Crisis Communication Life Cycle.
Movement through the phases varies according to the triggering event. Not all crises are created equally. The degree or intensity and longevity of a crisis determine the required numbers of staff and other resources.
Pre-Crisis Phase
Communication objectives during the pre-crisis phase are:
Be prepared
Foster alliances
Develop consensus recommendations
Test messages
During this phase, all the planning and most of the work should be completed. Types of disasters that your organization may need to address can be anticipated using a hazard vulnerability analysis (see Chapter 11). Reasonable questions can be anticipated, and preliminary answers can be sought. Initial communication templates can be drafted with blanks to be completed later. Spokespersons, resources, and resource mechanisms should be identified. Training and refinements to plans and messages can be made. Alliances and partnerships can be fostered to ensure that experts are speaking with one voice.
Initial Phase
Communication objectives during the initial phase are:
Acknowledge the event with empathy
Explain and inform the public, in simplest terms, about the risk
Establish and affirm organizational/spokesperson credibility
Provide emergency courses of action (including how and where to get additional information)
Commit to continued communication on a regular basis to stakeholders and the public
The initial phase of a crisis is characterized by confusion and intense media interest. Information is usually incomplete, and the facts are dispersed. Simplicity, credibility, verifiability, consistency, and speed are critical when communicating in the initial phases of an emergency. Information from the media, other organizations, and even within an organization may not be accurate. The communicator’s role is to learn the facts about what happened, to determine the organization’s response to the problem, and to verify the true magnitude of the event as quickly as possible.
In the initial phase of a crisis, there is no second chance to “get it right.” An organization’s reputation depends on what it does and does not say, when it says it, and the tone in which it is said. One of the best ways to limit public anxiety in a crisis is to provide useful information about the nature of the problem and what the people can do to protect themselves. During the initial phase of an event, an organization must reaffirm or establish itself as a credible source of information. Even when there is little information to offer, it can still communicate what is currently known, how the organization is investigating the event, and when more information will be available. At the very least, messages should demonstrate that the organization is addressing issues directly and that its approach is reasonable, caring, and timely.
The pressure to release information prematurely can be intense. However, all information must be approved by leadership before its release to the media. Importantly, the organization must speak with one voice and avoid giving mixed messages.
In the initial phase of a crisis or emergency, people want immediate information. They want timely and accurate facts about what happened, where it occurred, and what is being done. They will question the magnitude of the crisis, the immediacy of the threat to them, the duration of the threat, and who is going to fix the problem. Communicators should be prepared to address these concerns as quickly, accurately, and fully as possible.
Crisis Maintenance Phase
Communication objectives during the crisis maintenance phase are:
Help people more accurately understand their own risks
Provide background and encompassing information to those who need it. For example: How could this happen? Has this happened before? How can I prevent this from happening again? Will I be safe and secure long term? Will I recover?
Gain understanding and support for response and recovery plans
Listen to stakeholder and audience feedback; correct misinformation
Explain emergency recommendations
Empower risk-benefit decision making
As the crisis evolves, anticipate sustained media interest and scrutiny. Unexpected developments, rumors, or misinformation may place further media demands on organization communicators. Experts, professionals, and others not associated with your organization will comment publicly on the issue and sometimes contradict or misinterpret your messages. Expect to be criticized about your management of the situation.
Remaining current regarding information flow and maintaining tight coordination are essential. Processes for tracking communication activities become increasingly important as workload increases. The crisis maintenance phase includes an ongoing assessment of the event and allocation of resources.
Resolution Phase
Communication objectives for the resolution phase are:
Improve appropriate public response in future similar emergencies through education
Honestly examine problems and mishaps, and then reinforce what worked in the recovery and response efforts
Persuade the public to support public policy and resource allocation
Promote activities and capabilities of the organization both internally and externally
As the crisis resolves, there is a return to baseline operations, with increased understanding about the event as complete recovery systems are implemented.5 This phase is characterized by a reduction in public and media interest. Once the crisis is resolved, an organization may need to respond to intense media scrutiny of how the event was managed. It may have an opportunity to reinforce public health messages while the issue is still current. A public education campaign or changes to a website may be necessary. Research has shown that a community is usually most responsive to risk avoidance and mitigation education directly after a disaster has occurred.1
Evaluation
When the crisis is over, evaluate communication plan performance and determine specific actions to improve crisis systems or the crisis plan.
Communication in a Crisis Is Different
Communicating in a crisis is different than during normal conditions. In a serious crisis, affected people may process and act on information differently. During crisis situations, individuals are often unable to collect and process information in a timely manner and, thus, rely on established routines for situations that are, by definition, novel.5 Since people absorb information they receive during an emergency in a manner different from non-emergency situations,7 the potential for miscommunication increases. The way people assimilate information, process it, and act on it can change when they or their loved ones are under the threat of illness or death.16 Importantly, people will simplify complex information, attempt to force new information into previous constructs, and cling to current beliefs.18 Therefore, if the emergency message requires asking people to do something that seems counterintuitive, they may hesitate to act. Because people tend not to seek out contrary evidence and are adept at maintaining their beliefs, conflicting or contrary information may be misconstrued to conform to established beliefs.12 They may reject new information.
Use of imagery in decision making and persuasion may cause people to be influenced by irrelevant factors.14 Scientists report that people’s brains are hard-wired to engage in sensory-emotive logic. Messages created with the belief that people are linear thinkers who make logical decisions may fall short of their expectations.19 Hill contends that the old way of thinking is that individuals proceed through steps in decision making from cognitive to affective, and then to behavioral. However, scientific results based on tracing the brain’s circuitry show that long before learning through the logical basis of the message, people are influenced on a largely unconscious, emotive level, particularly when they feel threatened and anxious.1,19 Therefore, it is important that response officials consider what images are being presented to people and show people what they should be doing, not just tell them. Spokespersons should “model” the behavior they want from the public. Non-verbal behavior is of great importance when the audience feels threatened.
An “action message” can provide people with the feeling that they can take steps to improve a situation and not become passive victims of the threat. Physical and mental preparation relieves anxiety, despite the expectation of potential injury or death. Therefore, to reduce the likelihood of victimization and fear, the public must feel empowered to take action. Show them the positive actions to take; avoid focusing on negative images.
Other aspects of decision making are affected during a crisis. The following behaviors are commonly exhibited:
Simplify
Under intense stress and possible information overload, people overlook the nuances of messages or avoid the effort to juggle multiple facts by simplifying what they have heard.18 To cope, people may not attempt an analytical and reasoned approach to decision making. Instead, they may rely on habit, long-held traditions, following the lead of others, and such stereotyping as classifying participants as “good” and “bad” guys.
Maintain Current Beliefs
It may be difficult to change peoples’ beliefs during a crisis or emergency, especially if one’s communication requires asking them to do something that seems counterintuitive (e.g., getting out of a “safe” car and lying in a ditch instead of outrunning a tornado).15 People are adept at maintaining faith in their current beliefs and tend not to seek out contrary evidence. They also exploit conflicting or contradictory information about a subject by interpreting it as consistent with existing beliefs. For example: “I believe that chocolate is good. Some studies say chocolate is bad for your health. Some studies say chocolate is good for your health. I choose to believe that no one knows for sure, and I’ll continue to eat chocolate.”
People may remember what they see and may believe incorrect or conflicting information. They tend to believe what they have experienced in their own lives. Faced with new risks in an emergency, people rely on experts. However, supposedly reputable experts may disagree regarding the level of threat, risks, and appropriate recommendations. Furthermore, recommendations from the same expert may change over time as more is understood about the nature of the threat. The evolving nature of emergencies and the natural give and take among experts and their tendency to enjoy the peer process could leave the general public with increased uncertainty and fear. The media often fosters point/counterpoint discussions, regardless of the validity of the differing views. Research indicates that, often, the first message to reach the listener is the accepted message, even though more accurate information may follow.
With this in mind, CERC principles stress that simplicity, credibility, verifiability, consistency, and speed are critical when communicating in an emergency. An effective message must be repeated, come from a legitimate source, be specific to the emergency being experienced, and offer a positive course of action.
During a Disaster, What Are People Feeling?
People experience a wide range of emotions. While there is variability between people, patterns emerge in a crisis. Response officials need to understand this diversity and why communicating in a crisis is different.
There are a number of psychological barriers that could interfere with the cooperation and response from the public. Many of them can be mitigated through the work of a leader with an empathetic and honest health-risk communication style.
Fear, Anxiety, Confusion, and Dread
Chaos theory related to crises emphasizes that disasters that take a toll on human life are inherently characterized by change, high levels of uncertainty, and interactive complexity.5 The majority of people in the United States will experience at least one traumatic event “outside the range of normal human experience,”21 sometime within their lifetimes. How well someone may cope with those traumatic events depends on personal resilience (see Chapter 6). Personal resilience is a person’s ability to maintain equilibrium in the face of trauma and loss. Resilience is often described as the protective factors that foster positive outcomes and help humans to thrive after extreme disasters.21 The following psychological resources protect victims of disaster: coping efforts, self-efficacy, mastery, perceived control, self-esteem, hope, and optimism.22 In disaster situations, some people feel a sense of dissociation and that the familiar normal world they knew is gone. These feelings may be mitigated with quick, firm directions for action.23 Survivors’ fear, anxiety, and despondency can be reduced to manageable levels by reducing situational uncertainty with information, by giving individuals or communities actions to take that restore a sense of control, and by modeling optimistic behaviors.1,15,23 These are all activities that can be achieved through mass communication. However, the messages must be crafted carefully and acknowledge the emotional toll.
In a crisis, one can expect that people in the community are feeling fear, anxiety, confusion, and, possibly, dread. The spokesperson in a crisis should not attempt to eliminate these feelings. If that were the goal, failure would be a certainty. Instead, these are the emotions that one should acknowledge in a statement of empathy. “We’ve never faced anything like this before in our community and it can be frightening.”
Hopelessness and Helplessness
If the community, its families, or individuals let their feelings of fear, anxiety, confusion, and dread grow unchecked during a crisis, psychologists predict they will begin to feel hopeless or helpless.24 A reasonable amount of fear is acceptable. Instead of striving to “stop the panic” and eliminate fear, help the community manage its fears and lead it to productive actions. Action helps overcome feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. Give people things to do. As much as possible, give them relevant things to do – things that are constructive and relate to the crisis they are facing. Anxiety is reduced by action and a restored sense of control. This should be the primary objective for risk communication in a crisis.
The actions may be symbolic (e.g., put up the flag) or preparatory (e.g., donate blood or create a family check-in plan). Some actions need to be put into context. Be careful about telling people things they should do without telling them when to do them. Phrase these preparatory actions in an “if–then” format. For example: “Go buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to have on hand, and if (fill in the blank) occurs, then seal one interior space in your house and shelter-in-place.”
The public must feel empowered and in control of at least some parts of their lives if officials want to reduce fear and feelings of victimization.24,25 Plan ahead and think of actions for people to perform. Deliver instructions in action messages, even if the instruction is as simple as “check on an elderly neighbor.”
The Myth of Panic
Contrary to what is seen in the movies, people seldom act completely irrationally or panic during a crisis.7 Certainly there are anecdotal reports of people running into burning buildings, remaining in a car stuck on the tracks with a train speeding toward them, and becoming emotionally paralyzed to the point of helplessness. However, the overwhelming majority of people can and do act reasonably during an emergency. Behavior during a crisis described by the media as “panic” often represents reasonable, self-protective actions.
How people absorb or act on information they receive during an emergency may be different from non-emergency situations. In other words, the primitive part of the brain that supports survival of the human species is activated (i.e., the “fight or flight” mechanism). One cannot predict whether someone will choose fight or flight. However, everyone’s behavior will fall at some point on the continuum. Extreme “fighters” may resist taking most actions to keep themselves safe until the very last moment. And extreme “fleers” may overreact and take extraordinary additional steps to make themselves extra safe, well in advance of the threat. These normal reactions to a crisis, particularly when at the extreme ends, are often reflected back in the media and described erroneously as “panic.” In actuality, panic behavior is defined as behavior counter to survival. While officials responsible for getting a recommended response from the community may have the impression that people are engaging in extreme behavior, in reality, the overwhelming majority of people do not.26 The condition most conducive to panic is not bad news; it is conflicting messages from those in authority. People are the most likely to panic (although still not all that likely) when they feel that they cannot trust what those in authority are telling them or when they feel misled or abandoned in dangerous territory. When authorities start hedging or hiding bad news in order to prevent panic, they are likely to exacerbate the risk of panic.
During the fall 2001 U.S. anthrax incident, for example, media reported local shortages of the antibiotic known as ciprofloxacin (Cipro) because people began to seek prescriptions, anticipating the threat of anthrax. If individuals request a prescription for Cipro, even though they live on the other side of the country from where the exposures occurred, is that really a panic behavior or counter to their survival? No; it is their survival instinct leading to a behavior they believe will be self-protective. If a person hears a community leader saying “don’t panic,” the individual may believe that the message only applies to others. While securing a Cipro prescription, he thinks he is rationally taking steps to ensure his survival, and someone else must be panicking. If response officials describe individual survival behaviors as “panic,” they will alienate their audience and render them unable to receive the public health message. Instead, officials should acknowledge people’s desire to take protective steps, redirect them to actions they can take, and explain why the unwanted behavior is potentially harmful to them or the community. Officials can appeal to people’s sense of community to help them resist maladaptive actions aimed at individual protection.27
When people overwhelm emergency hotlines with calls, they are not panicking. They want the information they believe they need and officials should have. As long as people are seeking information, they may be fearful, but they are not acting helpless, nor are they panicking. Seeking information is appropriate during a crisis. Share available data and explain that there is a process in place to gain more information. Do not be pedantic or paternalistic – be honest and humble about what is and is not known in the situation. Empower people to draw solid health conclusions for themselves and their loved ones.
Uncertainty
Uncertainty increases anxiety if there is a perception of danger or threat.13 To reduce anxiety, people gather and process information and seek options that confirm or discredit their beliefs. The information used in this process does not have to be accurate. In fact, to improve coherence and reduce anxiety, people choose sources selectively and discount information that is distressing or overwhelming. People who are seeking information to reduce anxiety from dangerous uncertainty are particularly attentive to behaviors and language styles of persons in power.13 They may choose a familiar source of information over a less familiar source, regardless of the accuracy of the information. People less certain of their ability to process information involving complex situations may choose an advocate to collect and interpret information for them, especially if the information is not provided in their native language or a medium familiar to them (e.g., social networking).
Early in a crisis, there are typically more questions than answers. The cause of the disaster and full magnitude of the situation may be uncertain. Even the actions people can take to protect themselves may be unclear. A danger early in a crisis, especially if one is responsible for fixing the problem, is to promise an outcome outside one’s control. One should never utter a promise, no matter how heartfelt, unless it is in one’s absolute power to deliver. Officials can hope for certain outcomes, but most cannot be promised. New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani cautioned, “Promise only when you’re positive. This rule sounds so obvious that I wouldn’t mention it unless I saw leaders break it on a regular basis.”28
People can manage the anxiety of the uncertainty if officials share the process the organization is using to get the answers.7,27 “I can’t tell you today what’s causing people in our town to die so suddenly, but I can tell you what we’re doing to find out. Here’s the first step,” or “It’s too early to declare that this is the pandemic we’ve been predicting – but this is still a serious health concern because the virus is transmitting between humans. Here are the steps we’re taking next.”
In a crisis, people believe any information is empowering. Tell them what is known now and most importantly tell them what is not known and explain the process being used to get answers.
If people are not panicking, why is there sometimes confusion during a crisis, especially in the early stages? Just because an individual action is driven by survival instincts, it is not necessarily the best behavior for the community as a whole. There are a number of troublesome expected behaviors that can and do occur in major catastrophes. For example, a person interested in survival may seek out special relationships for favors or another may start a rumor based on faulty information-seeking. A leader should be aware of these behaviors and be prepared to confront them in communications to the public.
Acknowledge People’s Fears
When people are afraid, the worst thing to do is pretend that they are not. The second worst message is to tell them they should not be afraid.1 Both actions leave people feeling alone with their fears. Mishandling people’s fears is related to improper reassurance, but conceptually different, for example, “Everything is under control” versus “Don’t worry.”
Even when the fear is totally unjustified, people do not respond well to it being ignored – nor do they respond well to criticism, mockery, or statistics. These approaches are marginally effective even when the fear is warranted. Instead, acknowledge fears while concurrently providing people the information they need, thereby placing their fears into context. Giving people permission to be excessively alarmed about a bioterrorist threat (but still telling them why they need not be overly worried) makes it far more likely that they will actually be reassured.
Stigmatization
In some instances, victims may be stigmatized by their communities and refused services or public access.29 Fear and isolation of a group perceived to be contaminated or risky to close contacts will hamper community recovery and impede evacuation and relocation efforts. In a disease outbreak, a community is more likely to separate from those perceived to be infected.
During the 2002–2003 SARS outbreak, believed to have originated in China, cities worldwide reported that the public avoided visiting Chinatown sections of their cities. The governor of Hawaii publicly ate dinner in the Chinatown section of Honolulu to help counter this stigmatization. This is a good example of leadership modeling behavior desired by the public.
Response officials must be sensitive to the possibility that, although unintentional and unwarranted, segments of their community could be shunned because they become “identified” with the problem. This could have both economic and psychological effects on the well-being of community members and should be challenged immediately. This stigmatization can occur absent any scientific basis and could come not only from individuals but entire nations. During the avian influenza outbreak in Hong Kong in 1997–1998 and during the West Nile virus outbreak in New York City in 1999, policies of other nations banned the movement of people or animals, absent clear science calling for those measures.
Perception of Risk
The perception of risk is also vitally important in emergency communication. Risks have variable acceptance.1,6 A wide body of research exists on issues surrounding risk communication. The following emphasize that the public accepts some risks more than others.
Voluntary versus involuntary: Voluntary risks are more readily accepted than imposed risks.
Personally controlled versus controlled by others: Risks controlled by the individual or community are more readily accepted than risks outside the individual’s or community’s control.
Familiar versus exotic: Familiar risks are more readily accepted than unfamiliar risks. Risks perceived as relatively unknown are perceived to be greater than risks that are well understood.
Origin: While crisis etiology is not always initially known, risks perceived to be generated by nature are better tolerated than risks thought to be caused by human actions.
Reversible versus permanent: Reversible risk is better tolerated than risk perceived to be irreversible.
Statistical versus anecdotal: Statistical risks for populations are better tolerated than risks represented by individuals. An anecdote presented to a person or community (i.e., “one in a million”) can be more damaging than a statistical risk of 1 in 10,000 presented as a number.
Endemic versus epidemic (catastrophic): Illnesses, injuries, and deaths spread over time at a predictable rate are better tolerated than illnesses, injuries, and deaths grouped by time and location (e.g., annual motor vehicle collision deaths versus individual airplane crashes).
Fairly distributed versus unfairly distributed: Risks that are not directed at a group, population, or individual are better tolerated than risks that are perceived to be targeted.
Generated by trusted institution versus mistrusted institution: Risks generated by a trusted institution are better tolerated than risks that are generated by a mistrusted institution. Risks generated by a mistrusted institution will be perceived as greater than risks generated by a trusted institution.
Adults versus children: Risks that affect adults are better tolerated than risks that affect children.
Understood benefit versus questionable benefit: Risks with well-understood potential benefit and harm reduction are better tolerated than risks with little or no perceived benefit or reduction of harm.
In any discussion of risk, the scientist may perceive 1 risk in 10,000 as an acceptable risk, while the listener may anecdotally be familiar with that one adverse outcome and believe that the risk is personally much greater. Perception of risk involves more than numbers alone.
Response officials must carefully assess event magnitude. Typically the magnitude of the event is measured by the number of people injured, ill, or dead, and/or the dollar amount and geographic spread of property damage. The causative agent is also important. The principles of risk communication are vital when developing messages during an emergency. If it is the first emergency of its type – irrespective of etiology or magnitude – communication challenges will increase, even if the severity of the crisis is not as great as previous events. Officials should measure the magnitude of a crisis based on three things: 1) the degree of physical and mental impact on people (i.e., how many are ill, sick, or dead); 2) the degree of property damage; and 3) the emotional toll the crisis takes on the population, based on attributes related to crisis etiology.
Role of the Spokesperson
The right spokesperson at the right time with the right message can save lives. The following emergency risk communication principles should be incorporated into messages:
Acknowledge fears. Do not tell people they should not be afraid. Fear may be a reasonable reaction. One effective technique for calming fears is for spokespersons to share a reason why they are not afraid (based on expert knowledge) and let people conclude for themselves why these experts are less concerned. Never follow with “so don’t be afraid.”
Express wishes. “I wish we knew more.” “I wish our answers were more definitive.” An “I wish” phrase expresses empathy.
Give people things to do. Offer a range of responses – a minimum response, a maximum response, and a recommended middle response. For example: “Don’t drink the tap water; buy bottled water or boil the tap water.”
Acknowledge the shared misery. Some people will be less frightened than they are miserable, feeling hopeless and defeated. Acknowledge the misery of a catastrophic event, then help move people toward hope for the future through the actions of the organization and through actions that they can also take.
Give anticipatory guidance. If officials are aware of future negative outcomes, they should let people know what to expect (e.g., side effects of antibiotics). If it is going to be bad, tell them.
At some point, be willing to address the “what if” questions. These are the questions everyone is thinking about and wants answered by experts. Although it is often impractical to encourage “what ifs” when the crisis is contained and not likely to affect large numbers of people, it is reasonable to answer these hypothetical questions as people need to prepare emotionally. If officials do not answer the “what if” questions, someone with much less at risk regarding the response’s outcome will likely answer them. If spokespersons are not prepared to tackle “what ifs,” they may lose credibility and the opportunity to address the “what if” questions with reasonable and valid recommendations.
Be a role model and ask more of people. Many trauma experts agree that the psychological outcome of a community as a whole depends on resilience (see Chapter 6). A critical role of spokespersons is to ask people to bear the risk with them. People can tolerate considerable risk. If spokespersons acknowledge the risk, its severity, and complexity, and acknowledge fears, they can then ask people to accept the risk during the emergency and work toward solutions.
Five Communication Failures that Inhibit Operational Success
Communication experts and leaders with real-life disaster experiences have determined that certain approaches should be avoided as they will cripple or even destroy disaster response operational success.8,29 Tactics to avoid include:
Mixed messages from multiple experts
Information released late
Paternalistic attitudes
Not countering rumors and myths in real-time
Public power struggles and confusion
Mixed Messages
The public needs a unified message rather than a selection of options for action. During the mid-1990s, the Midwestern United States experienced a spring of great floods. Response officials determined that the water treatment facilities in some communities were compromised and that a “boil water” directive should be issued. A problem developed when multiple response organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, issued directions for boiling water and each of them was different. Compounding this issue is the fact that, in the United States, people turn on the faucet and clean water comes out. Few people know the “recipe” to boil water because they have never needed it. Examples of people who might be unable to choose the correct option for sterilizing water include: a young mother who needs to mix her infant son’s cereal with water, a middle-aged son caring for his immunocompromised mother receiving chemotherapy, or a sister living down the street from her HIV-positive brother whose T-cell count is low. Even healthy people are risk-adverse to the consequences of not choosing the right boil-water instructions.
When faced with a new threat, people want a consistent and simple recommendation. They want to hear absolute agreement about what they should do and they want to hear it from multiple experts, through multiple sources. Even correct messages can be damaging if delivered improperly. If messages are inconsistent, the public will lose trust in the response officials and begin to question every recommendation.1,8,29 Local, state, regional, and national response officials and their partners must work together to ensure messages are consistent, especially when the information is new to the public.
Information Released Late
Following the September 11, 2001, U.S. terrorist attacks, many people wanted advice on whether or not to buy a gas mask and requested information from CDC. Three weeks after the attack, CDC had an answer on its website. During the 3 weeks that CDC took to develop and vet its answer, a number of experts were willing to give an answer; however, it was not the correct one. When CDC issued advice to the public not to buy gas masks, the gas mask aisles at local Army-Navy Surplus stores were already empty. While few could contemplate the consequences of a September 11–type attack, officials must anticipate and create a process to quickly react to the information needs of the public. If authorities cannot give people what they need when they need it, others will. And those “others” may not have the best interests of the public in mind when they offer advice.
If the public expects an answer from an organization on something that is answerable and it does not provide it or direct them to someone who can, people will be vulnerable to receiving bad advice from unscrupulous or fraudulent opportunists.
Paternalistic Attitudes
Putting on the American film actor John Wayne’s swagger and ostensibly answering the public’s concerns with a “don’t worry little lady, we got ya covered” is ineffective in the information age. People want and expect to be provided information that allows them to come to their own conclusions.30 As a response official, it is insufficient to satisfy one’s own worries with copious bits of information and then state a bottom line message that is unsupported by the currently known facts. As difficult as it may be, spokespersons must help the public to reach the same conclusion by sharing the knowledge with them that led to it. Response officials should determine what they learned that made them believe the situation was not worrisome and then share this information.
Treat the public like intelligent adults and they will act like intelligent adults.7,24,32 Treated any other way, they will either turn on officials or behave in ways that seem illogical. Officials are leaders, not parents, for the public. Never tell people “don’t worry.” Tell people what they need to know and allow them to reach the conclusion that they do not need to worry. Engage the public in the process and they will follow.22,31
Related posts:
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
