of risk perception.
Other studies have explored the ways in which residents assess the cost of evacuations when facing hurricane threats. Shaw and Baker (2010) explored the relationship between perceptions of hurricane risks and the decision to relocate among Hurricanes Katrina and Rita evacuees. They found that time was an important variable, as perceptions of risk and damage fade, and, consequently, the willingness to pay to obtain protection through actions such as relocation also declines over time. The authors conclude that “results may be consistent with Lindell and Perry’s (2004) PADM, which suggests that information is combined with experience, stimulating actions, though the choice model used here involves only a small subset of features of the PADM” (Shaw & Baker, 2010, p. 184).
Heath et al. (2018) examined a petrochemical manufacturing community that faces chemical releases to assess whether PADM core risk perceptions predict protective action decision making. Data was collected at four intervals (1995, 1998, 2002, 2012). They concluded that perceptions of protective actions and stakeholder norms, but not perception of threat, predicted protective action decision making, such as intention to shelter in place. Interestingly, perceptions of a cartoon character, Wally Wise Guy, who advocates shelter in place, correlated with perceptions of protective action, stakeholder norms, and protective action decision making.
Lindell and Perry (2011) note that “there is considerable evidence that hazard experience increases hazard experience adoption, but hazard proximity and hazard intrusiveness also appear to play significant roles” (p. 14). Demographic variables are also important although the exact nature of their role is not well understood.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the PADM
The PADM treats warnings as essentially informative and persuasive processes that lead to individual decisions and behavioral outcomes. Communication processes are essential to warning and subsequent decision processes and more effective communication (e.g., consistent, credible, specific, multiple channels) is more likely to produce decisions and behavioral outcomes (actions) appropriate to the threat.
Although PADM focuses on a more limited phenomenon than the Hear-Confirm-Understand-Decide-Respond model, it is very flexible and parsimonious and has been applied to a number of warning contexts, such as natural hazards, industrial risks, and terrorism (Kang et al., 2007; Lindell & Perry, 2000, 2003). The model does assume some level of decisional rationality and linearity. Receivers, although active in processing messages and making decisions about actions, are not framed primarily as dynamic in co-creating an understanding of risk. Risk awareness and understanding are located primarily outside the receiver. Thus, the model is a more interactional than transactional framework for communication and emphasizes sender- and message-related variables as opposed to receiver variables. Lindell and Perry (2011) note they ground their work in the classic source-channel-message-receiver-effect-feedback model. The associated research generated by the PADM has presented a relatively complex understanding of the communication processes and the variables associated with warnings and decisions about protective action. It has generated a great deal of research into the subprocesses of decisions about protective actions and, in general, the research has supported the model. Efforts have also been made to apply the model to a wide array of risk conditions, audiences, and message forms. Thus, the PADM has been shown to be flexible.
Although the PADM is primarily a descriptive model as opposed to prescriptive, its formulation does allow for translation and application to inform decision and management during a disaster or hazard situations. The eight questions Lindell and Perry identify, for example, can be used to inform the development of messages and information systems. The role of hazard intrusiveness and proximity in promoting hazard adoption might also inform risk communication campaigns. Although applications are, according to Lindell and Perry, in their early stages, the model shows promise.
Integrated Model of Food Recall
One framework that has sought to describe the warning process within a very specific risk context is the integrated model of food recall (Seeger & Novak, 2010). Recalls are warning messages sometimes associated with distribution and supply chain systems for informing distributors, retailers, and the public that a product is somehow deficient or defective. Recalls are a way of reducing the potential harm of a defective or contaminated product by removing that product from the public.
Seeger and Novak (2010) have developed a model of the food recall process involving four stages or phases (see Figure 3.4). Stage I in this model is a recognition stage where cues accumulate regarding some harm and are made available to decision makers, usually at regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration. Cues may be generated in a number of ways, but this stage is primarily institutional or organizationally grounded. For a recall to be recommended and/or initiated, there must be a general recognition of and consensus about a harm or potential harm. In addition, there must be an identification of a specific commodity or product. In a case involving a serious outbreak of E. coli bacteria in Europe in 2011, the specific commodity could not be identified, thus making a specific recall or warning impossible. Initially, cucumbers grown in Spain were suspected, but eventually the outbreak was traced to sprouts produced on a German farm. This identification may be slower when medical authorities are confronted with novel contaminations that do not fit into expected or historical patterns. Regulatory agencies and producers may also weigh the cost of the recall against the seriousness of the potential harm. A recall has the potential to damage a company’s reputation and may be very costly in terms of effort and lost product. In some cases, companies are forced into bankruptcy and markets for specific agricultural products can collapse. Without specific identification of a product and expectation of a relatively serious harm, recalls generally do not happen. Time is a particularly critical variable in the recognition stage, with more extended time limiting recall effectiveness (Teratanavat et al., 2002).
Figure 3.4 Integrated Model of Food Recall.
Source: Seeger and Novak (2010).
Stage II involves messaging where recall notices are distributed by regulatory agencies, producers, and distributors. For recovery of stock from distribution channels, food producers directly communicate with notices to distributors, warehouses, retail outlets, and, in some cases, other secondary food distributors. In addition, food companies and producers attempt to announce recalls to consumers by posting press releases on company and governmental websites. These often involve specific information such as lot number, production date, and location where the item was produced so consumers can make specific choices about how to respond. Gibson (1997) also describes the use of direct mail, display ads, and point-of-sales messages when consumers are the intended message recipients. Message characteristics interact with demographic elements of the audience (age, gender, and ethnic background) and channel distribution elements (width and speed of distribution), which therefore affect the reception and interpretation of a message. Tailoring and targeting messages improve effectiveness. For example, some retail stores are using the information given by customers enrolled in their customer loyalty and rewards programs to contact customers if a recall has been issued for an item in their store.
Stage III is the point where reception and interpretation of the message by the intended audience occurs. During this stage, the audience must receive and interpret the messages. The audience may also seek to confirm the information received in the recall. This may involve collecting additional, confirmatory information before the recall warning can be personalized and thereby lead to action. Consumers may need to hear the message from multiple sources, repeated several times; to confirm the consistency of messages; to assess if they own the product and check lot numbers; and to personalize the projected harm by assessing their own risk.
Stage IV is the response stage, when the intended audience
