Читать книгу Theorizing Crisis Communication - Timothy L. Sellnow - Страница 25

Michael Lindell and Ronald Perry have developed a robust warning message and decisional framework called the PADM (Lindell & Perry, 1992, 2004, 2011). They describe many of the same processes of warning systems as Mileti but link them more explicitly to decisional systems. The model examines the features of information and environmental and social cues necessary to inform specific protective behaviors. A significant body of research has indicated that the public’s response to a risk is a function of environmental cues; hazard information, usually coming from agencies and authorities; mass media messages; and cues and information from peers, neighbors, friends, and so on (see Lindell & Perry, 2004; Mileti & Sorensen, 1990). Message features such as credibility, consistency, and consensual validation all play a role in how warning messages are received, interpreted, and eventually acted upon. The PADM, then, is a multistage model that seeks to identify and describe the factors that influence responses to hazards and disasters and the relationships between these factors. Thus, it creates a more comprehensive view of the warning process from pre-event factors and perceptions through the decision to take some action.

Lindell and Perry (2004) ground the PADM both in classic approaches to persuasion, which emphasize the relationship between communication and influence, and in behavioral decision theory, which focuses on cognitive processes (p. 45). In addition, the PADM is grounded in work that connects cognitive processes and behaviors. They note:

This research has found that sensory cues from the physical environment (especially sights and sounds) or socially transmitted information (e.g., disaster warnings) can each elicit a perception of threat that diverts the recipient’s attention from normal activities. Depending on the perceived characteristics of the threat, those at risk will either resume normal activities, seek additional information, pursue problem-focused actions to protect people and property, or engage in emotion-focused actions to reduce their immediate psychological distress. Which way an individual chooses to respond to the threat depends on evaluations of both the threat and the available protective actions.

(Lindell & Perry, 2004, p. 46)

Their model seeks to explain this decisional process according to three general subprocesses (see Figure 3.3). First, the warning process identifies the elements of the communication processes associated with communicating the warning. These factors include source characteristics, channel access and preference, message characteristics, receiver characteristics, and other informational sources such as social cues and environmental cues. Components of the warnings system, such as width of diffusion, credibility, timing, and so on, are directly related to the ability of a target audience to receive and process threat information.

Figure 3.3 Information Flow in the PADM.

Source: Lindell and Perry (2011). Reproduced with permission of Blackwell Publishing Inc.

The second component, pre-event factors and perceptions, describes the reception-processing component of the decision. These are the elements undertaken by an audience member after receiving the warning. Pre-decisional processes of reception, attention, and comprehension of warnings all occur before any further processing of the information about a risk. The model describes three forms of audience perception that influence the processing of information: threat perceptions, protective action perceptions, and stakeholder perceptions. These perceptions may be understood as filters or interpretive frames that are used in processing the warning message. The individual conducts a kind of personal risk assessment, taking into account factors such as proximity to the risk, certainty, severity of the threat, and immediacy of the hazard (Lindell & Perry, 2004, pp. 51–54).

The third subprocess involves behaviors. The outcome of the protective action decision-making process, together with situational facilitators and impediments, is to produce a behavioral response. At this point, the individual undertakes a protective action search to identify possible actions to take. These may come from previous experience and education, communication with others, or through additional information seeking (Lindell & Perry, 2004, pp. 55–56). These possible protective actions are evaluated based on efficacy, cost, safety, time requirements, and the perceived barriers to implementation.

Individuals ask eight general questions as they process warnings and face risks. These are information-seeking questions “regarding the threat, protective actions, and social stakeholders” (Lindell & Perry, 2004, p. 64) (see Table 3.2). These questions track the decisional process through eight stages. The first questions concern the nature of the risk: Is the threat real? Is action required? These are followed by questions about protective actions: What is available? How can these be accessed? How would they be implemented? The final three questions concern additional information and methods by which information can be obtained.

Table 3.2 Warning Stages and Actions.

Stage	Activity	Question	Outcome
1	Risk identification	Is there a real threat that I need to pay attention to?	Threat belief
2	Risk assessment	Do I need to take protective action?	Protection motivation
3	Protective action search	What can be done to achieve protection?	Decision set (alternative actions)
4	Protective action assessment and selection	What is the best method of protection?	Adaptive plan
5	Protective action implementation	Does protective action need to be taken now?	Threat response
6	Information needs assessment	What (additional) information do I need to answer my question?	Identified information need
7	Communication action assessment and selection	Where and how can I obtain this information?	Information search plan
8	Communication action implementation	Do I need the information now?	Decision information

Source: Lindell and Perry (2004). Reproduced with permission of Sage Publications Inc. Books.

According to Lindell and Perry (1992), stage one, risk identification, concerns the basic assessment made by a receiver asking, “Does the threat exist?” This is a basic stimuli awareness step. The receiver receives some information about a risk through a number of possible channels (sirens, media reports, word of mouth) and then may consider this information in relation to his or her own risk factors. The reach or the width of diffusion of a warning message is thus a critical variable in this process and is affected by available channels, intensity of the message, and patterns of media use, among other factors. Upon hearing a warning of flash floods, a person might ask, “Do I live in a flood-prone area?” Risk assessment, stage two, then involves asking if some protection is needed given this risk. Based on stage two, assessments may be made about the kinds of protective actions that could be taken. These stage three assessments will be grounded in the available knowledge of the risk, experiences, and risk attitudes and tolerance. For example, experts often advise that residents take shelter in interior rooms during severe storms, such as tornadoes. Having this knowledge in assessing the risk would be prerequisite to taking the desired action. Action assessment, the fourth stage, then, is in part an assessment of the feasibility of taking protective action. A resident would need to have an interior room and be able to reach the room to follow the expert advice. People living with disabilities or in trailers and the homeless might not have the capacity to comply. In many cases of warnings recommending evacuations, some residents are simply unable to evacuate because of mobility problems, lack of access to transportation, or larger economic issues. One issue related to the H1N1 influenza outbreak was the recommendation that children be kept at home in cases of severe outbreaks. Many working parents noted this action was simply not feasible, as young children could not be left home alone. The fifth stage is implementation of the protective response, the action taken to alleviate the risk. This behavioral outcome, according to the model, is a consequence of the previous steps. The final three stages are communication and information stages and concern access to additional information, where to get information, and how rapidly it is needed. A number of investigations have demonstrated that information seeking is a primary activity in a disaster response (see Spence et al., 2006).

Lindell and Perry suggest that finding a satisfactory answer to these various questions is necessary for individuals to progress toward the subsequent decisional stages. Failure to find an answer stops the progress toward a protective action. Thus, communication of relevant information is critical throughout the entire decisional process, not just at the early warning stages.

The PADM integrates theories of social influence and behavioral choice and is informed by a substantial body of research on how people behave in response to warnings. Lindell and Perry (2004) suggest the model has utility in explaining how people respond to specific warnings and to larger risk awareness and education campaigns. The model has been applied in both contexts.