[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-203300-105":59,"doc-detail-203300-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","risk-communication-design-considerations-module-5-rc-for-frm-course","Risk Communication Design Considerations - Module 5 - RC for FRM course","","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.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/risk-communication-design-considerations-module-5-rc-for-frm-course/203300/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/risk-communication-design-considerations-module-5-rc-for-frm-course/203300.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"\tCallum ","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What key principles summarize the risk communication take-aways so far?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"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.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"How does communication differ between high-outrage and low-outrage situations?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"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.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What goals guide risk communication during a crisis versus preparedness/recovery?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"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.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},203300,1790194906,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":145,"read_time":146,"preview_page_count":4},137451211410,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/2000bb0a9246f588df?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786362646172706240","Institute for Water Resources  \n2012  \nRisk Communication Design Considerations  \nModule 5 – RC for FRM course  \nAug 20, 2012 Hal Cardwell  \nUS Army Corps of Engineers  \nPLANNING SMART  \nBUILDING STRONG  \n®  \nRisk Comm Take-aways so far?  \n􀂃 Simplify  \n􀂃 Pictures  \n􀂃 Personal Connection  \n􀂃 Objective based  \n􀂃 Non Technical factors matter  \n􀂃 Shared responsibility  \n􀂃 Risk comparison?  \n􀂃 Dialogue is important  \n􀂃 Know your Audience  \n􀂃 Relevant to Audience  \n􀂃 Messenger matters  \n􀂃 Provide an Action  \n􀂃 Challenging  \nPLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG  \n®  \nRisk Communication Contexts  \nHigh  \nOutrage  \n(fear, anger)  \nLow  \n\n| Outrage Management | Crisis / Emergency Communication |\n| --- | --- |\n| Public Relations | Preparedness Response |\n\n High  \nHazard (danger)  \n5  \nPLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG  \n®  \nTrust Factors in HIGH stress situations  \nAll other factors 15-20%  \nCompetence & Expertise  \n15-20%  \nListening, Caring & Empathy  \n50%  \nDetermined w/i 30 seconds  \nHonesty & Openness  \n15-20%  \nSOURCE: Vincent Covello  \n~~ 7 ~~  \nPLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG  \n®  \nTrust Factors in LOW stress situations  \nAll other factors  \n15-20%  \nSOURCE: Vincent Covello  \nPublic Relations & Precaution Advocacy are low stress. Who  \nWould be most/least trusted/ communicators?  \nCompetence & Expertise  \n80-85%  \n~~ 8 ~~  \nPLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG  \n®  \nGoal: Reduce outrage so people don’t take unnecessary precautions  \nHigh  \nOutrage (fear,anger)  \n|  | Crisis / Emergency Communication |\n| --- | --- |\n| Public Relations | Preparedness Response |\n\nOutrage Management  \nLow  High  \nHazard (danger)  \nPLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG  \n®  \nGoal: Acknowledge hazard, validate concern, give people ways to act  \nHigh  \nOutrage (fear,anger)  \n| Outrage Management |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| Public Relations | Preparedness Response |\n\nCrisis / Emergency Communication  \n Low  High   \nHazard (danger) PLANNING SMART  \nBUILDING STRONG  \n®  \nTailoring Risk Communication  \nfor the Context  \n\n| During a Crisis | Preparedness / Recovery |\n| --- | --- |\n| Reduce Outrage | Inform on Potential Crisis |\n| Inform about Current Crisis | Understand Community |\n| & Response | Priorities & Preferences |\n| Motivate individual actions | Motivate Individual action |\n| Mostly 1-way | 2-way |\n\nPLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG  \n®  \nGoal: Increase concern for a real hazard to motivate preventive action  \nHigh  \nOutrage (fear,anger)  \nLow  \n| Outrage Management | Crisis / Emergency Communication |\n| --- | --- |\n| Public Relations |  |\n\nPreparedness Response  \n High  \nHazard (danger)  \nPLANNING SMART BUILDING STRONG  \n®","cbCailPIj7N2lF5k","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailPIj7N2lF5k","pdf",544007,49,"English","# Risk Comm Take-aways so far\n## Simplify, pictures, and personal connection\n## Objective-based communication and shared responsibility\n# Risk Communication Contexts\n## Outrage vs hazard (high/low stress)\n## Trust factors: empathy, openness, competence\n# Goals and audience alignment\n## Reduce outrage to prevent unnecessary precautions\n## Acknowledge hazard and validate concern; provide actions\n# Tailoring risk communication for context\n## During a crisis vs preparedness/recovery\n## One-way vs two-way communication","[{\"question\":\"What key principles summarize the risk communication take-aways so far?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"},{\"question\":\"How does communication differ between high-outrage and low-outrage situations?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"},{\"question\":\"What goals guide risk communication during a crisis versus preparedness/recovery?\",\"answer\":\"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.\"}]","Risk Communication Design Considerations - Module 5 - RC for FRM course | PDF",1788559416,123]