Cite this article as:

Ivanov A. V. Risk Communication: Theoretical Foundations and Current Issues. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2019, vol. 19, iss. 3, pp. 251-256. DOI:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).

Risk Communication: Theoretical Foundations and Current Issues

This article introduces the framework of risk communication problem. Values, attitudes, social influences and cultural identity, and institutes influence what human beings perceive as their risks. Hence, the social experience of risk is not confined to the technical parameters of risk, i.e. the probability and magnitude. The present work examines the methodological roots of risk communication theory, traces the development of this subject in risk literature, and explores its value in current risk issues. Contemporary society can be considered not only as a communication and information society, but also as a risk society which is characterized by the emergence of the so-called ‘new risks’. New risks cannot always be directly observed within the current methodologies for risk analysis. Risk perceptions are very often much more important than the risks as such and eventually have their impact on social and cultural domains in the entire society. The risk is socially constructed. Hence, risk communication is essential to understanding conflicts, which are commonly seen as rooted in problems of risk perception and media amplification. The current study focuses on improving the analytical tools used to examine risks, which are socially and medially constructed. The research outcome includes an outline of holistic approach integrating cognitive and sociocultural perspectives on risks perception, which are not individually, but also socially constructed.


1. Starr C. Social Benefi t versus Technological Risk. What is our society willing to pay for safety? Science, 1969, vol. 165, pp. 1232–1238.

2. Shrader-Frechette K. Scientifi c Methods, Antifoundationalism and Decision Making. In: Löfstedt R., Frewer L. The Eathscan Reader in Risk and Modern Society. London, Routledge, 1998, pp. 45–55.

3. Hansson S. O. A Panorama of the Philosophy of Risk. In: Handbook of Risk Theory. Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk. Ed. by S. Roeser, R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, M. Peterson. Heidelberg, London, New York, Springer, 2012, pp. 27–55.

4. Lupton D. Risk. London, New York, Routledge, 1999. 190 p.

5. Slovic P. Perceptions of Risk: Refl ections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In: Krimsky S., Golding D. Social Theories of Risk. London, Praeger, 1992, pp. 117–152.

6. Flynn J., Slovic P., Kunreuther H. Risk, Media, and Stigma: Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. London, Taylor & Francis, 2001. 399 p.

7. Peters R. G., Covello V T., McCallum D. B. The Determinants of Trust and Credibility // Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study. Risk Analysis, 1997, no. 17(1), pp. 43–54.

8. Scherer C. W., Cho. A Social Contagion Theory of Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, 2003, no. 23(2). pp. 261–267.

9. Sandman P. M. Four Kinds of Risk Communication. The Synergist (Journal of the American Industrial Hygiene Association), 2003, no. 4, pp. 26–27.

10. Morgan M. G., Fischhoff B., Bostrom A., Atman C. J. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002. 366 p. 11. Dake K. Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk. Journal of Social Issues, 1992, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 21–37.

одобрено к публикации
Short Text (PDF):