From my perspective as a scholar who studies alerts and warnings, the thing about missing person alerts that really stands out is that they aren't alerts to get people to take an action to protect themselves, they are alerts to get people to take an action to help another person who is possibly endangered. Calling on the public to help to find that person and bring them to safety through the Wireless Emergency Alert system suggests that the case is dire enough to warrant significant resources from across a community. And if the situation is that bad, it also suggests that the alert needs to be that good to initiate a response.
Really... if an alert is going to go out to thousands of people after dozens (or more) person hours have been invested in searching for the person, then that message going out ought to have the equivalent level of effort. Right? Right?
I think the problem is that there has not been good training on how to communicate to the public about missing person alerts. So, naturally, public safety communicators fall back upon what they have been taught to do; i.e., write in ALL CAPS, provide the kinds of details that other law enforcement personnel would want, use some jargon that is familiar to officers, etc.
We now know that what makes a good alert and warning applies to missing person alerts too. Messages need to include the source, the hazard/event type, a description of the missing person, location information, such as where they were last seen or the direction they were going, the time when they were last seen, and the actions that a member of the public should take to help find the missing person or who to contact with information about the missing person. For an abducted or kidnapped person, including description about the perpetrator and their vehicle is also useful.
Messages should also be written using punctuation, in mixed case font (upper and lower case), and in plain language. They should be complete, including the key contents described above and easy to read and understand.
The two missing person messages that stand as examples are from the same organization for the same missing person event. The top message is a 360-character WEA and the bottom is a 90-character WEA. Let's walk through them to see how they conform to the guidance on effective MEP messages.
Both include the name of the sending organization; the top message using an acronym for the source name and repeats it in the request for people to call the phone number listed.
Both also include an event name "missing possibly endangered elderly female", which is a very long way to say "missing person" or "missing adult."
Both include content about the missing person, but this is where things start to diverge a bit. The long message says it is an elderly female, provides information about their race, name, age, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and a description of their clothing (silver coat with fur). NOTE; because there is no punctuation in the 360 character message, we're not sure if "white" is their race or maybe their last name. The short message says "elderly female".
The longer message includes information about the location, including where she was last seen. It also includes information about who to contact if she is located.
The longer message also includes some interesting code "AUTH NH115 CEM1700" which may be meaningful to law enforcement, but doesn't relay useful information to public message receivers.
The shorter message doesn't provide any information about the location or what to do if a missing possibly endangered elderly female is located.
Neither message includes any reference to the time when she was last seen and both use ALL CAPS for the entire message. Recently published research has demonstrated why the use of ALL CAPS is not a recommended approach. You can read about it here.
There are some simple changes that can help to improve both messages; drop the ALL CAPS and selectively capitalize key words; remove the coded language; add a link to additional information such as a picture of the missing person; remove the extra language about "possibly endangered elderly" (if the missing person warrants a WEA, they're endangered); spell out the name of the sending organization rather than using an acronym; provide clues about where she might go and how she was traveling.
Small tweaks to a message can really help to improve readability as well as actionability among message receivers. If we truly want to help find and bring Deborah Judy White back to the people who reported her missing, our messages should meet a high standard.
My research team is currently conducting an experiment that will test how to write actionable missing persons messages, with the hope of unlocking some of the key features that are most necessary for motivating action, reducing frustration among message receivers, and leading to an engaged public. In the meantime, improvements to messages like these can help us to see how to better craft effective missing person alerts.
For more recommended contents, be sure to download The Warning Lexicon - it's free and offers step-by-step instructions on how to write a better warning message.
________________________________________________________________________
Feel free to post this on your social media site, just remember to attribute it to The Warn Room and include the web address: TheWarnRoom.com - Thank you!
You may click on the keywords below to find other entries with similar topics.
コメント