Mixed Messages in Risk Communication

Cynthia G. Jardine and Steve E. Hrudey

Risk Analysis, 1997, vol. 17, issue 4, 489-498

Abstract: The exchange of risk information between risk managers and affected parties is frequently hampered by differences in the understanding or interpretation of many words and phrases. Much of the terminology used by risk practitioners may have different “technical” and “colloquial” meanings, resulting in “mixed messages” in risk communication. Several words and concepts commonly used in risk management that may be resulting in these “mixed messages” are discussed. These include primary underlying concepts, such as the various meanings of the word “risk” itself, as well as the perplexity of the notions of “safety vs. zero risk” and “probability”. The potential “mixed messages” of the derived concepts of “significant vs. nonsignificant”, “negative vs. positive results”, “conservative assumptions”, “population vs. individual risk”, “relative vs. absolute risk”, and “association vs. causation” are shown to range from mild confusion to the completely opposite interpretation of these words and expressions. Suggested strategies for recognizing and mitigating the use of words and phrases which may create unnecessary confusion are presented.

Date: 1997
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00889.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:riskan:v:17:y:1997:i:4:p:489-498

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Risk Analysis from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().