What’s causing alert fatigue and how do we fix it?
Ethan Beaty takes a look at the issue of alert fatigue, urging emergency managers to rethink when and how they communicate with the public.
Image by cosmaa | Freepik
Attention has become a scarce resource in today’s information space. To not waste it, it is crucial that public safety officials are exceedingly intentional when issuing alerts.
People are bombarded with ‘urgent’ notifications every waking moment: breaking news, flash sales, celebrity drama, etc. When public safety channels enter the fray just to let the public know that there is an amber alert across the state or that the air quality is below average, they waste the limited attention afforded to them. Come time for an alert that could affect thousands of lives, and a portion of the public may be conditioned to ignore it or have muted alerts altogether after the last irrelevant one.
This is called alert fatigue, and it is a phenomenon that is only getting worse the more the line between our physical and digital lives blurs. Here are a few ways that emergency managers and public safety agencies could improve their communication strategies and become better stewards of the public’s attention.
The quantity of alerts sent out should be the first metric officials reflect on. Spamming alerts desensitises recipients. When a warning system is overused, the public begins to mentally file the messages as ‘noise’, and the next critical alert is forced to compete with that memory. Even when using local warning systems, sending fewer pushes and bundling non-critical updates can help preserve the public’s respect for safety channels. Routine risk information such as smoke drift, minor heat advisories, lane closures, and similar alerts belong on social feeds, websites, radio, or other public media.
The fix isn’t just less volume; it’s also more meaning. If everything is urgent, nothing is. Agencies need to embrace a culture of restraint, relevance, and salience, principles that respect the public’s limited attention so that life-or-death messages land with clarity and credibility. Agencies that don’t already should commit to a short list of conditions: imminent threat, specific protective action, and time sensitivity. When these conditions are not met, withholding an alert should be an accepted course of action.
People are more likely to act on an alert when it feels like it’s directed at them and has actionable instructions. One way this is accomplished is by ensuring only the immediately pertinent audience receives the alert. An entire region does not need to be flagged if it isn’t absolutely necessary. Another way is by ditching vague warnings in favour of plain language and action verbs. A consistent, standardised warning lexicon across hazards reduces confusion and shortens decision time.
Lastly, following up after a major alert should be standard practice. Silence can leave people stranded in uncertainty. A short, definitive ‘all clear/what’s next’ message closes the loop, reduces unnecessary fear, and preserves trust for the next time you need the public’s attention. This is true even when things go sideways. If a mistake is made when issuing an alert, say so. A transparent after-action report that explains what was wrong and how it was fixed will be received far better than doubling down on an error.
Ultimately, public attention should not be treated like a switch you can flick on or off, but rather as a trust that is earned. In a world of constant notifications, the agencies that spend attention sparingly will be the ones whose communities are the most responsive and informed.
Ethan Beaty graduated from Tennessee Technological University, US, with a BA in English and a certificate in editing and publishing. He works with the Tennessee Association of Rescue Squads and Tennessee Baptist Mission Board Disaster Relief.