Hazard vs. Outrage Hazard = “How much harm it’s likely to do” Outrage = “How upset it’s likely to make people” Prevention vs. addressing outcomes Response to hazard only if risk is high Mostly focus on outrage

4 Tasks For Risk Communication Source:

Reduced & Explained Hazard But Public still Not Find Risk Intolerable. So What Now ? Find ways to ask permission ***Do not compare risk you are imposing on people with natural risks ***Make the risk more familiar: explain the bad news ***Acknowledge the ways in which the risk is memorable ***Legitimate the dread Take catastrophe more seriously Increase the know-ability: remember that neon sign on the roof of the incinerator Share the knife Share the benefits more fairly Acknowledge the moral relevance of pollution Build trust and don’t demand too much trust ***Respond to people openly, apologetically when you have screwed up, courteously even if they are discourteous with attention to their values and compassion for their concerns Sandman, 1993, p79

Industry& Government vs. Activist vs. Public Industry and government : risk are small and acceptable Activist: Risk are unacceptably large and requires action Public: Angry, suspicious

“Outrage reduction is putting your money where your mouth is, betting that if you share the information, share the control and keep the outrage from getting in the way people will make pretty good decisions about risk” (Sandman, 1993, p80)

Beliefs That Can Hinder Outrage Reduction No sign of outrage so no action/change No need to address the outrage, might alarm the public Not acknowledging the merits of the opposing arguments Too late to calm outraged people Outrage is caused by activists and reporters Do not accept exaggerated hazards, it is not scientific and it is dishonest Outrage increases liability If worked too well outrage reduction might leave the public at risk for “outrage is the best way to force hazard reduction” (p114)

Four Stages of Risk Communication Stonewall Stage Missionary Stage Dialogue Stage Organizational Stage

Developmental Stages in Risk Management All we have to do is get the numbers right All we have to do is tell them the numbers All we have to do is explain what we mean by the numbers All we have to do is show them that they’ve accepted similar risk in the past All we have to do is show then that it is a good deal for them All we have to do is treat them nice All we have to do is make them partners All of the above Fischhoff, 1995, p138

Resources for Risk Communication: EPA

References Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15(2), Sandman, P. (1993). Responding to community outrage: Strategies for effective risk communication. American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, Va. Sandman, P. Risk=Hazard + Outrage. The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Website. Retrieved on 11/ 13/08 from