A Risk Communication Study: Effects of Economic Harms and Benefits

Heath, Liao & Douglas studied the effects of perceived economic harms and benefits on issue involvement, information use, and action. This risk communication study was published in the Journal of Public Relations Research.

This study revealed that the perceptions of a source of risk (i.e. chemical plant) has on economic benefits/losses increases cognitive involvement, motivates strategic use of information and action. The relationship between involvement and economic benefits is intuitive – people who perceive economic benefits from the presence of a risk source, show high involvement (both negative and positive), and by contrast, people with little or no economic impact have lower involvement.

The activists are people with high negative involvement. This finding suggested to Heath and Douglas that people could "be opposing-involved", which means people who are involved, but disapprove of the organization's actions/positions. Similarly, the pair coined the term "supporting-involved for those who have as interest in well-being of an organization or have an ideology that supports its actions and policies." Actions taken in regards to an industrial chemical company's safety or benefits are attending a public meeting, followed by signing a petition, writing a letter, speaking at a public hearing, voting, contributing money to an organization and attending a demonstration.

Results of the study also showed that the local newspaper (89.2%) and friends/acquaintances (78.9%) are major sources of information that people use concerning effects a risk source that has on their economic well-being. About "one-third used plant management as an information source to help them understand the plant's financial impact." Additionally, "the more cognitively involved a person was about a plant's financial impact, the more he/she used information to monitor that impact." Strategic use of information sources in this circumstance might include the state commerce department or plant management.

Another major finding of the study is that "the greater the people's involvement, the more likely they would act to enhance their financial situation or prevent loss. In addition, a negative correlation was found between action taking and people's support or opposition to the plant." The actions in rank preference are attend public hearings (83.7%), lobby local government officials (62%), sign petitions (59.2%), lobby state legislators (58.2%), appeal to plant management (58.6%), join environmental groups (53.7%), lobby state government officials (54.1%), join economic development committee (46.8%), and join a labor union (25.6%).

What this means to practitioners is that evaluating perceptions of economic benefits/harms can predict the strength of individual's cognitive involvement.

It is also important to note that "citizens of a smaller, less diversified community tend to respond more in terms of immediate community self-interest." In other words, "small, homogeneous communities with few economic sources. People would likely take a position against a chemical plant if they do not have much to lose for doing so, especially if environmental damage is a priority issue on the community agenda."