Peter Sandman Website logo

  

bar

Index of Web-Available
Articles by Peter Sandman

Articles in order by date
or jump to year:

2008 2007
2005–2006 2003 – 2004
2000 – 2002 1990 – 1999
1980 – 1989 1970 – 1979

(Go to Columns Index)

Help redesign Peter’s website

We’re finally bringing this website up to the 21st century.

If you have suggestions, if there is something that would help you find what you need or find your way around the site, or if there is something that you’d like to see, please email:    redesign@psandman.com
Thanks in advance for your help.

— Elenor Snow, Peter’s webmaster

bar
arrow to top

2008

ball Handling explosive emotions demands five acts of empathy
Excerpted and edited for ISHN by Dave Johnson
Published in ISHN (Industrial Safety & Hygiene News), May 2008, pp. 1, 24, 26.

Dave Johnson, the editor of ISHN, admired my website column on “Empathy in Risk Communication.” But of course it was much too long for him to republish. So he excerpted the less complicated sections, made a few editing and formatting changes, and came up with a shorter, more accessible article.

 

bar
arrow to top

2007

ball Video and Audiotapes on Pandemic Precaution Advocacy
Presented to the Texas Department of State Health Services, August 20, 2007.

On August 20, 2007, I gave a five-hour pandemic communication seminar to the Texas Department of State Health Services. The focus was on how to persuade an apathetic public to take pandemic preparedness seriously – that is, on precaution advocacy. There is no transcript available. But the seminar was webstreamed to health department offices throughout the state, and the webstream videos are available online in both audio and video formats. The picture quality is pretty bad (and there’s not much to see anyway), but the audio is okay. And I think these tapes are useful if you’re trying to arouse public concern about pandemics … or anything else.

There are three tapes. Part One has three segments of roughly 30 minutes apiece: “Pandemic 101: The Four Faces of Bird Flu”; “Risk Communication 101: Hazard, Outrage, and the Four Kinds of Risk Communication”; and “Assessing the Public’s Mood: Apathetic? Burnt Out? Skeptical? Yet to Hear?” Part Two is a 75-minute segment entitled “Selling Pandemic Preparedness” – my effort to list core strategies of pandemic precaution advocacy. Part Three is mostly an hour-long practitioner panel on “What’s Working and What’s Not,” with my interpolated comments. There is periodic audience discussion on all three tapes.

Systems requirements to access the videos are: (a) Windows Media Player 10 or better; and (b) Internet Explorer 6.0 or better. Access to the tapes is not user-friendly. It took me several tries. Here are some instructions.

ball Understanding the Risk: What Frightens Rarely Kills  Icon for pdf
From the edited transcript of a conference on pandemic media coverage, published in Nieman Reports, vol. 61, no. 1, Spring 2007.

For three days starting 30 November 2006, Harvard University’s Nieman Foundation for Journalism ran a conference on how the news media cover (and should cover) the risk of an influenza pandemic. I spoke twice, a stand-alone presentation on “Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Risk Reporting: The Role of Each in Pandemic Preparedness” and a panel presentation on “Fear of Fear and Panic Panic: Is It Okay to Scare People about Pandemics?” The two were abridged and combined into one article when Nieman Reports published an edited transcript in Spring 2007. As compiled by the Nieman Foundation, the published article focuses on two topics – the four kinds of risk communication as applied to pandemic risk and the importance of fear in pandemic preparedness. The entire edited conference transcript is also available online. For the (nearly) unedited transcripts of the two presentations, see below.

ball Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Risk Reporting: The Role of Each in Pandemic Preparedness
Originally presented at a conference on “Avian Flu, a Pandemic & the Role of Journalists,” Nieman Foundation for Journalism, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, December 1, 2006.

An abridged version  Icon for pdf of this presentation was published in the Spring 2007 issue of Nieman Reports (see the previous entry). The Nieman Foundation for Journalism also made the original transcript available to me. I edited it very lightly so it makes sense – but it's still very much a transcript, not a polished article.

ball Understanding Human Responses [to pandemic risk]: Communication Focus
With Howard Koh, Glen Nowak, and Dick Thompson
Panel discussion at a conference on “Avian Flu, a Pandemic & the Role of Journalists,” Nieman Foundation for Journalism, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, December 2, 2006.

I was joined in this panel discussion by three experienced risk communication practitioners, Howard Koh, Glen Nowak, and Dick Thompson. My contribution was entitled “Fear of Fear and Panic Panic: Is It Okay to Scare People about Pandemics?” An abridged version of my presentation and a tiny bit of the Q&A were published in the Spring 2007 issue of Nieman Reports (look two entries up). The Nieman Foundation for Journalism also made the original panel discussion transcript available to me, very slightly edited by them. I edited my parts a bit more thoroughly, though it’s still very much a transcript, not a polished article. I left other people’s presentations and comments alone – so blame any garbles on the transcription process, not the speakers. The conversation ranged widely over the various challenges of pandemic communication.

bar
arrow to top

2005–2006

ball Globalization, Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability
Excerpts from a 2006 “Forum” dialogue sponsored by SustainAbility.

I am a member of the external “faculty” of a U.K.-based consultancy called SustainAbility, a leader in advising companies and governments on what founder John Elkington calls the “triple bottom line” of environmental, social, and economic sustainability. For several months in mid-2006, SustainAbility fostered an exchange of emails among its faculty on globalization and its likely impacts (good and bad) on sustainability and corporate responsibility. Excerpts from that dialogue have now been posted on the SustainAbility website. It’s a bit distant from my usual risk communication turf, but for those who are interested, some of my remarks are included in the excerpts for Questions 2, 3, 4, and 5.

ballRecent H5N1 Outbreaks: The Evolving Challenge of Defining and Communicating Pandemic Risk  Icon for pdf
Transcript of a June 22, 2006 teleconference sponsored by Bio Economic Research Associates.

As part of its pandemic preparedness consulting business, Bio Economic Research Associates (“bio-era”) conducts periodic teleconferences for clients and prospective clients. Its June 2006 session featured an illustrated presentation by Jim Newcomb of bio-era, with a detailed update on bird flu developments and pandemic risks. But bio-era managed to squeeze in three other speakers — United Nations pandemic coordinator David Nabarro, the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Billy Karesh, and me. My piece runs from page 23 to page 27. It focuses on the different “kinds” of bird flu/pandemic flu problems, but also includes my answers to questions about how companies should talk about these problems — how restaurants should talk to their customers about bird flu and how manufacturers should talk to their employees about pandemics.
(Please note that the article is a 4.7-MB Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file located on this site.)

ball Crisis Communication Best Practices: Some Quibbles and Additions  Icon for pdf
Published in the Journal of Applied Communication Research, vol. 34, no. 3, August 2006, pp. 257–262.

Since 2004 I have been working with the U.S. Government-funded National Center for Food Protection and Defense at the University of Minnesota. One of the projects I worked on was an effort to develop a set of consensus “best practices” in crisis communication. Matthew Seeger wrote up the results in an article entitled “Best Practices in Crisis Communication: An Expert Panel Process.” I got a second bite of the apple when I was asked to write one of four commentaries on Seeger's article. My commentary, posted here with permission, focuses on some things I think the group missed or got wrong: the importance of fear and other emotions, the need to trust and respect the public, and the over-emphasis on message consistency. Seeger's article and the other commentaries are available online from the publisher, but only if you pay. A much less detailed PowerPoint on the ten best practices  Icon for pdf is available without charge.

(Please note, the title link opens an Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file (57 kB) located on this site. The latter two links go to other sites.)

ball    What Motivates Companies  Icon for pdf — Interview with Peter Sandman (Part 1)
Worst Case Scenarios, Bird Flu, and Risk Perception  Icon for pdf — Interview with Peter Sandman (Part 2)

 Both published in safety AT WORK, December 2005, pp. 7–10 and January 2006, pp. 4–10.

In November 2005 I did a two-hour interview in Melbourne with Kevin Jones, editor of Safety at Work, a monthly electronic magazine published out of Australia but distributed worldwide. We covered an extremely wide range of topics — from whether the mining industry is serious about safety (and why it so often sounds like it isn’t) to how to talk about worst case scenarios like a severe influenza pandemic to why I put everything I can on my website and don’t trademark anything. I imagined that Kevin would edit out the boring parts and organize the nuggets. But instead he used the whole two hours verbatim.

The Part 1 Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file (218 kB) and the Part 2 Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file (387 kB) are located on this site.)

ball Selling Safety: Business Case or Values Case  Icon for pdf
Published in The Synergist, December 2005, pp. 30–35.

I have long argued that corporate environmental performance is better “sold” to stakeholders as a response to pressure than as a self-motivated commitment to the environment; I think claiming to be responsive is both truer and more credible than claiming to be responsible. In this article I make the same case about “selling” safety to employees. When management says it cares more about safety than productivity or profit, I argue, employees are likely to conclude that safety rules have more to do with company PR than company policy, and may “loyally” rather than rebelliously disobey. The article also discusses why both safety professionals and top corporate managers enjoy making a values case for safety, and resist making the business case I think they should make. This Adobe Acrobat (.pdf; 593 kB) file is located on this site.

ball Risk Communications During a Terrorist Attack or Other Public Health Emergency  Icon for pdf
Published in Terrorism and Other Public Health Emergencies: A Reference Guide for the Media (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2005), Chapter 11, pp. 184–193.

I have a two-page “essay” in this chapter (pp. 190–191) entitled “Public Reactions to Crisis Situations and Communication Implications,” which covers yet again material that is presented in more detail in “Beyond Panic Prevention: Addressing Emotion in Emergency Communication.” Icon for pdf The rest of the chapter (on which I collaborated) is worth reading for its advice to journalists on how the public and the official sources are likely to cope with a terrorism crisis. The rest of the manual Icon for pdf is mostly about biological, chemical, and radiological threats and the government agencies that try to address them.

ball Risk Communication Before and During Epidemics
Presentation at “Bulls, Bears, and Birds: Preparing the Financial Industry for a Pandemic,” a September 23, 2005 New York City conference sponsored by the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC, Deutsche Bank, and Contingency Planning Exchange, Inc.

Despite the title, this brief speech focused mostly on pre-pandemic communication, and especially on the need to overcome official “fear of fear” and scare people into pandemic preparedness. (Please note that the article is located on the source page.)
In addition to the speech transcript (which I edited a little for clarity and grammar), a video of the speech itself is also available.

ball Public Reactions and Teachable Moments
Published in Homeland Protection Professional, May 2005, vol. 4, no. 4, pp.14–16.

This article quickly covers some of the emotional reactions to crisis situations — ground covered in more detail in “Beyond Panic Prevention: Addressing Emotion in Emergency Communication”  Icon for pdf and “Adjustment Reactions: The Teachable Moment in Crisis Communication.” An earlier version appears in a soon-to-be-published manual for journalists on Terrorism and Other Public Health Emergencies (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005). Some minor editorial changes made by the magazine’s staff have not been replicated here (only the ones I liked).

ball Bird Flu: Communicating the Risk  Icon for pdf
by Peter M. Sandman and Jody Lanard
Published in Perspectives in Health (Pan American Health Organization), vol. 10, no. 2, 2005, pp. 2–9.

PAHO asked us to combine a primer on risk communication with a primer on avian influenza. The resulting article talks about the challenge of alerting the public to bird flu risks, then offers ten risk communication principles, each illustrated with bird flu examples. The PDF file also includes the cover, an editor’s note entitled “Communication: risky business,” and the contents page.

(A Spanish language edition  Icon for pdf is also available. Both Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files are located on this site. English version 806 kB; Spanish version 774 kB.) There is also an online version (same text, but easier to read than a PDF file) posted on the PAHO website. The entire issue is also there.

ball Talking about "What Happened": Post-Event Risk Communication (Part 1)  Icon for pdf
Talking about "What Happened": Post-Event Risk Communication (Part 2)  Icon for pdf
Published in ISHN (Industrial Safety and Hygiene News), May 2005, pp. 19–20, and June 2005, pp. 36, 38.

A lot of what gets called risk communication actually deals less with future risk than with past events: “What happened?” This short two-part article offers ten pointers on talking about a recent accident, regulatory action, etc. It’s a start toward a post-event risk communication checklist. The Part 1 Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file (41 kB) and the Part 2 Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file (163 kB) are located on this site.

 

bar
arrow to top

2003–2004

ball Managing Stakeholder Outrage: Corporate Citizenship on the Dark Side
Keynote speech presented to the Annual International Corporate Citizenship Conference of the Center for Corporate Citizenship of Boston College, San Francisco, March 30, 2004.

This speech was basically my standard intro speech on outrage management — the distinction between “hazard” and “outrage”; the four kinds of risk communication; the risk communication seesaw; and six key strategies for reducing outrage. Since the audience was made up of corporate PR people and Corporate Social Responsibility specialists, comments are interspersed throughout on how risk communication relates to PR and CSR.
(Please note that the article is located on the source page.)

Poster version of the same speech (jpg file: 987 kB)

Susan Kelly is a “graphic facilitator” in San Francisco. For every presentation at the International Corporate Citizenship Conference, she produced a poster in real time and posted it immediately afterwards — an incredible tour de force! Even the dull presentations turned into lively posters. Here’s mine.
(Files on this site.  Also available: smaller jpg 111kB; a smaller gif file: 86 kB;and a Microsoft PowerPoint version. 1.3 MB)

ball Three Mile Island — 25 years Later  Icon for pdf
Published in safety AT WORK, April 24, 2004, pp. 7–11.

When the Three Mile Island nuclear accident began in late March of 1979, I was asked by the Columbia Journalism Review to go to the scene and “cover the coverage.” The resulting article, “At Three Mile Island,” was written jointly with Mary Paden. This new article focuses on some of the crisis communication lessons I learned at Three Mile Island — lessons many corporate and government crisis managers have yet to learn.

This Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) file is located on this site.   safety AT WORK is an electronic full-colour magazine that is published every 2 weeks. It reports on OHS, Risk Management and other issues from an independent and global perspective. A sample issue and subscription details are available at www.worksafety.com.au.

In March 2006, this article was reprinted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its IAEA Bulletin (vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 9–13) under the title, “Tell It Like It Is: 7 Lessons from TMI.” The IAEA version is available online in the following languages:

ball Because People Are Concerned:
How Should Public Outrage Affect Application of the Precautionary Principle?
  Icon for pdf

In the fall of 2003 I was commissioned by Vodafone Group Services Limited to think through and write up my opinion on the following question: Assume that a particular risk is probably not serious from a technical perspective, but some people are worried or upset. Should governments impose more stringent precautions in such a situation then they would impose if people were calm or apathetic? The question arose because of a draft document being circulated by the International EMF Project of the World Health Organization, proposing that public concern itself can justify a “precautionary” approach to controversial risks. Originally raised with respect to the risk of mobile telephones and telephone towers (hence Vodafone’s interest), the new standard was — and still is — being floated as a possible extension of the Precautionary Principle to a whole range of risk controversies where hazard is uncertain but probably low, and outrage is undoubtedly high.

The resulting essay turned out more nuanced than Vodafone probably expected. In general, I did reach the conclusion Vodafone was presumably looking for — that government precautions and government warnings are not reliable ways to reduce outrage, and probably should not be deployed for that purpose. I found surprisingly little research on point, but lots of theoretically interesting arguments in both directions to dissect. There is a certain irony that the most thoughtful, tentative, balanced, academic writing I have done in years was done for a corporate client.

Vodafone plans to distribute this essay (in electronic and hard-copy form) to interested parties, including, of course, the WHO staff whose policy proposal provoked it. (Adboe Acrobat file on this site: 47 pages / 636 kB.)

ball Leading during Bioattacks and Epidemics with the Public’s Trust and Help  Icon for pdf
by the Working Group on “Governance Dilemmas” in Bioterrorism Response
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, 2004, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25–40.

I was part of a 30-person “Working Group” that developed a report urging leaders to treat the public more as an ally and less as a problem in crisis situations. The report was drafted by Monica Schoch-Spana of the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who later redrafted it as an article for the Center’s Biosecurity and Bioterrorism journal. The writing is a little academic for my taste, but I think the recommendations are wonderful ... and the footnotes are invaluable.
(Please note that the article is located on the source page.)

ball Risk Communication Recommendations for Infectious Disease Outbreaks
by Peter M. Sandman Ph.D. and Jody Lanard M.D.
Presented to the World Health Organization SARS Scientific Research Advisory Committee,
Geneva Switzerland, October 20, 2003.

In October 2003, the WHO included social scientists (including me) on its SARS-fighting team for the first time. This invited paper has a list of 24 risk communication principles relevant to a possible second SARS outbreak or to any infectious disease outbreak; it also lists SARS-related risk communication research needs and has a short bibliography.

ball Peter Sandman on Safety
By Dave Johnson
ISHN E-News, July–September, 2003.

This three-part interview was published in ISHN E-News. Excerpts were also published in the September 2003 issue of ISHN (Industrial Safety & Hygiene News) — the paper version, which is also on-line — under the title “Charting your course: 25 keys to safety success — Advice from Dan Petersen, Peter Sandman & John Henshaw.”

ball Sars Communication: What Singapore Is Doing Right
By Jody Lanard and Peter M. Sandman
The Straits Times (Singapore), May 6, 2003; also in The Toronto Star (Canada), May 9, 2003, under the headline “Canadian Response to SARS Scorned as Whiny.”

After a rocky start, the world’s premier performer in SARS risk communication turned out to be the authoritarian city-state of Singapore! In this brief op-ed in Singapore’s biggest newspaper, my wife and colleague Dr. Jody Lanard and I tell the surprising story. A link to the longer, unpublished version of the article is provided.

On September 21, 2004, Jody told another version of this story as one of the keynote presentations at a World Health Organization conference on “outbreak communications.” The conference was scheduled in Singapore in part because of the superlative job Singapore had done communicating with its population about SARS — an accomplishment WHO wanted to help other countries emulate in other outbreaks. Entitled “WHO Expert Consultation on Outbreak Communications — Singapore's SARS Outbreak Communications,” the speech text is located on the website of the Singapore Ministry of Health.

ball How to Lead a Community during Times of Trouble (transcript)
A roundtable discussion at “The Public as an Asset, Not a Problem: A Summit on Leadership during Bioterrorism,” Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, Washington DC, February, 2003.

In early February of 2003, I attended a wonderful conference on bioterrorism, focused on “the public as an asset, not a problem.” The panel I participated in was about “how to lead a community during times of trouble.” Most of the panelists had actually led their communities through various crises, from the 2001 anthrax attacks to Oklahoma City’s bombing; I was added, along with the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn, so there would be at least two panelists whose experience was observing rather than doing. 
Clicking on the link will open a new browser window from which you can choose either to read the transcript or to listen to the audio.

ball Beyond Panic Prevention: Addressing Emotion in Emergency Communication  Icon for pdf
In Emergency Risk Communication CDCynergy (CD-ROM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, February 2003.

This is one of three articles I wrote for the CDC's CD-ROM on emergency risk communication. This one deals with the likely emotional impacts of terrorism (and other major emergencies), and how communicators can best help the public cope with these emotions. The focus is especially on denial and misery as more common emotional reactions than panic — reactions that may be mishandled if the communicator is over-worried about panic prevention instead.

This project was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program for the Office of Communication, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an agreement between the Department of Energy and CDC. The CD-ROM is expected to be available starting in February 2003; order from http://www.cdc.gov/cdcynergy/.   (File on this site: 11 pages / 127 kB.)

ball Dilemmas in Emergency Communication Policy  Icon for pdf
In Emergency Risk Communication CDCynergy (CD-ROM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, February 2003.

This is one of three articles I wrote for the CDC's CD-ROM on emergency risk communication. Based partly on my earlier Anthrax, Bioterrorism, and Risk Communication: Guidelines for Action, this one deals with ten "dilemmas" facing emergency communication planners: >

  1. Candor versus secrecy
  2. Speculation versus refusal to speculate
  3. Tentativeness versus confidence
  4. Being alarming versus being reassuring
  5. Being human versus being professional
  6. Being apologetic versus being defensive
  7. Decentralization versus centralization
  8. Democracy and individual control versus expert decision-making
  9. Planning for denial and misery versus planning for panic
  10. Erring on the side of caution versus taking chances

For each of the ten dilemmas, my own position leans toward the first of the two poles — and the natural instinct of communicators in mid-emergency leans toward the second.

This project was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program for the Office of Communication, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an agreement between the Department of Energy and CDC. The CD-ROM is expected to be available starting in February 2003; order from http://www.cdc.gov/cdcynergy/.   (File on this site: 29 pages / 193 kB.)

ball Obvious or Suspected, Here or Elsewhere, Now or Then: Paradigms of Emergency Events  Icon for pdf
In Emergency Risk Communication CDCynergy (CD-ROM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, February 2003.

This is one of three articles I wrote for the CDC’s CD-ROM on emergency risk communication. The usual paradigm for emergency communication is the obviously horrific event that is happening right here, right now. This article focuses on communication strategies to address six other paradigms:

  1. Obvious/here/future
  2. Obvious/here/past
  3. Obvious/elsewhere/now
  4. Suspected/here/now
  5. Suspected/here/future
  6. Suspected/here/past

Among the topics covered are worst case scenarios, uncertainty, and dilemma-sharing.

This project was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program for the Office of Communication, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an agreement between the Department of Energy and CDC. The CD-ROM is expected to be available starting in February 2003; order from http://www.cdc.gov/cdcynergy/.   (File on this site: 21 pages / 167 kB.)

bar
arrow to top

2000 – 2002

ball Planning for Bioterrorism Communication  Icon for pdf
Minnesota Community Health Conference, September 2002

On September 12, 2002, I gave a half-day presentation on “Planning for Bioterrorism Communication” in Breezy Point MN, at the annual Community Health Conference sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The presentation was based on three chapters I was writing for an emergency communication manual soon to be published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The three chapters have now been posted:

But this much shorter summary by MDH's risk communication specialist Buddy Ferguson is still useful. (9 pages)

ball Responsible Care.®  Been There. Done That. What’s Next?
Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association, June 2002

In June 2002 I gave a keynote presentation with the above title to the annual meeting of the Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association. I focused on some ways the chemical industry’s Responsible Care program wasn’t working, and what the industry might want to do next. CCPA followed up with an interview covering roughly the same ground, which was posted on its members-only web site. The text of the interview is on this site. The interviewer was Harvey Chartrand.    (File on this site.)

ball Terrorism, Transparency, and Employee Sabotage
Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association, June 2002

The interview that CCPA posted on its web site is the previous item on this list. But the actual interview also covered my views on how September 11 should affect chemical industry transparency, and on the relationship between terrorism and employee sabotage. That portion of the interview is here, with CCPA’s permission.    (File on this site.)

ball CDC Responds: Risk Communication and Bioterrorism
December 6, 2001 (no longer online)

This CDC webcast includes excerpts from a November 2001 presentation I made to the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia, plus live discussion of the issue by a panel of other risk communicators. For a longer written version of my CDC presentation, see my December 29, 2001 column “Anthrax, Bioterrorism, and Risk Communication: Guidelines for Action.”

ball Motivated Inattention and Safety Management  Icon for pdf

This interview focuses on the “other side” of risk communication — how to persuade people to take risk more seriously. It deals mostly with two problems: employees who ignore safety procedures even though they have been well trained, and employers who ignore safety opportunities even though they are cost-effective. Both problems have their roots in outrage.

safety02.jpg - 5080 Bytes
ball September 11 and Risk  Icon for pdf

This very brief interview discusses the events of 9/11. For a much (MUCH) longer treatment of the same topic, see my October 22, 2001 column “Risk Communication and the War Against Terrorism: High Hazard, High Outrage.”

Both interviews published in safety AT WORK 30 October 2001

These Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files are located on this site.   safety AT WORK is an electronic full-colour magazine that is published every 2 weeks. It reports on OHS, Risk Management and other issues from an independent and global perspective. A sample issue and subscription details are available at www.worksafety.com.au.

ball Risk Communication: Evolution and Revolution
By Vincent Covello and Peter M. Sandman
In Solutions to an Environment in Peril, Anthony Wolbarst (ed.) (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), pp. 164–178.

Back in the 1980s, Vincent Covello and I gave back-to-back presentations on risk communication as part of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lecture series. When Tony Wolbarst of EPA decided to collect the presentations into a book, he offered everyone a chance to revise and update. Vincent and I decided to merge our efforts into a single article on the state of risk communication, based loosely on what we had said originally plus what we now consider important. The result is a pretty good overview of the shared opinions of two well-seasoned practitioners.    (File on this site.)

ball   The Connection
National Public Radio, February 27, 2001

This NPR program, produced by WBUR in Boston, was mostly an interview with Sheldon Rampton, author of a book about the untrustworthiness of experts whose research supports industry positions on risk issues. But I was discussed in the book, so they decided to include me in the interview too.

(This audio file is located on the web site of the radio show.)

ball Review: The Mad Cow Crisis: Health and the Public Good
Journal of Health Psychology, January 2000

This review of a book on England’s “mad cow disease” crisis is relevant for its discussion of how to communicate about a small problem that threatens to become a big problem. Think anthrax. As always, over-reassurance turns out to be the wrong approach.   (File on this site.)

bar
arrow to top

1990 – 1999

ball Progress and Promise: Community Involvement at the MMR Cleanup  Icon for pdf
by Tara O’Toole, M.D., M.P.H. and Peter M. Sandman, Ph.D.
Technical Peer Review for the Massachusetts Military Reservation (with Michael C. Kavanaugh, Andrea Leeson, James W. Mercer, Tara O’Toole, and Resha M. Putzrath), Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (Environmental Restoration Division), Brooks Air Force Base, TX, October 1999.

In 1999, I was part of a review team analyzing a groundwater contamination controversy at the Massachusetts Military Reservation on Cape Cod. Most of the team focused on technical issues, but Tara O’Toole and I wrote a chapter arguing that MMR should take community involvement even more seriously than it already was doing, and should consider a range of other outrage management strategies as well.
(Note: this PDF file is on the Massachusetts Military Reservation site.)

ball Responsible or Responsive?
By Peter M. Sandman, John Elkington, and Chris Marsden
SustainAbility Monthly Review, February 1999, pp. 10–13, and March 1999, pp. 8–10.

SustainAbility is an international consultancy devoted to founder John Elkington’s concept of a “triple bottom line” (economic, environmental, and social sustainability) for corporations. I have long admired it, and in recent years have been a member of its “faculty,” a sort of board-of-old-farts. This exchange of letters with John and with Chris Marsden, another faculty member, points to a key difference between SustainAbility’s work and mine: the distinction between corporate responsibility (doing what’s right) and corporate responsiveness (doing what stakeholders want).    (File on this site.)


ball Risk = Hazard + Outrage: Coping with Controversy about Utility Risks
Engineering News-Record, October 4, 1999, pp. A19–A23.

This short overview was written for public utilities — sewage treatment plants, water companies, power companies, etc. The focus is especially on the benefits of sharing control ... or even abandoning control altogether. Includes a sidebar article:  Managing Outrage: A Primer.    (File on this site.)


ball Managing controversy: Key to corporate reputation
Company Director (Australian Institute of Company Directors), 14:8, September 1998, pp. 24–25.

This short article features a rationale for focusing more on outrage management, and a summary of five key strategies for managing outrage. It was aimed at corporate directors in the Australian mining and minerals industry. The editor’s introduction includes a thinly disguised advertisement for my outrage management software; that was my price for the article.    (File on this site.)


ball Experimental Evidence for Stages of Health Behavior Change: The Precaution Adoption Process Model Applied to Home Radon Testing
By Neil D. Weinstein, Judith E. Lyon, Peter M. Sandman, and Cara L. Cuite
Health Psychology, 1998, Vol 17. No. 5, pp. 445–453.

This is one of two articles I have posted dealing with the Precaution Adoption Process Model, developed mostly by Neil Weinstein and tested by Neil and me (and colleagues) using radon as the test case. The other article, A Model of the Precaution Adoption Process: Evidence From Home Radon Testing, is statistically heavier going and methodologically less rigorous, but covers more ground: It says more about how people decide to test their homes for radon, and contains a more detailed description of the model itself. This one has more convincing evidence that people decide to take precautions — in this case to test for radon — in stages, and that different interventions work best at different stages.    (File on this site.)


ball Communications to Reduce Risk Underestimation and Overestimation
By Peter M. Sandman, Neil D. Weinstein, and William K. Hallman
Risk Decision and Policy 3 (2), 93–108 (1998).

The experiment reported in this article deals with ways of depicting risk when you’re trying to get people to realize how serious the risk is ... or how serious is isn’t. In other words, how do you explain risk data so your audience will neither underestimate nor overestimate seriousness? The study shows some strategies that help, even in the face of outrage. The study also documents — for readers who need it documented — that outrage does make people consider a risk more serious.    (File on this site.)

ball    Using a Stage Model to Encourage Home Radon Testing,
By Neil Weinstein

This is a summary of the article: “Experimental Evidence for Stages of Precaution Adoption,” by Neil D. Weinstein, Judith E. Lyon, Peter M. Sandman, and Cara L. Cuite, Health Psychology, 1998, vol. 17, pp. 445–453. The article isn’t available on the web.
(Please note that this summary is located on the source page. Clicking on the link will open a new browser window.)


ball When Outrage Is a Hazard
The Synergist, April 1995

This short column deals with sabotage — and the important possibility that outraged employees can pose a hazard to everyone else. It was written (obviously) before 9/11, but resonates even more powerfully now.   (File on this site.)

ball    Mass Media and Environmental Risk: Seven Principles
RISK, Volume 5, Summer 1994, vol. 5, pp 251–260

This article organizes my thinking and research on media coverage of risk into seven principles. Not included is the “principle” I now emphasize most with clients: that media relations usually matters a great deal less than stakeholder relations, and usually follows it. The article overlaps the media portion of Explaining Environmental Risk, but it has newer thinking.

ball Straight from the Sandman
The Hanford Reach, May 9, 1994, pp 12–13.

In the mid-1990s I consulted on and off for two years at the Hanford nuclear waste cleanup. My client was Westinghouse, then a major Hanford contractor. This interview with Westinghouse’s Peter Bengston was published in the site newsletter. It’s a pretty decent overview of what I was trying to accomplish there. Roughly a decade later, by the way, I was brought to Hanford again, on and off, for a year. The contractor wasn’t Westinghouse any longer and the technical issues had evolved some. But the basic problem of insufficient attention to the outrage half of the risk equation was unchanged. (Doesn't say much for the value of consultants, does it?)


ball Risk Communication
Encyclopedia of the Environment, 1994

Being asked to summarize the whole of risk communication in a short encyclopedia article was a challenge (even a decade ago, when much less was known). For me the biggest challenge was to summarize risk communication, not just my approach to it. I think I partially succeeded.    (File on this site.)


ball Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments
By Peter M. Sandman, Paul M. Miller, Branden B. Johnson, and Neil D. Weinstein
Risk Analysis, Vol 13, No. 6, 1993, pp. 585-598.

My conviction that the “outrage” component of risk influences public responses more than its “hazard” component is grounded in two decades of consulting experience ... and a scant handful of empirical research studies. This article reports most of the latter.    (File on this site.)


ball Tips on EMF Risk Communication
Management Quarterly (Public Service Electric & Gas Company), Summer 1993, pp. 32–34

Power line EMFs have greatly declined as a public controversy since this short article was written in 1993 — mostly because the industry took the issue seriously and learned with us that the risk was low. But comparable issues (cell phone EMFs come to mind) are still hot, and the article’s advice is relevant to any risk controversy.   (File on this site.)


ball Siting Controversial Facilities: Some Principles, Paradoxes, and Heresies
Consensus, July 1992

This short article starts with the assumption that coercion is an unreliable way to site controversial facilities, and tries to offer some better answers grounded in risk communication. An earlier and much longer treatment of the same themes can be found in Getting to Maybe: Some Communications Aspects of Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities.   (File on this site.)


ball Testing the Role of Technical Information in Public Risk Perception
by Branden B. Johnson, Peter M. Sandman & Paul Miller
RISK: Issues in Health and Safety, Fall 1992, pp 341–364

A recurring question among my clients is: “Why can’t we just explain the data so people won’t be outraged any more?” This article reports some research on the efficacy of technical information as a way to shape risk perception. The results are not encouraging to my clients’ fondest hopes.   (File on this site.)

ball   Outrage and Technical Detail: The Impact of Agency Behavior on Community Risk Perception  Icon for pdf
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, November 1992

This DEP “Research Project Summary” reports research comparing the impact of outrage management and technical detail on public perception of risk. Guess which one wins.    (File on this site: 4 pages / 95 kB.)


ball A Model of the Precaution Adoption Process: Evidence From Home Radon Testing
By Neil D. Weinstein and Peter M. Sandman
Health Psychology, 1992, 11(3), pp. 170–180

For about a decade, Neil Weinstein and I (with colleagues) did research on radon — a high-hazard low-outrage risk that first became important in the mid-1980s. This article uses several of our radon data sets to illustrate Neil’s Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM). The PAPM is one of several contending models of how people actually decide whether or not to protect themselves from risks. Different models lead to different interventions, so the competition over which model best explains people’s behavior is important for those trying to persuade publics to take precautions about serious hazards.
(I've also posted another article, Experimental Evidence for Stages of Health Behavior Change: The Precaution Adoption Process Model Applied to Home Radon Testing, on the PAPM and radon, this one reporting a later experiment demonstrating that the decision to test does happen in separate stages.)
(Both files on this site.)


ball Emerging Communication Responsibilities of Epidemiologists
Industrial Epidemiology Forum’s Conference on Ethics in Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Supplement I to Volume 44, 1991, pp. 41S–50S.

I wish I could publish an article like this for all the professionals I work with who tend to do their jobs in ways that make my job harder. Two come immediately to mind: emerging communication responsibilities of toxicologists ... and of lawyers. Still, epidemiology has the worst communication problems of the three — especially when public outrage is high, hazard is probably low, the epidemiologist is working for the company that made the mess, and the science falls far short of definitive. This article focuses on my wishful recommendations for such situations. I feel them today even more strongly than I did when I wrote the article more than a decade ago.   (File on this site.)


ball Two-Way Environmental Education
EPA Journal, Sept./Oct. 1991

This short article argues that dialogue works a lot better than monologue, especially when people are outraged about a technically small but nonetheless frightening or offensive risk. It ends with a list of questions sources should ask themselves when trying to convince an audience some risk isn’t worth worrying about.   (File on this site.)


ball Addressing Skepticism about Responsible Care
Based on Remarks at a Chemical Manufacturers Association meeting, New York, NY, November 6, 1990

In the late 1980s, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (now the American Chemistry Council) inaugurated its “Responsible Care” program in the U.S. In 1990, I spoke at a national CMA meeting on how to address skepticism about the program — not just external skepticism, but skepticism inside the industry as well. I later massaged the speech into a CMA pamphlet. Most of the advice is generic; any company or trade association can expect to encounter the same sorts of skepticism today about its “pro-social” initiatives. As for Responsible Care, it continues to be an influential internal initiative, ratcheting performance ever-upward in such areas as process safety and product stewardship. But the industry has pretty much given up on persuading outsiders that it’s meaningful. There’s a nice irony here. Critics assume the industry has terrific rhetoric and poor performance — but Responsible Care has been much more successful as performance than as rhetoric.    (File on this site.)

bar
arrow to top

1980 – 1989


ball Promoting Remedial Response to the Risk of Radon: Are Information Campaigns Enough?
Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 14 No. 4, Autumn 1989, pp. 360–379.

Most of the research on radon risk response — mine as well as others’ — has focused on how to persuade people to test. This article shows that even after people have tested and found a high radon level, persuading them to do something about the problem isn’t easy ... and mere information isn’t what does the trick. When this research was done, radon was a new issue; the findings reported here may be more useful for those working on other new issues than for those working on the now-familiar radon problem.    (File on this site.)


ball Risk, Drama and Geography in Coverage of Environmental Risk by Network TV  Icon for pdf
By Michael R. Greenberg, David B. Sachsman, Peter M. Sandman, and Kandice L. Salomone
Journalism Quarterly, Summer 1989, pp. 267–276.

This was one of several articles written jointly with Michael Greenberg, David Sachsman, and Kandice Salomone summarizing our research on media coverage of environmental risk. This one looked at 26 months worth of network coverage. Not surprisingly, we found that visually interesting stories got more coverage than ones that were more serious in health terms but harder to photograph. We also found that the networks were much likelier to cover environmental stories near one of their bureaus than comparable stories requiring more travel. The coverage patterns for the three networks were more striking in their similarities than in their differences.    (7-MB Adobe .pdf file on this site.)


ball Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, & Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers 1988
Published by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (now the American Chemistry Council), Washington DC, 1988.

This manual on how to use risk comparisons and risk statistics was commissioned to help chemical plant managers explain air emissions to their neighbors. Chapter III on risk comparisons, especially, is still relevant; I posted it alone last year after reading too many comparisons of anthrax spores in the mail to auto accidents. Later research hasn’t borne out all its seat-of-the-pants conclusions, but the advice at the end of the chapter about the worst risk comparisons holds firm — in my terms these comparisons fail (especially when people are outraged) because they try to compare the hazard of high-outrage and low-outrage risks. The other chapters are also useful and not really outdated, I think. The appendices are both outdated and all too likely to be misused. They’re what the client originally wanted most. Vincent Covello, Paul Slovic, and I wrote the rest of the manual to soften them.
(Multiple files on this site.)

ball Risk Communication: Facing Public Outrage
EPA Journal, Nov. 1987

This is one of the earliest — and the shortest and most often cited — of my articles about the distinction between hazard and outrage. The focus is on the factors that determine whether people will over-react or under-react to a risk.   (File on this site.)
Traducción en Español  Icon for pdf: Comunicación de riesgos: afrontar el ultraje público  Icon for pdf (PDF on this site.)


ball Explaining Risk to Non-Experts: a communications challenge
Emergency Preparedness Digest, Oct.–Dec.1987, pp. 25–29

I have long been convinced that explaining risk data is not the essence of risk communication. Addressing people’s outrage is far more important. Still, you do have to explain the data! And it’s not an easy task — especially when being interviewed by a journalist on a hot story. This article is a primer on three aspects of the problem: simplifying, personalizing, and using risk comparisons.   (File on this site.)


ball Explaining Environmental Risk
Published by TSCA Assistance Office, Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, Nov. 1986

This EPA brochure has long been out-of-print. It predates my articulation of the hazard-versus-outrage distinction, but contains much of the thinking that went into that distinction. In fact every time I reread this it reminds me of principles and examples I ought to reinstate in my presentations. (Files on this site.)

  ball Part 1:   “Important If True!”
  ball Part 2:   Dealing with the Media
  ball Part 3:   Dealing with the Public
  ball Bibliography

ball Getting to Maybe: Some Communications Aspects of Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities
Seton Hall Legislative Journal, Spring 1986, pp. 437–465.

This article got its start as a 1985 report for the New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Commission. New Jersey never sited a facility; on the other hand, most of the advice in the article was never implemented either. I've since been involved in dozens of siting controversies (some of them over facilities that actually got built!), and I've learned a lot that isn't in this article — but the basics haven't changed, and this is a pretty solid summary of them. (P.S. Jim Lanard, who helped develop the ideas in this article and wrote the foreword, is also my brother-in-law; he introduced me to his sister in 1985 and we were married in 1990.)    (File on this site.)


ball Scared stiff — or scared into action
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan. 1986, pp. 12–16.

This 1986 article aimed at helping peace activists develop communication strategies that wouldn’t deepen people’s “psychic numbing” about nuclear weapons. Though its political content is out of date, its prescription — anger, love, hope, and action — is relevant today to coping with public denial about terrorism. (For terrorism I would want to add to the prescription the need to acknowledge and share the underlying fears — what people are “really” afraid of.)   (File on this site.)


ball Holding Your Volunteers
New Jersey Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Freeze, Spring 1984

In 1983–84 I was media and outreach coordinator for the New Jersey Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Freeze. This article was originally written for committed freeze activists, warning them about the things they (we) did or failed to do that turned off newcomers. In the years that followed, it was reprinted in the newsletters of all sorts of activist groups.   (File on this site.)

ball Nukes, the Freeze, and Public Opinion
An interview by Mary Jones, Matrix (Rutgers University), Spring 1984, pp.9–12.

In 1983–84, I took a sabbatical from my professorship at Rutgers University and worked on communication for the nuclear freeze movement. This interview was published in the Rutgers alumni magazine during my sabbatical. It talks about people’s fear of nuclear war and their reluctance to get involved in the peace movement. I have to say that both the world and my political values have changed some — though I do like the young man who gave this interview. What hasn’t changed much is my analysis of nuclear denial, which resonates today for current issues like the fear of terrorism. (The book I said I was writing, by the way, never got written; I still have a hundred or so pages of draft somewhere.)    (File on this site.)

bar
arrow to top

1970 – 1979

ball Report of the Public’s Right to Information Task Force of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island  Icon for pdf
Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1979 (#052-003-00734-7)

After the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in March 1979, President Jimmy Carter appointed an investigative commission. One of the commission’s mandates was to look at public communications, both what sources told the media and what the media told the public. Having just published “At Three Mile Island” in the Columbia Journalism Review, I was asked to work with the commission’s Public Right to Information Task Force, chaired by David M. Rubin. The task force report, with 14 authors, has been out-of-print for decades, but was recently put online as part of a huge Three Mile Island “Resource Center” run by Dickinson College. The report constitutes a wonderful blow-by-blow account of a pretty typical example of corporate, government, and media crisis communication.


ball At Three Mile Island
Columbia Journalism Review, July/August 1979

This was the first “crisis” I watched unfold. The themes have since become familiar (they are playing out now in the terrorism crisis):   The sources minimize the risk and over-reassure the audience; the experts are uncertain and disagree with each other; the public doesn’t panic but everyone keeps thinking it will; the color stories overpower the technical stories. (Writing this article in 1979 changed my career; see “Muddling My Way into Risk Communication.”) Includes two sidebar articles: “The local media feel the heat” and “The Inquirer goes for broke”   (File on this site.)


ball Medicine and Mass Communication: An Agenda for Physicians
Annals of Internal Medicine 85:378–383, 1976

This discussion of how the media influence their audience and how doctors can influence the media was written 25 years ago — before managed care and before cable. Despite the outdated specifics about both medicine and media, the principles have held up well. This is still a pretty good primer on media impact and how to horn in.    (File on this site.)

Many other articles by Peter Sandman are available from non-electronic sources. The list of publications has been updated and modified, and is available as a part of the Curriculum Vitae.

bar

Comment or Ask       Read the comments

Peter M. Sandman
59 Ridgeview Rd.
Princeton NJ 08540-7601
Phone: 1-609-683-4073
Fax: 1-609-683-0566
Email: peter@psandman.com
home link

Website design and management provided by SnowTao Editing Services.

bar