The influence of perceived risk knowledge on risk communication

Communication Research Reports

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 63-70

  Wrench, Jason S ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Clarity; Credibility; Instructional communication; Receiver apprehension; Risk communication; Scale development

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859809437     PISSN: 08824096     EISSN: 17464099     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08824090601128182     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Arvai, J. L., (2003). Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: Effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-polity decisions. Risk Analysis, 23, 281–289.
2. Bouyer, M., Bagdassarian, S., Chaabanne, S., & Mullet, E., (2001). Personality correlates of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 21, 457–465.
3. Bryant, F. B., (2000). Assessing the validity of measurement. In L. G., Grimm & P. R., Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 99–146). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C., (1998). The development of the teacher clarity short inventory (TCSI) to measure clear teaching in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15, 262–266.
5. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C., (2001). The relationship of teacher clarity and immediacy with student state receiver apprehension, affect, and cognitive learning. Communication Education, 50, 59–68.
6. Fiorino, D. J., (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15, 226–243.
7. Gordon, J., & Rowan, K. E., (2000, November). The role of perceptions in risk communication. Short course delivered at the National Communication Association's Convention, Seattle, WA.
8. Joint Committee on Health Education Terminology. (1991). Report of the joint committee on health education terminology. Journal of Health Education, 22, 97–108.
9. Kaiser, H. F., (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 401–415.
10. Laird, F. N., (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 18, 341–361.
11. Leiss, W., (1996). Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. The Annals of the American Academy, 545, 85–94.
12. Lundgren, R., & McMakin, A., (2004). Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks (), 3rd ed., Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
13. McComas, K. A., (2003). Citizen satisfaction with public meetings used for risk communication. Journal for Applied Communication Research, 31, 164–184.
14. McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., & Barraclough, R. A., (1995). A cross-cultural and multi-behavioral analysis of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 44, 281–290.
15. McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J., (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103.
16. Mottet, T. P., & Beebe, S. A., (2006). Foundations of instructional communication. In T. P., Mottet, V. P., Richmond, & J. C., McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 3–32). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
17. Plough, A., & Krimsky, S., (1987). The emergence of risk communication studies: Social and political context. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12, 4–10.
18. Richmond, V. P., Lane, D. R., & McCroskey, J. C., (2006). Teacher immediacy and the teacher-student relationship. In T. P., Mottet, V. P., Richmond, & J. C., McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 167–193). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19. Sandman, P. M., (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association.
20. Schuster, C., Nicholson, T., Simoneau, I., & White, J., (1999). A multinational comparison of health knowledge: College students in Canada, Nigeria, and the United States. College Student Journal, 33, 494–503.
21. Sjöberg, L., Factors in risk perception. (2000). Risk Analysis, 20, 1–11.
22. Sjöberg, L., & Wåhlberg, A. A., (2002). Risk perception and new age beliefs. Risk Analysis, 22, 751–764.
23. Weinstein, N. D., (1999). What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 25, 15–21.
24. Wheeless, L. R., (1975). An investigation of receiver apprehension and social context dimensions of communication apprehension. Speech Teacher, 24, 261–268.
25. Witte, K., Cameron, K. A., McKeon, J. K., & Berkowitz, J. M., (1996). Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication, 1, 317–341.
26. Wolf, M. H., Putnman, S. M., James, S. A., & Stiles, W. B., (1978). The medical interview satisfaction scale: Development of a scale to measure patient perceptions of physician behavior. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1, 391–401.
27. Wrench, J. S., & Richmond, V. P., (2004). Understanding the psychometric properties of the Humor Assessment instrument through an analysis of the relationships between teacher humor assessment and instructional communication variables in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 21, 92–103.
28. Yamagishi, K., (1997). When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than a 24.14%: implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 495–506.