HOW ONE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE TRANSLATES TO ANOTHER – USING INOCULATION THEORY TO IMPROVE WILDFIRE MESSAGING
BY JOSH COMPTON
I’ve never seen a wildfire up close. Living in Vermont, I’ve mostly imagined wildfires through news coverage, social media, and movies. The image in my mind was dramatic: a wall of fire barreling toward a neighborhood. My perception was more cinematic than accurate.
Only recently did I learn that homes in wildfire-prone areas are often threatened not by a dramatic wall of flame but by embers carried by the wind – small points of fire that can ignite vegetation, decks, leaves in gutters, or other combustible materials near a structure. The danger I had imagined as a wall often begins much smaller.
My incomplete understanding of wildfires doesn’t put me at much greater risk. Of course, that’s not true for others. For those living in wildland-urban interface (WUI) communities, misunderstandings of wildfires can put them and their communities in danger by influencing real decisions: what to store, or not store, near their homes; what to clear from their land; whether and when to evacuate; and more. It is important, then, to keep WUI residents well informed about wildfire risks.
INNOCULATION THEORY
An established communication theory could help municipalities, fire departments, and wildland agencies with these efforts. It’s called inoculation theory, and I’ve spent my career studying and applying it across contexts and issues, including politics, health, and public relations. While inoculation theory isn’t new – it was formally named in the early 1960s – it is seeing new applications, especially around misunderstandings, misinformation, and other communication challenges.
The premise of inoculation theory is right there in its name. A medical inoculation protects against future, stronger challenges by introducing a weak version of that challenge into the system: weak enough not to make the person sick, but strong enough to make them care. Communication inoculation works similarly, by introducing a weakened version of a challenge people may encounter later, such as misunderstandings about wildfires, in a communication message. Editorials, memes, websites, brochures – many forms of media can carry an inoculation intervention message.
What might some of these wildfire misunderstandings sound like? Some might stem from a false sense of security, such as the belief that because a fire is miles away from my house, I have plenty of time to escape. Others might reflect perceived helplessness, such as the belief that there’s nothing I can do to mitigate wildfire risk on my property. Still others might resemble the misunderstanding I had – that wildfire danger always looks like a wall of fire consuming entire neighborhoods.
CRAFTING MESSAGES
A common way communicators develop an inoculation-based message is to present it as a two-sided message: here’s what you might hear, followed by here’s why that’s wrong. We see this basic form in messages that pair misunderstandings with facts, or in some FAQ content where the questions raise misperceptions and the answers serve as clarifications. This pairing of misperception with clarification expands an educational message – here’s what you should, or shouldn’t, do – to include reasons people might otherwise think differently. “You should evacuate as soon as experts tell you to” becomes “It’s easy to fall into the misperception that a wildfire is miles away and you have plenty of time to evacuate. But conditions can change quickly, and evacuation guidance is based on more than how close the fire looks from where you are.” The key difference is that a one-sided message strategy covers what to do, while a two-sided message also acknowledges why someone might hesitate to do it.
There’s also a small edit that can make these messages even more likely to function as an inoculation: before addressing specific misperceptions people might have, include an explicit forewarning that their beliefs may be challenged. As a two-sided message, “There are many things you can do to prepare for wildfire risk” becomes “Many people think there’s little they can personally do to reduce wildfire risk. But actually, there are several steps we can take right now to keep ourselves safer.” By adding a forewarning, it could look more like this: “We like to think of ourselves as informed, prepared people, ready for challenges that head our way. But sometimes we fall into misunderstandings that keep us from taking precautions. For example, many people think wildfire is too large and unpredictable for individual preparation to matter. But actually, residents can take meaningful steps before fire season, such as learning local guidance, making a household plan, and talking with neighbors about what to do if conditions change.”
We can think of adding a forewarning as a kind of accelerator for inoculation, because forewarning people about future challenges can trigger the most important feature of communication inoculation: threat. Threat in inoculation doesn’t mean what many people assume the word threat means. Threat in inoculation isn’t a physical thing – like a wildfire – but a response to a message: a feeling of vulnerability. When people feel vulnerable after an inoculation message, it often motivates more thinking, more talking, and more information gathering about the issue. Threat is what sparks the responses that become resistance.
The increased talk that follows is particularly important. Like misperceptions, inoculation messages can spread through social networks. A resident who is warned about a common misunderstanding may discuss that warning with a spouse, a neighbor, or a friend. In that way, the message doesn’t stop with the first person who receives it. Imagine, for example, a social media message intended to encourage immediate evacuation when instructed by authorities. It goes beyond one-sided instruction (immediately evacuate when instructed) and instead adopts an inoculation approach. “You may be tempted to hunker down to protect your property, but that can be a deadly mistake. Immediately evacuate when instructed, because local authorities can see a bigger picture of the threat than we can.” Such a message could supplement resources such as the FireSmart™ Last-Minute Checklist for Protecting Your Home and Property from Wildfire or the Home Ignition Zone system that helps residents understand how to make their homes and yards more resilient to wildfire. Inoculation research suggests that such an approach can affect not only individuals’ beliefs and behaviors but also how they talk to others about the issue, spreading the message along social networks.
TAKING ACTION
Inoculation messages can do more than get people talking. They can also strengthen commitment to take action. To date, much research about inoculation theory has focused on political behaviors – voting, donating to campaigns, and related actions – but the theory isn’t limited to political behavior. For wildfire communication, relevant actions might include preparing earlier, following evacuation guidance, or making household plans before fire season. NFPA’s Firewise USA® Home Ignition Zone Checklist offers several actions that can make a property safer from wildfire threats, such as repairing shingles and keeping flammable materials away from external walls. These steps could be converted into an inoculation message by pairing them with reasons one might consider not taking these actions. “Don’t store firewood near the house” can become “It can be convenient to store firewood near the house, but convenience isn’t worth the added risk of keeping combustible material close to the home. Move firewood away from the house,” for instance. Inoculation research suggests that developing these one-sided approaches out further, like pairing reasons to do something with reasons one might not, increases intentions to follow through on the behavior.
Understanding inoculation theory could be especially useful for wildfire communication – the shifts in thinking, talking, and doing. For municipalities, fire departments, and wildland agencies, inoculation offers a way to address dangerous misunderstandings before residents make decisions under pressure. Messages don’t need to wait for a wildfire emergency; they can – and should – happen beforehand. An important feature of inoculation theory is that it helps guide a proactive rather than a reactive strategy.
I hope inoculation theory has something to offer municipalities, fire departments, and wildland agencies in their communication efforts. The practical value of the theory is straightforward: forewarn residents that their assumptions may be challenged, identify a misunderstanding they might encounter, offer a clear correction, and link that correction to a safer action.
The theory has already helped me. I was warned that my understanding of wildfires might be incomplete, shown an example of my misunderstanding, and taught a more accurate perspective. For those living in wildland-urban interface communities, similar messaging could shape not only how people understand wildfire risk, but also what they do before and during periods of danger: how they prepare, what they clear, what they keep near their homes, and how they respond to evacuation guidance.
Josh Compton, professor of speech at Dartmouth College, has published more than 85 peer-reviewed studies, many exploring inoculation theory’s adaptability in unexpected places. Compton’s work has examined topics as varied as nicotine vaping and conspiracy messaging, Stephen King adaptations, loyalty among struggling hockey teams, and communication about stochastic terrorism. Alongside more traditional studies in health, politics, and education, this breadth highlights inoculation’s wide reach and ongoing relevance. Compton’s research has sparked dialogue with audiences from NATO officials to medievalists, and he continues to welcome collaboration, treating inoculation as an open and evolving conversation across fields.
