This page lists all my video and audio risk communication materials – a convenient resource for people who are looking for something to play for a group, or who would rather watch and listen than read. I have a big stack of video and audio recordings – mostly of client presentations – that are not currently online. Over time, I plan to sort through these and post the ones that I think add the most value (and that don’t reveal client confidences). I’ll also try to add new ones when I do a presentation or give an interview that covers material not already covered. I have been far too print-focused for far too long.
Topical Sections in
the Video and Audio List
The list is not organized chronologically, as the other content lists on this website are. Instead, it is organized by topic. And within each topic area, it is in order of my best guess at what people are going to want to watch or listen to – with the most valuable selections for each topic area at the top, and the “just in case you’re interested” ones at the bottom.
Introduction and Orientation
Outrage Management Course
Presented to the Rio Tinto mining company, Brisbane, Australia, September 16–17, 2010
The clips below are from the first half-day of the two-day course, and constitute a broad introduction to risk communication. Later clips focus specifically on outrage management.
1. Risk = Hazard + Outrage
This video clip outlines the fundamental distinction between a risk’s “hazard” (how much harm it’s likely to do) and its “outrage” (how upset it’s likely to make people). The selection emphasizes that both hazard perception and hazard response result more from outrage than from hazard.
Two short excerpts from this clip have been posted on YouTube (more or less as advertisements for the clip, and the course as a whole).
2. Components of Outrage and a Sample Outrage Assessment
This video clip runs through the twelve principal components of outrage (voluntary versus coerced, natural versus industrial, etc.). Then it illustrates these components with a seat-of-the-pants “outrage assessment” of genetically modified food.
3. Three Paradigms of Risk Communication
This video clip outlines the three main paradigms of risk communication: precaution advocacy (when hazard is high and outrage is low); outrage management (when hazard is low and outrage is high); and crisis communication (when hazard and outrage are both high).
4. Three Risk Communication “Games”
This video clip describes three risk communication “games”: follow-the-leader (when you’re talking to an audience with no prior opinion); donkey (when you’re talking to an audience whose prior opinion you’re trying to change); and above all seesaw (when your audience is ambivalent, torn between the opinion you’re championing and an opposing opinion).
Quantitative Risk Communication: Explaining the Data
Produced by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1994
In my approach to risk communication, explaining the data is secondary; addressing outrage – raising it, reducing it, or helping people cope with it – is what’s crucial. Nonetheless, the time comes in most risk communication efforts when you’ve got to explain the data. This studio-produced 1994 video focuses on three key aspects of quantitative risk communication:
- Motivation – getting people to want to understand the data
- Simplification – making the data understandable
- Orientation – keeping people from getting lost
There’s also some discussion of how to address uncertainty and how to handle risk comparisons.
(This video was produced in 1994 by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. It went out of print in 2007. With AIHA’s permission, the entire video is now available free of charge online.)
Atomic Show #205 – Peter Sandman teaches nuclear communicators
Podcast for the “Atomic Insights” website, May 31, 2013 (with Rod Adams, Margaret Harding, Meredith Angwin, and Suzy Hobbs-Baker)
Rod Adams runs a website called “Atomic Insights” that promotes nuclear power. In early May 2013 he discovered my approach to outrage management, and put posts on his own website and on an American Nuclear Society website urging nuclear power proponents to learn outrage management. The responses to his two posts led Rod to invite me to do this podcast.
The podcast itself runs 1 hour and 42 minutes. Most of it is a basic introduction to risk communication and then to outrage management: the hazard-versus-outrage distinction, the components of outrage, the three paradigms of risk communication, the key strategies of outrage management, etc. But I did try to focus especially on what the nuclear power industry and its supporters get wrong – for example, imagining that their core communication mistake is failing to sell their strengths effectively, whereas I believe it is failing to acknowledge their problems candidly. There are recommendations for nuclear communication throughout the podcast, and a Q&A at the end with Rod and fellow proponents Margaret Harding, Meredith Angwin, and Suzy Hobbs-Baker. The plan is to follow up with a second podcast, a more narrowly focused roundtable discussion among the five of us on nuclear power outrage management.
Risk = Hazard + Outrage: Risk Communication Briefing for IT Security Professionals
Presented at the Oracle Chief Security Officer Summit, San Francisco CA, October 4, 2011
Some Oracle people had heard me speak at a conference on financial information security (for bank IT people, mostly), and asked me to do something similar for its 2011 annual IT security “summit.” The presentation does give occasional IT examples, but mostly it’s an introduction to the basics of risk communication – especially the hazard-versus-outrage distinction and the three main risk communication paradigms (precaution advocacy, crisis communication, and outrage management). As usual, audience interest focused mostly on outrage management – especially how to calm stakeholders after a breach that turned out minor. They were less interested in how to arouse stakeholder concern about the possibility of a serious breach, a precaution advocacy issue – though arousing CEO concern had some appeal.
Risk Communication in Healthcare Settings Podcasts
Taped for the British Columbia (Canada) Provincial Health Services Authority and Vancouver Coastal Health, February 15, 2011
This was a 50-minute telephone interview later divided into four podcasts. Although the intended audience was healthcare managers, the first two podcasts barely mention healthcare, and are really generic. The third and fourth podcasts focus more on healthcare examples, and are listed below in the “Infectious Diseases” section.
1. Introduction to Risk Communication
This audio clip distinguishes the terms “risk communication,” “risk assessment,” and “crisis communication”; describes the fundamental risk communication distinction between hazard and outrage; and uses that distinction to define the three paradigms of risk communication. It ends with a discussion of how to measure outrage.
2. Three Paradigms of Risk Communication
This audio clip discusses some key strategies associated with each of the three paradigms of risk communication: precaution advocacy (high hazard, low outrage), outrage management (low hazard, high outrage), and crisis communication (high hazard, high outrage). It emphasizes the need to assess – and continually reassess – which paradigm is called for by the specific communication environment you face.
Interview with Dr. Peter Sandman
by Andrew Findlater
Posted on the National Public Relations website, March 9, 2009
Note: This is the shortest audio introduction to my approach to risk communication. Naturally I prefer the longer ones.
Canadian PR firm National Public Relations was one of the sponsors that brought me to Vancouver in March 2009 to give a two-day risk communication seminar (jointly with my wife and colleague Jody Lanard), organized by the University of British Columbia. As part of the event, the company taped this seven-minute interview with me on the basics of my “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” formula. The tape was posted (and labeled a “podcast”) on the National Public Relations website, and the link was emailed to conference participants and National Public Relations clients. It’s no longer on the National Public Relations site, so I have posted it here.
Food Safety Risk Communications
Presented at the Maple Leaf Food Safety Symposium, Mississauga Canada, October 23, 2009
Note: This audio clip covers much the same ground as the Rio Tinto video clips listed above – but of course it’s much, much shorter and less detailed.
In August 2008, Listeria contamination in Maple Leaf packaged deli meats killed 21 elderly consumers, one of the largest food poisoning disasters in Canadian history. As one small part of its recovery efforts, Maple Leaf Foods sponsored a food safety symposium in October 2009, bringing together producers, retailers, and regulators to talk about lessons learned and ways to protect against Listeria. My presentation on “Food Safety Risk Communication” was inserted as respite from the technical material in most of the other speeches. I did my usual introduction to hazard versus outrage and the kinds of risk communication, and then offered a few food-specific examples (until I ran out of time). Audience comments and questions weren’t recorded; that’s what the occasional moments of dead air are.
Fundamentals of risk communication: How to talk to patients and the public about pandemic H1N1
Presented to the European Respiratory Society international conference, Vienna, Austria, September 14, 2009
Note: This audio clip covers much the same ground as the Rio Tinto video clips listed above – but of course it’s much, much shorter and less detailed.
The European Respiratory Society invited me give a 20-minute presentation on pandemic communication at its annual conference, as part of a panel on various aspects of pandemic H1N1. I pleaded for an extra hour right afterwards to go into more detail for those who wanted it. Some 20,000 respiratory disease doctors attended the conference; roughly 2,000 of them were at the panel; about 200 followed me to a smaller room for my extra hour (which I did jointly with my wife and colleague Jody Lanard, an M.D.). Only the panel presentation is posted on the ERS website. It’s mostly an introduction to the basics of risk communication (hazard versus outrage; precaution advocacy versus outrage management versus crisis communication), with some quick comments on the implications for pandemic communication. The meat was in the hour that followed, which unfortunately wasn’t recorded.
Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication: Alerting, Reassuring, Guiding
Presented to the National Public Health Information Coalition, Miami Beach FL, October 21, 2009
Although this six-hour seminar was entitled “Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication,” NPHIC asked me to go easy on the “radiological” part and give participants a broad introduction to my approach to risk communication, mentioning radiation issues from time to time. So that’s what I did.
Fair warning: These are not professional videos. NPHIC member Joe Rebele put a camera in the back of the room and let it run. You won’t lose much listening to the MP3 audio files on this site instead.
- Part One (90 min.)
Despite its poor production values, Part One is a decent introduction to the hazard-versus-outrage distinction and the three paradigms of risk communication.
- Part Two (155 min.)
If you’re interested, Part Two starts with 20 minutes or so on the seesaw and other risk communication games (thus completing the introductory segment). The rest of Part Two spends a little over an hour each on some key strategies of precaution advocacy and outrage management.
- Part Three (72 min.)
Part Three is devoted to strategies of crisis communication.
Precaution Advocacy
Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication: Alerting, Reassuring, Guiding
Presented to the National Public Health Information Coalition, Miami Beach FL, October 21, 2009
Although this six-hour seminar was entitled “Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication,” NPHIC asked me to go easy on the “radiological” part and give participants a broad introduction to my approach to risk communication, mentioning radiation issues from time to time. So that’s what I did.
Fair warning: These are not professional videos. NPHIC member Joe Rebele put a camera in the back of the room and let it run. You won’t lose much listening to the MP3 audio files on this site instead.
- Part Two (155 min.)
Despite its poor production values, Part Two includes a little over an hour on some key strategies of precaution advocacy. It’s preceded by about 20 minutes on the seesaw and other risk communication games, and followed by an hour or so on outrage management strategies. I have better videos posted on the games and on outrage management, but until I find a better segment to post on precaution advocacy, this one is better than nothing.
- Part One (90 min.)
If you’re interested, Part One is an introduction to the hazard-versus-outrage distinction and the three paradigms of risk communication.
- Part Three (72 min.)
Part Three is devoted to strategies of crisis communication.
Climate Change Risk Communication: Outrage Management, Not Just Precaution Advocacy
Taped for Freakonomics Radio, July 25, 2011
This was a 48-minute telephone interview with Stephen Dubner, for a Freakonomics Radio program (and podcast) on climate change. The interview never made it into the program/podcast, but excerpts were added to the Freakonomics website on November 29, 2011. The first 17 minutes of the interview are generic – Risk Communication 101, basically. The rest is grounded mostly in my 2009 column on “Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial,” though Dubner periodically pushed me to speculate on new aspects of the topic. My main argument: Climate change risk communicators are good at informing and scaring apathetic people, but need an entirely different strategy – something more like outrage management – for people who are in denial about climate change.
Denial near and far
Broadcast on PRI’s “The World,” November 21, 2008
Radio reporter Jason Margolis of “The World” attended a conference of global climate change skeptics, decided they were more deniers than actual skeptics, and ended up with a 10-minute story on climate change denial. I was one of several experts he quoted to explore the reasons why so many people have trouble facing the threat of global warming. In our interview, I focused on some ways activist communications may unwittingly encourage audience denial. Jason used the part on guilt – on why telling people their lifestyle is destroying the earth may not be the best way to inspire them to action. My views are elaborated further in a 2009 column on “Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial.”
Outrage Management
Outrage Management Course
Presented to the Rio Tinto mining company, Brisbane, Australia, September 16–17, 2010
In September 2010 I did a two-day outrage management seminar in Brisbane, Australia for the Rio Tinto mining company. With the company’s permission, I edited out all references to specific Rio Tinto controversies, and arranged what was left into a coherent sequence of twelve clips, starting with the basic “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” formula and ending with the organizational barriers to following the outrage management principles. Clips #1, #3, and #4 are listed in the “Introduction and Orientation“ section. All twelve are listed in sequence in my “Peter Sandman on Risk Communication” channel on Vimeo.
- 2. Components of Outrage and a Sample Outrage Assessment
This video clip runs through the twelve principal components of outrage (voluntary versus coerced, natural versus industrial, etc.). Then it illustrates these components with a seat-of-the-pants “outrage assessment” of genetically modified food.
- 5. First Outrage Management Strategy: Stake out the Middle
This video clip addresses one key outrage management strategy: staking out the middle ground by acknowledging your opponents’ best arguments right along with your own best arguments. A short excerpt from this clip has been posted on YouTube (more or less as an advertisement for the clip, and the course as a whole).
- 6. Second Outrage Management Strategy: Acknowledge Prior Misbehavior
This selection addresses one key outrage management strategy: acknowledging and apologizing for your prior misbehaviors and errors. A short excerpt from this clip has been posted on YouTube (more or less as an advertisement for the clip, and the course as a whole).
- 7. Third Outrage Management Strategy: Acknowledge Current Problems
This video clip addresses one key outrage management strategy: acknowledging your current problems.
- 8. Fourth Outrage Management Strategy: Give Away the Credit
This selection addresses one key outrage management strategy: giving credit to your critics for improvements they pushed.
- 9. Fifth Outrage Management Strategy: Share Control and Be Accountable
This selection addresses two key outrage management strategies: sharing control with stakeholders, and (when you’re unable or unwilling to share control) setting up accountability mechanisms so stakeholders can at least watch and criticize.
- 10. Sixth Outrage Management Strategy: Get the Underlying Issues into the Room
This selection addresses one key outrage management strategy: getting underlying issues and motivations (such as greed and ego) at least “into the room,” if not actually on the table.
- 11. Four Kinds of Stakeholders
This selection introduces the four kinds of stakeholders (fanatics, attentives, browsers, and inattentives), and outlines the very different outrage management goals for each.
- 12. Organizational Barriers to Outrage Management
This selection addresses the internal barriers organizations must surmount to enable them to implement the strategies discussed in previous segments.
and how to deal with them. These days I talk more about generic outrage management strategies, and less about these component-specific strategies. (Note that I’m using the original files from the AIHA DVD; some of the “parts” begin and end arbitrarily.)
