THE PSYCHOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF RISK PERCEPTION:
INSIGHTS FOR EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
COM 415 - RISK COMMUNICATION
WEEK 1
A.
Philosophy, Perspective and Definition of Risk:
Modern risk assessment originated from studies in the 1960s and 1970s that had a strong
focus on chemical risks and risks associated with nuclear energy. From the beginning, risk
research drew on competencies in fields such as toxicology, epidemiology, radiation biology,
and nuclear engineering. Several disciplines have provided a comprehensive approach to risk
that is intended to be applied to different types of risks. Statistics, epidemiology, economics,
psychology, anthropology, and sociology are some of the disciplines that have developed
general approaches to risk. Philosophers did not have a major role in the early development of
risk analysis. Most philosophical contributions to the area are actually external critiques of
risk analysis. There was a strong tendency in the early development of risk analysis to
downplay the issue of value. Risk assessment was presented as an objective scientific
statement, even when taking a stance on value-laden issues such as risk acceptance. Much of
the early philosophical work on risk had as its main objective to expose the value dependence
of allegedly value-free risk assessment (Thomson 1985; MacLean 1985; Shrader-Frechette
1991; Cranor 1997; Hansson 1998).
Several fields besides communication have been interested in the concept of risk
including engineering, economics, political science, sociology, psychology, and philosophy.
This heterogeneous research arena has resulted in many different perspectives on risk. Some
theorists have categorized these perspectives. Ortwin Renn has divided risk approaches into
seven categories: (1) actuarial approaches, (2) toxicological and epidemiological approaches,
(3) engineering approaches, (4) economic approaches, (5) psychological approach, (6) social
risk theory approach, and (7) cultural risk theory approach (Renn, 1992). There are three
general perspectives on risk. The first perspective can be called the scientific approach to risk.
The basic idea is that risk is a phenomenon that can be investigated like most phenomena in
science, i.e. by using the scientific method. Risk is something that can at least in principle be
measured systematically, and the main task of experts is to find a sufficiently precise measure
of the phenomenon and find ways to reduce the risk as much as possible. On most
interpretations, Renn's first four perspectives fall into this category. Statistical and
probabilistic tools are important in this perspective as a way to measure and describe risk, in
addition to the investigation of the causal mechanisms of various risk-related phenomena that
are at the core of toxicological-epidemiological approaches and techniques (Renn, 1992).
The second perspective can be labeled the psychological approach to risk. The basic
interest in this perspective is to study people's perceptions of risk, i.e. beliefs people about
risk and how they relate to it. The dominant psychological method is psychometric research
in which authors try to establish reliable measures of risk perception. The aim of this
approach is to get a clear picture of how people estimate risks and how they make specific
choices related to them, what influences them to consider a risk acceptable or not. Various
attitudes towards risk in general especially risk-averse and risk-seeking behavior, as well as
what types of risks are considered more important than others are specific topics of interest in
this approach.
The third approach can be called the cultural approach to risk. Whereas the psychological
approach focuses primarily on individuals and their ways of understanding risk-related
affairs. The cultural approach takes a broader perspective, in that the main interest is to
establish how conceptions of risk are culturally mediated, i.e. how they are shaped by the
social context in society, for example in terms of identity and power. A particular risk
statement is always articulated within a cultural context, chosen among many other possible
formulations. Moreover, for every risk event that is selected as an event of interest, there are
other potentially dangerous events that could be selected. The cultural approach to risk is
quite interesting as Clarke and Short put it, ''how social agents create and use boundaries to
limit what is dangerous'' (Clarke and Short, 1993).
The terms "risk" and "safety" have been used with many related but different meanings.
There are at least five different meanings to help distinguish their meaning, but they are
clearly related and have been used in the literature (Hansson, 2004); Risk is an undesirable
event that may or may not occur (Rosa, 1998); Risk is the cause of an undesirable event that
may or may not occur; Risk is the probability of an undesirable event that may or may not
occur (Graham and Weiner, 1995); Risk is the fact that decisions are made under conditions
of known probability (Knight, 1921); Risk is the statistical expected value of an undesirable
event that may or may not occur (Willis, 2007; Campbell, 2005).
The first meaning is displayed in statements such as ''Forest fires are the most serious
environmental risk in Russia today'' or ''There is always a risk of accidents when driving in
traffic." The stakeholders ''Drunk driving is a major traffic risk'' and ''Coronary heart disease
is the number one risk of death in America'' are two examples of the second meaning of
''risk". Risk stakeholders in the second sense are sometimes referred to as hazards in an
engineering context. The third meaning is probably the most common, for example in
statements of the form ''the risk of heavy rain this week is more than fifty percent'' It should
be noted that ''risk'' in this sense is not just a synonym for ''probability'' but is used to
characterize the undesirable outcome, which is rainfall. Therefore, a farmer might say that the
chance of rainfall is 50% rather than the risk. The fourth notion of risk is a technical one often
used in decision theory. Here, one usually distinguishes between decisions under certainty,
which are decisions where all the consequences of the decision alternatives are known;
decisions under risk, which are decisions where the probabilities of the outcomes are known;
and decisions under uncertainty, where the probabilities are unknown. In this context,
claiming whether to install a certain warning system is a decision under risk, hence by
claiming that the situation can be treated as a decision where the probability of the system
failing will be known. The fifth meaning is another technical sense in which the notion of risk
is used. While the notion of expected value as such dates back to the early development of
probability theory in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, its application in the context of
risk is quite recent.
It became common after the influential Rasmussen Report of 1975 and is now the
standard definition of "risk" in risk analysis (Rechard, 1999). The expected value is the sum
of the probability weights of the severity of the hazard. It measures the magnitude of risk as a
combination of two factors, the probability of an undesirable event, and its severity.
B.
Risk Communication Theory:
Health and O'Hair (2009) say risk-understanding behavior is how humans individually
and in groups see their environment and the things that threaten their lives based on a whole-
world perspective. Risk must be understood, managed and communicated so that people can
lead healthy and happy lives. The term risk communication itself originated in the mid-1990s
when there were publications summarizing the state of the art research results published by
Krimsky/Golding 1992, The Royal Society 1992, Krohn/Krücken 1993. Further research on
risk based on technical engineering and natural sciences progressed in explaining the
differences in views between the public and experts on risk (Krimsky & Golding, 1992).
Sociological research by western sociologists initially focused more on conceptual
arrangements and empirical results than on theoretical approaches (Japp, 2000). At that time,
research that examined risk originated from two main theories that dominated. The first was
the mainstream Risk and Culture approach of Douglas and Wildavsky in 1982. The second
was Ulrich Beck's Risk Society approach in 1986 and 1992. From these two mainstream
theoretical approaches, western sociologists have argued based on sociological concepts and
risk to date. There is also an emphasis on what can be valuable contributions and valuable
developments. Industrial development has given rise to new risks, while technological
advances have led to Information and communication fosters public awareness of these risks
and opens opportunities for dialog in decision-making based on risk assessment (Palenchar,
2009). Furthermore, it is explained that in its early development, risk communication was
directed to the political interests of government officials and entrepreneurs who needed public
support for a political decision. Risk communication developed from the practical needs of
industrial societies to manage technology and to protect citizens from man-made
technological hazards and natural hazards. Early risk communication was one-way, from
experts as key participants to the public.
Palenchar explains the subsequent development that risk communication highlights the
importance of a dialogic, relationship-building approach to address the concerns and
perceptions of the public and employees. However, dialogic approaches are often hampered
by the lack of companies that are responsive to the public's needs, concerns and
understanding of potential and real risks. Geuter and Stevens (1983) in Palenchar (2009)
explain another important aspect of research is the approach in which looking at various
phenomena is based on cognitive psychology. Meanwhile, research on risk, models,
strategies, and theories have human implications. Reynolds and Seeger (2005) in Palenchar
(2009) explain risk communication concerns the production of messages specifically
designed to elicit a public response, largely mediated through mass communication channels,
relying on credibility as an element of the message. It is based on persuasion, and aims to
reduce harm and increase public safety. The discussion of risk communication has expanded
in various disciplines. Tansey and Rayner (2009) discuss risk communication from a cultural
perspective, where social institutions exert a determinant influence on risk assessment and
social action. Values and beliefs that have power in society cannot be separated from
collective action. A person's actions are also inseparable from the thought of how others in
their environment will see their actions or what is referred to as subjective norms in the
theory of planned behavior.
Barbara Adam, Ulrich Beck and Joost Van Loon (2012) collaborated to contribute
thoughts on how the social development of the risk society terminology itself, the founder of
the risk society concept, Ulrich Beck (2012) stated that the direction of risk and risk society
trends leads to how global political policies can affect the acceleration and proliferation of
risk everywhere. Increasingly widespread and flourishing risks will bring the world globally
into danger, so Beck suggests that future research can lead to how society is increasingly
prepared for risks and new maneuvers for the reflexivity process itself.
Scott Lash, Alan Scott and Hillary Rose (2012) further discuss the cultural challenges and
critiques of the future development of the risk society. Alan Scott (2012) questions the risk
society or anxiety society. The two issues criticized are awareness and the community itself.
Risk is not necessarily realized, but the community is much more worried about the situation
where the potential danger does not necessarily appear or it becomes a surprise that suddenly
pounces. Meanwhile, Scott Lash (2012) elaborates more on how risk becomes a new culture
in society and risk becomes part of the institutionalized, cultured and habitual aspects of life.
Another fundamental given by Hillary Rose (2012) is that risk in the future will deal much
more with trust and as opposed to skepticism. These two opposites are more directed at how
society will socially conduct its actions. The process of reflexivity may be barren because
according to Rose (2012) most people live with risk but are not part of the risk society itself.
Jens O Zinn (2008) has compiled and edited a number of academic papers to elaborate on
the social theory associated with the theory of risk society. It is not the risk society that is
highlighted but dissects how risk and other keywords from the theory of risk society, namely
uncertainty, are viewed from several theories that come from various fields of study. Klaus P
Japp (2008), a professor of political communication and risk from the University of
Bielefield, Germany, was involved in the writing. His research interests include political
communication and sociological systems theory. Japp's research interests (2008) also colored
the development of risk and uncertainty from the study of political communication and
sociology. His main research is on terrorist threats in society. The second is Isabel Kusche
who is a student of Professor Japp at the University of Bielefield. The third is Stephen Lyng
from Carthage College. This sociology professor focuses on research where technology has
an impact and implication on social society.
The fourth is Pat O Malley, a professor from the University of Sydney whose research
focuses on governance studies and how risks are embedded in governance and the control of
uncertainty in society. And the fifth is John Tulloch, a professor of sociology and
communication from Brunel University and his specialty is risk and globalization. And the
last is Jens O Zinn, who is a researcher at the ESRC (European Center for Risk
Communication Studies). Zinn (2008) is a figure who collaborates and compiles several
theories and models that can be implemented throughout the world. It is crucial to understand
the gaps in the concepts of risk and uncertainty in risk societies so as to produce some
understanding of risk and uncertainty in the theories and approaches taken in the direction of
risk research. Epistemology clearly categorizes risk as real and objective; risk as subjective
bias; risk as socially mediated; risk as real and constructed; risk as transformable; and finally
risk as socially constructed.
Zinn (2008) criticizes researchers' awareness that research on risk societies has taken too
much of a position in the field of sociology and cannot also escape the study of politics and
psychology. Zinn (2008) argues that in-depth exploration lies in the challenge of the cultural
sphere. In his work, Zinn (2008) has greatly contributed to mapping out which models are
theories. Which ones are best practices or field guidelines and which ones are still at the
theoretical level. Zinn (2008) also maps how risk is managed in commonwealth countries.
However, because Zinn (2008) is guided by commonwealth countries, the standing position
that is still wide open is from the study of the unexplored Southeast Asian region to be used
as a research collaboration on this risk society. An aging and decaying world marked by
various signs and symptoms of extraordinaire nature means that risks from climate change,
globalization, war, humanitarian disasters, famine and outbreaks disease are classic
challenges for the living being called human. Facts that cannot be denied in the postmodern
world or in medieval times, risks will always be present with different trends and forms. So as
part of criticizing a regime, an order or order, to the value of certain religious eschatological
beliefs to myths in culture can also be a study of how humans live study material on how
humans live with risk.
Risk communication comes in many forms. Risk communication is divided into along
functional lines, distinguishing between care communication, consensus communication, and
crisis communication. While these three forms share common elements with other forms of
technical communication, they always have circumstances that require different tactics or
ways of communicating, in order to effectively convey their messages and engage their
respective audiences. For example, consensus communication involves more audience
interaction than treatment or crisis communication. Risk communication can also be divided
topically: for example, into environmental, safety and health risk communication. Treatment
communication is communication about risks whose hazards and countermeasures have been
well determined through scientific research and are accepted by most audiences. Another
differentiator is that, generally, those responsible for communicating have little return on
investment other than the betterment of human life.
Two subsets of care communication are healthcare communication, usually also called
health education or health marketing that seeks to inform and advise audiences about health
risks such as smoking or AIDS, and industrial risk communication that involves informing
workers about potential safety and health issues. Industrial risk communication can be further
divided into ongoing communication about industrial hygiene and individual worker
notifications, which inform workers about potential safety and health risks workers about the
findings of a retrospective mortality study, in which the mortality rate of a group of workers
has been evaluated against a standard. An example is a longitudinal study to determine
whether radium painting of watch dials is harmful to workers.
Consensus communication is risk communication to inform and encourage groups to
work together to reach decisions about how risks will be managed, prevented or mitigated.
An example would be citizens, advisors and owners/operators of a local company working
together to mine the best way to dispose of hazardous chemicals found in a landfill. Risk
consensus communication is also part of stakeholder participation, which encourages all
stakeholders with an interest in how risks are managed to engage in consensus building.
Often, the agency or organization with the most money funds this process. Stakeholder
participation is also commonly called public engagement, public participation, stakeholder
involvement, public consultation, and audience interaction. Stakeholder engagement,
however, can go far beyond risk communication into the realm of conflict resolution and
negotiation.
Crisis communication is the communication of risks in the face of sudden extreme
hazards such as an accident at an industrial plant, a dam break, or a deadly disease outbreak.
This type can include communication both during and after an emergency.
To understand risk communication, it is necessary to understand the approaches to
communicating risk, the laws that shape how risk is communicated today, the constraints to
effective risk communication, ethical issues, and the basic principles of risk communication
that have evolved from legal approaches, constraints, and ethics.
Risk communication is faced by everyone from parents, children, representatives, policy
makers, scientists, farmers, factory workers, to writers. Risk communication begins with a
hazard, potential, or real threat to the environment, safety, or human health. To deal with
these risks, risk management is needed. Risk management begins with the calculation of a
risk. The information available will be used to determine the actions taken to deal with the
risk. The decision taken will be communicated to parties who may be affected by the risk.
When it comes to risk communication, the actions taken require the right approach.5
There are a number of approaches to the risk communication process and its components,
including how messages are sent and received, how conflict is managed, and how decisions
are made. Some of these approaches are communication research methods themselves, some
grow out of research in fields other than communication, and others are based on cross-
disciplinary traditions.
Each approach is developed to illuminate a specific perspective on risk communication
depending on how broad that perspective is. These approaches may be applicable to different
situations and audiences. Some approaches, although still widely used in communicating risk,
may be outdated given the situations and audiences that communicators face today. For
example, the traditional communication method developed by Claude Shannon in 1948 is
sometimes still used today to structure risk communication efforts despite the fact that more
sophisticated models have been developed, which include two-way communication essential
for risk communication.6
Risk communication is a form of communication that like other forms, is represented by
the traditional communication model (Shannon, 1948). That is, there is a source of
communication that produces a message that goes through a channel to a receiver. For
example, a regulatory agency (source) may decide that a chemical poses an unacceptable risk
to the public (message) and issue a press release (channel) that is published as news by the
news media (another channel) that is read by members of the public local communities
(recipients).
Various studies in risk communication have looked at individual components of this
model (source, message, etc.) to see how changes in a component affect the others. For
example, researchers at the mass media research center at Marquette University found that
recipients relied more on different channels for information based on personal emotions such
as concern after an outbreak of parasites in drinking water in Milwaukee (Griffin, 1994).
C.
Risk Communication Principles:
There are several principles of risk communication. First, formulate the risk
communication message. The audience should be analyzed to find out their motivations and
views. In addition to knowing who the audience is, it is necessary to recognize them as a
group and ideally as individuals to understand their concerns and conditions and to keep
communication channels open.
Second, listening to all stakeholders is an important part of risk communication, such as
involving scientific experts. Scientific experts in their capacity as risk assessors must be able
to explain the concept and process of risk assessment. They should be able to explain the
results of the assessment as well as the scientific data, assumptions and objective
considerations on which the explanation is based so that risk managers and other interested
parties can clearly understand the risk. Conversely, risk managers must be able to explain
how risk management decisions are made.
Third, creating communication skills. Risk communication requires expertise in
conveying easily understood information to all interested parties. It is likely that risk
managers and technical experts do not have the time or skills to carry out complex risk
communication such as responding to the needs of various audiences (public, industry, media,
etc.) and preparing effective messages. Therefore, risk communication experts
(communicators) should be engaged as early as possible. This expertise should be developed
through training and experience. Fourth, being a reliable source of information is an equally
important principle. Information from a credible source is more likely to influence people's
perception of a risk than from a less credible source. Perceptions of credibility by target
audiences may vary according to their hazard characteristics, culture, social and economic
status, and other factors. Credibility will be stronger if the messages received by the
community from various sources are consistent. Factors that determine the credibility of
information sources include competence or expertise, trustworthiness, and honesty. Trust and
credibility must be maintained as they have the potential to be eroded or lost through
ineffective or inappropriate communication methods.
Fifth, shared responsibility is also a principle of risk communication. The government has
the primary responsibility for the implementation of risk communication and is in charge of
regulating the national, regional and local levels. Communities expect the government to play
a leading role in the implementation of disaster risk management. To understand people's
concerns and ensure that risk management decisions are implemented appropriately, the
government needs to know people's views on the various options being considered to manage
these risks.
Sixth, put risk into perspective. One way to put risk into perspective is to examine it in
the context of benefits, which are related to the technology or process that gives rise to the
risk (Leiss, 1994).
NRC APPROACH
(NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL)
A.
Overview of the National Research Council (NRC):
One of the thirteen risk communication approaches used in this book is the National
Research Council (NRC) approach. Risk communication as defined by the NRC in Lundgren
and MacMakin (2013) states that "Risk communication can be defined as the interactive
process of exchange of information and opinions among individuals, groups, and institutions
concerning a risk or potential risk to human health or the environment"; that in risk
communication there is a process of exchange of information and opinions among
individuals, groups, and institutions that focuses on risk. The NRC also mentions that risk
communication should be directed at informing how problem-solving decisions and actions
are taken by considering the social context of the risk, and then continuing through
management and communication.7 In this approach there is a point that explains that in
dealing with risk, in addition to informing the potential hazards that will be faced by the
community, it also needs to be informed about the actions or actions that will be taken
decisions that must be made when/when the hazard occurs. This means that risk
communication has the goal of triggering a behavior or action to prepare for the danger
ahead. In the 1980s, the US National Research Council funded extensive studies in effective
risk communication (NRC, 1989). A multi-agency panel of experts came to several
conclusions. One was that risk communication can be defined as "the interactive process of
exchanging information and opinions among individuals, groups, and institutions regarding
risks or potential risks to human health or the environment." The panel sees risk
communication as the process by which scientific organizations disseminate technical
information and gather information about the opinions and concerns of non-scientific groups.
The National Research Council sponsored a second expert group to look at how risk
assessment (which they called characterization), management, and communication could be
improved (NRC, 1996). The group found that risk assessment should be geared towards
decision-making and problem-solving, and that consideration of the social context of these
risks should start at the beginning of risk assessment and continue through management and
communication. The group called for early involvement and
interactive with those at risk.
The implication for those communicating risk is that any form of successful risk
communication must incorporate information and opinion exchange and stakeholder group
participation from the outset. How this exchange is achieved will vary for each type of risk
communication (treatment, consensus, or crisis). Audiences need to be engaged in
information exchange with those who communicate and manage risks in consensus
communication. Exchange can be incorporated into care communication by at least asking for
audience feedback before and after risk information is distributed. Exchange is perhaps the
most difficult in crisis communication. In a crisis, by definition, there is almost never time to
bring audience representatives together to determine their needs and concerns. One way to
overcome this problem is to exchange information with potential audiences e.g. those who
may be affected by the crisis, e.g. surrounding communities, and relevant governments as part
of emergency planning efforts.
B.
Wuhan Risk Communication Model:
Zhang Li & Chen (2020) created a risk communication management model based on an
experience of handling the Covid-19 pandemic in Wuhan, China, Wuhan City, where the
Covid-19 virus was first considered successful in handling this outbreak. Wuhan first
announced the existence of this virus in December 2019. The city with 11 million residents
was closed by the government (lockdown) on January 23, 2020. About 42,000 medical
personnel across China were sent to Wuhan. Officials were also deployed to strictly regulate
the border. After nearly 4 months of quarantine, the city's lockdown was lifted on April 8,
2020. The model created by Zhang and his colleagues from the School of Public
Administration, Jilin University was derived from Wuhan's experience in dealing with the
Covid - 19 virus.
1.
Key Principles of Risk Communication:
The description of this model is extracted from Zhang (2020) and Zhang, Li & Chen
(2020). According to Zhang (2020), there are three important principles of risk
communication, which are as follows:
a.
Accessibility and Openness:
In the case of risk management, the most important issue is people's perception of
risk. This perception is often different from the actual reality of the risk. The difference
between the actual risk (objective) and the risk perceived by the community (subjective)
can be understood because in the case of a large risk (such as a pandemic) the level of
public concern is high.
The high need for information if not balanced with the supply of sufficient and
reliable information will make the circulation of rumors, gossip, rumors, fake news
(hoaxes) will be high in society. Risk situations are generally characterized by high
public demand for information. In the case of Covid - 19 in Wuhan, for example, people
ask about this disease, what causes it, how it is transmitted, whether it can be cured, how
many victims, and so on.
According to Zhang (2020), the key to addressing public rumors and concerns is to
provide accessibility and openness of information about risks. First, the accessibility of
risk information is easily accessible to the public. Second, information disclosure, the
party handling the risk provides open information so that the public believes that nothing
is covered up. With accessibility and openness information, will improve the public's
perception that they are fully informed about risks and that they are partners in sharing
risks. Risk communication should consist of an interactive process in which all parties
are given access to multiple messages representing all relevant views. Identifying points
of convergence among different views on risk serves as a means to understand interacting
arguments, leading to consensus building on issues. Risk communication strategies
require sharing information and building a network of working relationships among
individuals, groups and institutions. Building these relationships requires accessibility
and openness of information which is the premise of collective action.
b.
Communicate Early and Continually Recognize Risks:
Risk communication should begin as soon as the risk is identified and be continuous
as new information becomes available. For risk cases such as unknown disease
pandemics (e.g. Covid-19), communication should avoid hasty conclusions while clinical
and epidemiological investigation research is ongoing. Once the scientific research has
been tested, the information should be conveyed to the public immediately. Any delay in
information will cause consequences, such as the emergence of rumors, gossip, hoaxes,
and so on. The emergence of rumors in the community can paralyze risk communication
because the community then no longer trusts the official information conveyed by the
party responsible for risk management. Risk communicators An effective risk
management organization should have direct contact with the public about risk and
regularly disseminate information to the public about the level of risk and its future
trends.
c.
Strategic Methods for Communicating Uncertainty In risk situations, there is
always uncertainty.
Risk communication often has to inform about uncertainties regarding technologies,
behaviors, medical procedures, and so on. This is especially true when research is being
conducted, and results are not yet known with certainty. These situations of uncertainty
must be communicated well because getting it wrong will result in public distrust. To be
effective, such messages need to include ideas, images and logic that will promote
understanding among the lay public. Due to knowledge gaps, experts and laypeople tend
to view risks in different ways and tend to use different terms to discuss them.
Effectively communicating uncertainty requires assessing different levels of perception
among different audiences, and using a science-based approach to convey uncertainty. In
risk communication, especially in the case of public health, public relations (PR) officers
must be able to translate situations of uncertainty (such as "maybe") into information
with high certainty and unambiguity.
2.
Model Overview:
The model developed by Zhang (2020) and his colleagues is also known as the
government interactive risk communication model- expert - public. The essence of this model
is to focus on the interaction between the three main parties in risk communication (public,
government and experts). All three parties are equally important, and each party should be
open and share information. Figure 2.2 presents this model of interaction among the three
parties. The essence of this model is that there is a two-way interaction between the parties in
risk communication.
First, the government/regulator (government). In this model, the government is
responsible for risk management because the government has the resources (hospitals,
budgets, personnel, etc.) to resolve risks. The government/regulator conducts two-way
interaction and communication with experts and the public. Two-way communication with
experts is interactive. On the one hand, the government receives information about scientific
research conducted by experts, and on the other hand, the government provides warnings in
the form of making expert opinions as material in policy making. Interactive communication
is also conducted by the government to the public. On the one hand, the government receives
information from the community, and on the other hand, it provides open information about
the progress of risk management to the community.
Second, the expert. In risk communication, the expert is the authority. This is because
risks are generally related to specific information that requires certain expertise. Information
about the causes of risks and the actions taken to handle risks must be based on scientific
research.
The experts involved are tailored to the type of risk. In the case of public health risks
(such as a dangerous disease pandemic), doctors, epidemiologists and public health experts
are experts who can take on the role. In the case of aviation accidents, experts are experts in
the field of transportation, aviation safety experts, and aerospace experts who master the
technical details of aircraft engines. In the model created by Zhang (2020), experts establish
interactive communication with the government and the public. Interactive communication
here means giving and receiving information. On the one hand, the expert gives and on the
other hand receives information. Interactive communication with the government is carried
out by providing accurate information about risks, and on the other hand, experts receive
support from the government where expert opinions are used as the basis for decision making
(public policy). With the public/community, experts provide information in easy-to-
understand language about risks, and on the other hand, they receive information about
people's experiences with risks.
Third, the community/public. Similar to the government/regulators and experts, the
public in this model is also described as having interactive communication with other parties
(government and experts). Interactive communication relies on not only two-way
communication, but also a willingness to give and receive information. The public, for
example, not only provides complaints and demands, but also receives and complies with
information provided by other parties. Interactive communication is conducted by the public
to the expert. The public provide information to experts, and vice versa receive information
from experts. Interactive communication is also carried out by the public to the government.
On the one hand, the public provides responses (in the form of various questions, complaints,
must also be open by receiving information provided by the statement, and so on) to the
government, and on the other hand by the government in the form of health protocol
obligations that must be obeyed.
As seen in the figure, the core of interactive communication between the government and
the public is accessibility and openness. The government is responsible for delivering
adequate and accurate information to the public, through information disclosure, where the
information is accessible and open to all citizens. This communication between the
government and the public will generate a response from the recipient, which can then be
evaluated. Feedback from the public allows the government to adjust its emphasis on
information delivery and provide information related to the public's own interests, where
communication becomes more effective if it reflects an understanding of what the public
wants to know. According to Zhang Li & Chen (2020), the challenge of government-public
communication lies in deciding what to present and what not to present. Whether all
information held by the government should be presented or whether the government
withholds certain information, for example, so as not to cause panic in the community.
Government interactive communication with experts is a key element of risk assessment
and decision-making, which can be seen as internal communication. Related risks with
professional knowledge and technology. The essence of risk management is rational action,
where decisions are based on sound scientific evidence and morally justified. This requires
the judgment and opinions of experts who are competent in the field. One of the challenges is
to find consensus among experts, especially if experts have different opinions on risks. The
government should empower experts to conduct comprehensive and detailed research on risk
uncertainty rather than limiting the voice of experts from other considerations, including
politics or vested interests. The academic community should fully focus on scientific analysis
of risks and share valid and credible findings, materials and data. Consensus on evidence-
based analysis is the basis for decision-making. If disagreements arise among experts (e.g.
conflicting research results of experts) they should be tested in an open and scientific manner
with the aim of avoiding misleading ambiguous and diverse information. Interactive
communication of experts with the public is intended to bridge the gap between expert and
public views on public health issues through strategic communication. This represents
external communication. The great challenge of risk communication is not only how to
convey knowledge that is easily understood by the public, but also finding ways to convey
comprehensive information that reflects uncertainty and empowers the public to make
informed decisions scientific. Complex professional knowledge about risk always fails to be
understood by the public, so experts must be able to translate professional - scientific
knowledge into simple content that is easily understood by ordinary people.
C.
Stakeholder Engagement:
Stakeholder Theory (Freeman & Dmytriyev, 2017) states that the foundation of business
lies in building relationships and creating value for all stakeholders. Although each company
has different stakeholders depending on its industry and business model, all stakeholders are
different have an equally important role for the company. Stakeholder theory argues that
stakeholders will be interdependent or related. The development of stakeholder theory,
entities today are not only focused and responsible to shareholders, but also to all
stakeholders (Siregar, 2014). Stakeholders include customers, communities, suppliers,
employees, and other parties who have an interest in the activities that occur within the entity.
This is supported by Elkington (2004) who introduced a concept that has shifted the
shareholder concept towards the stakeholder concept in running the company's business
(Mushka, 2015). Thus, management must act not only limited to the interests of shareholders
to obtain maximum profit, but also for the benefit of all stakeholders. In order to develop
entity goals, managers need to have the ability to understand the wishes of stakeholders so
that goals and decision making receive support from stakeholders (Siregar, 2014). This
support is necessary for the long-term sustainability of the entity.
1.
Definition of Stakeholder Engagement:
Stakeholder engagement is defined as the practice that organizations seek to involve
stakeholders in a positive way in the organization's activities (Greenwood, 2007). In
stakeholder engagement, the two simplest important aspects are the business or entity and the
stakeholders in it, both of which will result in a mutually beneficial relationship and their
agreement will reduce conflict (Ihugba, 2012). Companies need to understand each
stakeholder and how to engage with each stakeholder. The existence of a wide range of
stakeholders within the company means that engagement practices can be present in many
areas of organizational activity, including public relations, customer service, supplier
relations, accounting management and human resource management (Greenwood, 2007). In
an effort to achieve successful stakeholder engagement, the company must ensure that the
objectives of engagement, the methods used in conducting engagement, the expectations and
perceptions and interests of each stakeholder, and a list of outputs to be achieved such as
decisions, recommendations, and policies. There are several levels of engagement that can be
carried out by entities, namely inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower
(International Association for Public Participation, 2018). Each engagement method has
different advantages and limitations.
2.
Stakeholder Mapping:
The definition of stakeholder mapping is a process of research and discussion to see the
current condition of the company's relationship with various interested parties and determine
the order of these interested parties so as to identify who are the main parties for the company
(Morris & Baddache, 2012). In an article published by Jonathan Morris and Farid Baddache,
there are 4 (four) stages in conducting stakeholder mapping, as follows:
(1) Identification, namely knowing and determining who, both groups and individuals, are
and are not company stakeholders; (2) Analyzing namely understanding and finding the
relationship between the company and stakeholders using certain variables or criteria, so that
stakeholder priorities can be arranged; (3) Mapping, namely describing the results of
stakeholder identification and analysis into a visualization form in the form of a stakeholder
mapping model; (4) Prioritizing, namely determining what attitudes or actions can be taken to
optimally manage relationships with stakeholders that are in accordance with predetermined
priority stakeholders. The Stakeholder Mapping model (Ackermann & Eden, 2010) presents a
matrix grid with 4 (four) quadrants that describe stakeholder groups or categories. This matrix
explains the importance of identifying the level of importance of each stakeholder group
through how much impact the company's strategy has on the stakeholder group and analyzing
whether the stakeholder group has the power to influence the company to meet its interests. In
the matrix, there are 2 (two) axes, namely power or influence and interest. Each category will
describe different levels of power or influence and interest. Stakeholder power is how much
influence stakeholders have on organizational decisions or projects, both influence towards
success and negative influences such as outcome failure. Meanwhile, the level of interest is
determined by how much impact the project has on the stakeholder.
