Читать книгу Theorizing Crisis Communication - Timothy L. Sellnow - Страница 23

Mileti’s warning process model has been very influential in the examination of basic questions regarding warning communication. Many of these investigations have used case studies and survey methodologies to examine warning systems for natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and potential radiological events. For example, Aguirre et al. (1991) examined the warning system failures associated with the 1987 Saragosa, Texas, tornado that killed 30 people and injured 121. It was found that hearing a warning is facilitated if it occurs in one’s native language, if a strong social network is present, and if the message comes from officials. Mileti and Darlington (1995) investigated the public’s response to earthquake warnings in the San Francisco area, a region prone to earthquakes. They found the public is more likely to hear and respond to a warning message when it is delivered through multiple channels. Clarity of the message also facilitates understanding. The public is likely to respond to a warning message if it is delivered by a credible official source and/or consists of credible information. Mileti and O’Brien (1992) tested propositions of the model following the Loma Prieta earthquake and found general support of the theory, although some variability existed between pre- and post-impact warnings. Sorensen (1984) evaluated the effectiveness of warning systems for nuclear power plants. Among the problems associated with the 1979 Three Mile Island accident was an ineffective public warning system. Sorensen concluded that people are more likely to hear a warning message about an emergency at a nuclear power plant if they are at home at the time of delivery, and they are more likely to respond if that message comes from a scientific source. Thus, the basic structure of this approach has received support.

This framework is sufficiently general to encompass a number of subprocesses. For example, Sorensen (2000) and Mileti and Sorensen (1990) have described 11 communication factors associated with the eventual behavioral response, namely: electronic channel, media, siren, personal versus impersonal messages, message specificity, number of channels, frequency, message consistency, message certainty, source credibility, and source familiarity. Other factors include demographic variables (age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, family size, parenthood), attitudes and experiences (knowledge and attitudes about risks, fatalistic beliefs), and structural and community factors (community involvement and planning). The range of factors influencing warning systems is thus quite complex, involving a diverse message, audience, and social variables.

These factors influence the warning process at many points. For example, communication variables such as channel influence both risk identification and risk assessment. Consistency of message, specific information, frequency, and credibility are all factors associated with the persuasiveness of a message in terms of risk identification and assessment. Decisions about risk reduction, feasibility, and, ultimately, the protective response may be influenced by factors such as message specificity and message certainty.