Samenvatting
Samenvatting Artikelen Behavioral Influence
Uitgebreide samenvatting van de artikelen voor Behavioral Influence. Voornamelijk in het engels geschreven, maar hier en daar ook nederlandse zinnen.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 55 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 55 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
VolgenVoorbeeld van de inhoud
Behavioral Influence Artikelen SamenvattingWeek 2-1: Risk communication: the narrow path towards trust for experts in a post-truth world.
- Johnson & Slovic (1994)
- Markon, Crowe, & Lemyre (2013)
- Siegrist & Cvetkovich (2000)
- Slovic (1999)
Johnson & Slovic (1994): Explaining uncertainty in health risk assessment:
effects on risk perception and trust.
Doel van het onderzoek: In short, despite the arguments in favor of communicating uncertainty in
risk assessments to the public, there are several reasons to be concerned that such communication
may create rather than resolve conflicts between officials and citizens. Nevertheless, uncertainty is
inherent in risk assessment and needs to be part of accurate communication about risk.
Het artikel geeft voor en nadelen van communiceren van onzekerheden van overheid naar publiek
over risico’s, maar zegt ook dat het van belang is om dit te communiceren alleen dat het nodig is om
te weten hoe dan precies dit gecommuniceerd moet worden.
Being open about uncertainty is presumed to enhance credibility and trustworthiness (intro)
Discussie over onzekerheden verbeterd beslissingen vd burger.
Method:
Presentatie van scenario’s in de vorm van een verhaal in de krant.
Conclusies:
- Citizens are unfamiliar with uncertainty in risk assessments, and with uncertainty in science
generally.
- Citizens may recognize uncertainty (i.e., a range of risk estimates) when it is presented in a
simple, graphic way.
- Citizens’ views on the environmental situations presented in the stories appeared to be
influenced far less by uncertainty than by other factors (more by trust & ideology).
- Agency discussion of uncertainty in risk estimates seems to be a signal of agency honesty.
- Agency discussion of uncertainty in risk estimates can be a signal of incompetence.
Markon, Crowe, & Lemyre (2013): Examining uncertainties in government risk
communication: citizens' expectations.
Their discussions showed that they expected the government to include citizens in evaluating and
managing uncertainties pertaining to risks under individual control and directly informing consumer
choices about health risks. In contrast, they questioned the relevance of systematically exposing
uncertainties relating to risks perceived as outside individual control, and associated with very low
probability scenarios of possible threats. Globally, they appraised the desirability of discussing
uncertainties in risk communication in relation to the perceived utility of the information for
decision-making. These findings indicate that risk communicators and man- agers need to consider
ways in which discussions of uncertainties can empower citizens.
Three sources of uncertainty are often distinguished in the literature:
1
, - Ontological uncertainty: the inherent complexity of an issue or the chaotic relationships
between the elements of a system
- Epistemic uncertainty: the absence or lack of knowledge about an issue
- Ambiguity: when a situation can be interpreted in multiple ways or when there are
divergences or contested perspectives about its meaning
Tational ignoring = Information which is expected to be irrelevant for the decision at hand, in that it
does not change the preferable option, is perceived as useless.
if useless information comes with an attached emotional cost in terms of distress and anxiety,
then its expected value can be negative This may explain why risk information, although genuinely
informative in objective terms, may not always be welcome and provides an alternative account to
approaches which insist on lay risk information gaps.
Deficit model: simplified risk information, stripped out of its intrinsic intricacies and dilemmas is
transmitted to the public in order to prevent eliciting anxious and ‘irrational’ public reactions. Dit
wordt gedaan omdat men denkt dat het publiek onzekerheid vd expert vertaalt naar incompetence.
Dit is een ook ‘paternalistische’ benadering.
Transaction approach: A more transactional approach to risk communication considering members of
the audience as actively constructing the meaning of the message rather than passively decoding it.
Those using this model do not aim at persuasion but greater consultation with the public in order to
better understand their preoccupations and take them into account in risk management.
This transition from a mechanistic and linear model of risk communication to a more participative
and iterative approach has the potential to empower citizens in the process of decision-making about
risk and uncertainty.
However, transparency about uncertainties, gaps in knowledge and errors in past decisions could
also create problems, such as a decrease in credibility and public confidence (bewijs is schaars en
mixed).
In de ene situatie vinden mensen het dus prettig om op de hoogte gesteld te worden van
onzekerheden, maar in de andere situatie krijgen ze ook het gevoel dat expert/overheid/etc niet
competent genoeg is.
Resultaten
- Perceptions of government roles and interests: In general, participants expressed a
complicated, somewhat contradictory, relation of trust with the government. In some cases,
people attributed legitimate authority to the government as an information provider, and
entrusted the government to make decisions about risks. In other cases, participants felt that
the information provided by government was not always trustworthy due to conflicting self-
serving political interests. In this light, many citizens felt that they were responsible for
informing themselves about risk and scrutinising information
- Perceptions of citizens’ responsibilities and aptitudes: A good number of participants
struggled with finding their role in these complex risk issues and wished they could trust the
government to protect their interests when they feel their ability to deal with some risk
intricacies was limited.
- Expected outcomes: risk awareness (=individual conscientiousness and vigilance concerning
health risks) & risk management (=individual capacity to manage risks, for example, healthful
consumer choices and preparedness). The majority of respondents believed that discussing
uncertainties would raise individual conscientiousness about health risk.
- Sources of uncertainties and risks expected to be discussed: Most participants identified
certain forms of uncertainty that they felt were useful to discuss in the context of risk
2
, communication. They valued discussion of risk uncertainty that informed consumer choices
about health risks. Conversely, they felt that risk uncertainty communication was less
desirable when it concerned risks that were outside of individual citizen control.
- Preferred ways and timing for discussing uncertainties: Most participants thought the
government should inform the public about both sides of the argument, but they also wished
to be guided through the process of weighing pros and cons, risks and benefits.
WHO: Participants saw both the government and citizens as important actors with complementary
roles in risk communication and management. While they thought that the government should
educate the public about health risks, they also believed that individual citizens were responsible for
keeping themselves informed. They expressed the idea that the government should include the
public in dealing with uncertainties and taking political decisions concerning health risks.
WHY: most important purpose for discussing uncertainties in risk communication was to raise
citizens’ consciousness about risks ánd promote preparedness. They saw effective communication
about sources of uncertainty as a way of improving people’s ability to make informed choices about
exposure to health hazards. They expected uncertainty to lead to action and not to be used for
creating paralyzing fear or a stalemate.
WHAT: The participants indicated that the perceived relevance of the information for risk
management was more important than the source of uncertainty or the type of hazard. Overall, the
notion of information utility was central to understanding citizen’s ways of appraising the presence
of uncertainty in risk communication and what they expected from a risk message. Their judgment
on the presence of uncertainty in a risk message depended on whether it could promote
autonomous management of risks and improve their decision-making.
HOW AND WHEN: Many participants wished the government could be more explicit about the
criteria it uses to determine the risk caused by a hazard around which there is much uncertainty.
Furthermore, uncertainty from the probability
of an adverse event was perceived as much
more useful in risk communication when
accompanied by specific guidelines for
responding. Adopting an all-hazard approach
was also seen as an effective way to tackle
many uncertainties calling for similar protective
measures. Finally, participants did not want to
be engaged in discussing uncertainty and risk
too late in the risk management process, when
decisions have already been made.
Siegrist & Cvetkovich (2000):
Perception of hazards: The role of
social trust and knowledge.
Hypothese: Social trust will be significantly
related to judgments of risks and benefits for
hazards about which an individual has little
knowledge.
It has been suggested that one of the functions
of trust is to reduce social complexity (Earle &
Cvet-kovich, 1995; Luhmann, 1989). Most
laypeople do not possess the detailed
knowledge needed for a rational assessment of
risks and benefits associated with most complex technologies. They therefore often rely on the
3
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper sannejes. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €5,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 53340 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen