Protracted Strategic Risk Communication:
Longitudinal Analysis of A Community's Zones of Meaning
Prepared by
Michael J. Palenchar
Doctoral Student
University of Florida
College of Journalism and Communications
Department of Public Relations
G040 Weimer Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-8400
352-379-5551
[log in to unmask]
and
Robert L. Heath
Professor of Communication
Institute for the Study of Issues Management
University of Houston
Houston, Texas 77204-3786
713-743-2882
[log in to unmask]
Competitive Paper:
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication: Public
Relations Division
Kansas City, Missouri
July 30 August 2, 2003
Protracted Strategic Risk Communication:
A Longitudinal Analysis of Community's Zones of Meaning
This study replicates and extends elements of Heath and Abel's (1996) and
Heath and Palenchar's (2000) analysis of the impact of sustained strategic
risk communication. Through random telephone surveys (n=400), the authors
confirmed and strengthened some of the conclusions of the two previous
studies in relation to identifying and better understanding community zones
of meaning. Identifiable community zones of meaning related to risk
perception are becoming apparent. Sense of risk, cognitive involvement,
trust of the chemical industry and government officials, the roles of
schools during a chemical emergency, and certain risk communication public
awareness tools (e.g., Wally and LEPC) are identified as key elements in
understanding community zones of meaning.
Sustained Strategic Risk Communication:
Longitudinal Analysis of A Community's Zones of Meaning
Previous research (e.g., Palenchar & Heath, 2002; Heath & Palenchar, 2000)
established that risk communication strategies incorporated into community
relations programs can enhance discourse with residents and augment their
knowledge about chemical manufacturing issues. In the case of Local
Emergency Planning Committee's (LEPC) emergency response practices,
sustained strategic risk communication helps residents learn and understand
emergency response measures related to having a large chemical
manufacturing, refining and transportation presence in the community.
This specific approach to risk communication typically involves large
private or public organizations, such as petroleum manufacturing complexes
or specialty chemical storage facilities, whose business activities can or
do pose a health and safety risk. These organizations, along with related
governmental agencies, concerned community groups, and national health and
safety coalitions, and community residents ideally engage in dialogue and
exchange information pertaining to health, safety and environmental risks.
The assumption behind this branch of risk communication is that people in
key communities participate in an open and ongoing process of recognizing,
understanding and appreciating the levels of risks that they experience
from living in proximity to manufacturing facilities that are inherently
hazardous. Thus, residents and related organizations can take measures
that would help them understand the prevailing risk, help them reduce their
risk, and help them to collectively take actions.
One of the challenges in public relations studies is to gather longitudinal
data about community residents, in an effort to better understand how the
community perceives risks related to chemical manufacturing, how community
residents perceive their relationship to organizations that create or
effect health and safety in the community, and to identify key knowledge
and attitudinal segments within the community, either through demographics
or psychographic variables.
To that effect, the purpose of this study is to expand on the conclusions
drawn by Heath and Abel's (1996) and Heath and Palenchar's (2000) research
on community risk perceptions. The purpose of this study is to provide a
quasi-longitudinal analysis of the impact emergency preparation and risk
communication have on the overall, long-term effectiveness of sustained,
risk communication practices in identifying key interpretive patterns of
perceiving reality a community's zones of meaning.
This paper provides insights into sustained strategic risk communication,
where efforts have been made to build relationships between industry and
area residents whose lives can be affected, positively and negatively, by
the presence of hazardous manufacturing operations. As part of the
industry's Responsible Care program, leading communities have assessed the
periodic status of communities' zones of meaning. The data captured in
these assessments provide ongoing snap shots of identifiable community
zones of meaning, and factors that relate to risk perceptions, over time.
THE 1996 AND 2000 STUDY
A study by Heath and Abel (1996), and later reinforced by Heath and
Palenchar (2000) suggested that the implementation of emergency response
procedures and communication about those activities had positive impact on
public concerns and sentiments. The 1996 study of three communities
addressed whether more effort actually pays off in providing community
residents with the emergency response warning knowledge and the strategies
they want to use in the event of a health or a life threatening
emergency. Related to that question is whether providing more information
having key publics feel that they are better informed lowers their
sense of the risks of living in their community and increases their support
for the industry.
The 1996 study compared three cities based on the amount and duration of
their emergency preparation (e.g., integration of a CAER Line) and the
communication measures (e.g., SIP) residents are directed to take during a
chemical manufacturing emergency. The communities examined in that study
were high profile (HP: substantial amounts of emergency response actions,
preparations and communication), moderate profile (MP: less actions,
preparations and communication), and low profile (LP: actions, preparation
and communication that were starting). Heath and Abel (1996) used amount of
effort (independent variable) to examine whether more communication efforts
over time a quasi-longitudinal model would increase community support
(dependent variable).
Heath and Palenchar (2000) later replicated the study for two (HP, MP) of
the three communities from the 1996 study, based on the degree of emergency
response planning and related communication efforts. They used a
quasi-longitudinal approach that assumed that different amounts of
emergency response implementation and communication over time would produce
the predicted, desired effects.
The messages addressed in both studies are those typical of shelter in
place (SIP), an emergency response procedure that operates as follows: if a
release of hazardous material occurs in a manufacturing plant in a
community where people live, then the residents would be notified via an
emergency alert system, such as plant sirens and computerized emergency
alert phone messages. Once alerted, residents would engage in the
appropriate emergency response to protect themselves until the hazardous
materials no longer posed a safety threat.
Regarding community zones of meaning in their review of the data of three
communities, Heath and Palenchar (2000) concluded that "[A]s has been
discovered in previous studies, survey instruments can be used to determine
the zones of meaning and communication infrastructure in a community. Such
information is vital to community-relations, risk communication projects"
(p. 159). Both studies assumed that by analyzing and identifying community
zones of meaning, it would help in understanding each key publics'
idiosyncratic response to each risk based on its unique decision heuristic.
RISK COMMUNICATION
Risk communication grew out of risk perception and risk management
studies. From these origins it took on a source oriented, information
based, linear approach to communication (Leiss, 1996). Stressing the need
for correct information on which to base risk assessments in 1985,
Fischhoff argued, "The legitimacy of the public's concerns and of the
actions that those concerns provoke largely depends on the accuracy of the
risk perceptions on which they are based" (p. 84). This approach to risk
communication still in common practice today prescribed that any
organization whose activities may or do result in health, safety or
environmental risk for community members can assuage their apprehensions by
being credible and by providing accurate information about the known
likelihood of each risk's occurrence and the magnitude of its effect.
More recent approaches to risk communication have discovered the
importance of a dialogic, relationship-building approach to dealing with
the concerns and perceptions of community residents and employees. In this
approach, information does not completely account for the final estimation
of risk. Culture, values, attributions of responsibility and self-interests
employed in risk interpretations may be more important than technical data
(Dake, 1992; Renn, Burns, J. Kasperson, R. Kasperson, & Slovic, 1992;
Vaughan & Seifert, 1992). According to Covello (1992), other central
factors in risk perception include: catastrophic potential, familiarity,
understanding, uncertainty, controllability, voluntariness of exposure,
effects on children, effects manifestation, effects on future generations,
victim identity, dread, trust in institutions, media attention, accident
history, equity, benefits, reversibility, personal stake and origin.
Strategic risk communication charges that each key public makes an
idiosyncratic reaction to each risk based on its distinct yet continually
transforming decision heuristic. Risk relevant publics exist because people
have different interpretive heuristics as well as conflicting understanding
of whether something creates risk, whether that risk should be tolerated,
and whether avoidance strategies or control measures are warranted.
Typical of this line of reasoning, Covello (1992) defined risk
communication "as the exchange of information among interested parties
about the nature, magnitude, significance, or control of a risk" (p. 359).
It involves "the act of conveying or transmitting information between
interested parties about levels of health or environmental risks; the
significance or meanings of such risks; or decisions, actions, or policies
aimed at managing or controlling such risks" (Davies, Covello, & Allen,
1987, p. 112; see also Covello, Sandman, & Slovic, 1988).
This perspective has been characterized as an infrastructural approach to
risk communication (Heath, 1996), one that acknowledges that political
dimensions of risk communication couple with the more purely technical or
scientific dimensions. In a community where varied opinions and concerns
exist, scientific assessment of facts and performance achievements is
subjected to persuasive contests and sociopolitical interpretations that
include consideration of balances of political power (Heath & Nathan, 1991).
ZONES OF MEANING
As noted previously, more recent approaches to risk communication have
discovered the importance of a more dialogic, relationship-building
approach to addressing the concerns of community residents who worry that
the activities of the organization are having an unnecessary impact on
health, safety and environment. Risk assessors and communicators realize
that each key public makes an idiosyncratic response to each risk based on
its unique decision heuristic.
Risk relevant publics exist because people have different interpretive
heuristics as well as a conflicting understanding of whether something
creates risk, whether that risk should be tolerated, and whether avoidance
strategies or control measures are warranted. Publics arise because
information and opinion regarding each risk do not uniformly exist
throughout society. Pockets of concern become fertile ground for employing
government to intervene between the public and the source of the risk.
A rhetorical perspective for the study and practice of public relations
entails the analysis of words, symbols and psychographics that create
unique decision heuristics. "Meaning defines the identities and
prerogatives of organizations, people associated with them, and their
relationships. Changes that affect businesses and non-profits result from
calls, voiced in interpretive vocabularies, to constrain their prerogatives
by displacing old meanings with new ones" (Heath, 1993, p. 142). Heath
derived that perspective from an examination of Burke's (1966) proposition
that meaning is created and expressed through "terministic screens" with
which people filter and form interpretations of reality and prescribe
corresponding behaviors. Once these terministic screens, or interpretive
patterns of perceiving and talking about reality, become observable through
actions and discussions, Heath (1993) reasoned, they have become zones of
meaning.
Heath (1993) postulated that a dynamic relationship exists between the risk
communication process and the formation of zones of meaning. "Each group in
the risk communication infrastructure is likely to be part of a different
zone of meaning, reflecting different standards of what constitute risk,
the appropriate level of apprehension regarding risk, and appropriate plans
to avert and respond to risks" (p. 148). Thus for example, environmental
activists share a different, and perhaps competing, zone than the ones held
by members of the chemical manufacturing industry, community or government.
Understanding zones of meaning held by key publics would therefore be an
integral part of risk communication and public relations studies. If zones
of meaning facts, value premises, and conclusions in communities
differ, then risk responses must be tailored to each public and agreement
must be achieved. Addressing that theme, Rayner (1992) applied cultural
theory to conclude, "that risks are defined, perceived and managed
according to the principles that inhere in particular forms of social
organization" (p. 84). This approach differs from the dominant information
exchange linear form of communication. "The preferred outcome is a shared
sense of control through which relevant and concerned parties increase the
harmony in the community and seek to maximize mutual interests" (Heath,
1997, p. 338).
The preferred risk communication model assumes that publics are active
rather than passive information receivers and processors. Risk
communication entails institutions trying to reach individuals in various
states of collective behavior and engage in collaborative decision making.
Risk assessment and communication assumes that key players dispute of
propositions of fact, value and policy. How people interpret risks may
result from the facts they believe and the premises they use in their
debate and decision making. Propositions of fact result from inquiries
regarding what is known about a risk? What is the community's sense of
risk? How does the community trust government agencies, the chemical
industries or third-party experts? This last question stresses the
rhetorical and political nature of risks. Different cultures zones of
meanings reflect premises that stress different, even conflicting
values. The argumentative outcome of risk assessment and communication is
a product of facts interpreted through relevant premises and values.
What rationale exists for this approach to risk assessment and
communication? For example, Nathan and Heath (1992) found that opposition
correlated with the opinion that risks are intolerable. When considering
whether they would tolerate the potential discharge of harmful substances
particularly lead into coastal waters, non-supporters were more likely to
believe potential risks from a chemical manufacturing facility would be
greater than did supporters.
In a similar fashion, persons who oppose or do not support the presence of
a chemical plant in their community tend to think that harm from the plant
outweighs its benefits such as jobs, business income, and taxes (Heath,
Liao & Douglas, 1995). Persons who oppose such a plant experience higher
levels of cognitive involvement than supporters do; opponents believe that
they need to be attentive to plant operations and information about them
because of the likelihood that those operations adversely affect their
self-interests. The longer people live near a chemical plant or similar
facility, the more accommodating they become to it. Likewise, they become
more willing to support its presence in their community (Nathan & Heath, 1992).
KEY VARIABLES
Cognitive involvement is another vital aspect of the risk communication
process. The perception that risk exists and is unacceptable or at least
deserving of concern correlates with cognitive involvement (Nathan,
Heath & Douglas, 1992). Involved persons are more critical of information
and arguments than are their less cognitively involved counterparts (Petty
& Cacioppo, 1986). Cognitively involved persons acquire, pause to consider
and evaluate information more thoroughly.
Persons who are frightened, angry and powerless resist information that
implies that their risk is modest, whereas those who are optimistic and
overconfident deny that their risk is substantial (Sandman, 1986). When
people feel that the source of risk harms their financial well being they
are likely to become more cognitively involved with the discussion of the
risk and its abatement (Heath et al., 1995).
Cognitive involvement and support/opposition exhibit a curvilinear
relationship (Gay & Heath, 1995; Heath et al., 1995). That means that
persons who strongly oppose or support a product, service, company or
industry are likely to exhibit higher cognitive involvement than will
persons who neither strongly support nor oppose those items or
organizations. Overall, people are more willing to communicate about and
to think about an issue that relates to their self-interest or to some
altruistic interest (Heath & Douglas, 1991; Kunreuther, Easterling,
Desvousges, & Slovic, 1990).
Trust is also a central process variable within the infrastructural
approach to risk communication. People tend to be less afraid of risks that
come from places, people, corporations or other organizations that they
trust, and are more afraid if the risk comes from a source they don't trust
(Ropeik, D., & Gray, G, 2002). If expert risk estimates conflict with one
another, the decision to be made becomes more complex and requires greater
amounts of trust. For effective risk communication, the source of
information and advice needs to have a satisfactory level of trust in the
judgment of each public (Renn & Levine, 1991).
Support/opposition is the outcome objective of managing the organization's
response to the concern on the part of key publics. From an infrastructural
approach to risk communication, it has been the primary risk communication
process dependent variable used to assess individual or community
perceptions of a risk generating organization.
Numerous views of risk communication, however, identify understanding as
the final dependent variable. People may understand, for example, what a
plant manager says about the employee safety record at a community
refinery. But those people may not agree with the risk assessments because
they are not satisfied that those assessment achieve or constitute the
proper levels of risk (Palenchar & Heath, 2002). This line of reasoning
makes explicit the fact that risk communication is not merely a scientific
or knowledge-based activity.
One of the consistent findings of risk assessment studies is the recurring
theme that risks are a tradeoff of costs and rewards. If risks are
perceived to be acceptably low and the rewards or benefits of taking the
risks are perceived to be high, then one can predict that the risks will be
tolerated. For example, Baird (1986) found judged benefits of a hazard
were ranked first among other variables in correlation with risk tolerance.
Fischhoff, Slovic and Lichtenstein (1978) found a consistent relationship
between perceived benefit and acceptable risk level. Otway, Maurer and
Thomas (1978) found that economic and technical benefits contributed most
to the pro-nuclear respondents' attitudes toward nuclear power. Overall,
people tolerate higher risks from activities seen as beneficial, if
benefits extend beyond economic to include qualitative variables such as
basic needs, safety, security and pleasure.
THIS STUDY
To extend and examine results related to community zones of meaning from
Heath and Abel's (1996) and Heath and Palenchar's (2000) study, this
research project replicated their study and compared data. Using data from
the 1996 and 2000 studies, and conducting a comparable study of the HP
community in 2002, this research project conducted a quasi-longitudinal
analysis of the HP community over a seven-year period and as such can more
accurately assess the long-term impact of sustained risk communication on
understanding communities' zones of meaning.
Assessment is vital because if such risk management/risk communication
programs are determined to be effective and at the same time can be
combined with detailed information about community zones of meanings, it
can encourage city officials, industries and communities to create
strategic, sustained and measured risk communication campaigns. By
identifying and further explicating the nature of a community's zones of
meaning, more targeted and effective and dialogic risk communication
campaigns can be implemented with measured results.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Though this study was similar to ones conducted by Heath and Abel (1996)
and by Heath and Palenchar (2000), this research paper addressed the
following research questions:
RQ1: Do recognizable zones of meaning exist within a community? If yes, how
have these patterns changed during the intervening years of the risk
communication campaign.
RQ2: If recognizable zones of meaning exist, are there consistent zones of
meaning over a seven-year period for the HP community?
METHODOLOGY
This study was designed to replicate and extend both the 1996 and 2000
study. The 2002 replicated only the HP city (same city in all three
studies) the city with the longer record of community outreach and a
larger communication budget. This city has large and numerous chemical
manufacturing, transportation and storage facilities. The city has a Local
Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) and city emergency planning
organizations that develop and communicate emergency response plans for
citizens to follow in the event of an emergency.
The HP Community LEPC has been actively implementing sustained risk
communication campaigns for more than a decade. Each LEPC consists of
members from chemical companies and refineries, city government (especially
police and fire personnel), community health and safety organizations and
concerned citizens. This comparative analysis of two communities' zones of
meaning during a seven-year risk management/risk communication campaign was
designed to explore certain previously identified knowledge and attitude
variables regarding key communities' zones of meaning regarding
idiosyncratic response to each risk based on unique decision heuristic.
Thus, the data pertaining to the HP community's zones of meaning in the
1996, 2000 and this study, will be examined.
Using a professional survey company, 400 random telephone interviews were
conducted with community residents. See Table 1 for the demographic
profile of the persons who participated in the study. The telephone survey
was conducted so that males and females were equally represented;
respondents needed to be at least 18 years of age. The instrument used a
four point Likert scale for most questions: Strongly agree = 4, agree = 3,
disagree = 2 and strongly disagree = 1. Some questions asked about
demographics. Others tested knowledge by asking respondents what they would
do during specific events.
------------------------------
Insert Table 1 Here
------------------------------
Statistical analysis included measuring the reliability coefficients by
using multiple measures of key constructs. With three to four measures per
construct, Cronbach's alpha coefficient provided a measure of how reliably
the variables measure the construct. These constructs were developed from
prior zones of meaning indexes developed by Heath and Abel (1996), Heath
and Palenchar (2000), and Palenchar and Heath (2002). Pearson correlation
coefficient was used to analyze the relationship among constructs and
between constructs and other single-item variables, and to make inferences
from samples to populations.
RESULTS
Zones of Meaning and Communication Infrastructures
RQ1 asked: Do recognizable zones of meaning exist within a community? If
yes, how have these patterns changed during the intervening years of the
risk communication campaign. When many people within a community share the
same knowledge and interpretation of events, they constitute a zone of
meaning (Heath, 1994; Heath & Abel, 1996, Palenchar & Heath, 2002). This
study, as well as the 1996 and 2000 studies, discovered distinct and
important patterns of shared meaning, which imply that categories of
community members have diverse levels of knowledge and perception.
Discovering zones of meaning allows public relations practitioners to use
survey instruments that contain demographics, knowledge, awareness,
cognitive involvement, trust, support/opposition and other risk
communication process variables to determine how a community communicates
about and decides on risk assessment, management and emergency response.
Overall, data reveal different zones in the community that are likely to
reflect communication patterns that occur whether people talk about risks
and emergency response efforts or whether they are reached in various
patterns by risk communication messages.
Key Variables.
The surveys asked respondents to rate the degree to which they agreed or
disagreed with statements regarding the likelihood of chemical releases
from pipelines, tanker trucks, trains and chemical plants. Combined into a
single variable, these four questionnaire items were used to create a
variable (reliability for this study, alpha = .68; 2000, alpha = .64; 1996,
alpha = .67) called sense of risk. This measure operationalized
respondents' perception that risks exist in their community.
Combining items that measured respondents' predictions that living in the
community could affect their (a) safety and (b) long-term health created a
variable called cognitive involvement. When combined, these survey items
produced a reliability coefficient (this study, alpha = .48; 2000, alpha =
.57; 1996, alpha = .50). Previous research (Grunig, 1989; Heath & Douglas,
1990, 1991; Heath et al., 1995; Heath & Palenchar, 2000) has used this
variable to predict the likelihood that people would seek or receive
communication, such as read newspapers, attend meetings, watch television
programs, and talk to friends and acquaintances on topics related to some
issue. The variable assumes that if people believe that an issue affects
their self-interest, they become more thoughtful, are more likely to engage
in communication about the topic, and tend to take actions regarding the
issue (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986; Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983).
To operationalize trust in government, three items were combined; those
related to opinions toward elected city officials and fire or police
officials regarding the danger or safety associated with a release. The
items asked how much trust respondents would have for the opinion of these
officials. These survey items produced a variable with a reliability
coefficient (this study, alpha = .85; 2000, alpha = .84; 1996, alpha =
.84). Persons who score high on this variable would seem to believe those
key officials in the community will exert control over emergency situations
on their behalf.
A new variable in the 2000 and continued in this survey operationalized
residents' trust in third-party experts. Two items were combined to form
this variable, those related to opinions toward a medical doctor or
university chemical expert regarding the danger or safety associated with a
release. The items asked how much trust respondents would have for the
opinion of these experts. These survey items produced a variable with a
reliability coefficient (this study, alpha = .66; 200 alpha, = .60).
Persons who score high on this variable would seem to be ones who believe
those key experts in the community will exert intellectual professional
control over emergency situations on their behalf.
Another variable not analyzed in the 1996 survey operationalized
residents' trust in chemical industry officials. Four items formed this
variable: those related to opinions of plant managers, environmental
managers, public relations officers, and plant representatives regarding
the danger or safety associated with a release. The items asked how much
trust respondents would have for the opinion of these experts (this study,
alpha = .83; 2000, alpha = .81). Persons who score high on this variable
would seem to believe those key industry officials in the community will
exert control over emergency situations on their behalf.
To create a variable called leave or evacuate, three (1996) and two (2000
and this study) survey items were combined, those where people said they
would evacuate, to form a variable that resulted in a reliability
coefficient (this study, alpha = .68; 2000, alpha = .58; 1996, alpha =
.86). Persons who score high on this variable would seem to opt for
personal rather than community control.
Two variables were created to measure SIP, (a) persons who reported
correct SIP procedures if they were at home during a chemical release and
(b) persons who could correctly state the actions they associate with "SIP"
as a concept. SIP/procedure resulted in a reliability coefficient of (this
study, alpha = .66; 2000, alpha = .67; 1996, alpha = .57) and SIP/concept
was a variable with a reliability coefficient (this study, alpha = .81;
2000 alpha, = .62; 1996, alpha = .75).
Another variable, role of public schools in the SIP, emergency
preparedness process, was formed by combining responses to questions about
what parents said they would do if a chemical release occurred while their
children were at school and if they feared the school was in the path of
the release. These two items formed a weak variable (this study, alpha =
.42; 2000, alpha = .40; 1996, alpha = .44).
Also not included in the 1996 survey, organizations want to know whether
persons perceive them to be a positive economic and community presence.
These survey items produced a variable with a strong reliability
coefficient (this study, alpha = .69; 2000, alpha = .76). Persons who score
high on this variable would seem to be ones who support the chemical
industry in their community.
A new variable in this study operationalized residents' awareness of the
Responsible Care program. This variable was formed by combining responses
to two questions about hearing and receiving information about this
program. These two items formed a strong reliability
alpha = .81.
In addition to key variable constructs, five other single-item variables
were analyzed for relationships. These included awareness of Wally,
awareness of LEPC, awareness of CAER Line, present or previous employee,
and family member in the industry.
Identification of Zones and Infrastructures (This Study, HP Community).
Sense of risk had a moderate negative relationship with trust in industry
officials (r = -.36). Sense of risk had a weak negative
relationship with being a present or previous employee in the chemical
industry (r = -.13) and a small positive relationship with cognitive
involvement (r = .29). These findings suggest that persons who have greater
concern about the risks of living in the community are more cognitively
involved concerned about their self-interests. On the other hand, these
findings suggest that persons who have greater concerns about the risks of
living in the community are less likely to trust in industry officials or
to be or have been employed in the chemical industry. Most of these
patterns are classic ones in risk studies (e.g., Heath & Abel, 1996).
Cognitive involvement had a weak relationship with sense of risk (r = .29),
awareness of the Responsible Care program (r = .13), and being a previous
or current chemical industry employee (r = .12). Persons who are
cognitively involved have a higher sense of risk, but at the same time are
more aware of the emergency response effort of the Responsible Care program.
Trust in government officials had a strong relationship with trust in
industry officials (r = .62), and had a moderate relationship with
trust in third-party experts (r = .43) and leave or evacuate in the event
of an emergency (r = -.35). Trust in government officials also had a weak
positive correlation with knowledge of the LEPC (r = .20), understanding
SIP as a concept (r = .16), knowledge of SIP as a procedure (r =
.11), and awareness of the CAER line (r = .10). This would suggest that
residents who trust government are less likely to leave or evacuate. On the
other hand, residents who trust government or more likely to trust industry
officials and third-party officials, understand SIP as a concept and follow
it as a procedure, and are more aware of the LEPC and the CAER line. It
appears that trust in the government continues to have a somewhat strong
relationship with trusting other sources, including industry officials and
third-party experts.
Trust in chemical industry officials and trust in third-party experts
demonstrated relationships with some interesting variables. Trust in
third-party experts had a strong correlation with trust in industry
officials (r = .72) and a moderate correlation with trust in government (r
= .43). Also, trust in chemical industry officials had a strong
relationship with trust in government (r = .62), suggesting that people who
trust one group might tend to trust other groups as well. Trust in
chemical industry officials also had a moderate negative relationship with
sense of risk (r = -.36). Trust in third-party experts correlated with
knowledge of SIP procedures (r = .15). It is interesting to note that trust
in industry officials did not demonstrate a relationship to either having
family members presently or previously employed or being a present or
previous employee of the industry.
One key aspect of emergency response planning is to lessen the likelihood
that people would leave a safe place or attempt to evacuate in an
emergency. Based on this study, the profile of the person who would
attempt to leave or evacuate in the event of a chemical release is
critical. Leave or evacuate had a moderate negative relationship on trust
in government officials (r = -.35) and with the role of a school during an
emergency (r = -.31). Residents who are more likely to leave or evacuate
during an emergency have less trust of government officials and are more
likely to take incorrect actions with their school-aged children while they
are at school. This pattern has been identified in numerous studies (e.g.,
Heath & Palenchar, 2000).
Persons who know the SIP/procedures to take while at home or business or as
a SIP/concept were more knowledgeable of Wally (SIP/procedure, r = .21;
SIP/concept, r = .16), more likely to trust government (SIP/procedure, r =
.11; SIP/concept, r = .16), have a higher awareness of the Responsible Care
program (SIP/procedure, r = 15; SIP/concept, r = .14), more likely to know
what to do if children are at school (SIP/procedure, r = 21; SIP/concept, r
= .13), more likely to know what the LEPC is (SIP/procedure, r = .10;
SIP/concept, r = .21), more likely to know what the CAER Line is
(SIP/procedure, r = .10), are more likely to trust third-party experts
(SIP/procedure, r = .15), and are more likely to have been or presently
employed by the chemical industry (SIP/procedure, r = 10). These data
demonstrate relationship between knowledge of SIP as both a concept and the
actual procedure during an emergency with communication efforts of the LEPC
in the community.
Persons who know what to do in the event their children are at school (role
of public schools) tend be residents who would not leave or evacuate in the
event of a chemical release (r = -.31), are more aware of SIP procedures
while at home or business during an emergency (r = .21), and are more aware
of Wally (r = .19) and of SIP as a concept (r = .13). A relationship is
identified between Wally and SIP as both a concept and procedure, and with
knowledge of proper procedures regarding children in school in the event of
an emergency. However, the negative relationship between leave and evacuate
and the role of public schools, though expected, still remains an area
inconsistent with the SIP and emergency response communication efforts.
Persons who know about the Responsible Care program are more aware of the LEPC
(r = .37), more knowledgeable of the CAER Line (r = .36), more likely to be
a present or previous employee of the chemical industry (r = .28), more
likely to be aware of SIP procedures (r = .15), more likely to be aware of
SIP as a concept (r = .14), more cognitively involved (r = .13), and more
likely to have a family member who is a present of previous employee of the
chemical industry (r = .13). This new program has gained a foothold in the
community, a program that is similar to residents' recognition of the LEPC.
What sorts of people were most knowledgeable of Wally? The answer: those
who know what to do in the event they are at home or business when a
chemical release occurred (SIP/procedure, r = .21), as well as those who
know the concept of SIP (r = .16). Knowledge of Wally also had a weak
positive correlation with awareness of LEPC (r = .28), awareness of the
CAER Line (r = .24), to the proper role of school during an emergency (r =
.19), and to having a family member in the industry (r = .11). Knowledge of
Wally not only correlates with appropriate actions during an emergency, but
also with emergency mediums of communication as well as the sponsoring
organization (LEPC).
Persons who know what an LEPC is tend to be: more aware of the
Responsible Care program (r = .37), more aware of the CAER Line (r = .30),
more aware of Wally (r = .28), more likely to be aware of SIP as a concept
(r = .21), more likely to trust government (r = .20), more likely to be a
present or past chemical industry employee (r = .16), more likely to have a
family member who works or worked for the industry (r = .11), and more able
to recall SIP procedures (r = .10). These findings suggest that the LEPC is
increasingly being associated with the information people receive about
emergency response practices.
Present or previous employees of the chemical industry have more knowledge
of the Responsible Care program (r = .28), more knowledgeable of the CAER
Line (r = .16) and the LEPC (r = .16), have a lower sense of risk (r =
-.13), higher cognitive involvement (r = .12), and are more knowledgeable
about SIP procedures (r = .10). This data suggests the chemical industry
is communicating with present or previous employees of the industry
regarding some aspects of the community emergency response information.
Persons who have a family member in the industry are more aware of the
Responsible Care program (r = .13), and are more knowledgeable about Wally
(r = .11) and the LEPC
(r = .11). Thus, having a family member presently or previously employed
in the chemical industry does not correlate with knowledge of emergency
response practices, but does demonstrate a weak relationship with
communication tools such as the LEPC, Wally and the Responsible Care program.
Awareness of the CAER Line had a moderate positive correlation with
awareness of the Responsible Care program (r = .36) and the LEPC (r = .30).
It also had a weak positive relationship with Wally (r = .24), being a past
or present employee (r = .16), trust in government (r = .10), and leave or
evacuate (r = .10).
Identification of Zones and Infrastructures (2000 Study, HP Community):
Sense of risk had a moderate positive correlation with cognitive
involvement (r = .35), and a weak negative correlation with trust in
industry officials (r = -.13) and trust in government officials (r = -.13).
This zone of meaning consists of persons who have greater concern about the
risks of living in the community, are more cognitively involved (concerned
about their self-interests), and are less trusting of industry and
government officials.
Cognitive involvement had a moderate positive correlation with sense of
risk (r = .35). It had a weak negative correlation with trust in
government (r = - .25), trust in industry officials (r = -.21), awareness
of CAER Line (r = -.13), and awareness of the LEPC (r = -.10). Persons
within this zone of meaning, who are cognitively involved, have a higher
sense of risk, are less trusting of government and industry officials, and
are less aware of the CAER Line and the LEPC.
One zone of meaning features trust in government officials as a vital part
of the emergency response process. Trust in government had a strong
positive correlation with trust in the chemical industry (r = .52) and a
moderate positive correlation with trust in third-party experts (r = .39).
It also had a weak correlation with cognitive involvement (r = -.25),
knowledge of what to do if children are at school (r = .17), being a
present or previous employee of the chemical industry (r = .14), family
member presently or previously employed in the chemical industry (r = .14),
sense of risk (r = -.13), awareness of the LEPC (r = .10), and leave or
evacuate (r = -.10). This zone would suggest that residents who trust
government are less likely to be cognitively involved and less likely to
evacuate in an emergency situation and have a higher sense of risk;
however, they are more likely to know what to do when their children are at
school, to have or had family member(s) in the industry, and are more aware
of the LEPC.
Trust in chemical industry officials demonstrated a strong relationship
with trust in government (r = .52) and trust in third-party experts (r =
.51). This zone consists of a weak negative relationship with cognitive
involvement (r = -.21), a sense of risk (r = -.13), and a weak positive
relationship with family members presently or previously employed in the
chemical industry (r = .16). It is interesting to note that trust in
industry did not correlate with length of time in the community or family
members presently or previously working in the industry. Trust in
third-party experts had a strong relationship with trust in industry
officials (r = .51), a moderate relationship with trust in government (r =
.39), and a weak relationship with awareness of emergency response
practices at home during an emergency (r = .15). Trust in third-party
experts had a weak negative relationship with awareness of the CAER Line (r
= -.18). Similar to this study, the 2000 data suggest a moderate to strong
relationship among the three trust constructs, suggesting a possible
pattern to trust for key zones of meaning within this community.
Emergency response planning is designed to lessen the likelihood that
people would leave or evacuate. Based on this study, the profile of the
person who would attempt to evacuate in the event of a chemical release is
important. Persons in this zone of meaning are less aware of SIP procedures
(r = -.50), are less likely to take correct actions if their children were
at school during an emergency (r = -.28), are less aware of Wally (r =
-.14), and are less trustful of government officials (r = -.10). Similar to
this study, leave or evacuate continues to demonstrate negative
relationships to particular aspects of SIP, particularly the role of
schools during a chemical emergency.
People who know the SIP/procedures to take while at home during an
emergency seem to be less likely to leave or evacuate (r = -.50). These
people are aware of Wally (SIP/procedure, r = .21; SIP/concept, r =
.22). People in this zone know what to do if children are at school
(SIP/procedure, r = .36; SIP/concept, r = .31), what an LEPC is
(SIP/procedure, r = .10; SIP/concept, r = .21), what the CAER Line is
(SIP/concept, r = .22), and trust third-party experts (SIP/procedure, r =
.15). Present or previous employees are more knowledgeable of SIP as a
concept (r = .11) and as a procedure (r = .10). Consistent with previous
studies (e.g., Palenchar & Heath, 2002) and with this study, SIP as a
concept and procedure remains a consistent and identifiable element of this
community's zones of meaning.
Persons who know what to do in the event their children are at school (role
of public schools) tend to be more aware of SIP procedures while at home
during an emergency (r = .36) and of SIP as a concept (r = .31). They are
more aware of the LEPC (r = .30) and Wally (r = .17). They are less likely
to evacuate (r = -.28) and more trustworthy of government (r = .17).
What sorts of people were knowledgeable about Wally? The members of this
zone of meaning know what to do if they were at home when a chemical
release occurred (r = .21), as well as those who know the concept of SIP (r
= .22). Knowledge of Wally correlated with awareness of CAER Line (r =
.21), awareness of LEPC (r = .19), role of school (r = .17), and leave or
evacuate (r = - .14). Similar to this study, Wally appears to be one of the
effective tools of the risk communication efforts in the community.
Persons who know what an LEPC is are more aware of the CAER Line (r = .31),
more aware of what to do when their children are in school (r = .30), more
able to recall SIP as a concept (r = .21), more aware of Wally (r = .19),
more likely to be aware of SIP procedures during an emergency at home (r =
.10), more likely to trust government (r = .10), and are less cognitively
involved (r = -.10). Similar to this study, the LEPC organization continues
to demonstrate a strong relationship with various aspects of the emergency
response campaigns.
Persons who are presently or previously employed in the chemical industry
had a weak positive correlation with trust in government (r = .14),
SIP/concept (r = .11) and SIP/procedures (r = .10). Persons who have a
family member in the industry have a weak relationship with trust in
industry (r = .16) and trust in government (r = .14). Having a family
member in the chemical industry does not correlate with knowledge of
emergency response practices.
Awareness of the CAER Line had a moderate positive relationship with LEPC
(r = .31), and it had a weak positive relationship with SIP/procedure (r =
.22), Wally (r = .21), trust in the chemical industry (r = .18), and
cognitive involvement (r = .13).
Identification of Zones and Infrastructures (1996 Study, HP Community):
Sense of risk had a moderate positive correlation with cognitive
involvement (r = .26), a weak negative correlation with trust in government
officials (r = -.18) and SIP/concept (r = -.13). This zones of meaning
consists of people who have a greater concern about the risks of living in
the community are more cognitively involved, and are less trusting of
government officials and less knowledge of the concept of SIP.
Cognitive involvement had a moderate positive correlation with sense of
risk (r = .26). It also had a weak negative correlation with trust in
government (r = -.17), SIP/concept (r = -.13), and present or previous
employment in the industry (r = -.13). People who are cognitively involved
have a higher sense of risk, are less trusting of government and industry
officials, less likely to be aware of SIP/concept and less likely to have
be or have been employed by industry. These patterns, classic ones in risk
communication (e.g., Heath & Palenchar, 2000).
Trust in government had a strong negative correlation with the role of
school (r = -.24) and a negative correlation with leave or evacuate (r =
-.24). It is interesting to note that people who feel less trust for
government officials seem to have more trust for school officials.
Leave or evacuate had a weak positive negative correlation with the role of
schools
(r = -.24). People who would leave or evacuate also had a weak negative
correlation with SIP/procedures (r = -.22) and awareness of the LEPC (r =
-.15).
People who know the SIP/procedures or SIP/concepts to take while at home
during an emergency seem had a weak to moderate correlations with leave or
evacuate (SIP/procedures, r = -.22), knowledgeable of Wally
(SIP/procedures, r = .16; SIP/concept, r = .20), more likely to know what
to do if their children are at school (SIP/procedures, r = - .21;
SIP/concept, r = -.30), more likely to know what the LEPC is (SIP/concept,
r = .30), and more likely to be a present or previous employee of the
industry (SIP/concept, r = .20).
Role of public schools tend to be more aware of SIP/procedure (r = .21)
and SIP/concept (r = .30). They are more knowledgeable about Wally (r =
.24), less likely to evacuate (r = -.24), less likely to trust government
(r = -.24), and more cognitively involved (r = .14). Wally had a weak
positive correlation with two constructs: SIP/concept (r = .20) and
SIP/procedures (r = .16). People who know what an LEPC is had a moderate
positive correlation with SIP/concept (r = .30) and a weak negative
correlation with leave or evacuate (r = -.15). Present or previous
employees had a weak positive correlation with SIP/concept (r = .20).
Consistent Relationships within the HP Community's Zones of Meanings
RQ2: The second research question one asked if there are consistent zones
of meaning over a seven-year period for the HP community? As typical with
exploratory analysis, there were multiple consistencies and inconsistencies
during the seven-year period of study. However, many are typical of
patterns that are classic ones in risk studies. (Note: A consistent measure
describes a Pearson correlation coefficient in a similar direction for all
three studies.)
Sense of risk had a consistent weak-to-moderate positive correlation with
cognitive involvement (1996, r = .26; 2000, r = .35, this study, r = .29).
This pattern, classic within the risk communication literature (e.g., Heath
and Abel, 1996) suggests a zone of meaning where people who have a higher
sense of risk are more cognitively involved.
Leave or evacuate demonstrated a consistent weak-to-moderate negative
correlation with the role of school during a chemical emergency (1996, r =
-.24; 2000, r = - .28; this study, r = -.31). Residents who are more likely
to leave or evacuate during a chemical emergency are less confident that
schools are prepared for a chemical emergency.
Knowledge of the proper procedures during a chemical emergency at home or
at business (SIP/procedure) demonstrated two consistent weak-to-moderate
positive correlations. These include: the proper role of schools (1996, r =
.27; 2000, r = . 36; this study, r = .21) and awareness of Wally (1996, r =
.16; 2000, r = .12; this study, r = .21). This demonstrates a possible
relationship between awareness of SIP procedures and the public awareness
character Wally and the role of the schools during an emergency, which are
consistent emergency response messages.
Knowledge of the concept of SIP (SIP/concept) demonstrated three consistent
weak-to-moderate positive correlations. These include: the proper role of
schools (1996, r = .30; 2000, r = .31; this study, r = .13), awareness of
Wally (1996, r = 20; 2000, r = .22; this study, r = .16), and awareness of
the LEPC (1996, r = .20; 2000, r = .11; this study, r = .21). Similar to
SIP procedures, this demonstrates a relationship between knowledge of the
concept of SIP with the schools, Wally and LEPC, which again are consistent
emergency response messages.
Awareness of Wally had a consistent weak positive correlation with the
proper role of school (1996, r = .24; 2000, r = .17; this study, r = .19).
Similar to the above relationships, Wally has a positive relationship with
the understanding the proper role of schools.
Overall, these consistent relationships demonstrate a consistent connection
between elements of risk communication campaigns (SIP/concept and
SIP/procedures) with risk communication campaign tools (Wally) utilized by
organizations (LEPC and the role schools).
As an exploratory analysis of consistent zones of meaning demonstrated over
a period of time, the researchers also identified which constructs and
single-item variables showed a similar direction relationship during at
least two of the three studies. Though lacking consistency throughout the
entire seven-year study, it could point out possible relationships that
warrant further analysis.
Sense of risk had a weak negative correlation with trust in government
(1996, r = -.18; 2000, r = -.13), and a weak-to-moderate negative
correlation with trust in the chemical industry (2000 study, r = -.13; this
study, r = -.36). Cognitive involvement had a weak negative correlation
with trust in government (1996, r = -.17; 2000, r = -. 25).
Trust in government demonstrated five possibly consistent relationships.
They include: a strong positive relationship with trust in the chemical
industry (2000, r = .52; this study, r = .62), a moderate positive
relationship with trust in third-party experts (2000, r = .39, this study,
r = .43), and a weak positive relationship with awareness of LEPC (2000, r
= .10; this study, r = 20). Trust in government also had a weak-to-moderate
negative correlation with leave or evacuate (2000, r = -.10; this study, r
= -.35) and the proper role of school (1996, r = -.24; 2000, r = -.28).
Also, trust in third-party experts had a strong positive correlation with
trust in the chemical industry (2000, r = .51; this study, r = .72).
SIP/procedures had three possible consistent zones of meaning
relationships. These include: trust in third-party experts (2000, r = .21;
this study, r = .15), LEPC (2000, r = .10; this study, r = .10), and
present or previously employed in the chemical industry (2000, r = .10;
this study, r = .10). SIP/concept demonstrated one possible consistent
relationship with previous or present employee in the chemical industry
(1996, r = .20; 2000, r = .11).
Leave or evacuate had a possibly consistent weak-to-strong negative
correlation with SIP/procedures (1996, r = -.22; 2000, r = -.50). Also,
Wally had possibly consistent weak positive relationship with LEPC (2000
study, r = .19; this study, r = .28) and CAER Line (2000, r = .21; this
study, r = .24).
DISCUSSION
The risk management/risk communication public awareness campaign showed
steady progress toward increasing the likelihood that members of the
community know the appropriate actions and policies of industry and
government regarding safety and health issues related to chemical
manufacturing (Heath & Abel, 1996; Heath & Palenchar, 2000). These findings
should reinforce the continuing effort of the LEPC; this is especially
important given the fact that the population is not static.
For the most part, the community residents continue to demonstrate
increased awareness and understanding of emergency response protocols.
There are also developing some consistent patterns to certain knowledge and
attitudinal dimensions of the community's zones of meaning. Identifiable
community zones of meaning related to risk perception are becoming
apparent. Sense of risk, cognitive involvement, trust of the chemical
industry and government officials, and the roles of schools during a
chemical emergency continue to demonstrate some of the strongest
relationships in identifying zones of meaning within this seven-year study.
Certain risk communication public awareness tools are also becoming
identified as key elements in understanding community zones of
meaning. These tools that are identified within zones of meaning include
the SIP campaign, Wally, and the CAER Line, and the LEPC as the
identifiable organization related with these efforts.
There are also some identifiable consistencies in relation to trust. Trust,
within this community, shows more power in relationship with other
variables and among the trust constructs. Trust in government is related to
trust in third-party experts is related to trust in the chemical industry.
Further analysis related to identifying the different powers in
relationship among these three variables would help to clarify the role of
trust to each particular agency working in this community.
SIP as both a concept and procedure continue to demonstrate relationships
with numerous aspects of the risk communication campaign efforts. All three
studies identified relationships between one or both SIP constructs and
trust in third-party experts, the proper roles of school, Wally, LEPC, and
being a present or previous employee of the chemical industry. These
positive relationships demonstrate a consistent and strengthening
relationship between the SIP risk communication information and the public
awareness tools that are used to disseminate the information. Though no
cause and effect is identified, the consistent nature of the relationship,
along with the increase in the strength on many of the correlations,
suggests a developing relationship.
Being a present or previously employee or having family members who are a
present or previous employee both had weak positive relationships with
numerous elements of the risk communication efforts, including the
Responsible Care program, LEPC and Wally. However, no consistent or
strengthening relationship was identified with other constructs or
single-item variables. Intuitively, one would predict that risk
communication information and efforts, as well as the organizations who are
conducting these campaigns, would have a strong relationship with industry
employees and those who have family members in the industry, but that
continues to not be the case. This patter was identified in earlier
research (e.g., Heath & Abel, 1996; Heath & Palenchar, 2000).
Those who are aware of the proper role of the schools during an emergency
show positive relationships with a variety of the risk communication tools
that are being utilized in this community, such as Wally, the CAER Line,
the Responsible Care program, and the LEPC organization. Residents with
children have been targeted in past communication efforts over the
seven-year study, and the demonstrate some of the most consistent
relationships with risk communication tools.
Overall, the data continue to show that people who have a stronger sense
that they are at risk and experience high cognitive involvement are likely
targets of communication, and that those targets of communication, or at
least the means to communicate, are becoming increasingly aware. Results
reported for this community in all three surveys indicate that several key
zones of meaning exist that can be identified either by risk communication
variables. Such analysis reinforces previous held contentions regarding
zones of meaning within communities of risk that can help public relations
professionals better understand the informational needs and communication
patterns of persons in the community.
CONCLUSION
This study replicated and reaffirmed that survey instruments can be used to
determine the zones of meaning and communication infrastructures in a
community. This study also demonstrated that consistent patterns to zones
of meaning are starting to be identified. Palenchar and Heath (2002) argued
that "not only must researchers understand the prevailing risk
communication variables, but they also need to understand and respond
proactively to the different zones of meaning that exist in these
communities" (p. 150).
Zones of meaning continue to be demonstrated as a key element in sustained
risk communication efforts. Such zones of meaning are links that connect
them to emergency response organizations, emergency response personnel,
individual companies, the chemical industry and the community. The
knowledge residents have might result from where they are located in the
information networks of the community, and understanding and interpreting
the different and unique variables that constitute zones of meaning is a
key to strategic risk communication. The results of this paper challenge
risk communication and public relations researchers to gather longitudinal
data that can track the zones of meanings that operate in key stakeholder
groups and communities. This paper provides insights into long-term,
sustained risk communication efforts in a community setting.
References
Baird, B. (1986). Tolerance for environmental health risks: The influence
of knowledge,
benefits, voluntariness and environmental attitudes. Risk Analysis, 6, 425-435.
Burke, K. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Covello, V.T. (1992). Risk communication: An emerging area of health
communication research.
In S.A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 15, (pp. 359-373). Newbury
Park, CA:
Sage.
Dake, K. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of
risk. Journal of Social
Issues, 48, 21-37.
Davies, J.C., Covello, V.T. & Allen, F.W. (Eds.). (1987). Risk
communication. Washington, DC:
The Conservation Foundation.
Fischhoff, B. (1985). Managing risk perceptions. Issues in Science and
Technology, 2, 83-96.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). How safe is safe
enough? A psychometric
study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy
Sciences, 9, 127-152.
Grunig, J. E. (1989). Sierra Club study shows who becomes activists. Public
Relations Review, 15(3), 3-24.
Heath, R. L. (1993). A rhetorical approach to zones of meaning and
organizational prerogatives. Public Relations Review, 19(2), 141-155.
Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From
interpersonal contacts to external affairs, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heath, R. L. (1996). Corporate environmental risk communication: Cases and
Practices along the Texas Gulf Coast. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 18 (pp. 255-277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizational and
public policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heath, R. L., & Abel, D. D. (1996). Proactive response to citizen risk
concerns: Increasing citizens' knowledge of emergency response practices.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, 151-171.
Heath, R. L., & Douglas, W. (1990). Involvement: A key variable in people's
reaction to public policy issues. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.),
Public relations research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 193-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heath, R. L., & Gay, C. D. (1997). Involvement, uncertainty and control's
effect on information scanning and monitoring by expert stakeholders.
Management Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 342-373.
Heath, R. L., Liao, S., & Douglas, W. (1995). Effects of perceived economic
harms and benefits on issues involvement, information use, and action: A
study in risk communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 89-109.
Heath, R. L., & Nathan, K. (1991). Public relations' role in risk
communication: Information, rhetoric and power. Public Relations Quarterly,
35(4), 15-22.
Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. (2000). Community relations and risk
communication: A longitudinal study of the impact of emergency response
messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12, 131-162.
Kasperson, R. E. (1986). Six propositions on public participation and their
relevance for risk. Risk Analysis, 6(3), 275-281.
Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., Desvousges, W., & Slovic, P. (1990). Public
attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada.
Risk Analysis, 10, 469-484.
Leiss, W. (1996). Three phases in the evolution of risk communication
practice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
545, 85-94.
Nathan, K., Heath, R.L., & Douglas, W. (1992). Tolerance for potential
environmental health risks: The influence of knowledge, benefits, control,
involvement and uncertainty. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4, 235-258.
Otway, H., Maurer, D., & Thomas, K. (1978). Nuclear power: The question of
public acceptance. Futures, April, (10) 109-118.
Palenchar, M. J., & Heath, R. L. (2002). Another part of the risk
communication model: Analysis of communication processes and message
content. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 127-158.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic
and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion:
Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and
peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of
involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.
Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky & D.
Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 83-115). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P.
(1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and
empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 137-160.
Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication.
In R. E. Kasperson & P.J. M. Stallen (Eds.), Communicating Risks to the
Public, (pp. 175-218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ropeik, D., & Gray, G. (2002). Risk: A practical guide for deciding what's
really safe and what's really dangerous in the world around you. New York:
Houghton Mifflin.
Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex
answer to a simple question. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 89-101.
Vaughan, E., & Seifert, M. (1992). Variability in the framing of risk
issues. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 119-135.
Table 1
Demographic Profile of Respondents
2000 This Study
Years in community
0-5 7.3 18.7
6-10 17.0 12.2
11+ 75.8 69.1
Sex of Respondent
Female 50.0 49.6
Male 50.0 50.4
Race/ethnicity
African-American 0.3 1.2
Hispanic 3.8 7.4
White 94.5 90.8
Education of respondent
Some high school 4.5 4.2
High school graduate 30.8 33.3
Some college 38.3 36.5
Bachelor's degree 16.0 21.1
Post Graduate degree 5.5 4.7
Respondent employed in industry
No 67.8 59.8
Yes, previously 16.8 20.3
Yes, presently 15.5 19.9
Family member employed in industry
No 50.0 46.2
Yes, previously 14.8 22.6
Yes, presently 35.3 31.3
Rent or own
Own 91.5 86.1
Rent 7.8 13.9
House 5.3 5.2
Apartment 2.5 6.2
Proximity to plants
Close to plants 44.3 51.1
Note. N=400 for both studies.
|
