effects (signs, symptoms) reported in the literature Onset, duration and resolution of symptoms Distance to application site Route of potential exposure Physical/chemical properties of active ingredient Duration/frequency of exposure Bioavailability by the route in question
The Risk Equation as Scaffolding Informed Risk Decisionmaking Toxicity Exposure
There is no acceptable risk in the absence of benefit.
5 4 3 2 1 Radiation Benefit Risk Benefit Risk Nuclear Power X-rays 5 4 3 2 1 Chemicals Benefit Pesticides Risk Benefit Prescription Drugs Risk Figure 3. Mean perceived risk and perceived benefit for medical and nonmedical sources of exposure to radiation and chemicals. Each item was rated on a scale of perceived risk ranging from 1 (very low risk) to 7 (very high risk) and a scale of perceived benefit ranging from 1 (very low benefit) to 7 (very high benefit). Note that medical sources of exposure have more favorable benefit/risk ratings than do the nonmedical sources. Data are from a national survey in Canada by Slovic et al., 1991.
Control Impact on Risk Perception Sjoberg, L. Factors in Risk Perception. 2000. Risk Analysis 20:1 (pp1 11)
Ways to Minimize Exposure
Increase perceived benefit and/or control decrease perceived risk.
People with different worldviews were asked about their attitudes towards nanotechnology, before and after being given information about nanotechnology.
Some questions that measure worldviews (agree?) The government should stop telling people how to live their lives (Individualism) The government should do more to advance society s goals, even if that limits the freedom of individuals (Communitarian) Our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal (Egalitarianism) We should let the experts make all the risk decisions for society (Hierarchism)
What Is Risk? Risk does not exist out there, independent of our minds and cultures, waiting to be measured. Human beings have invented the concept risk to help them understand and cope with dangers and uncertainties of life. There is no such thing as real risk or objective risk. The toxicologist s quantitative estimate of a cancer risk is based on theoretical models, whose structure is subjective and assumption-laden, and whose inputs are dependent on judgment.
The Risk Equation as Scaffolding Informed Risk Decisionmaking Toxicity Exposure
Gut feelings Feelings about outcomes and feelings about probabilities are often confused. When strong emotions are involved, there is probability neglect.
Many people lack dose-response sensitivity for exposure to chemicals that can produce dreaded effects, such as cancer. If large exposures are bad, small exposures are also bad. High Cancer risk Public Toxicologists Low Low Small probability of harm Exposure High High probability of harm
Other factors that affect risk perception Voluntary ---------------------- Imposed Fairly distributed risk -------------- Unfairly distributed risk Natural ---------------- Man-made Familiar ------------------ Exotic Affects only adults ------------------ Affects children Lower risk perceived Trusted entity ---------- Untrusted entity Higher risk perceived
A Proposed Checklist: Frame as risk rather than safety: Provide hazard/toxicity information: Provide exposure information: Benefit(s) of the activity/thing: Action items in person s control: Where to get more information:
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]
The familiarity backfire effect Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]
The overkill backfire effect Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]
The worldview backfire effect Focus on convincing people in the middle ground, the undecided. Couple the new info with affirmations of the audience Frame the new information in ways that are least threatening to world view, self worth, etc. Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]
Risk communication on the web Factoids: NPIC Website Visitors to web pages spend 2-4 seconds on average deciding whether to leave or stay. People with limited literacy skills tend to skip whole paragraphs if they have more than 3 lines. Links and content on the right margin are often ignored, mistaken for advertisements.
www.health.gov/healthliteracyonline/
Write Actionable Content Write in plain language. Use your own voice. Put the most important information first. Describe the desirable behavior just the basics. Stay positive and realistic. Provide specific action steps.
Display Content Clearly on the Page Limit paragraph size. Use bullets or short lists. Use meaningful headings with action words Use white space, avoid clutter Keep content in the center, above the fold
Twitter Follow @NPICatOSU
Jargon Here are some unnecessarily long or ugly words (and replacement words) that many people use a lot: utilize use currently now possess have however but for the purpose of for initiate start terminate end facilitate help interface meet? Talk to? relocate move retain keep Zen and the Art of Dumbing Down Your Prose Amy Miller, EPA Greenversations Blog
Finding the Sweet Spot Threat/danger Reward/benefit 0 50 100 ~60 - Norepinephrine - on alert - Dopamine - relaxed If the focus is too much on threat, learning shuts down.
Re-frame the safe question Is it safe? The risk is low, but tell me about your specific concerns Listen Quickly explain why safe isn t the right word or mindset Discuss risk level and things that affect it
A Proposed Checklist: Frame as risk rather than safety: Provide hazard/toxicity information: Provide exposure information: Benefit(s) of the activity/thing: Action items in person s control: Where to get more information:
Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. (2011), The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland. November 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6. [http://sks.to/debunk]
1-800-858-7378 http://npic.orst.edu November 16, 2017 Kaci.Buhl@oregonstate.edu