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.
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 Factor Risks considered to… Are less acceptable than…VoluntarinessBe involuntary or imposedRisks from voluntary activitiesControllabilityBe under the control of othersRisks under individual controlFamiliarityBe unfamiliarRisks associated with familiar activitiesFairnessBe unfair or involve unfair processesRisks from fair activitiesBenefitsHave unclear, questionable, or diffused personal or economic benefitsRisks from activities with clear benefitsCatastrophic 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 timeUnderstandingBe poorly understoodWell understood or self-explanatory risksUncertaintyBe relatively unknown or are highly uncertainRisks from activities that appear to be relatively well known to scienceDelayed effectsHave delayed effectsRisks from activities that have immediate effectsEffects on childrenPut children specifically at riskRisks that appear to primarily affect adultsEffects on future generationsPose a threat to future generationsRisks from activities that do notVictim IdentityProduce identifiable victimsRisks that produce statistical victimsDreadEvoke fear, terror, or anxietyRisks from activities that don’t arouse such feelings and emotionsTrustBe associated with individuals, institutions, or organizations lacking in trust and credibilityRisks from activities associated with those that are trustworthy and credibleMedia attentionReceive considerable media coverageRisks from activities that receive little coverageAccident historyHave a history of major accidents or frequent minor accidentsRisks from activities with little to no such historyReversibilityHave potentially irreversible adverse effectsRisks from activities considered to have reversible adverse effectsPersonal stakePlace people or their families personally and directly at riskRisks from activities that pose no direct or personal threatEthical/moral natureBe ethically objectionable or morally wrongRisks from ethically neutral activitiesHuman 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.
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".
The relevance of public outrage has been acknowledged in discussions of various policy debates, including
nuclear safety. terrorism. public health. environmental management.
See also Cultural theory of risk Risk aversion Risk perception Worry
References
Bibliography