When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case

In the past decade, growing public concern about novel technologies with uncertain potential long-term impacts on the environment and human health has moved risk policies toward a more precautionary approach. Focusing on mobile telephony, the effects of precautionary information on risk perception were analyzed. A pooled multinational experimental study based on a 5 × 2 × 2 factorial design was conducted in nine countries. The first factor refers to whether or not information on different types of precautionary measures was present, the second factor to the framing of the precautionary information, and the third factor to the order in which cell phones and base stations were rated by the study participants. The data analysis on the country level indicates different effects. The main hypothesis that informing about precautionary measures results in increased risk perceptions found only partial support in the data. The effects are weaker, both in terms of the effect size and the frequency of significant effects, across the various precautionary information formats used in the experiment. Nevertheless, our findings do not support the assumption that informing people about implemented precautionary measures will decrease public concerns.

[1]  Holger Schütz,et al.  The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area , 2005, Environmental health perspectives.

[2]  D. Kahneman.  Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[3]  G. Hofstede.  Culture′s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations , 2001 .

[4]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  J. Bladel,et al.  Electromagnetic Fields , 1985 .

[6]  Chun-Hsiung Liao,et al.  Public Attitude toward Mobile Base Station Siting: More than Nimby , 2009 .

[7]  K. Straif,et al.  Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. , 2011, The Lancet. Oncology.

[8]  Holger Schütz,et al.  The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust , 2006 .

[9]  P. Slovic,et al.  A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[10]  Kenneth R. Foster,et al.  Science and the Precautionary Principle , 2000, Science.

[11]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes. , 2001, Journal of health communication.

[12]  Christine R. Harris,et al.  Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? , 2006, Judgment and Decision Making.

[13]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[14]  R. Jepson,et al.  Risk Perceptions of Environmental Hazards and Human Reproduction: A Community-Based Survey , 2012 .

[15]  Dan M. Kahan,et al.  Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk , 2008 .

[16]  G Berg-Beckhoff,et al.  Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 1 of a population-based, cross-sectional study in Germany , 2008, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[17]  C. Spielberger,et al.  Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory , 1970 .

[18]  The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods , 2005 .

[19]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation , 2007 .

[20]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[21]  J. Haidt,et al.  Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues , 2004, Daedalus.

[22]  J. Easterbrook.  The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. , 1959, Psychological review.

[23]  Pieter van Broekhuizen,et al.  Building Blocks for a Precautionary Approach to the Use of Nanomaterials: Positions Taken by Trade Unions and Environmental NGOs in the European Nanotechnologies Debate , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[24]  G. Moskowitz.  Cognitive social psychology : the Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition , 1981 .

[25]  J. Olsen,et al.  Mobiles phones and health , 2009, Scandinavian journal of public health.

[26]  M. Masson.  Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. , 2003, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[27]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[28]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[29]  H. Hutter,et al.  Public perception of risk concerning celltowers and mobile phones , 2003, Sozial- und Präventivmedizin.

[30]  J. Barnett,et al.  Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and advice , 2006 .

[31]  P. Gustafson.  Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives , 1998, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[32]  K. Wallston,et al.  Compliance to health recommendations: a theoretical overview of message framing , 1988 .