H1N1: Spreading the Message

“Hazard” is the actual event covered by the communication, whether it is a potential future event that the message is attempting to prepare a receiver for or an actual event that is occurring or is about to occur. Therefore, hazards or hazardous events can be anywhere along the continuum from negligible to catastrophic. Getting the message receiver (usually the public or some stakeholder group) to understand the seriousness of the event is a significant determining factor of both the success of the message and the action the message receiver takes as a result of it.

“Outrage” refers to the emotions and behaviors of the message receivers in light of their perceptions of the level of hazard presented to them. Like hazards, the level of outrage exists on a continuum from high to low and varies from person to person.

Combining the concepts of hazard and outrage, Sandman poses a framework of the four most common situations.¹

High Hazard/Low Outrage — This situation features a serious hazard, but an apathetic audience. The good news in these types of situations is that the audience often will not object to the message. The bad news is that, even with a skilled communicator and message, moving the audience to a desired action may be more difficult.

Low Hazard/Low Outrage — This situation features an audience that is interested but not so emotional that internalizing the message is difficult. It also is a situation where the likelihood of the risk occurring is low and the hazard potential is minimal. It allows the message sender to discuss the situation rationally and openly and likely will generate audience questions and rational concerns.

Low Hazard/High Outrage — Undoubtedly, this is the most difficult scenario for a risk communicator, as the audience often is not trusting of any message and sometimes is controlled by a small group of “fanatics” who purposely have exaggerated the situation for varying motives or who truly believe that situation is dire, when the facts say otherwise.

High Hazard/High Outrage — The audience here typically is not angry, but fearful and scared and, because the hazard is serious, their position may be valid. Without skillful management by the communicator, the outrage easily can slip into terror or depression, both of which are of limited use in getting the message receiver to take the desired action.

These models aid in the development of both risk and crisis communication messages. Central to all of them is an understanding of the audience and its stake in the process or situation at hand.

In addition, EPA has created a list of “Seven Cardinal Rules” of risk and crisis messages. Although these rules originally were designed for environmental communications, their applicability to a wide variety of hazard situations is obvious.

• Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner;
• Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts;
• Listen to the public's specific concerns;
• Be honest, frank and open;
• Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources;
• Meet the needs of the media; and
• Speak clearly and with compassion.

PLANNING AHEAD

The difficulties for EHS professionals who want to use this pandemic as an example to advance the importance of developing pandemic plans as well as risk and crisis communications plans in their organizations is obvious. What is the message that now needs to be crafted? Peter Sandman posted his thoughts on several occasions during the initial outbreak, and the quote below provides an excellent framework.

“And of course, if the virus recedes and the pandemic never materializes, these critics will consider themselves vindicated … as if the fact that your house didn't burn down this year proved the foolishness of last year's decision to buy fire insurance. It is dangerous nonsense to imagine that warnings are justified only if they are followed quickly enough by disasters. People who don't take precautions often escape injury. That makes them lucky, not wise.”²

It always has been true that preparing in advance of for any type of emergency is time well spent. Pandemic planning is no exception. The adage that it is a sign of poor planning to be meeting the incident commander of your local hazard materials team during a major chemical release holds true. This, then, is the message for EHS professionals to their managers: the time and resources utilized for emergency planning activities are like money spent on insurance policies.

Messages to our organization's management need to continue to educate and inform about pandemic characteristics and continue to push for long-term planning. These messages need to achieve a sometimes delicate and difficult balance between accuracy and urgency. There is nothing wrong with painting a “scary” picture, backed up with good science, to motivate and push for time and resources. Using the well-worn analogy of “dodging the bullet” in the H1N1 pandemic can be an effective use of this is situation.

---

Pam Ferrante, CSP, CHMM, is the President of JC Safety & Environmental Inc. in Pittsburgh. Her company services numerous industrial and construction sectors with occupational safety and health consultation services. Ferrante presents and writes widely on the subjects of emergency response and risk/crisis communications. She can be reached at 412.414.4769 or pam@jcsafety.com.

ENDOTES

¹Sandman, Peter M.; “Four Kinds of Risk Communications”, 2003, found online at http://www.psandman.com.

²Posted online at http://www.petersandman.com on April 29, 2009.