amount of property damage. In this sense, emergencies are events that are frequently experienced, relatively well understood, and can be managed successfully with local resources—sometimes with the resources of a single local government agency. Emergencies are the common occurrences we see uniformed responders managing—car crashes, ruptured natural gas pipelines, house fires, traumatic injuries, and cardiac crises.
Lindell, Prater, and Perry offer another usage of the term emergency when the goal is to communicate the imminence of an event rather than the severity of its consequences. In this context, emergency refers to a situation where a higher than normal probability of an extreme event occurring exists. The term disaster is reserved for the actual occurrence of an event that produces casualties and damage at a level exceeding a community’s ability to cope.
There is no universal definition of crisis or disaster but both share common characteristics. Crises and disasters are typically (1) sudden and abrupt; (2) cause, or have the potential to cause, significant human, material, economic or environmental harm; and (3) challenge the immediate capacity or ability of individuals, organizations, communities, or societies to respond.
Differences among researchers about core definitions, such as those described above, are not unusual. For example, Kroeber and Kluckhohn, after surveying the literature in anthropology, found 164 definitions of the term culture – a core concept in anthropology.30 These definition differences are not without consequences. They often lead to different theories, principles, approaches, methods, and tools. For example, 20 years ago, many authors failed to clearly discriminate between the concepts of crisis prevention, crisis preparedness, crisis mitigation, and crisis management. Adding to the confusion, many authors used the same term to discuss different phases or dimensions of a crisis. For example, some authors used the term crisis management to describe only the immediate response to a triggering event. Other authors used the term crisis management to describe the immediate response to a triggering event but also to crisis prevention and preparation.
2.7 Defining the Concept and Term Crisis Communication
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.
2.8 Chapter Resources
1 Below are additional resources to expand on the content presented in this chapter.
2 Andrews, R. (1999). Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
3 Aufder Heide, E. (2004). “Common misconceptions about disasters: Panic, the “disaster syndrome,” and looting,” in The first 72 hours: A community approach to disaster preparedness, ed. M. O’Leary. Lincoln, NB: iUniverse Publishing.
4 Beck, M., Kewell, B. (2014). Risk: A Study of Its Origins, History and Politics. New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing Company.
5 Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage: London.
6 Beck, U. (2008) “Living in the world risk society.” Economy and Society ( 35):329–345.
7 Becker, S. M. 2007. “Communicating risk to the public after radiological incidents.” British Medical Journal 335(7630):1106–1107.
8 Bennett, P., Calman, K., eds., (1999). Risk Communication and Public Health. New York: Oxford University Press.
9 Bennett, P., Coles, D., McDonald, A. (1999). “Risk communication as a decision process,” in Risk Communication and Public Health, eds. P. Bennett and K. Calman. New York: Oxford University Press.
10 Bier, V. M. (2001). “On the state of the art: Risk communication to the public.” Reliability Engineering and System Safety 71(2):139–150.
11 Bostrom, A., C. Atman, Fischhoff, B., Morgan, M. (1994). “Evaluating risk communications: Completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, part II.” Risk Analysis 14(5):789–797.
