When the facts are just not enough: Credibly communicating about risk is riskier when emotions run high and time is short

When discussing risk with people, commonly subject matter experts believe that conveying the facts will be enough to allow people to assess a risk and respond rationally to that risk. Because of this expectation, experts often become exasperated by the seemingly illogical way people assess personal risk and choose to manage that risk. In crisis situations when the risk information is less defined and choices must be made within impossible time constraints, the thought processes may be even more susceptible to faulty heuristics. Understanding the perception of risk is essential to understanding why the public becomes more or less upset by events. This article explores the psychological underpinnings of risk assessment within emotionally laden events and the risk communication practices that may facilitate subject matter experts to provide the facts in a manner so they can be more certain those facts are being heard. Source credibility is foundational to risk communication practices. The public meeting is one example in which these best practices can be exercised. Risks are risky because risk perceptions differ and the psychosocial environment in which risk is discussed complicates making risk decisions. Experts who want to influence the actions of the public related to a threat or risk should understand that decisions often involve emotional as well as logical components. The media and other social entities will also influence the risk context. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's crisis and emergency-risk communication (CERC) principles are intended to increase credibility and recognize emotional components of an event. During a risk event, CERC works to calm emotions and increase trust which can help people apply the expertise being offered by response officials.