Risk communication trust

In communicating risk information, trust and credibility are imperative. If you do not know an answer, say so, then get back to those people when you do have an answer. Discuss data uncertainties, strengths, and weaknesses, including ones identified by other credible sources. Identify worst-case estimates as such, and cite ranges of risk estimates when appropriate. 

Be honest, frank, and open. In communicating risk information, trust and credibility are your most precious assets. 

Factors such as hazard type and source credibility have been identified as important in the establishment of effective strategies for risk communication (Frewer et al., 1997). One means by which to measure credibility is the Meyer s credibility index (McComas and Trumbo, 2001). This has proven useful for measuring source credibility in the context of environmental health-risk controversies, and it would seem to be relevant for measuring food risks in a food crisis situation. A key element of this credibility index is trust. 

Trust in risk information about food-related hazards is an important determinant of public reactions to risk information. One of the central questions addressed by the risk communication literature is why some individuals and organizations are trusted as sources of risk information whereas others are not. Industry and government often lack public trust, whereas other sources are highly trusted (such as consumer organizations, selected media, and physicians). Their analyses indicate that knowledge in itself does not make one a trusted source, but that trusted sources are characterized by multiple positive attributes. 

Mainly in response to the anthrax attacks in the United States, in 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report entitled Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (Reynolds, 2002). The report illustrates two prerequisites for successful risk communication credibility and trust. These two elements (Figure 11) may be highly important when dealing with uncertainty in exposure and risk assessment (Sjoberg, 2001). The prerequisites for credibility are accuracy of information and speed of release the main attributes of trust are empathy and openness. 

Renn O, Levine D (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM, eds. Communicating risks to the public—International perspectives. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 175-218. 

Ultimately, the credibility—for scientists, stakeholders and society in general—of the data and assessments on which critical risk management decisions are based owes much to the underlying tenets of data quality discussed in this document. Credibility is a basic element of risk communication and social trust and, in turn, is a determining factor in risk acceptance and risk management. 

Bakir, V. (2006) Policy agenda-setting and risk communication Greenpeace, Shell and issues of trust. Press/Politics 11(3) 67-88. 

Risk communication aiming at consumer trust depends on a positive appraisal of the competence, fairness, and social responsibility of the partners in the communication process. Without such a positive appraisal, risk communication is bound to fail. 

The results of research on the factors that influence successful risk communication are the bases for sets of risk communication principles that have been developed. One well-known set of principles is titled Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication. This guide includes steps to increase trust such as to coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources , steps to increase the recipients control such as to accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner , and steps to increase the interactive nature of the process such as to listen to the public s specific concerns . 

Trust and accuracy are two very important factors in risk perception and risk communication. If the public does not trust the experts, the perceived level of risk may be high. To build this trust, accurate information must be given to the public. No potentially important information should be left out and the public should not perceive the experts as hiding... 

Kasperson, R. Panel discussion on trust and credibility the central issue In Risk Communication, Davies, J.C., Covello, V.T., Allen, F.W., Eds. The Conservation Foundation Washington, DC, 1987 43-62. 

Risk communication, if done properly, will not necessarily alarm the public. Given information and education, the public can then express concerns, ask questions, and get accurate answers. Education is achieved through effective communication. Risk communicators shouldn t feel that the issues are too technical for the public. Covello and Allen (1988) established five rules for building trust and credibility ... 

Trust plays a central role in safety (Conchie et al. 2006). Studies have shown links between positive safety outcomes, and tmst in management (e.g., DePasquale and Geller 1999 Kath et al. 2010 Luria 2010), and tmst in co-workers (e.g., Tharaldsen et al. 2010). Tmst is also a key aspect of a positive safety culture (Bums et al. 2006), influences safety attitudes (Walker 2013), and influences the effectiveness of risk communication (Conchie and Bums 2008 Twyman et al. 2008). While there are clear safety benefits associated with tmst, safety benefits can also come from distmst (Conchie and Donald 2008), and this is likely to particularly be the case in relation to new employees in their initial period of employment. Tmst can reduce an... 

Chakraborty, S. (2011) The challenge of emergency risk communication Lessons learned in trust and risk communication from the volcanic ash crisis , in A. Alemanno (ed.) Governing Disasters. The Challenges of Emergency Risk Regulation. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, pp. 80-100. 

Since the questionnaire was still in a formative stage of development and factor analysis work had focussed only on the general section, it was not possible to determine a final model from the factor analyses but eight safety culture elements were proposed to refiect the results of the factor analyses and the themes derived from the literatme and interviews. The eight elements were Commitment, Involvement, Reporting and Learning, Teamwork, Communication, Risk Awareness, Trust and Responsibility. The first five of these elements had strong support from the factor analyses, while the last three had support from the literature and seemed to fit items from the occupation-specific sections of the questionnaire. 

The design of the risk communications will vary. For example, in the participative type, sharing of information is easier as you would be considered a trusted professional and expected to communicate. Decisions on actions to be taken do not necessarily require a senior level involvement, just get a solution to the problem fixed first and discuss later. 

Paton D (2008) Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation how trust influences its effectiveness, hrt J Glob Environ Issues 8 2-16 Paton D, Jang L-J (2014) Earthquake readiness and recovery an Asia-Pacific perspective. In D Amico S (ed) Earthquakes and their impact on societies. Springer, London... 

If you do not listen to people, you cannot expect them to listen to you. Communication is a two-way activity. Do not make assumptions about what people know, think, or want done about risks. Take the time to find out what people are thinking. Often, people are more concerned about issues such as trust, credibility, competence, control, voluntariness, fairness, and compassion than about mortality statistics and the details of QRA. Use techniques such as interviews, focus groups, and surveys to gauge what people are thinking. 

Point to Consider People in tl>e community are often more concerned about such issues as trust, credibility, competence, control, voluntariness. fairness, caring, and compassion tlian about mortality statistics and tl>e details of quantitative risk assessment. 

---