Reynolds and Seeger Introduce the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Model

The Model

Reynolds and Seeger discuss the differences in risk and crisis communication, and argue for a comprehensive approach that incorporates both into simple 5-stage model known as the crisis and emergency risk communication (CERC) model. The authors seek to merge health and risk communication with crisis and disaster communication. The model, composed of five key stages, is meant to offer a comprehensive approach that connects the creation of risk messages with crisis communication activities. The following is a brief discussion of crisis and risk communication as well as a summarization of the model.

Risk communication involves the exchange of risk information to all interested audiences about the nature, magnitude, significance or control of a risk. Audiences can be individuals, groups or institutions. Common forms of risk communication take the shape of public messages regarding health risks and environmental hazards. Most risk communication is heavily grounded in the use of fear as a motivator to change attitudes and behavior or persuasive tool. Most risk messages should contain some component of efficacy. Efficacy is characterized by feelings of confidence in being able to perform a given behavior, and confidence that the behavior advocated by the message will in fact avert the threat. In general, risk communication is a term used widely by health professionals interested in informing mass audiences about the risks of certain behaviors.

Crisis communication involves the sending and receiving messages in an effort to ameliorate the negative outcomes of a crisis that has already occurred. Crisis communication is often done to protect the interest of stakeholders, an organization, or an industry. Crisis communication is characterized by its goals of reducing or containing a harm, providing specific information to stakeholders, initiating and enhancing recovery, managing perceptions of blame, repairing legitimacy, generating support and justifying actions.

The distinction between risk and crisis communication becomes apparent while considering their origins. Crisis communication is typically associated with public relations and so crisis communication models aim to inform practice and alleviate damage to organizations and their stakeholders. In contrast, risk communication is often related to the work of public health professionals and focuses on the identification of public risk and persuading the public to adopt healthier behaviors.

The CERC model blends the principles of crisis communication activities and risk messages into one comprehensive model that explains the types of activities that might occur at each stage and the goals those activities might attempt to accomplish.

The model assumes that crises follow a predictable pattern. The model traces a crisis from the beginning to end and allows a practitioner to predict future communication needs and problems. The authors note that crises may not follow a linear pattern and often unanticipated interactions will occur. In addition the time it takes to move through the stages of the model will differ drastically from one crisis to another.

Practitioners who wish to use the model should be aware that crises are inherently equivocal situations and every time a crisis is approached practitioners must keep this in mind. The following presents the five stages of the CERC model complete with explanations and examples as Reynolds and Seeger present in their article:

1. Precrisis (Risk Messages; Warnings; Preparations)
   Communication and education campaigns targeted to both the public and the response community to facilitate:
   • Monitoring and recognition of emerging risks
   • General public understanding of risk
   • Public preparation for the possibility of an adverse event
   • Changes in behavior to reduce the likelihood of harm (self-efficacy)
   • Specific warning messages regarding some eminent threat
   • Alliances and cooperation with agencies, organizations, and groups
   • Development of consensual recommendations by experts and first responders
   • Message development and testing for subsequent stages
2. Initial Event (Uncertainty Reduction; Self-efficacy; Reassurance)
   Rapid communication to the general public and to affected groups seeking to establish:
   • Empathy, reassurance, and reduction in emotional turmoil
   • Designated crisis=agency spokespersons and formal channels and methods of communication
   • General and broad-based understanding of the crisis circumstances, consequences, and anticipated outcomes based on available information
   • Reduction of crisis-related uncertainty
   • Specific understanding of emergency management and medical community responses
   • Understanding of self-efficacy and personal response activities (how and where to get more information)
3. Maintenance (Ongoing Uncertainty Reduction; Self-efficacy; Reassurance)
   Communication to the general public and to affected groups seeking to facilitate:
   • More accurate public understandings of ongoing risks
   • Understanding of background factors and issues
   • Broad-based support and cooperation with response and recovery efforts
   • Feedback from affected publics and correction of any misunderstandings and rumors
   • Ongoing explanation and reiteration of self-efficacy and personal response activities (how=where to get more information) begun in Stage II.
   • Informed decision making by the public based on understanding of risks and benefits
4. Resolution (Updates Regarding Resolution; Discussions about Cause and New Risks/New Understandings of Risk)
   Public communication and campaigns directed toward the general public and affected groups seeking to:
   • Inform and persuade about ongoing clean-up, remediation, recovery, and rebuilding efforts
   • Facilitiate broad-based, honest, and open discussion and resolution of issues regarding cause, blame, responsibility, and adequacy of response.
   • Improve/create public understanding of new risks and new understandings of risk as well as new risk avoidance behaviors and response procedures
   • Promote the activities and capabilities of agencies and organizations to reinforce positive corporate identity and image
5. Evaluation (Discussions of Adequacy of Response; Consensus About Lessons and New Understandings of Risks)
   Communication directed toward agencies and the response community to:
   • Evaluate and assess responses, including communication effectiveness
   • Document, formalize, and communicate lessons learned
   • Determine specific actions to improve crisis communication and crisis response capability
   • Create linkages to precrisis activities (Stage I)

The Authors

	Barbara Reynolds Ms. Reynolds has been with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1991, where her communication expertise has been used in the planning or response to pandemic influenza, vaccine safety, emerging disease outbreaks, and bioterrorism. Internationally, she has acted as a crisis communication consultant on health issues for France, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, former Soviet Union nations, NATO and the World Health Organization. She is the primary author of Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (2002) and the CDC's Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication course, which is now taught in universities and other settings nationwide and internationally. In 2004, she launched a version of the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication course for leaders. Her research and writings are focused on emergency risk communication best practices, integrating models of communication for public health, and building community hardiness in the face of disaster. In the past, she served as a senior press officer specializing in infectious diseases and vaccine safety issues, working with national and international investigative and science reporters. She is currently pursuing her doctoral degree in psychology.
	Matthew W. Seeger	Ph.D., Indiana University 1982
	Dr. Seeger is currently Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication at Wayne State University. His teaching and research concerns crisis and emergency risk communication, organizational responses to crisis and disaster, interagency coordination and informational needs, and crisis leadership. His work on communication and crisis management has appeared in the Journal of Health Communication Research, Journal of Business Communication, Management Communication Quarterly, Communication Yearbook, the Handbook of Public Relations, Public Relations Review, Communication Studies, the Southern Communication Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of Applied Communication Research, and Communication Research Reports and in several edited collections, books, and proceedings. [Additional information]

---

Know of an article that should have our spotlight? Send nominations to riskcenter@umd.edu.