IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v41y2021i3p466-479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research

Author

Listed:
  • Laura N. Rickard

Abstract

A diffuse and interdisciplinary field, risk communication research, is founded on how we understand the process and purpose of communication more generally. To that end, this article outlines two fundamental functions of risk communication: (1) a pragmatic function, in which senders direct messages at audiences (and vice versa), with various intended (and sometimes unintended) effects; and (2) a constitutive function, in which messages re(create) what we mean by “risk” in a given social context, including how we can, and/or should relate to it. Although representing distinct epistemological and theoretical social scientific traditions, these functions necessarily coexist in a broader understanding of risk communication, including its so‐called “effectiveness.” The article concludes by considering how we might enact this fuller understanding of risk communication's dual functions through engagement in collaborative, sustainability science‐oriented research.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:41:y:2021:i:3:p:466-479
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13415
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13415?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baruch Fischhoff, 2014. "Four answers to four questions (about risk communication)," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1265-1267, November.
    2. Nick Pidgeon, 2014. "Complexity, uncertainty and future risks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1269-1271, November.
    3. Bridie McGreavy & Karen Hutchins & Hollie Smith & Laura Lindenfeld & Linda Silka, 2013. "Addressing the Complexities of Boundary Work in Sustainability Science through Communication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(10), pages 1-27, September.
    4. Wang, Caroline, 1992. "Culture, meaning and disability: Injury prevention campaigns and the production of stigma," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1093-1102, November.
    5. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    6. Dolores J. Severtson & Jeffrey D. Myers, 2013. "The Influence of Uncertain Map Features on Risk Beliefs and Perceived Ambiguity for Maps of Modeled Cancer Risk from Air Pollution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 818-837, May.
    7. Katherine A. McComas & Craig W. Trumbo, 2001. "Source Credibility in Environmental Health – Risk Controversies: Application of Meyer's Credibility Index," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 467-480, June.
    8. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    9. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Ortwin Renn, 1998. "Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 49-71, January.
    12. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    13. Steve Rayner & Robin Cantor, 1987. "How Fair Is Safe Enough? The Cultural Approach to Societal Technology Choice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 3-9, March.
    14. Ortwin Renn, 2014. "Four questions for risk communication: a response to Roger Kasperson," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1277-1281, November.
    15. Gary E. Machlis & Eugene A. Rosa, 1990. "Desired Risk: Broadening the Social Amplification of Risk Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 161-168, March.
    16. Roger Kasperson, 2014. "Four questions for risk communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1233-1239, November.
    17. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    18. Ann Bostrom, 2014. "Progress in risk communication since the 1989 NRC report: response to ‘Four questions for risk communication’ by Roger Kasperson," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1259-1264, November.
    19. Jamie K. Wardman, 2014. "Sociocultural vectors of effective risk communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1251-1257, November.
    20. Michael Siegrist, 2014. "More questions than answers: a response to ‘Four questions for risk communication’ by Roger Kasperson (2014)," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1241-1243, November.
    21. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    22. Teresa Myers & Matthew Nisbet & Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2012. "A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 1105-1112, August.
    23. Daniel J. Fiorino, 1989. "Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 293-299, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cole Vaughn, 2024. "Evaluating elements of risk communication in risk messaging from officials on Twitter in the 2021 Marshall fire," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 120(6), pages 5537-5560, April.
    2. Sarah R. Davies, 2022. "Science Communication at a Time of Crisis: Emergency, Democracy, and Persuasion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-8, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    2. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    3. Jamie K. Wardman & Gabe Mythen, 2016. "Risk communication: against the Gods or against all odds? Problems and prospects of accounting for Black Swans," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(10), pages 1220-1230, November.
    4. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    5. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    6. Christoffersen, Jeppe & Holzmeister, Felix & Plenborg, Thomas, 2023. "What is risk to managers?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    7. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    8. Adloff, Susann, 2021. "Adapting to Climate Change: Threat Experience, Cognition and Protection Motivation," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242400, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2013. "The Unintended Effects of Risk‐Refuting Information on Anxiety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 80-91, January.
    10. Melissa Matlock & Suellen Hopfer & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2019. "Communicating Risk for a Climate-Sensitive Disease: A Case Study of Valley Fever in Central California," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    11. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    12. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    13. Thomas Kourouxous & Thomas Bauer, 2019. "Violations of dominance in decision-making," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 12(1), pages 209-239, April.
    14. Ahlvik, Lassi & Iho, Antti, 2018. "Optimal geoengineering experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 148-168.
    15. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    16. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    17. Garret Ridinger & Richard S. John & Michael McBride & Nicholas Scurich, 2016. "Attacker Deterrence and Perceived Risk in a Stackelberg Security Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1666-1681, August.
    18. Andrea Cerase & Lorenzo Cugliari, 2023. "Something Still Remains: Factors Affecting Tsunami Risk Perception on the Coasts Hit by the Reggio Calabria-Messina 1908 Event (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    19. Marcelo Bergolo & Rodrigo Ceni & Guillermo Cruces & Matias Giaccobasso & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2023. "Tax Audits as Scarecrows: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 110-153, February.
    20. Morshedi, Mohamad Ali & Kashani, Hamed, 2022. "Assessment of vulnerability reduction policies: Integration of economic and cognitive models of decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:41:y:2021:i:3:p:466-479. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.