Читать книгу Communicating in Risk, Crisis, and High Stress Situations: Evidence-Based Strategies and Practice - Vincent T. Covello - Страница 35

Crisis communication can be defined as the exchange of risk information about an abrupt, uncertain, nonroutine, and disruptive event that poses immediate and significant consequences. Crisis communication is ideally the planned, intentional transfer of risk information when preparing for a crisis, responding to a crisis, and recovering from a crisis. Crisis communication is primarily concerned with that part of the risk communication continuum that alerts stakeholders to an immediate threat and provides options to minimize the risk. It serves a motivational and time‐sensitive purpose.

There is a large overlap between risk and crisis communication. Communications about risks and threats follow a cycle of prevention, preparedness, warning, response, and recovery. The first two steps – prevention and preparedness – have traditionally belonged to scholars and practitioners of risk communication. The latter three steps – warning, response, and recovery – have traditionally belonged to scholars and practitioners of crisis communication. Scholars and practitioners of both risk and crisis communication focus on what the human brain hears, understands, believes, and decides about a risk or threat.

Crisis communicators primarily focus on a situation, something that has just happened or is still happening. Risk communicators primarily focus on what might happen. For example, for a food contamination scenario, risk communicators might focus on questions such as: How likely is food contamination? How can people be made more aware of the potential for food contamination? How can food contamination incidents be prevented? Crisis communicators might focus on questions such as: What do people want to know about the incident? What things should people be doing in response to the incident? Where can people go for credible information? What else might go wrong?

The objectives of crisis communication are similar to the objectives of risk and high concern communication: to build trust, promote knowledge, and encourage appropriate behaviors and supportive relationships. Specific objectives change as the continuum moves from the pre‐crisis preparedness stage, through the crisis event stage, and then to the recovery stage. The overarching goal of crisis communication is to reduce or eliminate harm through individual, group, organizational, or institutional action.

One of the key lessons to be learned from successful cases of crisis communication is that each phase of a crisis has a distinct set of communication objectives and each phase requires a distinct set of communication skills. For example, a key communication objective of pre‐crisis preparedness communication is to provide information needed by stakeholders to avert a crisis from occurring. During the crisis itself, a key communication objective is to share the information about (1) what people can or should do to protect themselves and what they value; (2) the location of and access to crisis resources; and (3) connecting with first responders, emergency management, and family and friends. Skipping a phase, such as communications in the pre‐crisis/preparation phase, seldom produces satisfactory results. Making mistakes in any phase can negate hard‐won gains.

Crisis communication effectiveness can be measured by changes in knowledge, perceived trust, safety, calm, connectedness, hope, and self‐ and group‐efficacy. Self‐ and group‐efficacy refers to beliefs by individuals or groups that they can engage in and perform protective behaviors and actions. Self‐ and group‐efficacy reflects confidence by individuals or groups that they can exert control over their behavior and their environment. An important point here that relates to self‐ or group‐efficacy is in how one frames a situation. If an individual or a group believes they can handle the situation, the situation no longer is seen as a crisis.

When crisis communication is not planned and implemented effectively, a long list of negative outcomes can occur. These include confusion caused by contradictory messages, people rejecting or refusing to follow recommendations, counterproductive behaviors, loss of trust, and social disruption.