Peter Sandman, Ph.D., is one of the world’s leading authorities on risk communication (and safety communication), based in Princeton, N.J. Much of his work on how to alert apathetic people to serious risks; how to reassure upset people about small risks; and how to guide upset people through serious risks can be found on his Web site, www.psandman.com and in videos and books published by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Comments on this article can be sent to peter@psandman.com.
A claim from an organization that it is doing “everything possible” to “ensure” that its operations are “safe” is always false – empty-headed at best, intentionally dishonest at worst.
I’m currently working with an outrage management issue and would to ask you what you would do. The majority of people in a local community I am working with would like us to do a fuel reduction burn to reduce the fuel hazards surrounding their township. There are a small group of “fanatics” that are quite passionate about stopping the burning in this space.
I am familiar with the “delivering bad news” pointers that are already here on your website. But I was wondering about “bad news” when it is not about hazard – for example when a decision is made to not implement the community’s desires for a local building to be in a certain spot (for various reasons, some of which are very good, others of which aren’t!).
It’s a basic tenet of risk perception that people tend to take a risk seriously or shrug it off mostly in response to factors like familiarity, control, trust, dread, and responsiveness – factors I have labeled collectively the “outrage factors.”
This past April, a retired teacher posted this comment on risk communication expert Peter Sandman’s Guestbook on his web site www.psandman.com/gst2011.htm#children.
This blog comes from the Guestbook discussion board on risk communication expert Dr. Peter Sandman's website www.psandman.com and is reprinted here with Dr. Sandman's permission.
