[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-564858-105":53,"doc-detail-564858-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","responding-to-community-outrage-strategies-for-effective-risk-communication","Responding to Community Outrage - Strategies for Effective Risk Communication","","Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication by Peter M. Sandman explores how risk perception diverges between experts and the public, using the Hazard versus Outrage model. It explains why technical risk managers often overlook social factors such as fairness, control, and dread, and how communication must account for “publics” rather than treating the public as a single audience. The foreword outlines the speech’s evolution and the need for listening to understand what different groups want to hear.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":11,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/presentations/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/responding-to-community-outrage-strategies-for-effective-risk-communication/564858/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/responding-to-community-outrage-strategies-for-effective-risk-communication/564858.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"moss~","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-10-12",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":76},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What distinction does Sandman make in the Hazard versus Outrage model?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"He contrasts “hazard” concerns that worry experts with “outrage” concerns that worry the public, reframing the earlier “Apathy Versus Hysteria” distinction.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why does the book criticize talking about “the public” as one group?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"It argues that different publics hold different perspectives, so risk discussions should focus on group-specific communication rather than one generalized audience.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What does the foreword say is central to effective risk communication?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"Learning to listen better is emphasized as more central than learning to explain better, since what an audience thinks cannot be known until questions are asked.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},564858,1792390426,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":8,"category_name":11,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":76,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":141},962090895452,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","iii  \nResponding to  \nCommunity  \nOutrage:  \nStrategies for Effective  \nRisk Communication  \nby  \nPeter M. Sandman, Ph.D.  \nISBN 0-932627-51-X  \n© 2012  \nFirst published in 1993 by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Copyright transferred to the author, Peter M. Sandman, in 2012.  \nThe full text of this book is online at:  \n[http://psandman.com/media/RespondingtoCommunityOutrage.pdf](http://psandman.com/media/RespondingtoCommunityOutrage.pdf).  \nAdditional (and more current) risk communication material by Peter Sandman, including videos, can be found at The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Website [at](at www.psandman.com)[ ](at www.psandman.com)[www.psandman.com](at www.psandman.com).  \nCreative Commons License  \nResponding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication by Peter M. Sandman, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialNoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.  \nPermissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at [http://psandman.com/](http://psandman.com/) .  \niv  \nForeword  \nhis book is an elaboration of a speech I started giving in 1985,  \nfocusing on aspects of risk that kept turning up as important in social science studies of risk perception, but that technical risk managers tended to ignore. The speech was originally entitled “Apathy Versus Hysteria” and used factors such as control, fairness, and dread to define the distinction between risks that people were inclined to underestimate and risks they were inclined to overestimate. By 1987, however, it was clear that the distinction of consuming importance to industry and government risk managers was slightly different: the risks that worry the experts as opposed to the risks that worry the public. I chose the terms “hazard” and “outrage” to represent, respectively, the experts’and citizens’preoccupations in looking at risk, andrecast “Apathy Versus Hysteria” as “Hazard Versus Outrage.”  \nHealth and safety educators had long worried about how to persuade an apathetic public to take risks seriously enough. But the parallel problem of what to do when the public is excessively concerned was newly central to risk managers in government and industry. The “Hazard Versus Outrage” model provided an answer that seemed to make sense of experiences risk managers had found disturbingly senseless. It helped them see where their view of risk and the public was on target and where it was mistaken, and it suggested solutions they had not previously considered.  \nBetween 1987 and 1992, I presented variations on this speech perhaps 200 times, an average of nearly once a week. I published  \nv  \nshort articles based on the concept (the first of these—“Risk Communication: Facing Public Outrage”—was published in EPA Journal in November 1987), but resisted publishing a full-length version—in part because the ideas kept changing, and in part because giving the speech was earning me a considerable income.  \nThe ideas are still changing and the speech is still profitable, but it feels increasingly silly to keep “Hazard Versus Outrage” essentially unpublished. In early 1991, I joined with the American Industrial Hygiene Association to produce a 2-hour videotape version of the speech, entitled “Risk = Hazard + Outrage: A Formula for Effective Risk Communication.”* This book began with a transcript of the videotape; then I added more examples, new thinking drawn largely from my consulting, and a new second half dealing with the cognitive, organizational, and psychological barriers to risk communication. Publication of this book will complete the job of getting “Hazard Versus Outrage” out.  \n“The Public,”“You,” and Other Gross Generalizations  \nThroughout this book, I refer rather glibly to “the public,” as if all publics were the same; and to “you”(the reader), as if all readers of this book were the same—and as if readers of this book were somehow not members of the public. It is awfully convenient to do this. But it is wrong.  \nF","cbCaianlNhtMKbWt","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaianlNhtMKbWt","pdf",2554087,155,"English","# Foreword\n## Apathy Versus Hysteria - Hazard Versus Outrage\n## The public and listening\n## The reader as an official","[{\"question\":\"What distinction does Sandman make in the Hazard versus Outrage model?\",\"answer\":\"He contrasts “hazard” concerns that worry experts with “outrage” concerns that worry the public, reframing the earlier “Apathy Versus Hysteria” distinction.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the book criticize talking about “the public” as one group?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that different publics hold different perspectives, so risk discussions should focus on group-specific communication rather than one generalized audience.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the foreword say is central to effective risk communication?\",\"answer\":\"Learning to listen better is emphasized as more central than learning to explain better, since what an audience thinks cannot be known until questions are asked.\"}]","Responding to Community Outrage - Strategies for Effective Risk Communication | PDF",1791844624,54]