The Value of Source Credibility and Trust in Emergencies and Disasters Angela Clendenin, PhD Public Information Officer, Texas A&M Veterinary Emergency Team Instructional Assistant Professor, Public Health Studies, Texas A&M School of Public Health clendenin@sph.tamhsc.edu
WHY ARE WE HERE? FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROTECTIVE ACTION GUIDANCE IS COSTLY Non-Disaster Rescue Operations • Average between $1150-$1650/ person rescued • Cost increases dramatically based on the number of people and types of resources used • Annually, the US Coast Guard averages 41,610 non-disaster rescues at a total cost of $680 million Photo property of the National Park Service • The National Park Service (in 2007) recorded 3,600 rescue operations at a cost of $5 million (Bryant, 2010; Fagin, 2009; Repanshek, 2008)
2005 – Hurricane Katrina • 70,000 failed to evacuate in New Orleans alone • 1,833 deaths • All 28 federal search and rescue teams deployed by FEMA (Multiple Sources) Photo property of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 2008 – Hurricane Ike • An estimated 140,000 people didn’t follow evacuation orders • 394 air rescues • 2000 rescue operations • Cost of rescue operations increased by 2000% Photo property of the Dallas Morning News (Dorell, 2008)
2011 – Fukushima Daiichi Meltdown • Affected residents evacuated to new sites 5-6 times • Information incomplete and did not reach all affected citizens • 4 years later, more than 10,000 of 27,000 Japanese citizens affected by the event reported decreased trust in Photo property of the Associated Press government sources (World Nuclear News, 2012)
WHAT DO WE KNOW? • In a crisis, individuals only remember approximately 20% of the life- saving information they receive (Covello, Minamyer, & Clayton, 2007) • Differences in perceived source credibility can negatively impact an entire culture • Discussions about improving communication when disaster strikes remain focused on the messages and even the messenger , but reveal an information gap based on differences in ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and education level that includes psychometric components • This is indicative of a disparity in the diffusion of culturally defined information across different demographic segments of the population , especially underserved individuals Traditional communication methods have failed, necessitating a more targeted, evidence-based approach that incorporates the inherent subjectivity involved in establishing source credibility.
LESSONS FROM THE PAST: Emergency Management and Communications • Primarily demographic influence on decision-making behavior, information, information channels, and information seeking and processing • Mostly addressed the long-term psychological consequences in the months and years after a disaster with limited attention to the emotions involved in response decision-making • Empathy and expertise emerge as leading determinants of trustworthiness • Based on existing communication and behavioral theories using the more recognized quantitative and qualitative study • Concepts investigated include individual-level factors such as trust, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, self-efficacy, and cultural norms • Conclusions emphasize embracing new communication tools, ensuring information is scientifically accurate, and recognizing the importance of the reliability and trustworthiness of information sources
LESSONS FROM THE PAST: Trust and Trustworthiness • In the decision-making process, people incorporate – Salient beliefs, – Values, and – Subjective norms of their social belongingness • The decision-making process impacts – The individual’s perception of a situation – The ability to understand crisis information, and – The level of trust placed on information sources • People are both emotive and inherently judgemental, and rely on affect and emotion to interact with a complex, uncertain, and sometimes dangerous world • Trust/trustworthiness are complex concepts characterized by multiple factors
FEEDBACK FIELD OF EXPERIENCE FIELD OF EXPERIENCE ATTITUDES ATTITUDES VALUES VALUES BELIEFS BELIEFS MESSAGE CHANNEL CHANNEL ENCODES/DECODES ENCODES/DECODES FEEDBACK
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
DISCUSSION Noteworthy Findings • Hurricanes were most cited examples of disasters where participants experienced conflicting information mostly concerning evacuation routes • This has led to skepticism of evacuation orders, even close to defiance • Outsiders as a major source (news outlets, non-local governmental officials, family/friends living out of town) were overwhelmingly characterized as unreliable • Social media and non-local news were cited as the reason outsiders had false perceptions of the local impact • Despite previous research and anecdotes pointing to the high level of reliance on social media during a disaster, in this community and in this study, social media was regarded as highly non-credible (to include the internet) • Experience and engagement of community with disaster preparedness exercises leads to County Judge and Emergency Management Coordinator cited as official sources who would be sought • Local news was also mentioned as a preferred source
DISCUSSION Noteworthy Findings • Participants agreed there was a need to validate information either frequently or based on the seriousness of the situation • Appearance, countenance, deportment, how a person handles his or herself, confidence in engagement and body language, and somewhat hygiene/dress are some of the leading physical characteristics/attributes participants mentioned influencing their determination of trust/trustworthiness of an individual • While some participants readily identified some business owners, elected officials, and pastors as potential opinion leaders, most defined opinion leadership through characteristics such as reliability, proximity to and experience with the community, and confidence
DISCUSSION Noteworthy Findings • Trust sort preferences were typically explained by a need to feel like action is being put in capable hands of those who won’t do people wrong • Based on experience, but also from the idea that it is easier to trust those who have earned it • Demographics were sorted as least important (race, gender, and age) • Local or county level sources were Most Preferred, along with some state level sources, but could change depending on the situation and the expertise/knowledge it required • Noted distrust was present in regards to social/mainstream media • University Researcher was a consensus Least Important across all factors and noted as located in a university setting and detached from local disaster response
DISCUSSION Noteworthy Findings • Overall, it is noted there is a growing distrust in information and information sources, and the level of trust is related inversely to distance from the situation/individual/community • Relationships are increasingly important to individuals in determining trust and trustworthiness • This even extends to family and friends, as there is a perception that even in that close of a circle, “others” are perceived as accessing potentially faulty or less credible information • Participants noted a tendency to rely on what he/she hears or sees on their own. • This represents not only the fact that credibility is relevant on an individual basis, and there is an overall decline in trust in news media/social media/government officials
DISCUSSION Noteworthy Findings • When verbally presented the list of nine characteristics of trust, participants almost unilaterally selected Expertise as Most Important, yet varied in why • For some, it was about education, access to knowledge/information, or experience with a given situation • This correlates with descriptions of trustworthy individuals as being reliable or experienced/knowledgeable • Contrary to expertise, defining trust/trustworthiness was highly related to personal experience with someone with a reputation for trust. • When told information comes from a credible source, participants are highly skeptical of accepting that from another person • There is a preference for determining credibility on one’s own
DISCUSSION Trust and Trustworthiness • Factor 1: “Just the Facts Serving the Greater Good” • Factor 2: “Values and Ethics with a Big Heart” • Factor 3: “Please be Kind” • These three factors combine to explain approximately 70% of the variance in points of view regarding trust
DISCUSSION Just the Facts Serving the Greater Good IMPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATION: During a disaster, messaging and messengers need to use language and wording that demonstrates transparency and reflects the complete set of facts as they are known at the time. This should include the “pros” as well as the “cons” and a statement of what is not known. It is important to include a description of what is being done to make the unknown known.
DISCUSSION Values and Ethics with a Big Heart IMPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATION: During a disaster, messaging and messengers need to consider the importance of kindness and salient values such as ethical behavior. It will be important that messages and messengers appear empathetic, considerate, compassionate, and reflect high ethical standards (such as equality, respect, etc.)
Recommend
More recommend
