To be open and to create effective partnerships, an organization experiencing or managing a risk or crisis must listen to the concerns of its publics, take these concerns into account, and respond accordingly. Whether accurate or not, the perception of publics is their reality. If publics believe a risk exists, they can be expected to act according to that belief. If they believe a crisis is severe, acknowledging and responding to this belief are essential. For example, accusations of restaurants causing food poisoning can be posted by customers and widely viewed on social media outlets such as Twitter or Facebook or on well‐trafficked Internet sites such as iwaspoisoned.com (Arnold, 2017). In some cases, these posts are highly accurate. In fact, some state health agencies monitor Twitter posts or online searches related to food poisoning to identify emerging outbreaks. In many cases, however, restaurants are unfairly blamed by misinformed consumers who assume the cause of their digestive malady stems from their last meal or the last meal outside their own home. Consequently, restaurants may be unjustly accused of a problem they did not cause. The result can be a reputational crisis for the restaurant. In these cases, restaurants must provide a substantial response to an unsubstantiated but nevertheless potentially damaging accusation.

As this example clearly illustrates, simply telling publics they don't understand and should not be afraid when something bad is happening is not usually effective. Generally, a much more effective strategy is to begin by acknowledging the concern or fear and then providing information about what is being done and how the crisis or risk is being managed. Monitoring the opinions of publics about risk prior to a crisis and about perceived severity after a crisis is essential to treating them as partners. This information provides the basis for adapting messages to the dynamic needs of publics.

How Do Publics Respond to Risks?

Peter Sandman (2012) worked to alter the way communication practitioners view crisis with his plainspoken distinction between hazard and risk. Sandman explained these two terms are now used in combination by most organizations and agencies managing the issues associated with risks. Sandman further explained that hazard accounts for the science behind the risk. A hazard is the statistical likelihood of a particular subgroup being exposed to a given risk. The threshold for any risk to cause harm to a group is also a component of hazard. Conversely, outrage is the emotional reaction individuals have to a given risk. The fear of a given risk or the anger generated by those who feel they are unfairly or unnecessarily exposed to a risk are examples of outrage. Thus, risk must be viewed as more than just the statistical or scientific likelihood of exposure or harm. Rather, risk is a function of both hazard and risk. If organizations and crisis communication practitioners want to communicate effectively with publics about a given risk, they must account for both the hazard and the outrage generated by the risk (Lachlan & Spence, 2007; Sandman, 2012).

The challenge for practitioners is that many people are inconsistent or unpredictable in how or when they will acknowledge hazards or express their outrage. An individual may, for example, become fearful of flying after observing news coverage of an airplane crash but frequently drive without a seatbelt, which is a much more immediate hazard. A distressing but convincing example of this inconsistency occurred in June 2017 in Florida. A husband and wife pulled over on the side of the highway and died after overdosing on illegally obtained fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid. Although the two obviously did not heed constant warnings about the epidemic of opioid abuse and the urgent risk of death from overdose, they displayed signs of recognizing and responding to hazards for their children. As the couple died, their children were in the back seat, clean, fed, appropriately dressed, and sleeping while strapped safely in car seats, which is how they were found several hours after their parents died (Kassab, 2017).

What Communication Challenges Do Hazards Create?

The key challenge in communicating hazards to diverse publics resides in the unending need to translate technical information into messages that can be understood and comprehended by nonscientists. Failing to provide this translation creates an information void that often heightens outrage and a poor translation can leave audiences even more confused. Thus, scientists are faced with the task of explaining and justifying recommendations that are based on volumes of highly complex data and reasoning that requires specialized training to understand. If the translation is too simple, communicators run the risk of being accused by their peers in the scientific community of sending inaccurate or incomplete messages. If the translation remains too technical, communicators risk overwhelming or confusing publics.

This challenge in communicating hazards is plainly demonstrated in the example that begins this section. Foodborne illness in the United States is a serious problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 48 million people experience foodborne illnesses and 3,000 die from food‐related diseases and complications every year (Arnold, 2017). Although restaurants are to blame in some of these cases, the origin of the majority involve food prepared at home, not in restaurants. Agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sponsor ongoing public campaigns such as “Fight BAC!” to draw awareness to problems in food preparation and to provide advice on avoiding the spread of harmful bacteria in food preparation and storage. The Fight BAC! campaign uses cartoon illustrations, simplified lists of basic steps, and common examples to help people comprehend the complexities of food technology. Some steps are easier to understand than others. For example, emphasizing that raw meats should not be prepared on the same surface or with the same knife as raw fruits or vegetables unless the surface and utensil are thoroughly washed is doable for most people. Recommendations to use a meat thermometer in the preparation of hamburgers, roasts, turkeys, and other meats to ensure the center of the food has reached a high enough temperature to kill bacteria are more difficult. Many people do not have a meat thermometer and many others have difficulty comprehending how or where to insert such thermometers or how to read them. Long‐held traditions in preparing and serving food may also run counter to the recommendations provided by the FDA. The way people define washed or clean may also differ. For some, a surface or a knife is clean when it is rinsed or wiped with the same rag or sponge used to clean other surfaces. Unfortunately, this can lead to harmful bacteria being spread to other foods. The challenges in translating hazards are equally difficult in matters of driver safety, sheltering in place, earthquake readiness and response, and fire safety. Publics mean well, but accuracy in comprehension and ability and willingness to follow through on advice provided in warnings from organizations and agencies varies.

Relying on numbers to communicate hazards also poses challenges. Numerical expressions, no matter how statistically significant, about the prevalence or lack of immediate risk are potentially no less puzzling or tedious for publics than words. The explanation for this disinterest in numerical representations of hazard involves two factors. First, some kinds of numerical representations are difficult to comprehend for many publics (Slovic, 2010). Second, numerical representations of risk often conflict with our intuitive assumptions. Although the difficulty of publics in comprehending numerical representations is well documented, the fact that most hazards are expressed in terms of probability poses an added challenge. Probabilities inherently draw attention to the fact that there is a chance, sometimes high and sometimes low, that the risk will not manifest. Think about the phrase “500‐year flood.” Does this mean a bad flood will happen only once every 500 years and, once a bad flood is over, everyone is safe for another 499 years? This kind of misunderstanding of probability invites chance taking. A 500‐year flood actually means there is a 1 in 500 chance of a flood of great magnitude happening in any given year. We also express some risks in terms of percentages, suggesting, for example, that there is a 50% chance of a hurricane ever making landfall in a specific town. Percentages are also difficult for some people to grasp and may lead individuals to misinterpret the meaning of probability statements—in some cases, deriving the opposite understanding of the one intended.

Herovic (2016) explains that the objectivity provided by quantitative explanations of hazards is often trumped by the deep‐seated opinions and assumptions of publics. These opinions are not easily changed because they routinely bring publics comfort in coping with, denying, or ignoring prevalent risks. These problems are based on the tendency for publics to think quickly and intuitively about hazards (Slovic, 2010). Fast, intuitive thinking does not afford people the time needed to carefully weigh evidence and determine the level of threat to them or their families. The potential for changing existing behaviors is greatly diminished by this disinterest in moving from a fast, intuitive thought process about hazards to a slow, evidence‐based assessment.

These challenges certainly do not mean that communication campaigns designed to share the facts about hazards are pointless. Rather, careful translation of technical information that is revised based on feedback provided by publics through message testing can make a positive difference. Efforts such as Fight BAC! have changed how many Americans store, prepare, and eat food. As we discussed previously, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) sponsored campaigns, including the ShakeOut drill, to teach residents what to do during earthquakes, which has millions of people participating in drills annually. Warnings about hazards work very well when publics both understand the warnings and are willing and able to follow the advice. Therefore, translations will most likely be effective when agencies can boil their messages down to the most urgent facts that make the most sense in justifying a reasonable course of action. Risk communicators should evaluate their messages by testing them with their publics often (Venette, 2008). Many messages about hazards fail to produce the desired effects because they fail to personally connect the information with the intended audience. People need to know how the risk affects them and their families and see how their actions can reduce or eliminate the risk for their families. If messages do not, in the eyes of the receiver, warrant the prescribed actions, the messages are likely to fail in creating the desired response.

What Communication Challenges Does Outrage Create?

Publics express a wide range of emotions in their outrage about risks and crises. Some of these emotions are potentially helpful, others are not. Most important, risk and crisis communicators must understand the emotional states of the publics they address. Without this essential audience analysis, the likelihood of communicating successfully is greatly diminished. For example, explaining that genetically modified foods pose no appreciable risk will likely fail, regardless of the evidence available, if the audience is outraged by the thought of their normal food being replaced with genetically modified fruits, vegetables, and grains. To those outraged by genetically modified organisms (GMOs), these alterations are reminiscent of the horrors created in fictional accounts like the story of Frankenstein. A dramatic example of this reaction occurred in Zambia during a famine. The Zambian president turned away food offered by countries such as the United States because he did not want to expose the people of his country to GMOs. He argued that if European countries refused to eat such food, his people should not be asked to do so just because they are poor (Ratzan, 2002).

The International Food Information Council (IFIC, n.d.) understands the outrage generated by genetically modified foods. IFIC is a neutral, nonprofit organization whose goal is to share accurate information about food and nutrition to promote good nutrition worldwide. In an effort to respect the emotions and potential outrage of global publics concerned about GMOs, IFIC has traveled to countries large and small, rich and developing, and interacted directly with their government leaders and media representatives. IFIC's goal is to listen to the concerns shared by publics they meet and provide a balanced explanation of the science. They frame the entire interaction in the context of food security—helping countries make decisions that help ensure their growing populations have safe and secure food supplies and that there will be enough nutritious food and clean water available. In this manner, IFIC accepts the existing outrage and frames the issue in the context of ensuring the world's growing population will have adequate food and water far into the future.

Research can help explain the failure in Zambia and the reasoning behind IFIC's efforts. Jin (2014) explains that emotional responses vary widely among publics and among issues. Those who are experiencing anger or frustration are more likely to remain in the stage of venting their anger and resisting the actions of those seen as responsible for the problem. Others who are less angry and more fearful respond to the stress generated by the issue with a sense of urgency to resolve the problem by seeking more information or taking steps to reduce the risk. Groups like IFIC seek to acknowledge the fear and anger generated by genetically modified foods, allow publics to express or vent their anger, and share resources that allow them to make their own decisions about how to address the risk. Without acknowledging this concern, well‐meaning risk and crisis communicators are likely to intensify rather than resolve the problem. Jin describes this process as “maximizing mutual understanding and closing gaps” between affected publics' “coping strategies and organization's responses” (p. 98).

How Should Agencies and Organizations Acknowledge the Concerns of Publics?

As we explained in this section, organizations cannot address concern or outrage by overwhelming publics with scientifically sound and objective facts and reasoning. If publics believe those in power are doing too little to address a risk that outrages them, more evidence will likely be seen as an effort to further confuse an already complicated issue. Worse, if there is an element of disagreement among agencies and organizations, publics begin to see the issue as politicized and may step even further away from actively considering protective actions. The goal is to anticipate, acknowledge, and, only after these two steps are complete, respond to concerns of publics. For example, one of IFIC's goals in its public communication is to assist publics in matching their concerns about chemicals in foods with the actual risk levels determined by extensive scientific research. IFIC's messages consistently begin with acknowledging public concern based on their survey research. Only after acknowledging such concerns does IFIC introduce evidence and recommendations that support or conflict with consumer opinions and concerns.

How Do Organizations and Agencies Anticipate Which Issues Are Likely to Produce Public Outrage?

Overlooking potential public concern is common for agencies and organizations. Neglecting public opinion is not necessarily inspired by manipulation. Rather, publics do not attend to many of the risks that affect their daily lives. In fact, as Sandman (2012) explains, publics are often difficult to outrage. In the best cases, publics feel a general sense of trust that risk issues are being managed by those charged with regulation. In worse cases, those managing the risks are assumed to be disinterested and uncaring. Efforts by watchdog groups to create outrage are met with the same skepticism as efforts to dismiss a risk. How, then, can we anticipate which risks are likely to create outrage? The answer is a combination of analysis and listening.

Sandman (2012) suggests that answering 12 questions about a risk issue will help determine the potential for the issue to generate outrage:

1. Is it voluntary or coerced?
2. Is it natural or industrial?
3. Is it familiar or exotic?
4. Is it not memorable or memorable?
5. Is it not dreaded or dreaded?
6. Is it chronic or catastrophic?
7. Is it knowable or not knowable?
8. Is it controlled by them or by others?
9. Is it fair or unfair?
10. Is it morally irrelevant or morally relevant?
11. Can I trust you or not?
12. Is the process responsive? (p. 13)

If the issue is seen by publics as voluntary, natural, familiar, not memorable, not dreaded, chronic, knowable, controlled by them, fair, and morally irrelevant, severe outrage is unlikely. Similarly, if the agencies or organizations responsible for managing the risk are seen as trusted and responsive, the potential for outrage is diminished. As answers to any of these questions move in the opposite direction, however, the likelihood of outrage increases.

The dynamic nature of risk communication is also important to emphasize. An issue that generates no outrage today may move to the forefront of public consciousness and result in tremendous outrage tomorrow. For example, lean finely textured beef (LFTB) was used for decades as an ingredient in canned food products and ground hamburger. LFTB is fat‐free beef extracted from bones using a heating and separation technique. When ABC News broadcasted what it called an investigative report depicting America's hamburger as adulterated by what is called “pink slime,” consumers became outraged by the use of LFTB—an ingredient they had consumed for years. Because of public outrage, fast‐food chains such as McDonald's and several large grocery store chains pledged to stop selling products containing pink slime/LFTB. One of the primary producers of LFTB, Beef Products Incorporated (BPI), faced severe financial losses because of this public outrage. The company sued ABC News, claiming false reporting caused losses of nearly $2 billion. The case went to trial, but before a verdict was reached, ABC News settled the case by agreeing to pay BPI what is assumed to be an extremely large sum of money (Taylor, 2017). Despite the outcome of the lawsuit, the ABC News story did considerable financial harm by creating outrage focused on an issue that had previously been ignored by consumers. Many other cases have occurred where the public has become outraged by faulty or misleading information.

How Can Organizations Communicate to Prevent and Manage Outrage?

Outrage can be effectively countered with well‐designed messages based on a thorough understanding of the audience, the issue at hand, and the competing messages (Degeneffe, Kinsey, Stinson, & Ghosh, 2009). Ideally, agencies and organizations can anticipate potential problems or observe subtle warnings that outrage is beginning to develop with their publics. These observations can be part of the ongoing process of monitoring their communication environments. If a problem is anticipated, agencies and organizations can actually inoculate against outrage (Parker, Rains, & Ivanov, 2016). Inoculation in risk and crisis communication involves a process of sharing two‐sided persuasive messages about key issues that concern them. The two‐sided messages are presented in a way that, on one hand, acknowledges potential concerns, and, on the other hand, explains how these concerns have already been resolved. The goal is for the message describing resolution to be stronger than the message depicting concerns. In message design, “inoculation” is a metaphor for how the term is used in medicine. Inoculations against disease involve patients receiving a weakened dose of a virus. The body is able to overwhelm this weakened dose and create antibodies against future encounters with the disease, which is how diseases such as polio and measles were largely eradicated. Two‐sided messages expose publics to potential concerns and then provide a degree of immunity by providing them with counterarguments they can rehearse in their minds, consciously or subconsciously. When these inoculated individuals are exposed to outrageous claims in the future, they are more likely to engage in counterarguments rather than succumb to the outrage. The inoculation process is doomed to fail, however, unless the messages are designed and distributed with the well‐being and best interest of publics at heart. If an inoculation message is designed to manipulate publics with dishonest information or for personal gain, the messages themselves will contribute to public outrage.

Current research has shown that inoculation messages can reduce outrage against such government agencies as the Travel Security Administration (TSA). In a recent study, a national sample of individuals was divided into two groups: one received an inoculation message and the other did not (Ivanov et al., 2016). The inoculation messages presented a two‐sided persuasive message explaining that although TSA faces a constant threat of attack against U.S. citizens, the agency has frequently thwarted such attempts. The message further stated that if such an attack were to succeed, TSA is prepared to respond immediately to restore safe travel and protect the public. Both groups were then led through a simulation of an attack on an airline passenger jet. In response to the scenario, both groups were understandably upset and lost a degree of their confidence in the United States to prevent such attacks. Those who received the inoculation message, however, lost less confidence and regained their confidence much more quickly than those in the group that did not receive the inoculation message (Ivanov et al., 2016). Those who received the inoculation message, however, were far less outraged and regained their confidence much more quickly than those who did not. Follow‐up assessments found that those who received the inoculation by way of conversation with those who received the message directly may have also been inoculated against extreme feelings of outrage. Thus, inoculation messages may have a far‐reaching impact on risk decision making. Other preliminary research has also shown the potential for inoculation to provide readers and viewers with the skill to identify falsely attributed (fake) news. Inoculation messages are a viable tool available to agencies and organizations that effectively monitor their environments and anticipate unwarranted public outrage.

Summary

Perception is reality for publics facing risks. Thus, organizations must comprehend these concerns and consistently acknowledge them in their crisis communication. Organizations listen to publics' concerns by recognizing a wide range of responses within the categories of hazard, outrage, and apathy. Considerable caution is needed in translating complex scientific research into recommendations for publics affected by a risk or crisis. Before developing communication campaigns or warning messages, organizations and agencies are advised to survey the opinions of publics and adapt as needed.

References

1. Arnold, K. (2017, August 8). Eateries fret over food‐poison posts. Orlando Sentinel, pp. A1–A2.
2. Degeneffe, D., Kinsey, J., Stinson, T., & Ghosh, K. (2009). Segmenting consumers for food defense communication strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(5), 365–403.
3. Herovic, E. (2016). The challenges of communicating low probability and high consequence risks: Recommendations for earthquake pre‐crisis and emergency‐risk communication. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
4. International Food Information Council Foundation. (n.d.). Food Insight. Retrieved from https://www.foodinsight.org/about
5. Ivanov, B., Burns, W. J., Sellnow, T. L., Petrun‐Sayers, E. L., Veil, S. R., & Mayorga, M. W. (2016). Using an inoculation message approach to promote public confidence in protective agencies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 44, 381–398.
6. Jin, Y. (2014). Examining publics' crisis responses according to different shades of anger and sympathy. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26, 79–101.
7. Kassab, B. (2017, June 9). Parents who were found dead along I‐4 with kids in back seat overdosed on fentanyl. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking‐news/os‐volusia‐couple‐fentanyl‐overdose‐20170609‐story.html
8. Lachlan, K. A., & Spence, P. R. (2007). Hazard and outrage: Developing a psychometric instrument in the aftermath of Katrina. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 109–123.
9. Parker, K. A., Rains, S. A., & Ivanov, B. (2016). Examining the “blanket of protection” conferred by inoculation: The effects of inoculation messages on the cross‐protection of related attitudes. Communication Monographs, 83, 49–68.
10. Ratzan, S. C. (2002). Interpretations, actions, and implications of scientific progress. Journal of Health Communication, 7, 369–370 doi: 10.1080/10810730290001756
11. Sandman, P. (2012). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication (First published in 1993 by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Copyright transferred to the author in 2012). Retrieved from http://psandman.com/media/RespondingtoCommunityOutrage.pdf
12. Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. London, UK; Washington, DC: Earthscan: In association with the International Institute for Environment and Development.
13. Taylor, K. (2017, August 9). ABC settled “pink slime” lawsuit for $177 million, leaving the beef company feeling “vindicated.” Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/pink‐slime‐case‐177‐million‐settlement‐2017‐8
14. Venette, S. J. (2008). Risk as an inherent element in the study of crisis communication. Southern Communication Journal, 73(3), 197–210 doi: 10.1080/10417940802219686