Testing and Expanding a Model of Cognitive Processing of Risk Information

Abstract

Scholars have begun to explore the role of modes of information processing and related audience characteristics in reactions to risky situations and risk information.((11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20))"Information processing" concerns how people attend to and consider available information: systematic processors analyze messages and situations carefully, while heuristic processors skim and use cues (e.g., opinions of trusted reference groups) for quick judgments. This article uses scenarios about a semi-hypothetical industrial facility, in particular risk comparisons being considered by its manager for inclusion in a talk to the community, to explore the impact of information processing. Information insufficiency, self-assessed capacity to understand information, and information-seeking propensities are tested for potential effects on information processing about industrial risks by people living near industry. As well as testing established models, this article explores the additional explanatory value of involvement, relevance, and ability (Earle et al., 1990) and objective knowledge. Both existing model variables and new ones have significant effects on information seeking and information processing in this case, and partly confirm earlier results. Trumbo((17,18)) found that heuristic processors saw lower risk and systematic processors higher risk from suspected cancer clusters. In this study, reporting knowledge about local industrial risks as insufficient for one's purposes and self-reported avoidance of such information both raised ratings of the facility's risk and lowered ratings of its acceptability. Neither type of information processing significantly affected risk or acceptability judgments, but both increased risk ratings and heuristic processing had more effect than systematic processing. Positive ratings of risk comparisons' clarity and meaningfulness decreased risk and increased acceptability ratings, dominated other information variables in predictive power, and exceeded risk, benefit, and trust in contribution to acceptability judgments. Despite differences across studies in designs and variables, and the embryonic development of appropriate (self-reported) measures for use in field surveys, these results confirm the potential value of further research in how information seeking and processing affect risk beliefs and reactions to risk communications.