Page 72 - Creating Spiritual and Psychological Resilience

Principles of Risk Communication 41

greater than risks from activities associated with those that are trust-
worthy and credible (e.g., regulatory agencies that achieve high levels of
compliance among regulated groups).
• Voluntariness. Risks from activities considered to be involuntary or
imposed (e.g., exposure to chemicals or radiation from a waste or indus-
trial facility) are judged to be greater and, therefore, are less readily
accepted than risks from activities that are seen to be voluntary (e.g.,
smoking, sunbathing, or mountain climbing).
• Controllability. Risks from activities viewed as under the control of oth-
ers (e.g., releases of toxic agents by industrial facilities or bioterrorists)
are judged to be greater and are less readily accepted than those from
activities that appear to be under the control of the individual (e.g., driv-
ing an automobile or riding a bicycle).
• Familiarity. Risks from activities viewed as unfamiliar (such as from leaks
of chemicals or radiation from waste disposal sites) are judged to be greater
than risks from activities viewed as familiar (e.g., household work).
• Fairness. Risks from activities believed to be unfair or to involve unfair
processes (e.g., inequities related to the siting of industrial facilities or
landfills) are judged to be greater than risks from fair activities (e.g.,
vaccinations).
• Benefits. Risks from activities that seem to have unclear, questionable, or
diffused personal or economic benefits (e.g., nuclear power plants and waste
disposal facilities) are judged to be greater than risks from activities that
have clear benefits (e.g., jobs, monetary benefits, or automobile driving).
• Catastrophic potential. Risks from activities viewed as having the poten-
tial to cause a significant number of deaths and injuries grouped in time
and space (e.g., deaths and injuries resulting from a major industrial
accident) are judged to be greater than risks from activities that cause
deaths and injuries scattered or random in time and space (e.g., auto-
mobile accidents).
• Understanding. Poorly understood risks (such as the health effects of
long-term exposure to low doses of toxic chemicals or radiation) are
judged to be greater than risks that are well understood or self-explana-
tory (e.g., pedestrian accidents or slipping on ice).
• Uncertainty. Risks from activities that are relatively unknown or that
pose highly uncertain risks (e.g., risks from biotechnology and genetic
engineering) are judged to be greater than risks from activities that
appear to be relatively well known to science (e.g., actuarial risk data
related to automobile accidents).
• Delayed effects. Risks from activities that may have delayed effects (e.g.,
long latency periods between exposure and adverse health effects) are
judged to be greater than risks from activities viewed as having immedi-
ate effects (e.g., poisonings).