Outrage factor explained

In public policy, outrage factor is public opposition to a policy that is not based on the knowledge of the technical details. The term "outrage factor" originates from Peter Sandman's 1993 book, Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication.[1] [2] [3]

Causes

"Outrage factors" are the emotional factors that influence perception of risk. The risks that are considered involuntary, industrial and unfair are often given more weight than factors that are thought of as voluntary, natural and fair.

Sandman gives the formula:The following are listed in Covello and Sandman's 2001 article, Risk Communication: Evolution and Revolution

FactorRisks considered to…Are less acceptable than…
Voluntariness[4] Be involuntary or imposedRisks from voluntary activities
ControllabilityBe under the control of othersRisks under individual control
FamiliarityBe unfamiliarRisks associated with familiar activities
FairnessBe unfair or involve unfair processesRisks from fair activities
BenefitsHave unclear, questionable, or diffused personal or economic benefitsRisks from activities with clear benefits
Catastrophic potentialHave the potential to cause a significant number of deaths and injuries at onceRisks from activities that cause deaths and injuries at random or over a long period of time
UnderstandingBe poorly understoodWell understood or self-explanatory risks
UncertaintyBe relatively unknown or are highly uncertainRisks from activities that appear to be relatively well known to science
Delayed effectsHave delayed effectsRisks from activities that have immediate effects
Effects on childrenPut children specifically at riskRisks that appear to primarily affect adults
Effects on future generationsPose a threat to future generationsRisks from activities that do not
Victim IdentityProduce identifiable victimsRisks that produce statistical victims
DreadEvoke fear, terror, or anxietyRisks from activities that don’t arouse such feelings and emotions
TrustBe associated with individuals, institutions, or organizations lacking in trust and credibilityRisks from activities associated with those that are trustworthy and credible
Media attentionReceive considerable media coverageRisks from activities that receive little coverage
Accident historyHave a history of major accidents or frequent minor accidentsRisks from activities with little to no such history
ReversibilityHave potentially irreversible adverse effectsRisks from activities considered to have reversible adverse effects
Personal stakePlace people or their families personally and directly at riskRisks from activities that pose no direct or personal threat
Ethical/moral natureBe ethically objectionable or morally wrongRisks from ethically neutral activities
Human vs. natural originGenerated by human action, failure, or incompetenceRisks believed to be caused by nature or “Acts of God”

Risk communications

While policy analysis by institutional stakeholders typically focuses on risk-benefit analysis and cost-benefit analysis, popular risk perception is not informed by the same concerns. The successful implementation of a policy relying on public support and cooperation must address the outrage factor when informing the public about the policy.[5]

In an interview with New York Times journalist and Freakonomics author Stephen J. Dubner, Sandman emphasized "the most important truth in risk communication is the exceedingly low correlation between whether a risk is dangerous, and whether it's upsetting".[6]

The relevance of public outrage has been acknowledged in discussions of various policy debates, including

See also

References

Bibliography

Notes and References

  1. Book: Nebel, Bernard J.. Richard T. Wright . Environmental science: the way the world works . Prentice Hall PTR. 1993 . 4th. 392–3. 0-13-285446-5.
  2. Book: Hird, John A. . Superfund: the political economy of environmental risk . JHU Press. 1994 . 70. 0-8018-4807-5.
  3. You. Myoungsoon. Ju. Youngkee. 2015-08-10. The Influence of Outrage Factors on Journalists' Gatekeeping of Health Risks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 92. 4. 959–969. en. 10.1177/1077699015596339. 147352231.
  4. Corvello. Vincent. Sandman. Peter. 2001. Risk communication: Evolution and Revolution. Solutions to an Environment in Peril.
  5. Sandman. Peter M.. 2016-11-07. Risk Communication: Facing Public Outrage. Management Communication Quarterly. en. 10.1177/0893318988002002006. 144400652.
  6. Web site: Risk = Hazard + Outrage: A Conversation with Risk Consultant Peter Sandman. Stephen J. Dubner. Stephen J. Dubner. 2011-11-29.
  7. Book: Williams, David R. . What is safe?: the risks of living in a nuclear age . Royal Society of Chemistry. 1998 . 39. 0-85404-569-4.
  8. Book: Kayyem, Juliette. Robyn L. Pangi . First to arrive: state and local responses to terrorism . MIT Press. 2003 . BCSIA studies in international security. 68. 0-262-61195-3.
  9. Book: Milloy, Steven J. . Science without sense: the risky business of public health research . Cato Institute. 1995 . 8. 1-882577-34-5.
  10. Book: David, Pencheon . David Melzer . Charles Guest . Muir Gray . Muir Gray . Oxford handbook of public health practice . Oxford University Press. 2006 . 2nd. Oxford handbooks. 221. 0-19-856655-7.