Multiple Audiences for Risk Messages

Part of the Food Microbiology and Food Safety book series (FMFS)

A house full of people is a house full of different points of view. (Maori Proverb)

As we have demonstrated in previous chapters, risk is pervasive today due to ever-increasing levels of uncertainty about all aspects of life. Thus, risk communicators are continually striving to gain the public's adherence to specific strategies with the potential to ward off crises. The public, or audience, often is labeled as any group of individuals who hear and respond to messages directed toward them. The term, general public, reflects the perception that the whole group is included. However, audiences are far more complex than the term generalimplies. Within any given audience, elements representing diverse perspectives exist that may or may not be receptive to the specific strategies presented. Often, when the common single spokesperson model is used for communicating during a risk or crisis situation, the general public receives the focus of attention and diverse perspectives are not...


Cultural Group Risk Communicator Normative Belief Crisis Situation Multiple Public 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barton, L. (1993). Crisis in organizations: Managing and communicating in the heat of chaos. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  2. Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Benoit, W. L. (1997). A critical analysis of US Air's image repair discourse. Business Communication Quarterly, 23, 177–186.Google Scholar
  4. Chess, C. (2001). Organizational theory and stages of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 21, 179– 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Condon, J. C., & Yousef, F. (1975). An approach to intercultural communication. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  6. Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytical framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(3), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(2), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning managing, and responding(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Covello, V. T. (1992). Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication research. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 15(pp. 359–373). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Covello, V. T. (2003). Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication. Journal of Health Communication Research, 8, 5–8.Google Scholar
  11. Dutta, M. J. (2007). Communicating about culture and health: Theorizing culture-centered and cultural sensitivity approaches. Communication Theory, 17(3), 304–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fink, S. (1986). Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. New York: American Management Association.Google Scholar
  13. Fong, M. (2006). The nexus of language, communication, and culture. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader(11th ed.), (pp. 214– 221). Belmont, CA: Thomson, Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  14. Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, P. R., & Moran, R. T. (1991). Managing cultural differences(3rd ed.). Houston: Gulf.Google Scholar
  17. Heath, R. L. (1997) Strategic issues management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Heath, R. L. (2001). Learning best practices from experience and research. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations(pp. 441–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (2001). Community-based participatory research: Policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in health research. Education for Health, 14(2), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klopf, D. W. (1991). Intercultural encounters: The fundamentals of intercultural communication. Engelwood, CO: Morton Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Kluckhohn, F., & Strodtbeck, F. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  23. Leanna, C. E., Ahlbrant, R. S., & Murrell, A. J. (1992). The effects of employee involvement programs on unionized workers' attitudes, perceptions, and preferences in decision making. The Academy of Management Journal, 4, 581–592.Google Scholar
  24. Leitch, S., & Neilson, D. (1997). Reframing public relations: New directions for theory and practice. Australian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 17–32.Google Scholar
  25. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2004). Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Littlefield, R. S., & Cowden, K. (2006, November 17). Rethinking the single spokesperson model of crisis communication: Recognizing the need to address multiple publics. Paper presented to the Public Relations Division of the National Communication Association, San Antonio, Tex a s.Google Scholar
  27. McMahan, S., Witte, K., & Meyer, J. (1998). The perception of risk messages regarding electromagnetic fields: Extending the extended parallel process model to an unknown risk. Health Communication, 10, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neuliep, J. W. (2003). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach(2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  29. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation(2nd printing). (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University Press. (Original work published in 1958).Google Scholar
  30. Rogers, E. M. (2003). The diffusion of innovations(5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rowan, K. E. (1991). Goals, obstacles, and strategies in risk communication: A problem-solving approach to improving communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19(4), 300–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (2001). Communication between cultures(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  33. Sarbaugh, L. E. (1979). Intercultural communication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden Book Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in twenty countries. In S. H. Schwartz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 25(pp. 1–66). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998).Communication, organization, and crisis. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 21(pp. 231–276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  37. Slovic, P. (1986). Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 6(4), 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tierney, K. J. (1999). Toward a critical sociology of risk. Sociological Forum, 14(2), 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ting-Toomey, S. (1989). Language, communication, and culture. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Language, communication, and culture(pp. 9–15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2005). Understanding intercultural communication. Los Angeles: Roxbury.Google Scholar
  41. Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacting sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Personalised recommendations