Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- 12 Human Mental Processes for Perception, Memory, and Decision Making
- 13 Risk Perception and Risk Ranking
- 14 Risk Communication1
- 15 Organizational Behavior and Decision Making
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- Book part
- Index
- References
14 - Risk Communication1
from Part III - How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2017
Book contents
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Theory and Practice in Policy Analysis
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Policy Analysis: An Overview
- Part I Making Decisions that Maximize Utility
- Part II Some Widely Used Analysis Tools and Topics
- Part III How Individuals and Organizations Actually Make Decisions
- 12 Human Mental Processes for Perception, Memory, and Decision Making
- 13 Risk Perception and Risk Ranking
- 14 Risk Communication1
- 15 Organizational Behavior and Decision Making
- Part IV The Policy Process and S&T Policy (Mainly) in the United States
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Theory and Practice in Policy AnalysisIncluding Applications in Science and Technology, pp. 389 - 408Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Atman, C.J. (1990). “Network Structures as a Foundation for Risk Communication: An Investigation of Structure and Format Differences,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 131pp.Google Scholar
Atman, C.J., Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., and Morgan, M.G. (1994). “Designing Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part I,” Risk Analysis, 14(5), pp. 779–788. Also reprinted as chapter 18 in in Gerrard, S., Turner, R.K., and Bateman, I. (eds.), Environmental Risk Planning and Management, Edward Elgar Publishers, pp. 251–260, 2001.Google Scholar
Bostrom, A. (1990). “A Mental Models Approach to Exploring Perceptions of Hazardous Processes,” Ph.D. thesis, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon University, 279pp.Google Scholar
Bostrom, A., Atman, C.J., Fischhoff, B., and Morgan, M.G. (1994b). “Evaluating Risk Communications: Completing and Correcting Mental Models of Hazardous Processes, Part II,” Risk Analysis, 14(5), pp. 789–798. Also reprinted as chapter 18 in Gerrard, S., Turner, R.K., and Bateman, I. (eds.), Environmental Risk Planning and Management, Edward Elgar Publishers, pp. 261–270, 2001.Google Scholar
Bostrom, A., Fischhoff, B., and Morgan, M.G. (1992). “Characterizing Mental Models of Hazardous Processes: A Methodology and an Application to Radon,” Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), pp. 85–100.Google Scholar
Bostrom, A., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., and Read, D. (1994a). “What Do People Know about Global Climate Change? Part I: Mental Models,” Risk Analysis, 14(6), pp. 959–970.Google Scholar
Carroll, J.M. and Olson, J.R. (eds.) (1987). Mental Models in Human–Computer Interaction, National Academy Press, 39pp.Google Scholar
Clement, J. (1983). “A Conceptual Model Discussed by Galileo and Used Intuitively by Physics Students,” in Gentner, D. and Stevens, A.L. (eds.), Mental Models, Erlbaum, pp. 325–339.Google Scholar
Covello, V.T., Sandman, P.M., and Slovic, P. (1988). Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers, Chemical Manufacturers Association, 57pp.Google Scholar
Desvousges, W.H., Smith, V.K., and Rink, H.H., III (1992). “Communicating Radon Risks Effectively: The Maryland Experience,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, pp. 68–78.Google Scholar
EPA and U.S. DHHS (1986). A Citizen’s Guide to Radon, OPA-86-004, Office of Air and Radiation, 16pp.Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B. (1985). “Managing Risk Perceptions,” Issues in Science and Technology, 2(1), pp. 83–96.Google Scholar
Guston, D.H. (2001). “Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), pp. 399–408.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (1989). Talk presented at the Symposium on Managing the Problem of Industrial Hazards: The International Policy Issues, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, February 27.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (ed.) (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, Routledge, 317pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness, Harvard University Press, 513pp.Google Scholar
Kempton, W. (1991). “Lay Perspectives on Global Climate Change,” Global Environmental Change, 1(3), pp. 183–208.Google Scholar
Krug, D., George, B., Hannon, S.A., and Glover, J.A. (1989). “The Effect of Outlines and Headings on Readers’ Recall of Text,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(2), pp. 111–123.Google Scholar
MacGregor, D.G., Slovic, P., and Morgan, M.G. (1994). “Perception of Risks from Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk-Communication Approach,” Risk Analysis, 14(5), pp. 815–828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maharik, M. (1991). “Public Perception of the Risks of an Unfamiliar Technology: The Case of Using Nuclear Energy Sources for Space Missions,” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 230pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., and Atman, C.J. (2002). Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach, Cambridge University Press, 351pp.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., Lave, L., and Atman, C.J. (1992). “Communicating Risk to the Public,” Environmental Science & Technology, 26(11), pp. 2048–2056.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G., Florig, H.K., Nair, I., Cortes, C., Marsh, K., and Pavlosky, K. (1990b). “Lay Understanding of Power-Frequency Fields,” Bioelectromagnetics, 11, pp. 313–335.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.G. and Lave, L. (1990a). “Ethical Considerations in Risk Communication Practice and Research,” Guest Editorial, Risk Analysis, 10(3), pp. 355–358.Google Scholar
Murphy, G.L. and Wright, J.C. (1984). “Changes in Conceptual Structure with Expertise: Differences between Real-World Experts and Novices,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, pp. 144–155.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1983). “Some Observations on Mental Models,” in Gentner, D. and Steven, A.L. (eds.), Mental Models, Erlbaum, pp. 7–14.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. (2006). “Re-thinking Science: Mode 2 in Societal Context,” in Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (eds.), Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters: A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia, Praeger, pp. 39–51.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, J. and Novick, S. (1982). “Alternative Frameworks, Conceptual Conflict and Accommodation: Toward a Principled Teaching Strategy,” Instructional Science, 11, pp. 183–200.Google Scholar
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W. et al. (1982). “Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Towards a Theory of Conceptual Change,” Science Education, 66, pp. 211–227.Google Scholar
Read, D., Bostrom, A., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., and Smuts, T. (1994). “What Do People Know about Global Climate Change? Part II: Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople,” Risk Analysis, 14(6), pp. 971–982.Google Scholar
Reynolds, T., Bostrom, A., Read, D., and Morgan, M.G. (2010). “Now What Do People Know about Climate Change?,” Risk Analysis, 30(10), pp. 1520–1538.Google Scholar
Roth, E., Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L.B., and Bostrom, A. (1990). “What Do We Know about Making Risk Comparisons?,” Risk Analysis, 10(3), pp. 375–392.Google Scholar
Rouse, W.B. and Morris, N.M. (1986). “On Looking into the Black Box: Prospects and Limits in the Search for Mental Models,” Psychological Bulletin, 100, pp. 349–363.Google Scholar
Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghavan, K. et al. (1991). “Causal Models and Experimental Strategies in Scientific Reasoning,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, pp. 201–238.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D.G. (2004). “Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk and Rationality,” Risk Analysis, 24, pp. 311–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press, 293pp.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, A. (1981). “Richer Is Safer,” Financial Analysts Journal, 37(2), pp. 19–22.Google Scholar