Previous research has suggested that misinterpretations of hurricane track forecasts can lead to errors in estimation of perceived risk. One factor that can be used to understand these errors in judgment of risk perception is called optimistic bias, in which an individual perceives that compared to another person they are at less risk. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine how risk perceptions of hurricane track forecasts are influenced by the optimistic bias and changes in the forecasts. Students from three coastal universities took a survey regarding hurricane risk from two different track scenarios of a hypothetical hurricane approaching their university. Results indicated that optimism and perceptions of hurricane tracks were not correlated. Regardless of changes in forecast tracks, students perceived the same level of risk by the final forecast. This research has important social implications because hurricane track forecasts are part of the hurricane decision-making process.

Media use of hurricane graphics to apprise populations vulnerable to severe weather provides a persuasive demonstration of the importance and complexity of visual communication. Surprisingly little research, however, has explored how audiences interpret weather graphics. This study examined whether the general public and the National Weather Service share a common understanding of selected weather related terms and meaning of a NWS informational graphic. Using a coorientation model, general public responses to a questionnaire were compared to definitions prescribed by the NWS. Additionally, the public were asked questions to measure trust of the NWS as a credible and reliable source of severe weather information. Selected broadcast meteorologists were surveyed to measure their opinions of the NWS as well as to measure their perceptions of how the general public would respond to questions relating to knowledge of weather terms and graphics. Results revealed discrepancies between the intent of such graphics and audience interpretations. While the vast majority of respondents recognized the Tropical Cyclone Track Watch/Warning Graphic and understood much of the information it conveyed, study respondents did not seem to remember or understand the meaning of the terms Watch and Warning. While these terms or conditions are only one aspect of the graphic they represent critical information for populations at risk. Additionally, the results of this study indicate that weather forecasting professionals' perceptions of the public's understanding of the graphic are inaccurate. Results also show respondents generally rate the NWS as a reliable and competent agency but they do not consistently rate their local weather providers as well. Weather scientists' foremost concern may be the accuracy of their forecasts, but they also must consider the accuracy of the perceptions of those forecasts if they are to be effective in warning populations at risk of severe weather. These results have sobering implications for both governmental and private sources of emergency communication.