The article of Reynolds and Seeger was, as Jiun-Yi pointed out, a recap of our semester’s learning of risk and crisis communication. The authors introduce Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model to effectively deal with risk and crisis situations. The underlying assumption of this model is that the thin line between risk and crisis situation should be integrated together in order to address more complex and disastrous events.

The CERC model was introduced by CDC after the bioterrorism attack of 911 and emerging global pandemics threatening the public health. Health communication in this complicated era must be “strategic, broad based, responsive and highly contingent,” attempting to embrace crisis from the prevention stages of risk. (p. 49). Traditionally, risk communication has been known to “deal with risk elements and risk consequences” (p.45). By this nature, risk communication focus towards threat sensing and using fear appeals as a persuasive method. As discussed in class, behavioral changes are achieved by presenting a threat and providing a methodology to alleviate the potential danger. Risk communication also underlies the public’s right to access information and facilitate logical decision making. In order to effectively communicate during a risk situation, certain factors should be acknowledged.

According to Sandman (1993, 2002), risk contains of the perception of the actual hazard and the actual outrage of the people. While the actual hazard may be minimal, people perceive it to be more dramatic when uncertainty levels are high, information provided are not credible, self-efficiency acts are lacking, and if the cause was known to be intentional. In these situations, public outrage is immense, thus effective risk communication becomes more challenging. Reynolds and Seeger point out that during a risk situation, communication is usually in the form of PR. Although it was a simple line in the article, it was nice to know that PR was noticed, albeit previous misconception of public relations as the muckraker still seemed be remaining in certain people’s minds.

Crisis communication was differentiated by the concerns of origin; “crisis communication is associated with PR and is grounded in efforts to strategically manage and frame public perceptions of an event so that harm is reduced for both the organization and the stakeholders” (p.46). The article gives a summary of the difference between risk and crisis communication in a table format. Some key distinctions note that crisis communication messages are principally informative and address current states and conditions. Whereas risk communication messages are structured and controlled, crisis messages are spontaneous and reactive.

Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication model attempts to address the diverse situation according to five different levels. The first stage will be precrisis, where communication should focus on potential risks as well as warnings and preparation of a possible hazard. In this stage, it is important to communicate messages so that the “general public” understands the potential danger. Addressing specific behaviors to alleviate the risk is also crucial. The second stage, initial event, attempts to reduce uncertainty levels and reassure in emotional turmoil. Rapid communication is the key during this time period. This would be somewhat similar to the traditional risk communication since the communication process tempts to reduce crisis related uncertainty and provide information on how and where to get more information. Designating spokespersons and formal information channels are also done in this stage. The maintenance stage is the on-going procedure of uncertainty reduction, self-efficacy, and reassurance. Here, in-depth understanding of the risk and crisis situation is formed and the publics are also aware of the on-going risks. Feedbacks from publics are available by this time and this influences the decision makings. Communication during this period not only focuses the general public, but also those who have been affected as well. The fourth stage is resolution, and during this stage updates regarding resolutions and discussion on the causal factors of the risk are done. Information as well as persuasion of recovery acts is communicated and broad, open discussions are welcomed. The new understanding of the risk is discussed and agencies, organizations and companies reinforce the positive corporate image during this stage. Finally, the evaluation stage discusses whether the whole communication process has been effective. This stage also document and formalize lessons learned and create linkages to precrisis activities.

CERC model integrates “many existing activities into more comprehensive systems of communication and grounded in a recognition of broad developmental features of crisis” (p.53). While this is an intelligent attempt to efficiently address the complex and vast social structure of risk and crisis, one must look into what integration may leave out. This concept derives my discussion points.

1. The merged model of CERC seems to bundle risk and crisis, almost as an attempt to catch two birds with one stone. However, there are certain factors that distinctively differentiate risk and crisis. Can you think of what these would be?

2. What do you think might happen as a backfire of this integrated model? Can you see a hole where some crucial factors may be left out?

3. The CERC model “assumes that crises will develop in largely predictable and systematic ways” (p.51). We had a heated discussion in class once between the difference of risk, crisis, and emergency. Didn’t we conclude that crisis is a situation where you cannot predict, and an emergency is a situation where you assume that it will happen, but you just never know when? What do you think about the author’s interpretation of crisis?