IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i6p620-d100876.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

RF EMF Risk Perception Revisited: Is the Focus on Concern Sufficient for Risk Perception Studies?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter M. Wiedemann

    (School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
    Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Wollongong Campus, NSW 2522, Australia
    Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, NH&MRC Centre of Research Excellence, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia)

  • Frederik Freudenstein

    (School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
    Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Wollongong Campus, NSW 2522, Australia
    Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, NH&MRC Centre of Research Excellence, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
    Centre for Population Population Health Research on Electromagnetic Energy, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia)

  • Christoph Böhmert

    (Department of Science Communication, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Englerstr. 2 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany)

  • Joe Wiart

    (Chaire C2M, LTCI Telecom ParisTech, Paris Saclay University, 46 Rue Barrault, 75013 Paris, France)

  • Rodney J. Croft

    (School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
    Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Wollongong Campus, NSW 2522, Australia
    Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, NH&MRC Centre of Research Excellence, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
    Centre for Population Population Health Research on Electromagnetic Energy, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia)

Abstract

An implicit assumption of risk perception studies is that concerns expressed in questionnaires reflect concerns in everyday life. The aim of the present study is to check this assumption, i.e., the extrapolability of risk perceptions expressed in a survey, to risk perceptions in everyday life. To that end, risk perceptions were measured by a multidimensional approach. In addition to the traditional focus on measuring the magnitude of risk perceptions, the thematic relevance (how often people think about a risk issue) and the discursive relevance (how often people think about or discuss a risk issue) of risk perceptions were also collected. Taking into account this extended view of risk perception, an online survey was conducted in six European countries with 2454 respondents, referring to radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) risk potentials from base stations, and access points, such as WiFi routers and cell phones. The findings reveal that the present study’s multidimensional approach to measuring risk perception provides a more differentiated understanding of RF EMF risk perception. High levels of concerns expressed in questionnaires do not automatically imply that these concerns are thematically relevant in everyday life. We use thematic relevance to distinguish between enduringly concerned (high concern according to both questionnaire and thematic relevance) and not enduringly concerned participants (high concern according to questionnaire but no thematic relevance). Furthermore, we provide data for the empirical value of this distinction: Compared to other participants, enduringly concerned subjects consider radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure to a greater extent as a moral and affective issue. They also see themselves as highly exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. However, despite these differences, subjects with high levels of thematic relevance are nevertheless sensitive to exposure reduction as a means for improving the acceptance of base stations in their neighborhood. This underlines the value of exposure reduction for the acceptance of radio frequency electromagnetic field communication technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter M. Wiedemann & Frederik Freudenstein & Christoph Böhmert & Joe Wiart & Rodney J. Croft, 2017. "RF EMF Risk Perception Revisited: Is the Focus on Concern Sufficient for Risk Perception Studies?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:6:p:620-:d:100876
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/6/620/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/6/620/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig W. Trumbo & Lori Peek & Michelle A. Meyer & Holly L. Marlatt & Eve Gruntfest & Brian D. McNoldy & Wayne H. Schubert, 2016. "A Cognitive‐Affective Scale for Hurricane Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2233-2246, December.
    2. Robin M. Hogarth & Mariona Portell & Anna Cuxart, 2007. "What Risks Do People Perceive in Everyday Life? A Perspective Gained from the Experience Sampling Method (ESM)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1427-1439, December.
    3. Robin Hogarth & Mariona Portell & Anna Cuxart, 2007. "What risks do people perceive in everyday life? A perspective gained from the experience sampling method (ESM)," Economics Working Papers 1005, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    4. Michael K. Lindell & Timothy C. Earle, 1983. "How Close Is Close Enough: Public Perceptions of the Risks of Industrial Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(4), pages 245-253, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Liesbeth Claassen & Diana van Dongen & Danielle R.M. Timmermans, 2017. "Improving lay understanding of exposure to electromagnetic fields; the effect of information on perception of and responses to risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(9), pages 1115-1131, September.
    7. Michael M. Zwick, 2005. "Risk as perceived by the German public: pervasive risks and “switching” risks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(6), pages 481-498, September.
    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. 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.
    2. Qihui Xie & Yanan Xue, 2022. "The Prediction of Public Risk Perception by Internal Characteristics and External Environment: Machine Learning on Big Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-20, August.

    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. Noort, Mark C. & Reader, Tom W. & Gillespie, Alex, 2019. "Speaking up to prevent harm: a systematic review of the safety voice literature," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100774, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Dave Möwisch & Florian Schmiedek & David Richter & Annette Brose, 2019. "Capturing Affective Well-Being in Daily Life with the Day Reconstruction Method: A Refined View on Positive and Negative Affect," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 641-663, February.
    3. Rolando Esteban Liranzo-Gómez & Antonio Torres-Valle & Ulises Javier Jauregui-Haza, 2024. "Risk Perception Assessment of Sargassum Blooms in Dominican Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-17, March.
    4. Steudner, Tobias, 2021. "The Effects of Positive Feelings and Arousal on Privacy Decision-Making," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238055, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Zeynep Altinay & Eric Rittmeyer & Lauren L. Morris & Margaret A. Reams, 2021. "Public risk salience of sea level rise in Louisiana, United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 523-536, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Sefa Mızrak & Ahmet Özdemir & Ramazan Aslan, 2021. "Adaptation of hurricane risk perception scale to earthquake risk perception and determining the factors affecting women's earthquake risk perception," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 109(3), pages 2241-2259, December.
    10. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    11. Eoin O'Neill & Finbarr Brereton & Harutyun Shahumyan & J. Peter Clinch, 2016. "The Impact of Perceived Flood Exposure on Flood‐Risk Perception: The Role of Distance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2158-2186, November.
    12. Xizheng Xu & Ying Fan & Yunpeng Wu & Senlin Zhou, 2022. "Authenticity Mediates the Relationship between Risk Perception of COVID-19 and Subjective Well-Being: A Daily Diary Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-11, October.
    13. Ruikun Peng & Yinyin Zhao & Ehsan Elahi & Benhong Peng, 2021. "Does disaster shocks affect farmers’ willingness for insurance? Mediating effect of risk perception and survey data from risk-prone areas in East China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 106(3), pages 2883-2899, April.
    14. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Zhu, Xun & Pasch, Timothy J. & Bergstrom, Aaron, 2020. "Understanding the structure of risk belief systems concerning drone delivery: A network analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    17. Loredana Ivan & Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol, 2017. "Older People, Mobile Communication and Risks," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, April.
    18. 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.
    19. Leslie A. Nieves & Jeffery J. Himmelberger & Samuel J. Ratick & Allen L. White, 1992. "Negotiated Compensation for Solid‐Waste Disposal Facility Siting: An Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 505-511, December.
    20. McCluskey, Jill & Rausser, Gordon C., 2000. "Estimation of perceived risk and its effect on property values," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt46x0r71b, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.

    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:14:y:2017:i:6:p:620-:d:100876. 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.