Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Risk communication consists of the integrated processes and procedures that involve and inform all interested publics with the factors associated around a risk. It involves exchanging information concerning the magnitude, significance, susceptibility, and possible control or avoidance of a risk. The goal of risk communication is to provide the public with messages containing useful information about the type and magnitude of an outcome from a behavior or context. The information is to be meaningful, relevant, accurate, clear, and in comprehensible terms to the target audience. Typically, risk communication involves messages about an event or the probability of the event manifesting. Risk communication attempts to disseminate information that will prepare people for a possible threat, and then provide the steps individuals should take if that risk manifests. Regardless if the process is one-way or transactional, or whether the goal is persuasion or informational, risk communicators typically begin with a gap to be bridged between the sender's assessment of a risk and the audience's assessment of a risk.

Hazard plus Outrage Equals Risk

As a technical concept, risk and subsequent communication is the focus on how to alert the public on the probability of a harmful event, and the magnitude associated with that event. The technical assessment of a risk typically models the impact of the potential risk on human activity in terms of harm, mortality, and physical damage.

One model of risk, proposed by risk communication expert Peter Sandman and colleagues, suggests that risk communication messages should be made up of two facets: scaring people and calming people down. Stated differently, it is the use of messages for alerting and reassuring people. The model further suggests that risk communication is the attempt to create a level of outrage that is suitable to the level or hazard; therefore, the model becomes Risk = Hazard + Outrage. If the public is outraged because they don't understand the hazard, then the public needs to be educated. If they do understand the hazard, address the outrage.

Hazard can be considered the technical seriousness of a risk, while outrage is cultural seriousness. Hazard is made up of constructs such as likelihood, magnitude, fear, mortality, mobility, and dread. Outrage responses may include both specific actions and emotional factors such as need for control, trust, and responsiveness. Emotional factors include worry, concern, anxiety, or alarm; these include the suspense caused by an awareness of danger and hostility.

Such emotional factors have the potential to motivate or impede actions; therefore, clear directions must be given to facilitate appropriate outrage. The correlation between the hazard (how many people are killed by the risk) and the outrage (how many people the risk upsets) is low. A risk communication message, therefore, needs to put the public's outrage at a level that is appropriate. Then the outrage can be managed and placed at an equivalent level with the assessment of hazard. Risk communication often requires a balance between two goals that appear contradictory. The risk message must induce enough fear so that the audience will take the required action. It must also prevent panic by those faced with the risk.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading