Risk communication as interacting arguments: viewing the L'Aquila earthquake disaster through the message convergence framework.

• Author: Herovic, Emina

INTRODUCTION

On April 6, 2009, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake struck L'Aquila, Italy killing 309 people, injuring 1,500 people, temporarily displacing 65,000 civilians, and destroying 20,000 buildings (Jordan et al., 2011). Three years after the earthquake, on October 22, 2012, Bernardo de Bernardinis, the former Vice President of the Civil Protection Agency's technical department, and six former scientists at the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks were sentenced to six years in jail and were found guilty on charges of multiple manslaughter (Sturloni, 2012). The prosecution found the seven defendants guilty on the grounds of failing to adequately communicate to the public the actual seismic risk of the earthquake before it arrived. In other words, the defendants were not accused for their lack of ability to predict the earthquake, but rather they were sentenced for "having deprived the citizens of information that may have saved their lives" (p. 1). Frustrated by the sentences, Italian Environment Minister, Corrado Clini, compared the L'Aquila trial to that which Galileo endured nearly four centuries ago, arguing that not since the age of Enlightenment have scientists been prosecuted for their evaluations (Sturloni, 2012). Time likened the verdict to an early period in history "when there were witches to bum and demons to exorcise" (Kluger, 2012, para. 1).

While the international scientific community finds the charges against the sentenced group unwarranted on the grounds that predicting an earthquake remains "technically impossible" (Hall, 2011, p. 265), L'Aquila residents say the trial has deeper roots and has to do with the failure of the government-appointed scientists to "adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population" (p. 266). In fact, the Operational Earthquake Forecasting State of Knowledge and Guidelines for Utilization (Jordan et ah, 2011) calls for better communication employed during risk events stating, "the principles of effective public communication established by social science research should be applied to the delivery of seismic hazard information" (p. 319).

The L'Aquila residents sought input from scientists as the earthquake prone region was experiencing a swarm of small earthquakes. In retrospect, the individual who spoke to the L'Aquila citizens on behalf of the six scientists, Bernardo De Bernardinis, then vice director of the government's Civil Protection Department, failed to account for the debate among the six scientists focusing on the probability the area could soon experience a major earthquake. Instead, he issued a definitive statement discounting the risk and urging the L'Aquila inhabitants to return to their homes. In doing so, he muted the scientists who had put forward a plurality of arguments related to the probability of an impending major earthquake in L'Aquila. Ideally, debate over such matters of risk takes the form of interacting arguments where multiple assertions are heard and points of convergence are noted (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969). Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's (1969) New Rhetoric "allows for a pluralism of values and a multiplicity of ways of being reasonable" (Dearin, 1969, p. 214). Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca explain that arguments can interact on multiple levels: "interaction between various arguments put forward, interaction between the arguments and the overall argumentative situation, between the arguments and their conclusion, and, finally, between the arguments occurring in the discourse and those that are about the discourse" (p. 460). The interaction of these arguments produces points of convergence that ultimately contribute to "action and reasonableness" (Tindale, 2010, p. 337). The uncertainty, difference of opinions, and contested recommendations typical in public discussion of risk issues make Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's explanation of interacting arguments particularly fitting for describing and analyzing risk communication successes and failures.

In this study, we acknowledge the need to learn lessons for improving risk communication from problems encountered by experts prior to and after the L'Aquila event. We view the risk communication prior to this tragedy and the punitive reaction of the Italian courts from an argumentation perspective. To do so, we characterize the risk communication prior to the L'Aquila earthquake as interacting arguments and apply the Message Convergence Framework (MCF) introduced by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) and adapted to risk communication by several authors (Anthony & Sellnow, 2011; Anthony, Sellnow, & Millner, 2013; Sellnow, Ulmer, Seeger, & Littlefield, 2009). The MCF is a message-centered approach to understanding and analyzing the process by which the public comprehends meaning from multiple and competing arguments to make risk-related decisions. The MCF posits that, during risk and crisis events, audiences attend to and try to make meaning of the multiple and, often, competing arguments. In highly threatening circumstances, such as looming environmental disasters, "the public seeks information to determine whether the crisis will affect them, how they should think, and what they should do" (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 2003, p. 71).

Our analysis begins with a justification for viewing risk communication from the perspective of interacting arguments. We then provide an overview of interacting arguments and the MCF. Next, the L'Aquila case is described and analyzed using MCF. Finally, we evaluate the case and offer conclusions and implications relevant to risk and crisis communicators as well as the scientific community world-wide.

RISK COMMUNICATION AS INTERACTING ARGUMENTS

Risk is the presence of uncertainty and the communication of risk "seeks to influence behavior and policies so that a crisis situation can be averted" (Sellnow et al., 2009, p. 4). Risk communication originates from calculations and interpretations made about an uncertain and ambiguous risk situation (Heath & O'Hair, 2009; Venette, 2008). Experts weigh in with their calculations and interpretations about the risk presenting multiple arguments "that compete for acceptance" (Sellnow et al., 2009, p. 7). Competing arguments are driven largely by the interests of organizations and government agencies. Take, for example, the controversial and often debated issue of climate change. While environmental agencies argue for the existence of global warming and fight to eradicate the sources of increasing temperatures, some corporations claim that the evidence for global warming is weak and that fossil fuels are a safe source of energy (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2014). Rather than alleviate confusion, competing arguments can sometimes cause more confusion about an issue for the public. In some parts of the world, such as the United States, the legal system encourages the questioning of experts and often pits experts with opposing sides against one-another. Pitting one argument against another regarding a risk issue can not only confuse the public but can also further deplete public trust (Slovic, 2000). Nonetheless, the goal of a communication environment with multiple and competing arguments is to create space for communication that encourages reflection and thought and is open to criticism.

Crisis communication scholars have often examined the effect of messages from one source (Benoit, 1995, 2015; Coombs, 2012). This view, however, is limited to crisis and post-crisis communication, and is frequently focused on reputation or image. Risk communication, on the other hand, is mainly focused on pre-crisis communication. A degree of uncertainty is inherent at this stage. Competing arguments about matters such as acceptable risk thresholds or the urgency of the problem are expected. Thus, a linear or unidirectional view of risk communication is overly simplistic (Heath, 1995) and fails to consider the influence of multiple stakeholders (Sellnow et al., 2009). Ideally, risk communication is an interactive process involving the exchange of arguments and evidence between individuals, groups, and organizations (National Research Council, 1989). This exchange of information can be seen as a swirl of arguments coming from multiple sources or stakeholders and often consisting of competing points of view (Anthony & Sellnow, 2011; Sellnow et al., 2009).

MCF acknowledges that audiences are not solely affected by just one message from one source. The current communication environment is replete with many messages. Today's society is information rich, with multiple arguments shared through diverse communication channels on any given risk issue. MCF enables scholars to examine the interaction of the multiple arguments from various sources. In this sense, MCF is a message-centered approach that conceptualizes risk communication as interacting arguments. Based on this understanding of risk communication, MCF posits that interacting arguments are evaluated by interested parties as, "opponents debate the accuracy of claims made by their adversaries while the public engages in a less formal dialogue" about whose arguments are valid (Sellnow et al., 2009, p. 12). In the following section, we describe how audiences attend to these interacting arguments by seeking points of convergence.

Message Convergence Framework

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) insist that "everyone recognizes that arguments do interact" and explain "one of the most important interactions is due to what we shall broadly call convergence" (p. 471). The scholars articulate that convergence occurs when a variety of messages from distinct sources interact in a way that enables stakeholders, or individuals assessing the discourse, to recognize the emergence of "a single conclusion" (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969, p. 471). This overlap of agreement, whether in part or in whole, is considered to be...