It is thought that when people are tense, concerned or perceive a threat that they’re information processing abilities are incredibly impaired. When discussing risk communication, communicators want to be objective and want to clearly portray their message. As a risk communicator, it is hard to have your message heard when the audience’s mind is clouded with panicked emotions. So communicators write with an attitude similar to “Just listen, take a deep breath and relax. Just listen to me, follow my directions and everything will be fine. Here’s the problem and here’s what we’re going to do: (insert technical language here).” This would seem like a great approach to risk, it disregards all emotion and gets people thinking clearly, objectively and intelligently. But is disregarding emotion really an effective strategy given that one of the many fuels humans run on is emotions ?

The risks communication usually deals with negative topics; topics with bad out comes for the audience or stake holders like obesity in Americ, a deadly virus, flaws in the health care system and so on. People tend to put greater emotional emphasis on losses than on gains. This means that people’s emotions are stirring strongest about risk communication topics. Playing on these emotions could be devastating for the risk communicator because the negative emotions will cloud the audience’s mind and make it hard from them to receive the message. Why confuse and make people emotional at a time when you want them to be thinking clearly and objectively?

It would seem that keeping a risk communication piece as objective, technical and emotionless as possible would be the best approach to a risk communication piece. But there is another train of thought that says that humans remember messages best when they are communicated through stories. The more elaborate, personal and emotional the story, the better it relates to the listener and the longer it stays with them. Starting when we were younger and our parents told us stories, to impact novels that keep us up late at night; stories sticks with us. Before history could be documented, stories kept history alive. If a piece of communication can touch us personally, stir the correct emotions and provide a contextual story, there can be nothing more effective. People much rather attend poetry slams or gather around a great story teller at a coffee shop than listen some lecture. Culturally, stronger emotions and excitements are stirred from poetry slams and story tellers than from lectures. This same train of thought applies to risk communication. A highly objective and technical piece of writing clearly lays out the information, but stirs no emotion. In fact, it actually evokes emotions of boredom and staleness which makes it hard for information to be effectively communicated. The reader feels no emotional connection to a document. This only stimulates the critical thinking part of the brain and not the emotional part which is like moving at half speed or like cutting efficiency in half.

There needs to be an equilibrium. Too much emotional stimulation, and the reader gets clouded with mental noise, too much technical information and language and the reader’s mind becomes stale and the information doesn’t stick. Although each piece of risk communication is different, this emotional/technical equilibrium is a good blue print for effective risk communication.