IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v13y2016i10p992-d79998.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Precautionary Communication in the EMF Field? Effects of Making Messages Consistent and Explaining the Effectiveness of Precautions

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Boehmert

    (Department of Science Communication, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
    Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia)

  • Peter Wiedemann

    (School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia)

  • Rodney Croft

    (Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia
    School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia
    Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522, Australia)

Abstract

Many radiation health agencies communicate precautionary measures regarding the use of mobile communication devices, e.g. the use of a headset while talking on the phone. These precautionary messages have, however, been shown to unintentionally increase risk perceptions about radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs). The current study tested two potential ways of amending precautionary messages in order to minimise this unintentional effect. Firstly, the messages’ potential to be perceived as inconsistent and thereby raise suspicions was addressed; secondly, the effectiveness of the precautions was explained. An experimental design was applied in which a quota sample of 1717 Australian residents was randomly assigned to one of six message conditions. Three different risk perception measures served as dependent variables, two of them are conditional measures. The original effect of precautionary messages to amplify risk perceptions could not be replicated. Furthermore, amending precautionary messages in favour of more consistency had no effect, while explaining the effectiveness of the precautions increased conditional risk perception under the condition that no precautions are taken. This was contrary to our assumptions. We infer from these results that changing precautionary messages in terms of consistency and effectiveness in order to reduce risk perception is hardly possible. The use of conditional risk perception measures seems fruitful for studies looking at the effects of precautionary or protective messages, given that previous studies have only investigated effects on unconditional risk perception. However, the present results should not be over-interpreted as the measures’ validity in the EMF context still needs further investigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Rodney Croft, 2016. "Improving Precautionary Communication in the EMF Field? Effects of Making Messages Consistent and Explaining the Effectiveness of Precautions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:10:p:992-:d:79998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/10/992/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/10/992/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marie-Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Risk perception of mobile communication: a mental models approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 599-620, July.
    2. Peter M. Wiedemann & Andrea T. Thalmann & Markus A. Grutsch & Holger Schütz, 2006. "The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 361-372, June.
    3. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Perception of Risks From Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk‐Communication Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 815-828, October.
    4. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    5. Peter M. Wiedemann & Holger Schuetz & Franziska Boerner & Martin Clauberg & Rodney Croft & Rajesh Shukla & Toshiko Kikkawa & Ray Kemp & Jan M. Gutteling & Barney de Villiers & Flavia N. da Silva Medei, 2013. "When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1788-1801, October.
    6. Julie Barnett & Lada Timotijevic & Marco Vassallo & Richard Shepherd, 2008. "Precautionary advice about mobile phones: public understandings and intended responses," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 525-540, June.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah P. Loughran & Md Shahriar Al Hossain & Alan Bentvelzen & Mark Elwood & John Finnie & Joseph Horvat & Steve Iskra & Elena P. Ivanova & Jim Manavis & Chathuranga Keerawella Mudiyanselage & Alireza, 2016. "Bioelectromagnetics Research within an Australian Context: The Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Christopher Brzozek & Kurt K. Benke & Berihun M. Zeleke & Michael J. Abramson & Geza Benke, 2018. "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and Memory Performance: Sources of Uncertainty in Epidemiological Cohort Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Jonathon Pye & Rodney Croft, 2017. "The Effects of Precautionary Messages about Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones and Base Stations Revisited: The Role of Recipient Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 583-597, March.
    2. Peter M. Wiedemann & Holger Schuetz & Franziska Boerner & Martin Clauberg & Rodney Croft & Rajesh Shukla & Toshiko Kikkawa & Ray Kemp & Jan M. Gutteling & Barney de Villiers & Flavia N. da Silva Medei, 2013. "When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1788-1801, October.
    3. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    4. Rojalin Pradhan & Mahim Sagar & Tushar Pandey & Ishwar Prasad, 2019. "Consumer health risk awareness model of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones and base stations: An exploratory study," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 16(1), pages 125-145, March.
    5. Liesbeth Claassen & Ann Bostrom & Danielle R.M. Timmermans, 2016. "Focal points for improving communications about electromagnetic fields and health: a mental models approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 246-269, February.
    6. Loredana Ivan & Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol, 2017. "Older People, Mobile Communication and Risks," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.
    8. Myung-Soon Seo & Jae-Wook Choi & Kyung-Hee Kim & Hyung-Do Choi, 2020. "The Relationship between Risk Perception of Cell Phones and Objective Knowledge of EMF in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-10, October.
    9. Frederik Freudenstein & Luis M. Correia & Carla Oliveira & Daniel Sebastião & Peter M. Wiedemann, 2015. "Exposure Knowledge and Perception of Wireless Communication Technologies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, November.
    10. Wouter Poortinga & Patrick Cox & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2008. "The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 235-248, February.
    11. Simone Dohle & Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2012. "Fear and anger: antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 435-446, April.
    12. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    13. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    14. Joseph Conti & Terre Satterfield & Barbara Herr Harthorn, 2011. "Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1734-1748, November.
    15. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    16. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    17. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    18. Donald G. MacGregor & Raymond Fleming, 1996. "Risk Perception and Symptom Reporting," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 773-783, December.
    19. Michael Yu & Tomás Lejarraga & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Context‐Specific, Scenario‐Based Risk Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2166-2181, December.
    20. Michael R. Greenberg, 2012. "The Affect Heuristic, Correspondence Analysis, and Understanding LULUs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 478-480, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:10:p:992-:d:79998. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.