Dr Peter
Sandman is a risk communication specialist and a prominent international
consultant with regards to outrage and crisis management. He is well
known for his conceptual formula ‘Risk = Hazard + Outrage’ and he is
always trying to educate the public on the relationship between hazard
and outrage.
Hazard refers to how much harm a risk
actually does and outrage denotes how much upset people get about it.
The most striking feature about the relationship is their abysmally low
correlation, which in a numerical figure amounts to about 0.2. In
simpler words, the risks that actually harm people and the risks that
upset people are unrelated to each other. If you know what harms people,
you cannot say if people are upset about it. If people are upset about
something, you know nothing about how dangerous it really is. This low
correlation applies to all sorts of harms, be they medical, ecological
or economic.
In contrast to actual hazard, outrage is
associated with a perceived hazard, that is, what people think to be
detrimental. Sandman discusses the interesting question of what causes
what. Do people get upset about something because they think it is
dangerous, or does something appear hazardous to them because they are
upset? The reality is that it is a cyclical process; the arrow of
causality goes both ways, but it is also true that one of these arrows
is strong and the other is weak. Surprisingly, or perhaps
unsurprisingly, the stronger direction of causality is from outrage to
perceived hazard. People tend to believe something is hazardous because
they’re upset about it.
Understanding this dynamic is
important if we wish to alter the state of affairs. If you try to
correct the hazard perception, the outrage will be minimally reduced.
People will respond with denial or they will alter the hazard perception
in such a way as to counter your correction, and they will remain
upset. The best way to reduce perceived hazard in cases where actual
hazard is low is to try to calm people down. This is outrage management.
On the other hand, if the perceived hazard is low and the actual hazard
is high, people need to be made more upset to take the matter
seriously.
I am frequently reminded of Dr Sandman’s work,
as our country is very fond of sudden outrage, and this becomes all the
more pertinent as we approach the upcoming elections. Media and
journalists play the eager role of amplifying this vicious cycle of
indignation and hazard misperception, while we lack any public
specialists who may help bring any semblance of sanity and balance to
it.
To take a prominent example, the actual hazard of
blasphemy is practically non-existent, yet the outrage it evokes is
volcanic. The actual hazard of factory safety conditions is alarmingly
high, but the outrage is proportionately very low. Recently, a Pakistani
blogger who goes by the name of ‘Sky is Neela’ analysed the available
terrorism data and showed that the Karachi terrorists have killed
approximately the same number of people as have been killed by suicide
bombings and drone attacks combined, yet the associated public and
political outrage is highly unequal.
With regards to the
coming elections, both the masses and the intellectuals appear to be
very concerned with the ideological leanings of the political parties in
deciding who to vote for, however, to my mind, the actual top
priorities should be policies related to health, education, energy and
economics, but hardly anyone ever talks about them.
The
political parties and media have vested interests in this disproportion
between hazard and outrage because they utilise the outrage to garner
more political support and sell their newspapers respectively. Risk
communication can be made effective only if the media, intellectuals and
politicians act selflessly to determine the actual dangers that
threaten our country and communicate them to the public, while at the
same time managing their outrage in matters where it is not warranted.
However, given our national lifelong love for hysterical theatrics in
matters of politics, the prospects are but despairing.
The writer is a doctor based in Lahore. Email: awaisaftab@gmail.com;