Risk Communication Issues: Outrage Factors

A framework first popularized by Peter Sandman in 1985 provides a useful model for explaining how members of the lay public perceive risks (11). According to this model, scientists look at the hazard associated with a situation or event, while the public looks at the outrage involved. This is not a misperception of risk by either—simply a different way of defining a particular risk.

Outrage is the public’s reaction, based on a number of subjective, personal factors. These factors can be summarized in a series of questions about the potential hazard.

To describe the outrage level, see what column these hazard criteria fit into:

If the words in the first column best describe the hazard, then the public outrage is likely to be high. Regardless of what the scientists believe, the public will perceive the hazard as being associated with a high risk. If, however, the words in the second column best describe the hazard, then the outrage is likely to be low. Some example scenarios based on these criteria are in the bar to the right.

It seems clear that some risks aren't so clearly defined. That's where risk communication becomes important.

Radon provides a good example of a situation where the public has a low outrage level where scientists believe that there is a high hazard level, while the EMF controversy provides an example of high public outrage and current low hazard estimates by scientists.

Examples for low and high outrage:

1. choosing to smoke cigarettes or discovering illegal chemical dumping
2. a tornado or smoke from a factory
3. the common cold or a disease never before heard of
4. a commonly occurring weather event or a huge ice storm on a holiday
5. something causing a migraine or something causing cancer
6. lead paint in homes or a sudden explosion
7. causing water to be discolored or causing cancer 10 years in the future
8. a voted upon referendum or a unilaterally made official decision
9. community input meetings or a sudden announcement of a new facility
10. the local town council or a multinational corporate polluter