Risk, Uncertainty and Everything Else

For those unfamiliar with this description of risk, check out the website maintained by Peter Sandman.  Dr. Sandman is a scholar on risk communication and risk perception, and has made a name for himself via the concept “Risk = Hazard + Outrage.”  He has published some very interesting things, one of which can be found on my list of 100 books to review.  A selection of his works is available electronically on his curriculum vitae.

Back to the formula “Risk = Hazard + Outrage”…  This is not a mathematical formula in any strict sense of the word.  Rather it is conceptual in nature, where the “risk” is defined by the objective nature of the “hazard” and augmented by the “outrage” felt by the individuals exposed to it.  Through his many inquiries into how people perceive risk, Dr. Sandman put forward what I will call “Sandman’s First Law of Risk Communication” (though he states it may be the only law): Outrage, not hazard, drives reputation (I might prefer to replace the word “reputation” with “acceptability”).  Basically, regardless of whether the hazard is objectively high or low, the outrage felt by the public or decision maker is what drives the degree of risk attached to a hazardous phenomenon.  People tolerate objectively high hazard (e.g., driving) is the outrage is low, whereas people do not accept objectively low hazards (e.g., terrorism) if the outrage is high.  The reputation of a risk manager or decision maker charged with making decisions that affect risk is more by how well they manage outrage than how they manage hazard.  Based on this view, Dr. Sandman suggests ways for managing outrage.

Much of Dr. Sandman’s work emphasizes the point that the Society for Risk Analysis makes in their stated definition of risk:

Risk analysis is broadly defined to include risk assessment, risk characterization, risk communication, risk management, and policy relating to risk. Our interests include risks to human health and the environment, both built and natural. We consider threats from physical, chemical, and biological agents and from a variety of human activities as well as natural events. We analyze risks of concern to individuals, to public and private sector organizations, and to society at various geographic scales. Our membership is multidisciplinary and international.

That is, risk analysis includes risk assessment, risk management AND risk communication (among other topics).  Based on Sandman’s work, it seems that though a high risk hazard can be managed so as to bring the risk down to a level acceptable to the risk manager, the strategies used to mitigate risk may be inadequate or insufficient unless accompanied by strategies to manage the outrage felt by those affected by the hazard.  Sound risk policy must effectively manage risks assessed to be high, and must also manage the outrage felt by the targets of risk.  For a risk analysis to be complete, it must look at an issue from all angles.

Now I leave it to you (and myself) to check out the rest of Dr. Sandman’s work to better understand his philosophy on risk communication and risk perception.  This is interesting stuff, but keep in mind there is a lot more to read on this issue of risk communication and risk perception, in particular the following:

• Strategies for Risk Communication: Evolution, Evidence, Experience, edited by Troy Tucker, Scott Ferson, Adam Finkel, and David Slavin [ISBN: 1-57331-681-4].  This title is also availabe in PDF via Blackwell Publishing.  I hear that this volume has content that will revolutionize the field.
• Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach, by M. Granger Morgan, Baruch Fischoff, Ann Bostrom, and Cynthia Atman [ISBN: 978-0521002561]
• The Perception of Risk, by Paul Slovic [ISBN: 1853835285]