Risk, Individual Assumption of

Risk Equals Hazard plus Outrage

One recent and widely cited perspective proposed by risk communication expert Peter Sandman and colleagues Paul Miller, Branden Johnston, and Neil Weinstein, suggests that information pertaining to a disaster should ideally induce levels of both knowledge acquisition and affective response that are appropriate given the parameters of the disaster in question.

This is conceptually expressed though the formula Risk = Hazard + Outrage. They argue that if the public does not understand the nature of a risk, then it needs to be educated. If it understands the extent of the risk, then an appropriate degree of negative effect must be induced; enough to motivate action, but not so much as to make the situation appear hopeless or dire, thus leading to antisocial behavior.

Sandman further explicates hazard as the technical assessment of a risk, while classifying outrage as a kind of cultural assessment. In considering this factor independently, it is critical to note that the correlation between hazard and outrage following a disaster may actually be quite low. In this sense, Sandman and colleagues argue [Page 610]that risk assessment may be composed of both cognitive and affective responses to information.

From this explanation, four potential categories of risk assessment emerge that may be applicable to disaster scenarios. First, it is possible for a risk to present great potential for harm, but fail to upset many; this is described as high hazard/low outrage risk. Second, there are risks that cause great concern, when in actuality the risk of harm is quite low; this may lead affected public to take unnecessary precautions, and is qualified as a low hazard/high outrage risk. Ideally, information concerning disasters and other crises should induce enough fear that the audience will correctly assess risk and take appropriate actions, but not so much fear as to induce antisocial behavior. Third, risks may be high in potential harm, and create outrage among those affected; Sandman characterizes this as high hazard/high outrage. While strong outrage responses to a threat such as a disaster are often ideal, emergency managers must still find ways to prevent overreactions. Finally, there are low hazard/low outrage risks; these events pose little actual threat, and fail to upset many.

As a model, Risk=Hazard+Outrage differs from past models of risk assessment, such as the Crisis Emergency and Risk Communication (CERC) model, the Public Opinion Model, and Situational Crisis Communication Theory. It also deviates from past risk communication scholarship, which has focused largely on fear. Other research approaches that have primarily focused on fear are limited by variation across individuals in terms of what may invoke fear, the extent to which fear actually leads to the assumption of risk, and the extent to which the assumption of risk translates into action. Further, much of this scholarship rests implicitly on the assumption that any negative emotion can be qualified as fear.

...