Responding to the Interests and Concerns of the Public (Part I): Designing Effective Messages on

Controversial Topics for Diverse Audiences• Dr. Timothy Sellnow, Professor, College of Communication and Information Sciences,

University of Kentucky and Visiting Professor, Chinese University of Hong Kong • Dr. Deanna Sellnow, Gifford Blyton Endowed Professor of Communication and

Assistant Provost for Transformative Learning, University of Kentucky and Visiting Professor, Chinese University of Hong Kong

Responding to the Interests and Concerns of the Public (Part I):

Designing Effective Messages on Controversial Topics for Diverse

Audiences

Dr. Timothy Sellnow & Dr. Deanna SellnowProfessors of Communication, University of KentuckyVisiting Professors, Chinese University of Hong Kong

International Food Information Council (IFIC) FoundationEXPO 2015 Communications Summit

May 20, 2015American Embassy, Rome, Italy

Funding SupportFunding & Collaborative Support

Funding Support

Vietnam

Egypt

Senegal

Indonesia

Sweden

int’l Collaborative Support

Columbia

China

Germany

Canada

Denmark

“the FirSt thing”OF R I S K & C R I S I S C O M M U N I C A T I O N

The right wordsThrough the right channels at the right time can save lives.

http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/images/userimages/about_andy.jpg

goalS OF R I S K C O M M U N I C A T I O N

Empower people to make Informed Decisions. Prevent Negative

Behavior and/orEncourage Constructive Responses.

http://www.andyrouse.co.uk/images/userimages/about_andy.jpg

beSt praCtiCeS oFRisk Communication

www.foodinsight.org

Defining the Scope of Strategic Risk & Crisis Communication

Instructional Communication

Dialogic Communication

Uncertainty is “the central variable” in all risk situations (Palenchar & Heath, 2002, p. 131). Perception IS reality.Dialogue—Instruction Continuum

(Sellnow & Sellnow, 2010)

1 Planning2 Networking3 Collaborating4 Fostering Credibility/Trust5 Thresholds

Instructional CommunicationDialogic Communication

Instructional CommunicationDialogic Communication

1 “One of the biggest risk & crisis communication challenges [is] making information accessible & understandable to highly varied subgroups” (Kreps, Alibek, Bailey et al., 2005, p. 196)

2 Merely telling stakeholders that they shouldtake action doesn’t necessarily mean they will(e.g., Coombs, 2009; Rowan et al., 2009; Seeger, 2006)

3 Information ≠ Instruction

Can we create a simple, effective, and teachable message design modelthat is easy to remember and

employ that willAddress audience concerns and … Empower people to make informed

risk decisions and save lives?

Instructional Risk Communication & Learning Theory

Learning = Knowing + Doing + Reflecting (Dewey, 1934)

Four Stage Learning Cycle = Concrete Experience + Reflective Observation + Abstract Conceptualization + Active Experimentation (Kolb, 1984)

Cognitive• Understanding

Affective• Perceived Value

Behavioral• Efficacy/Actions

Multiple Theoretically Grounded and Data Driven Empirical Studies . . .1. Content Analyses (Traditional & Social

Media)2. Surveys 3. Focus Groups 4. Message Testing Experiments

Learning StylesRisk/Crisis TypesDiversity

Internalization

Distribution

Explanation Action A

Distribution

Distribution

DA

Action

IInternalization

EExplanation

Sellnow, T., & Sellnow, D. (2013, July). The role of instructional risk messages in communicating about food safety. Food Insight: Current Topics in Food Safety and Nutrition, International Food Information Council, p. 3. (www.foodinsight.org)

Components

4.Action:

WHAT to DO (OR NOT DO) for safety & well-being (me & those I care about)?

#1.#

Internalization:Am I or those I care about affected and HOW?

3.#

Explanation:WHAT is happening and WHY?

I

EAD

2.#

Distribution:WHICH channel(s) will best reach target populations?

Status Quo Messages

(E)

Status Quo Instructional Risk Communication (2010 Nation-wide Egg Recall)

What to Do If Eaten Recalled Eggs

Actions(2%)None(98%)

How to Check for Recalled Eggs

Actions(8%)

None(91%)

internalization

1. Compassion2. Personal Relevance3. Proximity 4. Timeliness5. Exemplars

1. Major supermarkets stopped selling ground beef that included LFTB.

2. Major fast food restaurants stopped using LFTB.3. BPI suspended production laying off 650

employees.4. Consumer cost for lean ground beef skyrocketed.5. Consumer cost for lower quality ground beef

skyrocketed.6. Equivalent to throwing away 5,700 full beef

carcasses/day.

Consequences

D

KEY = Risk Message (VIA Traditional Media, Social Media, Personal Contacts)

DistributiondiStribution

People . . .

1. actively seek information from multiple sources.

2. recognize convergence among messages.

3. evaluate source credibility.4. turn to social media for

convergence.5. constantly challenge

convergence.

Social Media as Risk & Reward

explanation

1. Source Credibility2. Accurate

Information/Science3. Intelligible Translation

Action

1. Be Specifica. What?b. When?c. How?

2. Producers & Consumers

IDEA Model: Food Safety TV Broadcasts

1. Messages that offer INTERNALIZATION (COMPASSION, RELEVANCE, TIMELINESS, PROXIMITY)increaseATTENTION andRETENTION.

2. NEGATIVE EXEMPLARS influence:a. EXPLANATION(misunderstanding)b. INTERNALIZATION(fear) c. ACTION(behaviors)

3. Consistent explanations DELIVEREDviamultiple channels increaseCREDIBILITY andBELIEVABILITY.

http://victoriaprstdnt.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/crises.jpg?w=870

Instructional Risk Communication Conclusions . . .

I

DA E

4. Messages that offer ACTIONABLE INSTRUCTIONS result in significantly higher KNOWLEDGE, CONFIDENCE, and EFFICACY scores than those without them.

5. Messages that don’t offer ACTIONABLE INSTRUCTIONSactually REDUCE CONFIDENCE andHEIGHTEN FEAR.

http://victoriaprstdnt.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/crises.jpg?w=870

Instructional Risk Communication Conclusions . . .

D

A E

I

ADistribution

Distribution

DA

Action

IInternalization

EExplanation

Sellnow, T., & Sellnow, D. (2013, July). The role of instructional risk messages in communicating about food safety. Food Insight: Current Topics in Food Safety and Nutrition, International Food Information Council, p. 3. (www.foodinsight.org)

Tim.Sellnow@uky.eduDeanna.Sellnow@uky.edu

Selected Publications

1. Anthony, K. E., Sellnow, T. L., & Millner, A. G. (2013). Message convergence as a message-centered approach to analyzing and improving risk communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 346-364.

2. Frisby, B. N., Sellnow, D. D., Lane, D. R., Veil, S. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2013). Instruction in crisis situations: Targeting learning preferences and self-efficacy. Risk Management, 15, 250-271.

3. Frisby, B. N., Veil, S. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2014). Instructional messages during health-related crises: Essential content for self-protection. Health Communication, 4, 347-354.

4. Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2010). Expanding the parameters of crisis communication: From chaos to renewal. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Public relations handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 489-500). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

5. Seeger, M. W., Venette, S. J., Ulmer, R. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2002). Media use, information seeking, and reported needs in post-crisis contexts. In B. S. Greenberg (Ed.), Communication and terrorism: Public and media response to 911 (pp. 53-64). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Selected Publications (cont.)6. Sellnow, T. L., & Sellnow, D. D. (2010). The instructional dynamic of risk

and crisis communication: Distinguishing instructional messages from dialogue. The Review of Communication, 10(2), 111-125).

7. Sellnow, T., & Sellnow, D. (2013, July). The role of instructional risk messages in communicating about food safety. Food Insight: Current Topics in Food Safety and Nutrition, International Food Information Council, p. 3.

8. Sellnow, D. D., & Sellnow, T. L. (2014). Instructional principles, Risk Communication. In T. L. Thompson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of health communication (pp. 1181-1182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

9. Sellnow, T. L., Sellnow, D.D., Lane, D. R., Littlefield, R. S. (2012). The value of instructional communication in crisis situations: Restoring order to chaos. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 633-643.

10. Sellnow, D. D., Lane, D. R., Littlefield, R. S., Sellnow, T. L., Wilson, B.; Beauchamp, K., & Venette, S. J. (in press). A receiver based approach to effective instructional crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management.

11. Sutton, J., League, C., Sellnow, T. L., & Sellnow, D. D. (in press). Terse messaging and public health in the midst of natural disasters: The case of the Boulder floods.” Health Communication.

12. Wickline, M., & Sellnow, T. L. (2013). Expanding the concept of significant choice through consideration of health literacy during crises. Health Promotion Practice, 14, 809-815.