The New York Times has an interesting article today on how to get people to evacuate when big storms are coming. For those of us who study negotiation and persuasion, it’s instructive to see how disaster professionals conduct these kinds of short-term negotiations with huge groups of people. Here are the first three pieces of advice from the article:
- Fear is good. Many people evacuate when instructed, but a sizable number choose to stay behind, either because they disbelieve the authorities or because they discount the danger to themselves. Begging them to evacuate for their own good does not work. According to the article, one possibility for dealing with these people is to tell them that if they are staying behind, they should write their SSNs in sharpie on one of their arms, so that it is easier for rescue workers to identify their bodies later. This was my favorite piece of advice, because it so clearly demonstrates the strategic choice between positive and negative framing.
- Choose your words carefully. Don’t say “voluntary evacuation” even if there’s no actual mechanism for enforcement. Say “evacuation.” This piece of advice reminded me of how my students sometimes share a range instead of setting a particular price (like, “I will sell it for 15-20K”). Better to state your preferred position more forcefully at the outset.
- Make it geographically personal. Explain why the evacuation is happening and then tie evacuation recommendations to specific times and locations (e.g., “By 5:00, you should be in such-and-so city”). This level of specificity can convince the doubtful and also breaks down the evacuation into more feasible-sounding stages.
The other advice includes using apps; continuing to offer timely and factual advice/updates; and accepting that not everyone will leave, despite best efforts.
This article has a great connection to negotiation, and the underlying struggles that can plague the negotiation process. Be it in having a person engage in reactive devaluation, here, it would be the person contemplating evacuation disregarding the government’s instructions as there may be a mistrustful of government, or a belief that the storm will not be as bad as predicted. Disaster professionals need to be aware of this, and how they could capitalize on the fear of the evacuees, while being aware of issues that can plague the negotiation process.
I am reminded of the timeless advice from Getting to Yes about making your interests come alive by being as specific as possible. Specificity, in this case in terms of what you where you want them to go, but also what specifically they may have to do if they stay (with the gruesome image of the SSN number on their arm), makes the choices come alive for them in a way that a general evacuation order will not.
Weather forecasters and news people seem to have gotten in to the act as well. Shepard Smith reminds viewers in this clip that if you stay in the path of the hurricane, not only do you die, but “… your kids die too.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMh9k1Fb2fM
Understanding how to motivate the public to do things (like leave their homes) for their own good is a tricky. Natural disasters should be a far easier sell, but the combination of too much hype for every ripple of weather — the storm of the century can’t happen three times a winter, Weather.com!– plus a mistrust for government action creates a perfect storm for people to reactively devalue solid evacuation advice. I wonder if places that deal with wild fires have the same issues? Fire is scarier than water? If climate change leads to stronger and more frequent storms as expected, government agencies will have to figure out how to save us from ourselves.
I read that Milwaukee’s socialist government in the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic had a reputation for fair and productive action, so the population listened when the health department closed public spaces and reduced flu transmission. Building a reputation for reputable and solid behavior seems to be a second prong that government should develop in addition to their psychological tricks referenced above to save people from their own resistance.
So true! When we were watching the coverage of Hurricane Matthew from Oregon, my husband said, “What do you think is really behind this [extreme rhetoric from state officials]?” And then we started speculating about voter registration and the like, just illustrating how cynical and suspicious we have become of our government. I had to remind myself that I am glad that these agencies and leaders appear to be learning lessons from Katrina and other horrific storms.
Perhaps agencies and leaders need ways to demonstrate their value and principled purposes (as you describe with the Milwaukee example) on a more regular basis, before disasters strike. What would this look like? Regular communications about decisions, actions, and reasons? Fireside chats? I personally would appreciate more regular updates from leaders about the pedestrian business of governing (or at least access to regular updates, like on the web).
Really interesting connection between the evacuation and the negotiation process. I appreciate that fear sometimes is a good thing. Currently, in my negotiation course we are preparing for a negotiation regarding family law issues. I think instilling some fear into my client will help give her a reality check. If this negotiation does not work, we will have to go to court. The law is not on her side here, so negotiating an agreement is essential. Making her fear the idea of going to court may soften her a bit on some of the details. Maybe she will compromise on some tougher issues because she knows at court she won’t have a choice in the matter- such as child support.
For the death of me I though the title read “excavate”. I’m sitting here like, “what the hell are they excavating in New York”, lol!
As far as getting people to evacuate when the government tells them to, this is America. People have every right to die in the way of their choosing.