Some Criteria for Evaluating Risk Messages

Neil D. Weinstein and Peter M. Sandman

Risk Analysis, 1993, vol. 13, issue 1, 103-114

Abstract: Seven criteria are presented for use in evaluating communications designed to explain the magnitude of a risk. The criteria are: (1) comprehension (Does the audience understand the content of the communication?); (2) agreement (Does the audience agree with the recommendation or interpretation contained in the message?); (3) dose‐response consistency (Do people facing a higher dose of a hazard perceive the risk as greater and/or show a greater readiness to take action than people exposed to a lower dose of this hazard?); (4) hazard‐response consistency (Do people facing a hazard that is higher in risk perceive the risk as greater and/or show a greater readiness to take action than people exposed to a hazard that is lower in risk?); (5) uniformity (Do audience members exposed to the same level of risk tend to have the same responses to this risk?); (6) audience evaluation (Does the audience judge the message to have been helpful, accurate, clear, etc.?); and (7) types of communication failures (When different types of failures are possible, are the failures that occur generally of the more acceptable variety?). Each of these criteria is illustrated with data collected in a test of message formats designed to explain the risk presented by radon gas in a home.

Date: 1993
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00733.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:13:y:1993:i:1:p:103-114

Access Statistics for this article

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