Risk communication scholar Peter Sandman famously proposed that Risk = Hazard + Outrage. According to Sandman, the outrage component, that is, the degree to which people are emotionally concerned about a risk, is often only weakly correlated with the magnitude of the hazard itself. He argued that individuals frequently perceive something as dangerous because they are upset about it, rather than becoming upset because it is objectively dangerous. Consequently, efforts to correct risk misperceptions may be more successful when they focus on reducing excessive public concern, an approach Sandman termed outrage management, than when they rely solely on communicating quantitative evidence regarding absolute risk, although such evidence may itself constitute an important component of outrage management.
However, researchers who seek to correct exaggerated risk perceptions may be reluctant to engage in outrage management for fear of being perceived as aligned with, or sympathetic to, the industry that originally generated public concern. As a result, much of the field of risk communication is left to well-intentioned actors who, in an effort to discourage youth uptake, deliberately amplify perceptions of risk. Drawing on the concept of the “careorist”, we describe how such risk amplification can emerge even when motivated by public health objectives.
In this presentation, we first illustrate how Sandman’s framework can be applied to risk communication in the field of nicotine products. We then examine several Norwegian examples of risk amplification relating to snus. Finally, we present empirical evidence on how public perceptions of the risks associated with different nicotine products have evolved in a setting where non-combustible products have come to dominate the nicotine market.
Tim Phillips Managing Director - ECigIntelligence/TobaccoIntelligence
