Module 1 Trainers Guide

TRAINER’S GUIDETRAINER’S GUIDE

AN INTRODUCTION TO

RISK COMMUNICATION1.5 hours

1 Introduction to Module 1

Everything we do involves risk… In Module 1 we will examine how audience perception of risk drives how we conduct risk communication before, during and after a crisis. We will consider the unique features that distinguish risk communication from other communication approaches. We will introduce the view that “risk communicators” exist throughout an organization involving both formal and informal interaction with employees, networks, customers and community.

Module 1 Learner Outcomes

Upon completion of Module 1, participants will be able to:

Apply the risk communication goals to a foodborne outbreak. (Topic 1)

Describe the function of risk communication within the risk management model. (Topic 1)

Identify the factors that drive perceptions of risk. (Topic 2)

Compare and contrast communicator roles from various segments of the food system. (Topic 3)

Module 1: An Introduction to Risk Communication REV: 4/10/2023 of 24

Module 1 Overview

Introduction to Module 1: An Introduction to Risk Communication 5 minutes

TOPIC 1: Defining Risk Communication: What It Is & What It Isn’t 30 minutes Defining risk communication Goals and intended outcomes of risk communication Key components of risk communication Risk vs crisis communication Unpacking the message: application activity

TOPIC 2: Risk Perception: Facts & Feelings 35 minutes Risk management elements Risk = Hazard + Outrage Outrage management, precaution advocacy, crisis/emergency communication Hazard + Outrage and your organization: application activity

TOPIC 3: We’re all Risk Communicators: It Is Your Job! 15 minutes Role of the official spokesperson Food system risk communicators Formal and informal information channels

Summary of Module 1 5 minutes

Total 1.5 hours

Best Practices Introduced in Module 1

Risk and crisis communication is an ongoing process


Module 1 : An Introduction to Risk Communication 1.5 hours

# CONTENT TRAINER NOTES RESOURCES

T1.5 INTRODUCE MODULE 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO RISK COMMUNICATION

Module 1 introduces participants to definitions and concepts that serve as the foundation for sound risk communication practices.

T1.6 MODULE 1 TOPICS

1. Defining Risk Communication: What It Is &

What It Isn’t

2. Risk Perception: Facts & Feelings

3. We’re All Risk Communicators: It Is Your Job!

T1.7 MODULE 1 LEARNER OUTCOMES

Apply the risk communication goals to a catastrophic foodborne outbreak. (Topic 1)

Describe the function of risk communication within the risk management model. (Topic 2)

Identify the factors that drive perceptions of risk.

Compare and contrast communicator roles from various segments of the food system. (Topic 3)


M1 Topic One

Defining Risk Communication: What It Is and What It Isn’t30 minutes


T1.8 TOPIC 1: DEFINING RISK COMMUNICATION: WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT ISN’T

T1.9 USDA DEFINITION OF RISK COMMUNICATION

“An open two-way exchange of information and opinion about risk leading to better understanding and better risk management decisions. “ (1992)

Note:Another definition frequently cited is from the National Research Council:

“...an integrative process of exchange of information and opinions among individuals, groups, and institutions; often involves multiple messages about the nature of the risk or expressing concerns, opinions, or reactions to risk messages or to the legal and institutional arrangements for risk management.” (1989)

Source: USDA, 1992

#4 National Research Council. Improving risk communication


T1.10 RISK COMMUNICATION GOALS

Tailor communication so it takes into account emotional response to event

Empower audience to make informed decision-making

Prevent negative behavior (that hampers response or causes more harm) and encourage constructive responses to crisis

T1.11 Application Discussion: Present real-life message examples that

illustrate goals Ask participants to identify which risk comm

goal(s) is reflected in each message Additional message examples can be found in

the Risk Communication Clipping File slide set

Discussion Questions: Message Example #1 How does this statement take into account the

public’s emotional response? What constructive behavior is encouraged? How does the statement empower audiences to

make informed decision-making?

Risk Comm Clipping File #1

T1.12 Application Questions: Message Example #2

How does this statement take into account the public’s emotional response?

What constructive behavior is encouraged?




What goal(s) is reflected in this risk

communication message? [Ans: Takes into account emotional response]



What goal(s) is reflected in this risk communication message? [Ans: Empowers informed decision-making]


T1.15 Application Questions: Message Example #5 What goal(s) is reflected in this risk

communication message? [Ans: Encourages constructive action]



T1.16Application Questions: Message Example #6

What goal(s) is reflected in this risk communication message? [Ans: Takes into account emotional response]


T1.17 RISK COMMUNICATION DIFFERS FROM A TRADITIONAL COMMUNICATION APPROACH

Key Concept: Audience has a dynamic role in the risk

communication model

T1.28 COMPONENTS OF RISK COMMUNICATION Audience assessment – know the public Audience involvement – involve the public as

partners Message – information content Logistics – how you get the content; how you

get it to the audience; how you get their response back

Listening – for audience response Metamessaging – how you say it, reflects how

communicator and audience feel about event (more on metamessaging in Module 3)

Self-assessment – on-going Evaluation - lessons learned

Source: Peter Sandman


T1.19 RISK COMMUNICATION INTENDED OUTCOMES

Discussion Question:Ask participants what is NOT an intended outcome, for example: (commonly misunderstood)

Make people feel safe, less anxious, avoid panic Assure public that their fear is unwarranted

Note:Risk communication is only as good as the effectiveness to implement the plan, e.g. Katrina evacuation

T1.20 DISCIPLINES THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO RISK COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES

Risk Communication has evolved from a number of contributing disciplines:

EPA sought help bridging the gap between “expert” and “lay” perceptions of physical hazards

Psychologists answered by studying perceptions of hazard

Philosophical and sociological work focused on culturally shaped meanings of risk

Political science looked at decision-making based on risk

Communication scholars engaged in message design research


T1.21 CRISIS COMMUNICATION IS ONE FORM OF RISK COMMUNICATION

Risk communication includes communication strategies before, during and after the event or as preparedness, response and recovery

Crisis communication serves as a response to an emergency or crisis such as a foodborne outbreak

Discussion Questions: Illustrate Risk Communication functions before and after a crisis

Pre-crisis: What types of risk communication messages are we seeing in anticipation of a pandemic outbreak? [Ans: raise awareness or fear to prompt preparedness actions]

Post-crisis: What types of risk communication messages have appeared following the E.coli –spinach outbreaks that occurred in 2006? [Ans: awareness of cross contamination hazards, properly preparing produce]

T1.22 Application Activity: Unpacking the MessagePurpose: Analyze message examples by applying concepts introduced in Topic 1.

Distribute selected “Unpacking the Message” examples to individuals or small groups

Ask participants to:1) Identify whether example was intended for use

before, during or after a crisis2) Identify intended outcome(s) of the risk

communication message Share findings with the group

Handouts: Unpacking the MessageS: #6,9,13,14,15,17,19,25

Trainer’s Resource:M1.Unpacking Message Key


T1.23 SUMMARY: WHAT RISK COMMUNICATION IS NOT

T1.24 SUMMARY: WHAT RISK COMMUNICATION IS

How we perceive risk will be considered in the next section (Topic 2)


M1 Topic Two

Risk Perception: Facts & Feelings35 minutes


T2.25 RISK COMMUNICATION IS A COMBINATION OF FACTS AND FEELINGS

Risk perception drives risk communication

Communicating about risk is difficult because of the way people interpret risk – an intersection of facts and feelings. Risk sets the stage for emotional issues that capture headlines.

T2.26 RISK ANALYSIS PARADIGM


T2.27 RISK COMMUNICATION IS A KEY PART OF RISK MANAGEMENT

Successful risk communication builds credibility and shared responsibility for risk management policies through involvement.

These activities are not chronological; they occur simultaneously and interactively.

T2.28 Discussion Question: What are some contemporary food issues that

represent these competing perspectives? Responses could include:

irradiated food cloned meat and milk products organic food water fluoridation pesticides imported foods transfats, etc.

T2.29 Optional Activity: U-Phoria ProjectPurpose: To demonstrate how we all interpret risk differently -- based on both subjective and objective analyses

Instructions: “Let’s examine how YOU interpret risk…”


T2.30 Present U-phoria pill’s background Next field additional questions. Give positive

answers concerning cost, approval, access, availability, etc.

When asked about the specifics concerning side effects, respond: Severe diarrhea lasting up to 24-hours

Next Step: Instruct group to stand up. “Would you take the U-Phoria pill? Stay standing if

you would you be willing to take the U-Phoria pill even if the odds of developing severe diarrhea were: 1 in 1,000,000,000 1 in 1,000,000 1 in 100,000 1 in 1,000 1 in 10

Side effects are seen with every dose!

Follow-up Discussion: Why was there a range of responses? What does this tell us about risk perception?[Ans: perceptions of risk are individualized]

T2.31 FACTORS THAT SHAPE RISK PERCEPTION

Considerations that shape perceptions of risk Hazard – something that can go wrong Probability – likelihood of it happening Consequences – implications of hazard Value – subjective evaluation of the relative

importance of what might be lost

Applying these components to U-Phoria exercise: Hazard – severe diarrhea Probability – 1 in 1 billion, etc Consequences – dehydration, etc,

embarrassment, limited mobility Value – memory boost, feelings of well-being


T2.32 RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS INVOLVE BOTH THINKING & FEELINGS

Thinking (logic) focuses on the hazard (danger) and probability (likelihood or chance) of occurring

Feelings involves fear, anger and other emotions that are evoked when considering potential consequences and value of what may be lost

T2.33 GROWING DISCONNECT BETWEEN EXPERTS & PUBLIC

Scientists’ orientation is fact-based, focused on probability

Consumers’ orientation is value-based, swayed by potential consequences

T2.34 EXAMPLE OF EXPERT – PUBLIC DISCONNECT

Example of an expert who discounts Japanese consumers’ perception of the risk of BSE (mad cow) from imported U.S. beef

Clipping File #11


T2.35 ANOTHER EXAMPLE: U.S. CONSUMER RESPONSE TO MAD COW DISEASE IN 2003

This editorial cartoon captured the nation’s response to BSE (“mad cow disease”), where scientists and public health experts characterized a very small danger given the safeguards in place, while some consumer groups and politicians raised alarms which captured media attention and fed the fear factor.

Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune, January, 2004

T2.36 PETER SANDMAN

Peter Sandman is a leading risk communication expert and member of NCFPD Risk Communication Team

This quote refers to the fact that there is virtually no correlation between what upsets you and what can harm you. Sometimes we're upset about serious risks, sometimes about silly ones.

About Peter Sandman:http://www.petersandman.com/#about

Source of quote:http://www.psandman.com/handouts/sand46.pdf

T2.37 Discussion Question: What are some food-related “risks” that upset

consumers?


http://www.psandman.com/handouts/sand46.pdf


http://www.petersandman.com/#about

http://www.petersandman.com/#about

T2.38 RISK = HAZARD + OUTRAGE

Hazard = danger/probabilityOutrage = fear/dread/anger

According to Sandman: Outrage is as real as hazard Both are measurable Both are manageable

#7 Sandman P. The relationship between hazard and outragehttp://www.psandman.com/handouts/sand44.pdf

T2.39 DIFFERENT RISK COMMUNICATION APPROACHES

The level of hazard and outrage determines the communication approach:

public relations precaution advocacy outrage management crisis/emergency risk communication

#4 Sandman P. Four kinds of risk communication

T2.40 OUTRAGE MANAGEMENT

Low hazard + high outrage Goal: Reduce outrage so people don’t take

unnecessary precautions

Food examples for outrage management: BSE (Mad Cow) Genetically modified foods (“Franken-foods”) Cloned animal products





T2.41 PRECAUTION ADVOCACY

High hazard + Low outrage Goal: increase fear to motivate preventative

action Also described as health education or issue

management

Food examples for precaution advocacy: Salmonella in undercooked poultry Mercury in fish High fat diet Vibrio in shellfish Raw milk and cheese Undercooked ground meats


T2.42 CRISIS/EMERGENCY RISK COMMUNICATION

High hazard + High outrage Goal: Acknowledge hazard, validate concern,

give people ways to respond Examples: food safety example, bioterrorism

event

Food examples for crisis or emergency risk communication:

E.coli-spinach outbreak Bioterrorism event Food recall



T2.43 Optional Activity:Applying Risk = Hazard + Outrage to your OrganizationPurpose: Apply model to food-related issues within participants’ organizations

Identify issues within your organization for each of the communication approaches

What are your organization’s communication goals for each issue?

Ask for volunteers to share responses. Record on flipchart to represent range of food issues.

Handout: M1.Risk=Hazard+Outrage worksheet.doc

M1 Topic Three

We’re All Risk Communicators: It Is Your Job!15 minutes


T3.44 TOPIC 3: WE’RE ALL RISK COMMUNICATORS

The last topic discusses the role of the risk communicator in various segments of the food system.


T3.45 BEYOND THE SPOKESPERSON

Traditionally, risk communication is centralized in Public Information Officer (PIO) or spokesperson functions:

Industry CEO Organization or agency head Communications director Other “official spokespersons”

Discussion Question:Who are the official spokespersons in your organization?

T3.46 RISK COMMUNICATORS FROM THE FOOD SYSTEM SERVE MANY ROLES AND FUNCTIONS

Foodborne outbreaks or emergencies will usually involve these risk communicators:

They participate in press conferences, prepare statements, address public in meetings, consumer service reps, etc.

These persons should be trained in risk communication as part of an organization’s preparedness planning

Images: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)http://www.csrees.umd.edu/

T3.47 Food system risk communicators continued: I Images: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)http://www.csrees.umd.edu/


http://www.csrees.umd.edu/

http://www.csrees.umd.edu/

T3.48 RISK COMMUNICATORS WE OVERLOOK

Risk communication occurs in other settings as well.It is important to recognize the importance of these communicators within your organization.

Discussion Questions: What are the formal communication channels

used by your organization? What are informal information channels in your

organization?

Images: Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)http://www.csrees.umd.edu/

T3.49 Case Study: Schwan’s Salmonella Outbreak, 1994

Case study illustrates importance of these “informal” risk communicators:

Schwan’s is a privately owned company based in Minnesota that features home delivered food products

In 1994, an estimated 224,000 persons were exposed to salmonella contaminated ice cream

Source – tanker trucks carrying ice cream premix had not been cleaned adequately

Home delivery drivers were instrumental in communicating with customers and restoring trust in Schwan’s products. [Key concept]

Discussion Questions: Who are the employees in your organization

who could serve a similar function during a food-related emergency?

#9 Sellnow, T. and R. Littlefield, eds. Lessons Learned about protecting America’s food supply


T3.50 BEST PRACTICES FOR EFFECTIVE RISK COMMUNICATION

Note: 10 Best Practices for effective Risk

Communication were identified by NCFPD Risk Communication Project collaborators.

Best practices will be highlighted at the end of each module.

Best practices principle introduced in the module: Risk and crisis communication is an ongoing

processo Implement as preparedness, response and

recovery strategieso Incorporate risk communication into the policy

development processo Continuously evaluate and update crisis

communication plans

#8 Seeger, M. Best practices in risk and crisis communication: an expert panel process

Handout:M1.T3.Risk Comm Best Practices.doc

Glossary TermsConsequences - implications of hazard

Crisis - an event that is a serious risk both in hazard terms and in outrage terms; a discrete situation that poses high-hazard high-outrage risks

Crisis and emergency communication – communication during a crisis

Danger - something that can go wrong or has uncertain consequences of potential harm

Emergency risk communication - attempt by experts to provide information to allow an individual, stakeholders, or an entire community to make the best possible decisions about their well being within nearly impossible time constraints and ultimately accept the imperfect nature of choices during a crisis… (CDCynergy)

Hazard – something that can go wrong

Issues management communication – similar to crisis communication, however, organization has advance knowledge of impending crisis and opportunity to choose the timing of the communication to stakeholders and the public and the issue and organization’s plan to resolve it (CDCynergy)


Metamessaging - all the content of crisis communications other than information content: how reassuring to be, how confident to sound, how to address emotion, etc.

Outrage - psychological reaction people have to a perceived threat, e.g. fear, anger, frustration, dread

Panic - sudden strong feeling of fear that prevents reasonable thought or action

Pre-crisis communication - communication about a possible future crisis

Probability – likelihood of it happening, based on statistics

Psychometrics - the psychological theory or technique of mental measurement

Relative risk - risk of disease among those exposed/risk among unexposed

Risk - measurement of the likelihood and consequence of something bad happening combined with our psychological reaction to it (outrage). Note: term ‘risk’ is used by most biological and medical scientists to indicate simply the likelihood and consequence of an event

Risk - probability of loss of that which we value (value-based, not knowledge-based) (Covello)

Risk analysis - A set of tools used to support rational decision-making in the face of uncertainty. Includes hazard identification, risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. Note: the term risk analysis is sometimes used as a synonym for risk assessment.

Risk communication - an integrative process of exchange of information and opinions among individuals, groups, and institutions; often involves multiple messages about the nature of the risk or expressing concerns, opinions, or reactions to risk messages or to the legal and institutional arrangements for risk management (NCR, 1989)

Discussion about an adverse outcome and probability of that outcome occurring for an individual. In some instances, risk communication has been employed to help an individual make a choice about whether or not to undergo a medical treatment, continue to live next to a nuclear plant, pass on his genetic risk, or elect to vaccinate a healthy baby against whooping cough (CDCynergy)

Risk communicator - person discussing risk formally (spokesperson) or through informal channels, e.g. employee in conversation with customer

Stakeholders - groups or individuals who have influence or are involved in the decision-making process

SMEs: Subject Matter Experts

Value – subjective evaluation of the relative importance of what might be lost

Module 1 Sources


http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/psychological

1. Covello V and Sandman P. (2001). Risk communication: evolution and revolution. In A. Wolbarst (Ed.), Solutions to an Environment in Peril (pp. 165-178). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Available online: http://www.psandman.com/articles/covello.htm

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Emergency Risk Communication CDCynergy. Atlanta. Available online: http://www.orau.gov/cdcynergy/erc/

3. Fischhoff, B and Downs J. (1997). Communicating foodborne disease risk. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 3 (4). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no4/fischof.htm)

4. National Research Council (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington D.C.:National Academy Press.

5. Sandman, P. (2003) Four kinds of risk communication. Available online: http://www.psandman.com/handouts/sand17.pdf

6. Sandman, P. (1993). Relationship between hazard and outrage. Available online: http://www.psandman.com/handouts/sand44.pdf

7. Sandman, P. (Rev 2006). Fundamentals of risk communication. Available online: http://www.psandman.com/handouts/topical.htm#four

8. Seeger, M. (2006). Best practices in risk and crisis communication: an expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication, 34 (3). National Communication Association.

9. Sellnow, T. and R. Littlefield, eds. Lessons learned about protecting America’s food supply, Institute for Regional Studies, North Dakota

State University, Fargo, ND, 2005.

10. Slovic ,P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285. Available online: http://communityrisks.cornell.edu/BackgroundMaterials/Slovic-Science1987.pdf

11. World Health Organization. (2005). Outbreak communication, best practices for communicating with public during an outbreak. Report of the WHO Expert Consultation on Outbreak Communications, September 21-23, 2004, Singapore. Available online: http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CDS_2005_32web.pdf\

12. World Health Organization. (2005). Outbreak communication guidelines. Available online: http://www.who.int/infectious-disease news/IDdocs/whocds200528/whocds200528en.pdf

Additional Resources

Fisher, A. et al. Risk communication for industry practitioners: an annotated bibliography. Risk Communication Specialty Group, Society for Risk Analysis. McLean, VA. August, 1995. Available on line at: http://www.sra.org/rcsg/risk.pdf

Neuhauser, L. and Ereman, R. “Essentials of risk communication for public health practice.” UC Berkeley Center for Infectious Disease Preparedness, April 5, 2005. Webcast available online at: http://www.idready.org/webcast/viewwebcast.php#


http://www.idready.org/webcast/viewwebcast.php#

http://www.sra.org/rcsg/risk.pdf

http://www.who.int/infectious-disease%20news/IDdocs/whocds200528/whocds200528en.pdf

http://www.who.int/infectious-disease%20news/IDdocs/whocds200528/whocds200528en.pdf

http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CDS_2005_32web.pdf%5C

http://communityrisks.cornell.edu/BackgroundMaterials/Slovic-Science1987.pdf

http://www.psandman.com/handouts/topical.htm#four



http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol3no4/fischof.htm

http://www.orau.gov/cdcynergy/erc/

http://www.psandman.com/articles/covello.htm

Parker, Cindy. Crisis communication: how to talk to people about disasters. Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health Preparedness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Narrated slides available online at: : http://www.jhsph.edu/preparedness/training/online/crisis_communication.html

Contributors

William Hueston, Director, Center for Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN

Peter Sandman, Risk Communication specialist, www. psandman.com

Steven Venette, Associate Professor of Communication, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS


http://www.jhsph.edu/preparedness/training/online/crisis_communication.html

Module 1 Trainers Guide

Documents

Transcript of Module 1 Trainers Guide