Responding to the Interests and Concerns of the Public (Part I): Designing … · 2019-01-23 ·...
Transcript of Responding to the Interests and Concerns of the Public (Part I): Designing … · 2019-01-23 ·...
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)
[email protected]@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.