Session 22   Power Point
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Session 22 Power Point






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Session 22 Power Point Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Risk Communication “Traps”
    • The application of inappropriate techniques leading to the development of misinformation and consequently poor decision making
    • Incorrect information leading to direct decision making mistakes
    • Poor content sending wrong messages and dispersing effort
    • Slow communication of identified problems causing delays and indicating poor management commitment, understanding and leadership
  • 2. Elements of Communications Guidance
    • Perspective of the media: how they think and work
    • The public as the end-recipient of information
    • Concise presentations
    • Techniques for responding to and cooperating with the media in conveying information and delivering messages, before, during, and after a crisis
    • Practical guide to the tools of the trade of media relations and public communications
    • Strategies and tactics for addressing the probable opportunities and the possible challenges likely from communications initiatives
  • 3. Well-Known Risk Communications Campaigns
    • Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No”
    • CDC HIV/AIDS Education
    • FDA Nutritional Labels
    • DHS Website
    • FEMA Preparation and Prevention Website
  • 4. FDA Food Labels
  • 5. DHS
  • 6. Failed Communications Can :
    • Waste recipients time
    • Waste resources dedicated to risk communication
    • Deny people empowerment for dealing with the risk
    • Cause resentment towards the communicator(s) if people feel that they are being denied an opportunity to understand
    • Cause people to doubt themselves if the experience leaves them feeling incapable of understanding
    • Contribute inadvertently to controversy and conflict
    • Create threats larger than those posed by the risks that they describe
  • 7. What People Want from Risk Communications
    • Advice and Answers
    • Numbers
    • Process and Framing
  • 8. Extreme Criticisms
    • Lay public as a whole is “technically illiterate and ruled by emotion rather than by substance.”
    • Education is pointless, even if it is possible, because “important decisions about risk are made by special interests and power.”
    • Risk communication is typically manipulative, designed to sell unsuspecting recipients on the communicator’s political agenda.
  • 9. Milder Criticisms
    • Because people’s time is short, they can’t learn about, much les influence, all risks. As a result, people often want specialists to make sure that life doesn’t get too hazardous.
    • Without trust in the official performing the actual communication, the learning process is very complicated.
    • Risk specialists may not like to acknowledge their own emotional involvement nor to deal with that of the public.
  • 10. Poor Risk Communication Can Undermine effective decision making Create feelings of helplessness Erode public faith in authorities Erode authorities’ faith in public Erode social coordination produced by sharing information sources
  • 11. A Simple Communication Strategy 1. Analytically identify the most critical information for decisions facing audience 2. Empirically determine current beliefs 3. Close most critical gaps, recognizing audience’s information-processing limits 4. Evaluate; repeat as needed
  • 12. A (Complex) Working Hypothesis
    • People will do sensible things if:
      • They get relevant information in a concise, credible form with adequate context, and without needless distractions
      • They have control over their environment and are judged by their own goals
      • So, if citizens don’t understand, assume a communication failure
  • 13. Decision-focused SARS Reporting (a possible formulation)
  • 14. Decision-focused SARS Reporting What are my chances of exposure? What are my chances of getting sick? What are my chances of being untreatable?
  • 15. For Each Element, Audience Needs Useful numbers -- give order-of-magnitude feeling -- clarify verbal quantifiers (rare, likely) -- allow rudimentary calculations Useful theory -- give numbers credibility -- allow updating numbers -- provide increasing competence
  • 16. What are my chances of exposure? Useful numbers -- total cases -- total population Useful theory -- where are they concentrated? -- how long are they contagious? -- how well do we know?
  • 17. What are my chances of getting sick? Useful numbers -- disease multiplier -- effectiveness of exposure routes -- effectiveness of protection strategies Useful theory -- how does transmission work? -- what’s this about [sewers, feces, cockroaches, masks…]? -- how well do we know?
  • 18. What are my chances of being untreatable? Useful numbers -- survival rates -- recurrence rates Useful theory -- why do treatments vary? -- why are healthy people dying? -- how well do we know?
  • 19.
    • Very low probabilities
    • Cumulative risk (from repeated exposure)
    • Anchored judgments
    • Unfamiliar units, terms (e.g., risk, reactor-year)
    • Unfamiliar states
    • Incommensurable comparisons
    Difficult Kinds of Information (with partial solutions)
  • 20.
    • Knowledge
    • Inferential ability
    • Appropriateness of confidence
    • Appropriateness of self-efficacy
    • Personally rational choices
    • Satisfaction (?)
    What’s Getting Through? (possible performance measures)
  • 21. Some Suggestions Authoritative summaries of cognitive research Worked examples (vs. principles) Standard reporting formats Professional translators (to decision-relevant form) Consulting behavioral decision researchers Institutional analysis of failures