Communicating in a Crisis:

Risk Communication Guidelines for Public Officials

Table of Contents

Introduction

Communications Fundamentals

Communicating Complex, Scientific, and Technical Information

Myths, Principles, and Pitfalls

Understanding and Working with the Media

Correcting Errors and Rumor Control

Assessing Personal Strengths and Weaknesses

Presenting Information at Public Meetings

Recognizing Opportunities to Speak Out

Suggested Reading and Resources

References


• Download (pdf format, click here for acrobat reader)

• Order this Publication

Communicating Complex, Scientific, and Technical Information

Scientific information will be more useful to the audience and greater communication success will be achieved if the information provided is relevant and easily understood (Frewer, 1999; and Bean, 1988). To help audiences understand the issues, create well-targeted messages. Also be sure to use clear, non-technical language to discuss risks and other specific information indicating the nature, form, severity, or magnitude of the risk.

Ways to better communicate complex scientific or technical information:

Use consistent names and other terms throughout a crisis situation (e.g., switching from parts per million to parts per billion can result in alarm because the higher numbers may be noticed, but not the unit of measure).

Avoid acronyms and jargon (e.g., excess lifetime cancer risk) and provide careful definitions in advance.

Carefully consider what types of visuals the news media may want, be sure all information is explained fully, and use these visuals to clarify and support key communications points.

Answer not only the question, “How much?”, but also the question “Will it hurt me?” to ensure the information is relevant.

Use familiar frames of reference to explain how much, how big or how small and try to create a mental picture of such measures as “parts per billion” or “tons per day.”

RISK COMMUNICATOR/MESSAGE SOURCE: The individual or office sending a risk message or interacting with other individuals, groups, or organizations in a risk communication process; may also be the risk manager, risk message preparer, risk analyst or other expert.

Numeric analogies—e.g., the U.S. produces enough garbage in a day to fill 100 football fields 14 feet deep—are much more meaningful to average listeners than talking about 250,000 tons of garbage per day. However, examples should not be trite or condescending or overly dramatic. Take the time to develop meaningful examples and calculations.

Indicate the level of certainty of your information, for example, “We are 95% certain, but we are conducting more studies to improve the accuracy.” Recognize that the public and reporters generally do not appreciate uncertainty expressed in numeric terms and that this may require more detailed explanation.

ACKNOWLEDGING UNCERTAINTY

Recognizing and admitting uncertainty is simply the reality of most risk communication situations (Plough et al., 1988; and Chess, 1989). Unfortunately, scientific uncertainty is a complicating point in satisfying the public’s demand for reliable and meaningful information for many hazards and risks. Public health officials frequently face the dilemma of having to acknowledge and explain uncertainty to a public that thinks scientific findings are precise, repeatable, and reliable. Moreover, the public often associates correlation and association as being the same as causality. As a result, officials often face the additional task of trying to explain the data’s limitations and uncertainties.

If information is not known or not available, the best thing to do is to honestly admit it.

Saying “I don’t know” is an acceptable response and can actually build credibility.

Audiences need to be provided as much information as possible to help them understand that uncertainty is part of the process and that the answers available now may not be the final answers.

If an audience demands 100% certainty, they are more than likely questioning the underlying values and process, not the science. Try to identify the real concerns behind the demand for certainty and address them.

An audience question such as, “If you’re not certain, how can we know we’re being protected?” is not a question about data, it’s about personal and family safety. That is the issue to be addressed.

UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF RISK

Because the risk communication process is so deeply embedded in broader social issues, communicators are faced with many barriers (Bennett, et al., 1999). A key barrier is the term “risk” itself, how it’s measured, described, and ultimately perceived. Interested parties perceive risk differently, and people do not believe that all risks are of the same type, size, or importance.

The perceptions of risk for the technical and lay audience are often dissimilar (Samet, 1998). For example, the public health official or scientist uses a one-in-a-million comparison to convey a specific risk measurement. Health experts understand this to mean that, given one million persons, there is one person who is at risk. To the non-technical person, however, the one person may be someone they know. The public will often personalize risk with the same conviction that most scientists depersonalize it.

Ultimately, the public will decide how much risk is acceptable and their decision will be based on personal factors. One goal for the public health official should be to educate the public on the level of risk and competing risks. Trying to sell the public on acceptable risk may be difficult because people would prefer to live without any health and environmental concerns. However, by listening to and addressing concerns, the target audience will be better able to understand and, possibly accept, the risk.

FACTORS INFLUENCING RISK PERCEPTION

Perceptions of the magnitude of risk are influenced by factors other than numerical data, Fischhoff, et al., 1981 (see table on page 20). Understanding these factors will help you gauge the degree of risk with which your message may be perceived, and assist you as you craft your communications strategy.