Berube Spring 2014
1
COM 538: Risk Communication
Spring 2014
Location & Meeting times – T 6:00 - 8:45 Winston 205
David M. Berube (burrrr-ruby), Ph.D., Instructor of record
Prof., Communication (call me Dr. Berube).
drdmberube@gmail.com
(O) 919.515.0410
Office: Hunt 5143
Mailbox: Campus Box 7565
Office hours: Tues & Thurs 1-3 and by appointment.
(I am on campus a lot).
Course information: http://moodle.wolfware.ncsu.edu/
REQUIRED TEXTS
Sunstein, C. (2010) Worst Case Scenarios. Harvard UP.
REQUIRED ARTICLES AND CHAPTERS (on Moodle)
Alhakami, AS. & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study on the inverse relationship
between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis. 14: 1085-1096.
Baron, J., Hershey, JC. & Kunreuther, H. (2000). Determinants of priority for risk
reduction: The role of worry. Risk Analysis. 20:413-427.
Bedsworth, LW., Lowenthal, MD. & Kastenberg, WE. (2004). Uncertainty and
regulation: The rhetoric of risk in the California low-level radioactive waste
debate. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 29:406-427.
Belzer, RB. (2000). Discounting across generations: Necessary, not suspect. Risk
Analysis. 20:779-792.
Berube, DM. (2007). Rhetoric of stakeholding. Nanoethics: The ethical and social
implications of nanotechnology. Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moor, J. & Weckert, J., eds.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience. 225-240.
Berube, DM. (2008). Stakeholder participation in nanotechnology policy debates.
Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society. Bennett-Woods, D. ed. Boca Raton, FL:
Taylor & Francis-CRC Press. 225-229.
Castaneda, C. (2002). Child organ stealing stories: Risk, rumor and reproductive
technologies. The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory.
Adam, B., Beck, U. & van Loon, J., eds. London: Sage Publications.
Berube Spring 2014
2
Chess, C. (2001). Organizational theory and the stages of risk communication. Risk
Analysis. 21:179-188.
Chung, IJ. (2011). Social amplification of risk in the internet environment. Risk Analysis.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01623.x.
de Vries, P., Midden, C. & Meijinders, A. (2007). Antecedents of system trust: Cues and
process feedback. Trust in Cooperative Risk Management. Siegrist, M., Earles,
TC. & Gutscher, H., eds. London, UK: Earthscan. 241-266.
Fife-shaw, C. & Rowe, G. (1996). Public perceptions of everyday food hazards: A
psychometric study. Risk Analysis. 16:487-500.
Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of
process. Risk Analysis. 15: 137-145.
Frewer, LJ, Howard, C., Hedderley, D. & Shepherd, R. (1997). The Elaboration
Likelihood Model and communication about food risks. Risk Analysis. 1997. 17:
759-770.
Gutteling, JM. & Wiegman, O. (1996). Influences of risk messages. Exploring Risk
Communication. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 120-150.
Ho, MC., Shaw, D., Lin, S. & Chiu, YC. (2008). How do disaster characteristics
influence risk perception? Risk Analysis. 28(3): 635-643.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1982a). The psychology of preferences. Scientific
American. January. 256(1): 160-173.
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1982b). Variants of uncertainty. Cognition. 11: 143-157.
Lazo, JK., Kinnell, JC. & Fisher, A. (2000). Expert and layperson perceptions of
ecosystem risk. Risk Analysis. 20(2): 179-193.
Loewenstein, GF., Weber, EU., Hsee, CK. & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings.
Psychological Bulletin. 127(2): 267-286.
Löfstedt, RE. & Renn, O. (1997). The Brent Spar controversy: An example of risk
communication gone wrong. Risk Analysis. 17(2): 131-136.
Marris, C., Langford, I., Sauunderson, T. & O'Riordan, T. (1997). Exploring the
"Psychometric Paradigm": Comparisons between aggregate and individual
analyses. Risk Analysis. 17(3): 303-312.
Nakayachi, K. (1998). How do people evaluation risk reduction when they are told zero
risk is impossible? Risk Analysis. 18(3): 235-242.
O'Neill, B. & Williams, A. (1998). Risk homeostasis hypothesis: A rebuttal. Injury
Prevention. 4: 92-93.
Renn, O. (2003). Hormesis and risk communication. Human and Experimental
Toxicology. 22: 3-24.
Rosa, EA. (2003). The logical structure of the social amplification of risk framework
(SARF): Metatheoretical foundations and policy implications. The Social
Amplification of Risk. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, RE. & Slovic, P., eds. NY:
Cambridge UP. 47-79.
Sandman, PM. (1993). Components of outrage. Responding to Community Outrage:
Strategies for Effective Risk Communication. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial
Hygiene Association. 11-58.
Scherer CW, Cho HC. A social network contagion theory of risk perception. Risk
Analysis, 2003; 23(2):261–267.
Berube Spring 2014
3
Siegrist, M. & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and
knowledge. Risk Analysis. 20(5): 713-719.
Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis. 6: 675-682.
Sjöberg, L. (2000). Consequences matter, 'risk' is marginal. Journal of Risk Research.
3(3): 287-295.
Sjöberg, L. (2001). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk
Analysis. 21(1): 189-198
Sjöberg, L. (2002). The allegedly simple structure of experts' risk perception: An urban
legend in risk research. Science, Technology & Human Values. 27: 443-459.
Sunstein, CR & Zeckhauser, R. (2010). Dreadful possibilities, neglected probabilities. In
The Irrational Economist. Making Decisions in a Dangerous World, E. MichelKerjan and P. Slovic (eds), Public Affairs Books, NY: New York.
Tonn, BE., Goeltz, RT., Travis, CB. & Phillippi, RH. (1991). Risk communication and
the cognitive representation of uncertainty. The Analysis, Communication of
Perception of Risk. Garrick, BJ & Gekler, WC., eds. NY: Plenum Press.
Viscusi, WK. (1997). Alarmist decisions with divergent risk information. The Economic
Journal. November. 107: 1657-1670.
Wiedemann, PM., Clauberg, M. & Schütz, H. (2003). Understanding amplification of
complex risk issues: The risk story model applied to the EMF case. The Social
Amplification of Risk. Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, RE. & Slovic, P., eds. NY:
Cambridge UP. 286-301.
Wilde, GJS. (1998). Risk homeostasis theory: An overview. Injury Prevention. 1998(4):
89-91.
Wilkins, L. & Patterson, P. (1987). Risk analysis and the construction of news. Journal of
Communication. 37(3): 80-92.
Berube Spring 2014
4
SCHEDULE
Reading assigned for that week’s class. Yes you have two readings for the first day of
class.
01/07 Risk Communication: Principles and approaches. Chernobyl video. Reaction
Paper 1 assigned.
Read 2 articles first class: 1- Gutteling & Kuttschreuter and 2-Fischhoff.
01/14 Defining Risk and Hazard: Rhetorical interface between risk assessment and
persuasion. Reaction Paper 2 assigned & due next week. Read 4 articles for thus
class: 1-Chess; 2-Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd; 3-Löfstedt, RE. &
Renn, O.; and 4-Bedsworth, Lowenthal, & Kastenberg.
01/21 Risk Perception: Cognitive and psychological barriers; Introduction to
psychometrics and heuristics; experts & the public, and the science of fear.
Reaction Paper 3 assigned. Read 4 articles for this class: 1-Marris, Langford,
Sauunderson, & O'Riordan; 2-Kahneman, & Tversky (1982a); 3-Fife-shaw, &
Rowe; and 4-Alhakami, & Slovic.
01/28 Hostility, dread, worry, and outrage (moral panic) – transparency and blame.
Reaction paper 4 assigned. Read Read 2 articles for this class: 1-Baron, Hershey,
& Kunreuther; 2-Sandman.
02/04 New lecture. Reaction Paper 5 assigned. Read 3 articles for the class we are not
having. 1-Sjöberg (2002); 2-Nakayachi; and 3-Lazo, Kinnell, & Fisher.
02/11 U. Wisconsin lecture (no class). No readings.
02/18 Trust in science, assessment, and risk communication: apathy and stigma. Reaction
Paper 6 assigned. Read 5 articles for this class: 1-Siegrist & Cvetkovich; 2Sjöberg (2001); 3-Sjöberg (2008); 4-Slovic; and 5-de Vries, Midden &
Meijinders.
02/25 Magnitudes & trade-offs, low-probability and high-consequence calculi, and
probability neglect. Read 3 articles for this class: 1-Sjöberg (2000); 2-Ho, Shaw,
Lin, & Chiu; 3-Sunstein & Zeckhauser. Mid-term distributed.
03/04 Identifying and quantifying stakeholders – the public sphere, publics, and counterpublics as stakeholders. Reaction Paper 7 assigned. Read 3 articles for this class:
1-Berube (2007); 2-Berube (2008); and 3-Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch.
Mid-term due.
03/11 SPRING BREAK (no class).
03/18 SARF - amplification and attenuation; Risk communication media. Reaction Paper
8 assigned. Read 4 articles for this class: 1-Wilkins & Patterson; 2-Rosa; 3Wiedemann, Clauberg, & Schütz; and 4-Chung.
03/25 Two contemporary studies – (1) REMS (drug risk evaluation & mitigation
strategies) and (2) Emerging technologies (nanotechnology, synthetic biology &
climactic geo-engineering).
No readings.
04/01 Convention style presentations of students’ projects.
Berube Spring 2014
5
04/08 Homeostasis, hormesis, discounting, contagion, and rumors. Reaction Paper 9
assigned. Read 5 articles for this class: 1-Wilde; 2-Renn; 3- O'Neill, & Williams;
4-Belzer; and 5-Scherer & Cho.
04/15 Uncertainty and risk. Reaction Paper 10 assigned. Read 3 articles for this class: 1Kahneman & Tversky(1982b); 2-Viscusi; and 3-Tonn, Goeltz, Travis, &
Phillippi.
04/22 Social arenas for risk debates – cautionary vs. precautionary principle. Read
Sunstein (book) for this final class.
DISCLOSURE – ASSIGNMENTS
ADVICE:
1. Start thinking about your final project as soon as possible. Begin collecting
materials. You will notice the oral presentations as well as the final project come
at the end of the class. Plan appropriately.
2. Take the reaction papers seriously; they add up. RPs are due before the class not
after.
REACTION PAPERS RP (20 points)
One (1) brief (i.e., two typed pages maximum) reaction paper nearly each week.
In these brief papers, you will be asked to answer assigned questions on that
week's readings and/or provide a reaction to the week's reading (2 points each,
one each week for 10 weeks; 20 total points). IMPORTANT: You may redo
any of the first three reaction papers and your second grade will replace your
first grade. Questions released before the assigned reading on the last slide of the
Power Point from the previous week.
TAKE HOME MIDTERM (15 points)
Essay format. The five questions and you elect to write on two or three will not be
surprises but will be thoughtful; test will be take-home and you submit it
electronically (10 pp. max.)
ORAL REPORTS (20 points) see 04/01.
You will deliver one brief oral report (12 minutes) including Power Point (15
points) and references and further readings handouts (5 points). You will be
assigned an article (randomly) that we have not covered in class to do your
presentation. DO NOT WRITE A PAPER FOR YOUR ORAL REPORT. You
turn in a handout of references to the class and me, you may elect to handout a
copy of a particularly complex element of the article such as table or chart, and
you provide me an electronic copy of your Power Point. (BTW I am not a fan of
Prezi).
Berube Spring 2014
6
MAJOR PROJECT (40 points) due at scheduled final examination day and time.
Select a risk communication event (usually an event is greater than one
instance) that will serve as the basis for your criticism and analysis. This can
come from government, media, and/or industry.
Initial list of questions that could generate a major course project and paper are
due from you to Berube (due before March 11) if you want input. Berube will be
giving you guidelines on narrowing your research questions and hypotheses,
defining key terms, and arguing for particular methods as ways of answering
them, etc. IF given time. Hence sooner is better.
Final version of the course paper based on University of Chicago or MLA
formatting and citation style. This project is due on the day and time the final
would have been given.
PARTICIPATION (5 points).
You get no participation points for attending.
GRADING
Grading will be assigned on an un-curved, percentage basis; because there are 100 total
course points, earning 90 or above will give the student an A, etc. Scale follows:
A+
A
AB+
B
B-
97-100
94-96
90-93
87-89
84-86
80-83
C+
C
CD+
D
F
REACTION PAPERS
MIDTERM
ORAL REPORTS
MAJOR PROJECT
PARTICIPATION
20 points
15 points
20 points
40 points
5 points
77-79
74-76
70-73
67-69
65-66
0-64
100 points
ADDENDUM
COMPUTERS, TABLLETS, PHONES, IPODS, IPADS…..
Berube Spring 2014
7
Any student found doing anything on a computer or phone that has nothing to do with the
class during class will be expelled from the class and marked absent. Any student who
recommits will receive a full letter grade penalty.
ALL phones will be turned off during class and tablets and computers should remain
closed unless you are taking notes. DO NOT connect to the internet during class unless
told to do so by the instructor.
ABSENCE POLICY
Per University regulations, excused absences must fall into one of two categories: sanctioned
anticipated situations and documented emergency situations. Anticipated situations (e.g.,
participation in official University functions, court attendance, religious observances, or military
duty) must be submitted in writing at the beginning of the semester or one week prior to the
anticipated absence. Emergency absences (e.g., student illness, injury or death of immediate
family member, must be documented by the Student Organization Resource Center 515-3323)
within one week following the emergency. Make-up work will be allowed only in situations
where absences were excused. Please consult the following website for further information on
University attendance regulations:
http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/academic_affairs/courses_undergrad/REG02.20.3.php
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Strict standards of academic honesty will be enforced according to the University policy on
academic integrity found in the code of student conduct. NC State Students are bound to an honor
code, which states: “I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this test or
assignment." It is my understanding and expectation that a student's signature on any test
or assignment means that you have neither given nor received unauthorized aid. Please
consult the following website for further details:
http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/student_services/student_discipline/POL11.35.1.php.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
Reasonable accommodations will be made for students with verifiable disabilities. In
order to take advantage of available accommodations, students must register with
Disability Services for Students at 1900 Student Health Center, Campus Box 7509, 5157653. For more information on NC State's policy on working with students with
disabilities, please see
http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/academic_affairs/courses_undergrad/REG02.20.1.php
INCOMPLETE AND LATE ASSIGNMENTS
Points earned for incomplete assignments will be reduced in proportion to the degree to which the
assignment was completed. For example, an exam requiring three essays, with only one essay
completed, will earn one third of the essay point total. Points earned for late assignments will be
reduced by 50% if received within 24 hours of due date and time due. Assignments received later
will not be accepted unless in accordance with the excused absence policy as referenced above.
Berube Spring 2014
8
INCOMPLETE GRADE POLICY
Students will not be given a temporary grade of IN (incomplete) unless they have attended classes
regularly for most of the semester, have completed at least 60% of required work, have missed
required work as a result of factors beyond their control, and have submitted satisfactory
documentary evidence. An IN grade not removed by the end of the next semester in which the
student is enrolled or by the end of twelve months, whichever is earlier, will automatically
become an F (unless the student can present a compelling, well-documented case for the
extension). For the NC State policy on grading and IN grades, see
http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/academic_affairs/grades_undergrad/REG02.50.3.php.
CREDIT ONLY POLICY
Requirements for Credit-Only: In order to receive a grade of S, students are required to
take all exams and quizzes, complete all assignments, and earn a grade of C- or better.
Credit-Only courses can only be included under the Free Elective category of the
student’s curriculum. Conversion from letter grading to credit only (S/U) grading is
subject to university deadlines. Refer to the Registration and Records calendar for
deadlines related to grading. For more details refer to:
http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/academic_affairs/courses_undergrad/REG02.20.15.php
AUDIT POLICY
Requirements for Auditors: Auditors must consult with the instructor. For details refer
to:
http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/academic_affairs/grades_undergrad/REG02.50.3.php
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT
NC State University provides equality of opportunity in education and employment for
all students and employees. Accordingly, NC State affirms its commitment to maintain a
work environment for all employees and an academic environment for all students that is
free from all forms of discrimination. Discrimination based on race, color, religion,
creed, sex, national origin, age, disability, veteran status, or sexual orientation is a
violation of state and federal law and/or NC State University policy and will not be
tolerated. Harassment of any person (either in the form of quid pro quo or creation of a
hostile environment) based on race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, age,
disability, veteran status, or sexual orientation also is a violation of state and federal law
and/or NC State University policy and will not be tolerated. Retaliation against any
person who complains about discrimination is also prohibited. NC State’s policies and
regulations covering discrimination, harassment, and retaliation may be accessed at
http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/campus_environ/non-discrimination/REG04.25.4.php.
Berube Spring 2014
9
STUDENT RESOURCES
Writing and Speaking Tutorial Services: http://www.ncsu.edu/tutorial_center/writespeak/
Academic Policies: www.ncsu.edu/policies/sitemap.php#acad-pols_regs
University Career Center: http://www.ncsu.edu/career/
Adverse Weather: Complete information about adverse weather policies is available at
http://www.ncsu.edu/human_resources/benefits/leave/adverseweather.php
Check email, news, the NCSU home page, or call 513-8888 for the latest information.