The Value of Source Credibility and Trust in Emergencies and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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
• f people and types of resources used
• Annually, the US Coast Guard averages 41,610

non-disaster rescues at a total cost of $680 million

• The National Park Service (in 2007) recorded 3,600

rescue operations at a cost of $5 million

(Bryant, 2010; Fagin, 2009; Repanshek, 2008) Photo property of the National Park Service

Photo property of the Federal Emergency Management Agency

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 Dallas Morning News

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%

(Dorell, 2008)

Photo property of the Associated Press

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 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

FIELD OF EXPERIENCE FIELD OF EXPERIENCE

MESSAGE

FEEDBACK FEEDBACK

CHANNEL

ENCODES/DECODES ENCODES/DECODES

CHANNEL

ATTITUDES VALUES BELIEFS ATTITUDES VALUES BELIEFS

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
• fficials, 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

• fficials

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.)

DISCUSSION

Please be Kind

IMPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATION: During a disaster, similar to Factor 2, messages and messengers need to appear empathetic and understanding of people’s differing situations. What distinguishes the implications of Factor 3 from Factor 2, is there is not a need to ensure the message/messenger actively reflects high ethical standards. This suggests people with this point of view are forgiving of a person’s potential lack of ethics or unknown ethical reputation as long as they are being kind to

• thers.

DISCUSSION

Noteworthy Findings

• This study does not refute prior research establishing empathy and expertise and

leading characteristics of trust and trustworthiness

• Perception of Honesty/Integrity and reflection of Salient Values of segments of the

community are also poignant for Emergency Managers to consider

• Recognized as an expert in a particular area was significantly neutral across all

points of view according to sorting behavior of the participants, yet qualitative interview data indicates expertise is a significant component in determining trustworthiness

• These seem to be contradictory, but actually work in congruence, as how an

individual defines “expertise” is different across individuals

• Similar demography (age, gender, ethnicity), social networks, and familial ties,

while they do play some role in decision making and establishment of trust/trustworthiness, were found to be unimportant

• Past experience in the form of having a history of doing what is said will be done,

along with Altruism/Benevolence in the form of self-sacrifice were both important

IMPLICATIONS

Trust and Trustworthiness

IMPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATION: It is worth the time to meet in focus groups or town hall formats to better define the existing salient values within different groups in the community, and which of those are reflected by the majority of the population SUMMARY CONCLUSION: Expertise, as found in the literature is important to the concept of trust, but it has layers largely based on one individual’s personal experience with and personal knowledge of another. Similarly, empathy, emerges as a complex concept consisting of components of honesty/integrity, altruism/benevolence, and salient values.

DISCUSSION

Roles of Information Sources

• Factor 1: “Bring on the Government”
• Factor 2: “Trust Starts in (COUNTY

NAME REDACTED) County”

• Factor 3: “I Only Trust My Own”
• Factor 4: “Educated and

Authoritative”

• These three factors combine to

explain approximately 65% of the variance in points of view regarding preferred sources of information

DISCUSSION

Bring on the Government

IMPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATION: During a disaster, messaging and messengers should include official and reassuring statements from those at least at the state level. As soon as there is a federal declaration, appropriate messages reflecting the findings of the trust/trustworthiness sort should be provided from authoritative roles at the federal level.

DISCUSSION

Trust Starts in COUNTY NAME REDACTED

IMPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATION: The County Judge, must be out front early and often with appropriate messaging for the residents of COUNTY NAME REDACTED. Qualitative exit interview data indicates a high degree of respect and support for this role over all other elected

• fficials at any level (federal/state/local). This may largely be the result of

participants’ knowledge of the role of the County Judge in emergencies and disasters in the State of Texas.

DISCUSSION

I Only Trust My Own

IMPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATION: During a disaster, similar to Factor 2, messages and messengers need to include local, recognizable people with a reputation for self-sacrifice. Federal UNIFORMED authority should be avoided if possible. This does not include federal representatives in non- uniformed roles.

DISCUSSION

Educated and Authoritative

IMPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATION: During a disaster, messages and messengers need to reflect a degree of knowledge and authority that implies they have access to facts and the necessary knowledge to lead.

DISCUSSION

Noteworthy Findings

• These four distinct points of view emerged as a result of the sorting activity and the thinking/reasoning for this

is largely based on the concept of access to information and level of concern for specifically the residents of [City Name Redacted] and [County Name Redacted]

• Undertone of “it’s about me and my family and our safety” – who is going to make that a priority. The further

removed the source, typically the less preferred it becomes

• Even though social media has been encouraged as a valuable information channel for emergency managers,

it was repeatedly noted as highly unreliable

• Internet/social media sources representing local officials would be used, but no one would use an

internet/social media source without validating it elsewhere

• Neighbors and friends consistently sorted at the bottom due to a consensus perception that they have their
• wn opinions and have created them by engaging social media or watching the news
• Growing distrust in federal government, news outlets, and social media especially in the discourse

surrounding “fake news”

• Problematic for emergency managers who rely on these channels to disseminate information to people who

have limited access

• Must minimize disconnect from community and maximize reputation for trustworthiness and access to

information

IMPLICATIONS

Roles

IMPLICATION FOR COMMUNICATION: Local level officials need to actively update social media presence with information specifically relevant to the community/county. All social media/internet sources created by local/county level entities need to be linked to ensure consistency in the message with visible messengers reflecting the preferred roles in the community. SUMMARY CONCLUSION: Academic institutions should improve promotion of research with immediate application in society, and engage in research with a direct impact on making communities and their residents safer and more resilient when disaster strikes. While many would say that research has been done and continues to be in progress, it is not apparent to those who would benefit most from it. Researchers often have the reputation of coming into a community in the aftermath of a disaster, enrolling participants in studies or gathering data, and then disappearing with it.

SUMMARY

Why Does It Matter?

• Establishes the concepts of expertise and empathy as presented in current

communication practice are much more complex due to the inherent subjectivity involved in defining them

• Encourages further discourse on the subjects of trust, trustworthiness, empathy,

and expertise and their relationship with the improvement of risk communication strategies

• Demonstrates that traditional methods of communication are not reaching

important parts of the population

• Provides a foundation for further examination and refinement of risk

communication strategies into evidence-based practice

THANK YOU!