Abstract
Developing effective risk communication strategies, plans, and messages on complex, scientific, and technical topics requires an in-depth understanding of stakeholders’ values, interests, priorities, and information needs. It is only through such insight, based on empirical research, that agencies and organizations can understand the complex environmental and individual factors that affect stakeholders’ decision making about these topics that shape their judgment and behavior.
The following discussion provides an overview of the social science methodology behind Mental Modeling, the key benefits, and the key steps in the process. The original process was developed to identify in detail the specific risk communications steps in an integrated risk management process, the Canadian Standard Association’s Q850-97 Risk Management: Guideline for Decision-Makers (1997). Over the years, we have refined and customized the process to suit the topic and application at hand. Many subsequent applications have expanded and broadened the use of Mental Modeling to a range of topics and challenges related to risk and decision making. To demonstrate the broad range of topics and applications that have been addressed with Mental Modeling and to illustrate the steps in the approach, we present several example case studies in subsequent chapters. In this chapter, we describe the key steps using the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Mental Modeling case study that goes from research design to strategy and communications execution and measurement.
This Guideline (subsequently revised in 2009 as Q850-87 (R2009) Risk Management: Guideline for Decision Makers) is also aligned with the US Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management Process and the Australian/New Zealand Risk Management Standard. In addition, our work in strategic risk communications is aligned with the International Organization for Standardization’s (ISO) 31000 Guidelines on Risk Management (2009), to which we provided input.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Dr. Fischhoff is Decision Partners’ Chief Scientist responsible for strategic research design, implementation, and analysis. He is also the Howard Heinz University Professor of the Departments of Social and Decision Science, and Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University.
- 2.
In February 2016, Decision Partners received a patent for its Mental Modeling Method. This patent reflects the essential intellectual property and software tools that comprise Mental Modeling Technology™.
- 3.
Reingold is a small, full service communications firm based in Alexandra, VA.
- 4.
Penn Schoen Berland is one of the world’s premier strategic opinion research and communications consulting firms, and is based in Washington, DC.
- 5.
In-person interviews can add considerable time and cost and may increase the potential for “please-the-interviewer” bias compared to phone interviews, which may be perceived as more equitable by participants.
- 6.
Conducted by Penn Schoen Berland.
- 7.
Such testing can also be conducted to evaluate performance of current or past strategies and communications for purposes of identifying improvements to both.
References
Atman, C. J., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1994). Designing risk communications: completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, part I. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 779–788.
Beddow, V. (2011). Conducting effective community outreach and dialogue on biosolids land application: Primer for biosolids professionals. Alexandria, VA: IWA Publishing.
Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., & Morgan, M. G. (1992). Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 85–100.
Cognitive Science Systems, LP. (2012). ECASS: Expert modeling module of the cognitive analysis software suite (computer software). Retrieved May 10, 2012, from http://www.decisionpartners.com.
Eggers, S., Thorne, S., Butte, G., & Sousa, K. (2011). A strategic risk communications process for outreach and dialogue on biosolids land application. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment Research Foundation.
Fischhoff, B., Brewer, N. T., & Downs, J. S. (2011). Communicating risks and benefits: An evidence-based user’s guide. Silver Spring, MD: US Food and Drug Administration.
Health Canada, Canadian Standards Organization. (2006). A framework for strategic risk communications within the context of health Canada and the PHAC’s integrated risk management, 0-662-44597-X. Retrieved January 28, 2016 from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/_ris-comm/framework-cadre/index-eng.php.
ISO. (2009). 31000: 2009 Risk management–principles and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Standards Council of Canada. (1997). Risk management: Guideline for decision-makers. Etobicoke, ON, Canada: The Canadian Standards Association.
Acknowledgment
Special thanks to Tanya Darisi, Robert Green and Joseph Ney for their contributions to the chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thorne, S., Butte, G., Kovacs, D., Wood, M.D. (2017). Mental Modeling Research Technical Approach. In: Mental Modeling Approach. Risk, Systems and Decisions. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6616-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6616-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-6614-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-6616-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)