The role of plausibility and attribution shields in disease outbreak and risk communication : navigating credibility and uncertainty

Abstract

Establishing credibility in risk communication is one of the effective mechanisms for securing public trust and cooperation, especially during times of disease outbreaks. While existing studies have highlighted the significance of credibility in risk and outbreak communication, there is limited research specifically examining how health institutions build credibility by using certain linguistic devices. This study investigates the role of plausibility and attribution shields, as credibility-enhancing tools, in Disease Outbreak News (DONs) published by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Shields are words or expressions that indicate the degree of responsibility a speaker or writer takes for the truthfulness of a statement. Special attention is given to the distribution of shields in these reports and the appeals embedded within them. A total of 111 DONs published by the WHO between 2023 and 2024 were analysed using a content-based analytic approach situated within the model of hedges proposed by Prince et al. (1982). The results showed similarities in the distribution of attribution and plausibility shields in DONs. Attribution shields were commonly associated with appeals to empirical evidence and institution/authority, whereas plausibility shields frequently involved appeals to limited knowledge, common reason, and circumstantial evidence. The patterns of shield usage in DONs reinforce the delicate balance between communicating uncertainty while striving to build credibility. The study holds significant implications for health risk communication and reasoning by providing insights into how organisations like the WHO navigate the challenges of maintaining credibility in public health messaging during crises. Implications for further research are also discussed.