Signal of threat embedded in other routine messages.Source: Adapted from Turner (1976).
Weick’s theory of sensemaking (described in Chapter 7) outlines the ways information is collectively interpreted and the ways this process may collapse, mislead, or fail to recognize a risk (1988, 1993). Sensemaking is a collective process for creating plausible meanings and involves the “bracketing of cues from the environment, and the interpretation of those cues based on salient frames. Sensemaking is thus about connecting cues and frames to create an account of what is going on” (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p. 552). Three factors are identified that may influence enactment, precipitate failed interpretations, and lead to crises. These are commitment, capacity, and expectations. Commitment is associated with public statements reifying a specific interpretation. A strong public commitment from leaders to a particular interpretation may limit the ability of other interpretations to emerge. Capacity concerns sufficient volume and diversity of sensemaking resources. If managers are distracted by other issues and demands, they may not have the capacity to receive and interpret cues about impending risks. Finally, collective expectations may create blind spots leading to missed cues. Many crises may be attributed in part to failures in enactment, including the Challenger Shuttle Disaster (Gouran et al., 1986), the Flint Water crisis (Nowling & Seeger, 2020, and the Bhopal Union Carbide Disaster (Shrivastava, 1992). The failure to take decisive and rapid action in response to the initial warnings of COVID-19 can be explained in part by ongoing efforts by elected officials to downplay the risk and distractions from other issues and conflicts.
Warnings
A warning, then, is a functional message or system of messages informing an audience, most often a large public audience, of some likely threat or danger (Vihalemm et al., 2012). “Warnings” are conceptually distinct from “alerts.” An alert is issued when there is an issue of general concern or when something has happened, or may happen, that could jeopardize public security, health, and well-being. A warning typically follows an alert when the threat has been confirmed, includes more specific information about the nature of the threats, and may include advice about how to respond (NRC, 2011). Warnings that contain five dimensions are generally more effective. These include the nature of the hazard, the location, specific guidance, timing, and the source of the warning (Bean et al., 2015). Warning messages also seek to convey to an audience an understanding of specific threats and the level of the threat, including the severity of the potential harm and the probability of its occurring.
Warnings often extend to offering recommendations from subject matter experts or emergency managers about actions that can be taken or avoided to reduce or mitigate the threats. This second dimension of warning is essentially persuasive, seeking to induce some action such as evacuation or shelter in place. Warnings also have an instructional dimension, indicating what people should do in response (Sellnow et al.,2017a). Lindell and Perry (2004) describe the various warning activities, questions, and outcomes associated with the stages of a crisis, presented in Table 3.1. Thus, warnings have both informative and persuasive dimensions, and principles of effectiveness in both forms of communication are important. Warnings are a form of specialized risk communication, as discussed in Chapter 8, designed to help receivers limit or mitigate harm.
Warnings are high-consequence messages with the potential to save lives and reduce harm (Seeger & Sellnow, 2016). If incorrect, late, or communicated ineffectively, however, warnings can cause needless disruption to communities and businesses as well as reduce effectiveness of later warnings. Warnings that recommend evacuations, for example, are some of the most challenging decisions made during disasters (Fairchild et al., 2006). Mandating populations to relocate creates the risk of additional harm, including traffic accidents and adverse health events. Conversely, evacuations can reduce death tolls, especially where there is sufficient lead time and when a specific area is affected, such as with hurricanes. Public warning systems have been an essential part of risk management from the middle ages when warning bells were used to signal threats. Warning signals such as fog horns and lighthouses for shipping, bells, whistles, and flashing lights for train crossings, and sirens for fires were used widely by the early 1900s. Federal legislation, as well as emerging tort law and rising public expectations, provided incentives for more effective warning systems (Egilman, 2006).
The decision to issue a warning often involves a variety of experts and officials, including emergency management professionals, subject matter experts, political actors, and elected officials (Sorensen, 2000). Subject matter experts, such as medical professionals, epidemiologists, engineers, meteorologists, and seismologists, provide technical information. Elected and appointed government and emergency management officials typically have final authority in issuing public warnings. In making decisions about issuing warnings, emergency managers and public officials appraise the threat based on available information, assess the consequences of issuing a warning versus not, and ask, which outcome will produce the least harm (Mileti & Sorenson, 1990)? The likelihood of harm, the scope of harm, the consequences of an inaccurate warning, as well as the consequences of failure to warn are all important considerations in the decision to warn. Assessment of impending risks almost always involves uncertainty, requiring an evaluation of the credibility of different sources of information about risks. Balancing risks and benefits also requires weighing competing values and assessing the context of the risk. “Obviously, public death and injury can result if withheld warnings are followed by disaster” (Mileti & Sorensen, 1990, pp. 2–9). In some cases, delaying the decision to issue a warning allows more information to be collected and evaluated and others consulted. Decisions may also be delegated to others. Delaying in the case of a time-sensitive risk can reduce the effectiveness of the warning. In some cases, standard decisional guides are used to issue warnings. The National Hurricane Center, for example, has a set of criteria for issuing tropical storm warning and watches, and hurricane warnings and watches are based largely on wind speed. In most cases, the decision to issue a warning is a judgment made in a high-risk situation with imperfect knowledge.
Although warnings are essential to limiting harm in many disaster contexts, they also cause social and economic disruption, public concern, and physical and psychological harm. Warnings that prove incorrect can reduce credibility, limit the effectiveness of subsequent warnings, and cause embarrassment (Mileti & Sorensen, 1990). This may discourage officials from issuing warnings. In addition, some officials may be reluctant to issue warnings because they believe the public will panic. The public panic disaster myth is well documented and is sometimes used to justify withholding warnings. Warnings rarely, if ever, cause panic, and, in fact, the more significant challenge is simply getting the public’s attention about an emerging risk. In addition, officials may feel that offering too much information is itself risky or that the public simply ignores warnings (Sorensen, 2000).
An additional consideration concerns the ethics of warning and involves questions of autonomy and beneficence (Egilman, 2006). Autonomy is part of a larger set of principles about the right of individuals to have access to information about issues that may affect them. Autonomy is closely associated with the communication ethic of significant choice and the principle of right to know. Withholding information reduces a person’s autonomy and their ability to make choices for themselves about the level of risk they accept. The right of access to information about risks is well established as both an ethical and legal obligation (Ulmer & Sellnow, 1997). Withholding such information may have legal implications in the event harm does occur. A second ethical principle, beneficence, is the ethical obligation to show charity, mercy, and kindness toward others by taking actions that benefit others. Beneficence is a “moral obligation to act for the others’ benefit, helping them to further their important and legitimate interests, often by preventing or removing possible harms” (Beauchamp, 2018).
