Risk Communication Design Considerations - Module 5 - RC for FRM course

Sep 4, 2026

Uploaded by Callum

Module 5 focuses on designing effective risk communication for the FRM course within USACE planning and preparedness contexts. The content emphasizes simplifying messaging, using pictures, ensuring personal connection and objective-based communication, and accounting for non-technical factors. It contrasts high-outrage and low-outrage situations using trust-factor breakdowns (listening, empathy, honesty, competence) and explains how outrage management versus crisis/emergency response shapes goals. It also provides guidance on tailoring communication during crises versus preparedness/recovery, including reducing outrage or increasing concern to motivate appropriate actions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages49

Reading Time2 h 3 min

AccessFree to download

Risk Comm Take-aways so far

Simplify, pictures, and personal connection

Objective-based communication and shared responsibility

Risk Communication Contexts

Outrage vs hazard (high/low stress)

Trust factors: empathy, openness, competence

Goals and audience alignment

Reduce outrage to prevent unnecessary precautions

Acknowledge hazard and validate concern; provide actions

Tailoring risk communication for context

During a crisis vs preparedness/recovery

One-way vs two-way communication

Institute for Water Resources 2012 Risk Communication Design Considerations Module 5 – RC for FRM course Aug 20, 2012 Hal Cardwell US Army Corps of Engineers PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® Risk Comm Take-aways so far? 􀂃 Simplify 􀂃 Pictures 􀂃 Personal Connection 􀂃 Objective based 􀂃 Non Technical factors matter 􀂃 Shared responsibility 􀂃 Risk comparison? 􀂃 Dialogue is important 􀂃 Know your Audience 􀂃 Relevant to Audience 􀂃 Messenger matters 􀂃 Provide an Action 􀂃 Challenging PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® Risk Communication Contexts High Outrage (fear, anger) Low | Outrage Management | Crisis / Emergency Communication | | --- | --- | | Public Relations | Preparedness Response | High Hazard (danger) 5 PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® Trust Factors in HIGH stress situations All other factors 15-20% Competence & Expertise 15-20% Listening, Caring & Empathy 50% Determined w/i 30 seconds Honesty & Openness 15-20% SOURCE: Vincent Covello ~~ 7 ~~ PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® Trust Factors in LOW stress situations All other factors 15-20% SOURCE: Vincent Covello Public Relations & Precaution Advocacy are low stress. Who Would be most/least trusted/ communicators? Competence & Expertise 80-85% ~~ 8 ~~ PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® Goal: Reduce outrage so people don’t take unnecessary precautions High Outrage (fear,anger) | | Crisis / Emergency Communication | | --- | --- | | Public Relations | Preparedness Response | Outrage Management Low High Hazard (danger) PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® Goal: Acknowledge hazard, validate concern, give people ways to act High Outrage (fear,anger) | Outrage Management | | | --- | --- | | Public Relations | Preparedness Response | Crisis / Emergency Communication Low High Hazard (danger) PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® Tailoring Risk Communication for the Context | During a Crisis | Preparedness / Recovery | | --- | --- | | Reduce Outrage | Inform on Potential Crisis | | Inform about Current Crisis | Understand Community | | & Response | Priorities & Preferences | | Motivate individual actions | Motivate Individual action | | Mostly 1-way | 2-way | PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ® Goal: Increase concern for a real hazard to motivate preventive action High Outrage (fear,anger) Low | Outrage Management | Crisis / Emergency Communication | | --- | --- | | Public Relations | | Preparedness Response High Hazard (danger) PLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG ®

FAQs

What key principles summarize the risk communication take-aways so far?

The module highlights simplifying messages, using pictures, building personal connection, keeping communication objective-based, and recognizing that non-technical factors matter. It also stresses shared responsibility, dialogue, knowing the audience, using the right messenger, providing an action, and challenging assumptions when needed.

How does communication differ between high-outrage and low-outrage situations?

For high-outrage contexts, the approach centers on outrage management and understanding crisis or emergency needs. For low-stress contexts, competence and expertise carry greater weight, and public relations or precaution advocacy are treated as low-stress communication needs.

What goals guide risk communication during a crisis versus preparedness/recovery?

During a crisis, communication focuses on reducing outrage, informing about potential or current crises, understanding community response priorities, and enabling individual actions with mostly two-way dialogue. In preparedness/recovery, the emphasis shifts toward understanding community priorities and motivating preventive actions with an overall more individualized action focus.

Sep 4, 2026

Uploaded by Callum