The document discusses risk communication and its applications and implications. It provides information on communicating effectively in emotionally charged situations like crises or conflicts. Some key points include: - Risk communication is a science-based approach that aims to provide informed support and reduce resistance. - High stress changes how people receive information, as they want to know you care before facts and have reduced mental capacity. - Perceptions, driven more by factors than facts, are important to address in risk communication. Trust, control and benefit influence risk acceptance.

1. RISK COMMUNICATIONAPPLICATIONS and IMPLICATIONS Joseph Wojtecki Center for Risk Communication

2. RISK COMMUNICATION A SCIENCE-BASED APPROACH FOR COMMUNICATING EFFECTIVELY IN EMOTIONALLY CHARGED, HIGH STRESS OR CONTROVERSIAL SITUATIONS (e.g., Crisis, Conflict, Change) Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

3. RISK COMMUNICATION Goal: Informed support Resistance 3 Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

4. Risk Communication Premise:High Stress Changes the Rules Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

5. RISK COMMUNICATION SHIFTS Some reasons high stress changes the rules: People want to know that you care before they care what you know People have difficulty hearing, understanding and remembering information People understand information at four grades below their education level Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

6. RISK COMMUNICATION 100 0 Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

7. RISK COMMUNICATION 20% 100 0 Mental noise reduces the ability to process communication on average 80% Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

9. Message content

10. Messenger characteristics

11. Channel effectivenessPerceptionManagement Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org 8 Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

12. PERCEPTIONS Perception = Reality Perception ≠ Reality What is perceived as real is real in its consequences Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

14. Less than 5% of public stress and concern is driven by facts.

15. More than 95% of public stress and concern is driven by perception factors.Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

16. Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org PERCEPTIONS RISK Flying Toxic waste Fires Pesticides Air pollution Murder Driving Smoking Poverty Source: ABC News Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

17. PERCEPTIONS RISK Flying Toxic waste Fires Pesticides Air pollution Murder Driving Smoking Poverty Source: ABC News Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org IMPACT 1 day 4 days 18 days 27 days 61 days 113 days 182 days 5 ½ years 7 to 10 years Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

18. Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org PERCEPTIONS(OUTRAGE FACTORS) Lower Perceived Risk Trustworthy sources Substantial benefits Controllable Voluntary Fair / equitable Natural origin Familiar Not dreaded Certainty Children not victims Higher Perceived Risk Untrustworthy sources Few benefits Uncontrollable Involuntary Unfair / inequitable Human origin / man made Unfamiliar / exotic Dreaded Uncertainty Children as victims Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

19. PERCEPTIONS(OUTRAGE FACTORS) Lower Perceived Risk Not memorable Moral / ethical Clear non-verbal signals Responsive Random / scattered Low media coverage Victims as statistics Immediate effects Effects reversible Understood science Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Higher Perceived Risk Memorable Immoral / unethical Mixed non-verbal signals Non-responsive Catastrophic High media coverage Victims as people Delayed effects Effects irreversible Misunderstood science Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

20. PERCEPTIONS Trust Benefit & Control Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

21. Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org PERCEPTIONS Risk information from a trusted source is more acceptable than from one not trusted. Risks under personal control are more acceptable than risks controlled by others. Risks that carry a benefit are more acceptable than those without benefit. Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

22. DISCUSSION Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

23. RISK COMMUNICATION Applications: Message content Messenger characteristics Channel effectiveness Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org 18 Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

24. MESSAGE CONTENT “Critical Criteria” Concise—Limited number of messages Clear—Simple language Brief—Time limitations Positive—Avoid negatives Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org 19 Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

25. Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org MESSAGE CONTENT Concise 3 key messages -- maximum 7 to 12 words -- maximum 3 supporting facts -- maximum Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

26. Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org MESSAGE CONTENT Clear 6th to 8th grade reading level Simple construction Avoid jargon Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

27. MESSAGE CONTENT Brief T1 Start T2 Limits on Attention Span Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

28. Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org MESSAGE CONTENT Brief Presentations - 10-15 minutes Responses to tough questions - 2 minutes Soundbites - 9 seconds Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

29. Positive 1N = 3P Avoid negative language Avoid repeating negatives MESSAGE CONTENT Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

31. Not (can’t/don’t)

32. Never

33. Nothing

34. NoneContact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

35. Message Map Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

37. Mountains were high

39. Their numbers stretched to the horizon

41. We had the element of surprise

43. Many were injured

45. Every man was fully armed

47. They were fearless in battle

49. We had the necessary weapons

51. They were fully fortified

52. They deployed advance observers

53. Their troops have deserted

54. They have abandoned their weapons

55. The victory is oursContact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

56. DISCUSSION Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

57. RISK COMMUNICATION Applications: Message content Messenger characteristics Channel effectiveness Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

58. MESSENGER CHARACTERISTICS People judge the messenger before they judge the message People judge the messenger primarily in terms of trust Trust is judged primarily through actions, body language and verbal communication Source: Center for Risk Communication Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

59. MESSENGER CHARACTERISTICS Competence and expertise Dedication and commitment Honesty and openness Caring and empathy Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

60. MESSENGER CHARACTERISTICS [LOW STRESS] Competence/ Expertise 80-85% All Others 15-20% Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

61. MESSENGER CHARACTERISTICS [HIGH STRESS] Assessed in first 30 seconds Caring/Empathy 50% Competence/ Expertise Dedication/ Commitment 15-20% 15-20% Honesty/ Openness 15-20% Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

62. MESSENGER CHARACTERISTICS Non-Verbal Signals Low stress – 25 percent of message High stress - 75 percent of message Are intensely and quickly noticed Can override verbal message Are interpreted negatively Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

63. RECEIVER PERSPECTIVE Most Credible Least Credible Respected local citizens Non-management employees Educators Healthcare professionals Media Activist groups Industry officials Government officials Paid consultants Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

64. CREDIBILITY LADDERING Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

65. RECEIVER PERSPECTIVE Five-Step Decision Process: 1. Awareness 2. Interest 3. Evaluation 4. Social Trial 5. Decision Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

66. RECEIVER PERSPECTIVE Five-Step Decision Process: 1. Awareness 2. Interest 3. Evaluation 4. Social Trial 5. Decision Mass (Trust, Control, Benefit—Tentative Decision) Interpersonal (Self-selected credible third parties) Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

67. DISCUSSION Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

68. RISK COMMUNICATION Applications: Message content Messenger characteristics Channel effectiveness Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

69. CHANNEL EFFECTIVENESS Levels of Communication Inform(awareness – mass media) Involve(feedback - impersonal) Engage (dialogue - interpersonal) Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

70. CHANNEL EFFECTIVENESS Levels of Communication Source: Center for Risk Communication Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

71. DISCUSSION Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

72. RESISTANCE TO DECISIONS Decide Announce Defend Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

73. RESISTANCE TO DECISIONS Decide Announce Defend COMMUNICATION USUALLY ENTERS THE PROCESS HERE Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org

74. PERCEPTIONS (Favorable/Unfavorable) Opinions Beliefs (True/False) (Good/Bad) Values Contact: CenterforRiskCommunication.org