Scientifically Sound Pandemic Risk Communication

1. Scientifically Sound Pandemic Risk Communication Baruch Fischhoff House Science Committee Briefing Gaps in the National Flu Preparedness Plan: Social Science Planning and Response December 14, 2005

2. People Want to Know Provide Americans with honest, accurate information about the situation, even if the information worries people. (mean=3.6; 1=strongly disagree, 4=strongly agree) (National samples: Nov 2001; N=973; Nov-Dec 2002; N=591 (Lerner et al., 2003; Fischhoff et al., 2003)

3. Some Planning-Relevant Research Results People want the truth, even if it is worrisome. People can absorb a limited amount of new information at a time. People have difficulty understanding some kinds of information. Emotions can cloud people’s judgment, in predictable ways. People cannot predict how they will be interpreted. People exaggerate their ability to predict others’ behavior. People make sensible decisions, if judged appropriately.

4. People tend to make sensible decisions if They get relevant information in a concise, credible form with adequate context, and without distractions. They have control over their environment and are judged by their own goals. They have some minimal decision-making competence.

5. Organization for Communication Experts, each with authority in own domain: Subject matter (e.g., public health, distance work) Risk and decision analysis Psychologists (message design, evaluation) Communication systems A design team, not design by committee

6. A Realistic Aspiration, with the Proper Science “[in order] to allay irrational fear, communication must be the bedrock of every public policy response." Sen. Frist

7. A Strategy for Risk Communication Content Acknowledge the gravity of the events and tragedy of those who suffered. Recognize the public’s concerns, emotions, and efforts to manage the risk. Assure the audience that the relevant officials are doing all that they can. Express a coherent, consistent communication philosophy Provide quantitative risk estimates, including the attendant uncertainties. Analyze possible protective actions, considering expected effects. Lead by example, showing possible models for responsible bravery. Commit to earning and keeping the public trust From: Fischhoff, B. (2005). Risk perception and communication. In D. Kamien (ed.), McGraw-Hill Handbook of Terrorism and Counter-terrorism (p. 463-492). New York: McGraw-Hill.

8. Some Sources Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Toward Integrated Environmental Decision Making (SAB-EC-00-011). Washington: Author. Fischhoff, B. (1992). Giving advice: Decision theory perspectives on sexual assault. American Psychologist, 47, 577-588. Fischhoff, B. (2000). Scientific management of science? Policy Sciences, 33, 73-87. Fischhoff, B. (2005). Decision research strategies. Health Psychology, 21(4), S1-S8. Fischhoff, B. (2005, August 7). A hero in every aisle seat. New York Times. Fischhoff, B. (2005, October 2). We need the right words to weather the next storm.. Washington Post Outlook Section, B5. Fischhoff, B., & Wesseley, S. (2003). Managing patients with inexplicable health problems. British Medical Journal, 326, 595-597. Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. (2001). Risk communication: The mental models approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. National Research Council. (1989). Improving Risk Communication. Washington: National Academy Press. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk. (1998). Risk Management Washington: Author. Center for Risk Perception and Communication: http://sds.hss.cmu.edu/risk/