Communicating Risks to the Public

Abstract

In response to rising public fears and concerns about hazardous activities and technologies, analysts and policy makers have increasingly advocated risk comparison as a means for improving public perceptions and understanding of health and environmental risks. Several authors have argued, for example, that the risks of new substance, activity, or technology can best be understood and appreciated by comparing the risks of the substance, activity, or technology with the risks of more common or familiar substances, activities, and technologies (e.g., Wilson 1979; 1987;, Cohen and Lee, 1979; Crouch and Wilson, 1982; 1984;, Ames et al., 1983; 1987;, Morrall, 1986). Basic assumptions underlying the argument are that comparisons help put risks in psychological perspective, that they provide a conceptual yardstick, that they improve understanding of risk magnitudes, and that they are more intuitively meaningful than absolute numerical probabilities (e.g., Slovic and Fischhoff, 1982; Morrall, 1986; Wilson, 1987)