We've seen a lot of missing person alerts come through WEA these past few weeks. Many of them stand out for what they lack, but this message stood out for the language that was used to capture the attention of the message receiver.
Child's Life in Danger!
The use of this language prompted a lot of conversations between myself and my research team, with one person saying "this makes me want to click to find out more" and that really stuck with me because it changes the purpose of the warning message.
Our approach to warning messages is lodged in the Warning Response Model, which emphasizes the need for contents to effectively motivate people by personalizing the threat, believing they are at risk, and deciding to take action by using clear, consistent, actionable language. In following this evidence-based guidance for warning messages, we can reduce "milling," that is, information seeking to determine what's happening, where, when, the impacts, and the actions needed.
This same evidence-based guidance applied to missing person messages means designing messages that are understandable, personalized, and actionable. The primary objective is to motivate SEARCHING activity by those who are able to assist and report to a dispatcher. This means including information about the victim/suspect, the mode of transportation, the location of the event and the time it occurred, plus instructions on what to do and how to help.
However, "this makes me want to click to find out more" shifts the purpose of a warning message from motivating search activity to motivating information seeking. In other words, it may be intentionally promoting milling activity. It makes me wonder if this is yet another important task of a missing person alert - should it also be designed to create a curiosity among the public and to initiate an interest for being publicly engaged?
We don't have evidence that using language like "Child's Life in Danger!" is a better approach than using a heading like "Missing Endangered Person" for these types of messages. But it is memorable and made me stop and think a bit more before choosing to write about it.
Read on if you'd like to see other critiques of this message...
There are a few items that could be changed to improve this message: This alert was sent statewide but no location information was provided, nor any indication that they may be traveling or the area in which people might begin their search. It's doubtful that a message receiver will find the height/weight of a 1-year old child to be useful in identifying the child. More information could have been provided about when the abduction occurred, where, how they might be traveling, and where they might travel to. Instructions on what to do after receiving the message would also be useful. The instructions to check local media is not actionable information. In this case, however, the heading may lead people to click on the URL as instructed.
Note: 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 to search. Results are coming soon and will be shared on The Warn Room blog.
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