Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communicating Between the Public and Experts: Predictable Differences and Opportunities to Narrow Them

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Stakeholders and Scientists

Abstract

Communications between experts and the public are often fraught with misunderstandings and approached with trepidation by both groups. This chapter aims to improve these communications by providing readers with a better understanding of who the “public” and “experts” are, the unavoidable differences between experts and the public that can lead to misunderstandings and friction, and suggestions for bridging the public–expert gap.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bond M (2009) Decision-making: Risk school. Nature 461:1189–1192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Land Use Management, California (2008) Public Meeting Image BL031113OR. http://www.blm.gov. Accessed 18 April 2010

  • Burger J, Mayer HJ, Greenberg M, Powers C, Volz CD, Gochfeld M (2006) Conceptual site models as a tool in evaluating ecological health: The case of the department of energy’s amchitka island nuclear test site. J Toxicol Environ Health: Part A 69:1217–1238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Conservation West (2009) State Budget Cuts Threaten Protections for Washington’s Environment, http://www.pugetsound.org/news/news-about-people-for-puget-sound/033009cuts/. Accessed 7 August 2009

  • Covello VT (1993) Risk communication and occupational medicine. J Occup Med 35:18–19

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT, Minamyer S, Kathy C (2007) Effective risk and crisis communication during water security emergencies-summary report of EPA sponsored message mapping workshops. EPA/600/R-07/027:US EPA

    Google Scholar 

  • Covello VT, Peters RG, Wojtecki JG, Hyde RC (2001) Risk communication, the west nile virus epidemic: Responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional and unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J. Urban Health: Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 78:382

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Energy (DOE) (1996) Sun Tracking Heliostats at Solar Two, Daggett, California Near Barstow. http://www.doedigitalarchive.doe.gov/ImageDetailView.cfm?ImageID=1000361&page=search&pageid=thumb. Accessed 20 May 2010

  • Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of progress. Risk Anal 15:137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R (1996) What determines trust in information about food-related risks? underlying psychological constructs. Risk Anal 16:473–486

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2007) Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 8:53–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Glik DC (2007) Risk communication for public health emergencies. Ann Rev Public Health 28:33–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Truelove H (2010) Right answers and right-wrong answers: Factors influencing knowledge of nuclear-related information. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 44:130–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg MR (2009a) How much do people who live near major nuclear facilities worry about those facilities? analysis of national and site-specific data. J Environl Plan Manag 52:19–937

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg MR (2009b) Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy 37:3242–3249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg MR (2008) Environmental Policy Analysis & Practice. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg MR (2009c) NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Analysis 29:1242–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg MR, Schneider D (1996) Environmentally Devastated Neighborhoods: Perceptions, Policies, and Realities. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyer RN, Covello VT (2005) Effective Media Communication during Public Health Emergencies. Geneva: World Health Organization

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (1993) Bridging the two cultures of risk Analysis. Risk Analysis 13:123–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller C, Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Anal 26:631–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12:215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrance WW (1976) Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. William Kaufmann Inc, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin C (2009a) Public Health Image Library (PHIL) Image 11528. http://www.phil.cdc.gov/phil/details.asp. Accessed 20 May 2010

  • Martin C (2009b) Public Health Image Library (PHIL) Image 11602. http://www.phil.cdc.gov/phil/details.asp. Accessed 20 May 2010

  • Martin C (2009c) Public Health Image Library (PHIL) Image 11612. http://www.phil.cdc.gov/phil/details.asp. Accessed 20 May 2010

  • Nagy J (2002) State Environmental Budgets Take $200M Hit. http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=14735. Accessed 7 August 2009

  • NCI (2002) Making Health Communications Programs Work. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB (1997) The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Anal 17:43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis-Roberts KL, Werner CA, Frank I (2007) Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near semipalatinsk, kazakhstan: A comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Anal 27:291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds B, Seeger M (2005) Crisis and emergency risk communication: An integrative approach. J. Health Commun 10:43–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandman PM (1989) Hazard versus outrage in the perception of risk. In: Covello VT (ed) Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandman PM (2006) Crisis communication best practices: Some quibbles and additions. J. of Applied Commum Res 34:257–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandman PM (2008) Simplification made Simple. http://www.psandman.com/col/simplify.htm. Accessed 1 Nov 2008

  • Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in switzerland. Risk Anal 26:971–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein, S (1985) Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates RW (ed) Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology. Westview, Colorado

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19:689–701

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D, Mertz CK, Neil N, Bartlett S (1995) Intuitive toxicology. II. expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal 15:661–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Still Picture Records Section, Special Media Archives Services Division (1979) President Jimmy Carter Leaving [Three Mile Island] for Middletown, Pennsylvania. http://www.arcweb.archives.gov/arc. Accessed 20 May 2010

  • Wray R, Rivers J, Whitworth A, Jupka K, Clements B (2006) Public perceptions about trust in emergency risk communication: Qualitative research findings. International Journal Mass Emerg Disasters 24:45–75

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA

    Michael R. Greenberg

  2. Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA

    Lauren C. Babcock-Dunning

Authors
  1. Michael R. Greenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren C. Babcock-Dunning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael R. Greenberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Life Sciences, Nelson Biological Laboratories, Rutgers University, Allison St. 604, Piscataway, 08854-8082, New Jersey, USA

    Joanna Burger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Greenberg, M.R., Babcock-Dunning, L.C. (2011). Communicating Between the Public and Experts: Predictable Differences and Opportunities to Narrow Them. In: Burger, J. (eds) Stakeholders and Scientists. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8813-3_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation