Over-Alerting Series: Episode 1

An Introduction.

Just over a year ago, the RAND Corporation published their report assessing public reach of Wireless Emergency Alerts.

What stood out to me was not who emergency managers ARE reaching but who they are NOT. In many cases, this can be attributed to OPTING OUT. (25-30% in Texas alone). How do we make sense of this? 

My colleague, Michele M Wood and I received funding from the US Geological Survey to investigate why people opt out of emergency alerts (if you recall, USGS issues earthquake early warnings that are delivered via WEA) and how to reduce that number.

We conducted interviews and collected survey data that enabled us to define what people mean when they say "over-alerting" and "warning fatigue." Hint: it isn't as simple as "crying wolf."

These concepts are multi-faceted and each dimension can be addressed through policy and practice.

The primary aspect that public safety communicators can tackle today? WRITE COMPLETE AND ACTIONABLE MESSAGES FOR IMMINENT THREATS. 

This includes: Source, Hazard (+impact), Location, Guidance, and Time.

In this series on Over-Alerting, I'll unpack those other dimensions, so be sure to read on.

To read our paper, go here: Sutton, J. & Wood, M. (2025). Opting Out: Over-Alerting and Warning Fatigue in the Era of Wireless Emergency Alerts. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management.

For the open-access version, go here: Scholars Archive: Opting Out.