Guest pen A protracted crisis requires risk communication

Over the two-year Korona era and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have brought crisis communications into the living rooms. Experts, politicians, the military leadership, entrepreneurs, economic experts, doctors and many others have created a picture that citizens have been trying to understand.

The most important task of crisis communication is to build trust. It comes from a clear snapshot, clear core messages, and the right tone of communication. Trust can be destroyed suddenly if the core messages change unjustifiably. Openly admitting uncertainty or ignorance, on the other hand, may even increase trust.

At the beginning of the corona crisis, active citizens picked up information from where they got it best: Finnish and international media, discussion forums, health authorities and social media. As the pandemic continues, people have no longer been as active in digging for information, and some citizens have even avoided it.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, news coverage of the war quickly overtook interest in interest rate threats. Crisis communication found an even bigger topic. At some point, monitoring of the situation in Ukraine will also decrease, as it will be mentally difficult to monitor the acute crisis situation for a long time.

In a crisis situation as it prolongs, communication goals and expectations change. It is no longer a matter of crisis communication, but of prolonged risk communication.

At the heart of risk communication is a phenomenon that is difficult to identify, a perceived risk. Instead of the common vision and experience of society, risk communication focuses on individuals and the creation and maintenance of their risk awareness.

The goal of risk communication is to support preparedness: according to the teachings of behavioral economics, a person can take almost anything if he or she can prepare for it. Instead of the risk of developing coronary heart disease, Finland’s overall security and the risks and opportunities of NATO membership are now being considered. Unlike fact-based crisis communication, risk communication is based on the feelings and perspectives of the individuals who interpret it.

When the crisis becomes a risk, communication turns from a repetition of the facts of the current situation and short-term strategies to a long-lasting opening and discussion of probabilities. It may amaze citizens: it is no longer possible to give clear and the same guidelines for everyone in times of crisis. There is no longer a common picture.

Where crisis communication is often fast-paced and acute, risk communication is long-lasting and continuous. A crisis is often publicly visible and verifiable, while risk often remains unclear and is formed in each individual’s own world of thought. Where crisis communication often meets high demand and requires constant updating, risk communication requires motivating listeners and finding suitable, interesting channels.

Attracting people’s emotions is not always successful in risk communication either. The most effective way to form a risk assessment is to have an open discussion in which all opinions are allowed.

In risk communication the responsibility for preparedness shifts from the authorities to the citizens for consideration and discussion. Vaccination, resistance to restrictions and demonstrations are indeed risk-taking phenomena.

In risk communication, each citizen creates a personal picture of the situation, and the comparison is the magnitude of the sacrifices made by the individual compared to the estimated benefits they bring. If these benefits are difficult to verify, an internal interest payer may rise in the citizen who acts solely on his or her own feelings.

Ideally, good risk communication will enable a pandemic to recover. At the heart of communication in a protracted pandemic is the maintenance of citizens’ risk awareness in a changing environment.

The same risk awareness will soon be needed in Finland’s overall security communications, whether in the direction of NATO or not.

Vilma Luoma-aho and Harri Saukkomaa

Luoma-aho is Professor of Communication Management at the University of Jyväskylä School of Economics. Saukkomaa is the Chairman of the Board of Tekir Communications Agency and a Visiting Lecturer at the University of Jyväskylä School of Economics.

Guest pens are the speeches of experts selected by the HS editorial board for publication. The opinions expressed in guest pens are the authors’ own views, not HS’s statements. Writing instructions: www.hs.fi/vieraskyna/.