Scientific Communication for Positive Action: Do’s and Don’ts

Abstract:

Natural hazard presentations often highlight disasters that may ensue from natural processes when mitigation or preparedness actions are not taken. Examples include images of raging fires, collapsed buildings, and flooded urban areas. Research has shown that this makes presentations more interesting and more memorable. Such images are the stock and trade of disaster reporting by the media. Unfortunately, it may also trigger avoidance and denial in the audience, resulting in preparedness reduction; the opposite effect of what may have been intended by the speaker. Recent social research has provided insight into a better approach. The theory of communicating actionable risk posits that people will take action against hazards when they know what to do, think it would work, and know someone who did it. This approach was recently applied in an intervention designed to motivate earthquake-resistant construction in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Social theory further suggests that a tendency towards action is strengthened by hearing a consistent message over time, and by providing the audience with an appropriate opportunity to seek out relevant information. This presentation shows how, by taking this transdisciplinary step, scientists can make small changes in their hazard communication, thereby acting as positive influencers of change. A summary of “do’s” and “don’ts” is given for reference.

DO:

1. Show examples of what to do.

2. Show effectiveness of actions.

3. Give sense of knowing someone who did it.

4. Deliver consistent message, repeatedly.

5. Give opportunity for more information.

DON’T:

1. Make the disaster the star.

2. Contradict other communications.