At the Warn Room, we frequently hear about the need to issue "targeted and personalized" messages. This is primarily in reference to specific populations with differential risk and the need to reach them and communicate with them about those needs in culturally appropriate ways. Its very difficult to do this with a Wireless Emergency Alert. Because WEAs are delivered to anyone within or entering a specific geographical area, it isn't likely that the message can be, or should be, tailored to a specific demographic group in that area. But we can make WEAs personalized and, in fact, this is a really important aspect of good message writing.
For years, Dr. Dennis Mileti always started off his warning talks with a key fact that he wanted to drive home: it is difficult to get people to believe they are at risk. This is one of the key issues that we face every time we send an alert; it is also one of the perceptions that researchers measure in warning message experiments.
Based upon decades of empirical research, we know that the questions we ask in experiments about message personalization are primarily about whether the message receiver understands and believes WHO is at risk and WHERE that risk is located. In other words, people personalize the risk because they understand and believe WHO is at risk and WHERE that risk is occurring.
This also means that message personalization can occur as a response to the message contents that are provided by the sender. [Hint: you can personalize the message by including LOCATION information]. Notably, when people feel that the message is personalized it not only increases the likelihood that they will take action, it also reduces information seeking and protective action delay. [Hint: if they know it is FOR them, they will be less likely to search for that information on your webpage, call 911, or check social media].
Let's take a look at what this meant for a recent message that was distributed without location information during the Los Angeles wildfires earlier this month.
This message is relatively complete, but it is missing one key piece of information, it referenced location by stating "in your area." We know that the National Weather Service issues their WEAs using that same language for location information, largely because they are automated and do not import the names of towns/cities/counties into their contents.
I'm not sure why this evacuation warning was issued without the benefit of additional location information; perhaps because it was a preparatory message designed to alert people prior to an evacuation order going out to specific geographical areas or perhaps there are other reasons (this is speculation on my part). But I do know that stating "in your area" makes it difficult to determine WHO is under a new evacuation warning and WHERE that area is located. This became startlingly evident when this particular message was errantly sent to the entire county (see this story from the LA Times, which indicates that it was due to a technical error).
The lack of LOCATION information meant dozens (thousands?) of hits on the alertla.org webpage where people were trying to determine if "in your area" meant where THEY were or somewhere else.
We saw at least one additional WEA issued to the City of Long Beach, CA to help clear up confusion in that location. Their message included the name of the sender, a statement that the previous evacuation message was a FALSE ALARM and NO ACTION was required. This message also did not include location information, nor did it offer a place to find updates about the local conditions
A follow up message was also issued by LACoOEM which provided some clarity about the location by referencing the Kenneth Fire, which was burning in a discrete portion of the area.
Please note this: this blog post is not meant as a criticism of any of the agencies involved in disseminating alerts, warnings, or post-alert messages during this horrendous event. It is instead meant to serve as an example to highlight the importance of writing COMPLETE and CLEAR messages that can be PERSONALIZED by the message receiver.
At the Warn Room, we continue to point out the importance of a complete message - it reduces information seeking, which, under time sensitive conditions, can result in delayed action. Complete messages also affect understanding (who is it from, what is the hazard, what could it do to me, what are the potential impacts, who will be affected, when and where, and what do I do to protect myself), as well as personalization that can motivate action.
Writing a complete message can be difficult if you haven't had the training or don't have the tools. Fortunately, the tools exist and so does the training.
One of the simplest ways to learn about writing effective, evidence-based messages is to continue reading The Warn Room blog, where we show you how to improve messages. A second way is to download The Warning Lexicon (supplemental material). It includes message contents for 48 hazards. The content in the Warning Lexicon has been validated by subject matter experts and tested with members of the public through federally funded experiments. The Warning Lexicon is free and offers step-by-step instructions on how to write a better warning message. A third way to write complete and structure warning messages is to use the FEMA-IPAWS Message Design Dashboard. You can access it here: IPAWS Alerting Authority ATP.
________________________________________________________________________
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.