IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i19p10542-d651658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating Air Quality Index Information: Effects of Different Styles on Individuals’ Risk Perception and Precaution Intention

Author

Listed:
  • Yuheng Wu

    (School of Media & Communication, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Lin Zhang

    (School of Media & Communication, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Jilong Wang

    (School of Media & Communication, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

  • Yi Mou

    (School of Media & Communication, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China)

Abstract

Air Quality Index (AQI) is information about atmospheric pollutants, which is essential for governments to inform the public about the current air quality and potential health risks. By analyzing the AQIs from 11 countries (regions), we discovered considerable variations in the design of AQI information, which may open up room for unintended interpretation from the public. Therefore, as an attempt to address the inefficiency of some common styles of AQI information in promoting the public’s precaution against bad air and better design such information, an online experiment with a 2 (descriptor: neutral vs. negatively valenced) × 2 (target groups in AQI warning messages: vague vs. specific) factorial design was conducted to test the effects of such information on individuals’ risk perception and precaution intention. The results indicated that AQI information with a neutral descriptor was associated with lower self-risk perception and precaution intention levels than with a negatively valenced one. Among the individuals not included in the at-risk groups, those who read the warning messages with vague target groups had a higher third-person perception toward smog risk than those targeting specific population groups. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuheng Wu & Lin Zhang & Jilong Wang & Yi Mou, 2021. "Communicating Air Quality Index Information: Effects of Different Styles on Individuals’ Risk Perception and Precaution Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-15, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10542-:d:651658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10542/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10542/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    2. Sun, Cong & Kahn, Matthew E. & Zheng, Siqi, 2017. "Self-protection investment exacerbates air pollution exposure inequality in urban China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 468-474.
    3. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    4. M. Brauer & J. Brumm & S. Vedal & A. J. Petkau, 2002. "Exposure Misclassification and Threshold Concentrations in Time Series Analyses of Air Pollution Health Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1183-1193, December.
    5. Chris Fife‐Schaw & Gene Rowe, 1996. "Public Perceptions of Everyday Food Hazards: A Psychometric Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 487-500, August.
    6. Jialing Huang & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Beyond under the dome: an environmental documentary amplified public risk perception about air pollution in China," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 227-241, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Wang, Qian & Wang, Jun & Gao, Feng, 2021. "Who is more important, parents or children? Economic and environmental factors and health insurance purchase," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    3. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    4. Juliana Martins Ruzante & Valerie J. Davidson & Julie Caswell & Aamir Fazil & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer J. Henson & Sven M. Anders & Claudia Schmidt & Jeffrey M. Farber, 2010. "A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(5), pages 724-742, May.
    5. Koichiro Ito & Shuang Zhang, 2020. "Willingness to Pay for Clean Air: Evidence from Air Purifier Markets in China," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1627-1672.
    6. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    7. Luigi Cembalo & Daniela Caso & Valentina Carfora & Francesco Caracciolo & Alessia Lombardi & Gianni Cicia, 2019. "The “Land of Fires” Toxic Waste Scandal and Its Effect on Consumer Food Choices," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, January.
    8. Feiyu Chen & Hong Chen & Jiahui Yang & Ruyin Long & Qianwen Li, 2018. "Impact of Information Intervention on the Recycling Behavior of Individuals with Different Value Orientations—An Experimental Study on Express Delivery Packaging Waste," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    9. Cheng-Te Lin & Yu-Sheng Huang & Lu-Wen Liao & Chung-Te Ting, 2020. "Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay to Reduce Health Risks of Contracting Dengue Fever," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Nina Veflen & Joachim Scholderer & Solveig Langsrud, 2020. "Situated Food Safety Risk and the Influence of Social Norms," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1092-1110, May.
    11. Ueland, Øydis & Langsrud, Solveig & Veflen, Nina, 2023. "Food risk communication to consumers: The scare of antibiotic resistant bacteria in chicken," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 14(02), June.
    12. Jingwen Liu & Peng Zou & Yu Ma, 2022. "The Effect of Air Pollution on Food Preferences," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 410-423, March.
    13. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    14. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    15. Anne E. Smith, 2018. "Setting Air Quality Standards for PM2.5: A Role for Subjective Uncertainty in NAAQS Quantitative Risk Assessments?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2318-2339, November.
    16. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    17. Joye Gordon, 2003. "Risk Communication and Foodborne Illness: Message Sponsorship and Attempts to Stimulate Perceptions of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1287-1296, December.
    18. Wei Chen & Jian Chen & Guopeng Yin, 2022. "Exploring side effects of ridesharing services in urban China: role of pollution–averting behavior," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1007-1034, December.
    19. Pan, Dan & Zhang, Ning, 2018. "The Role of Agricultural Training on Fertilizer Use Knowledge: A Randomized Controlled Experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 77-91.
    20. Mingxuan Fan & Corbett Grainger, 2023. "The Impact of Air Pollution on Labor Supply in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-19, August.

    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:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10542-:d:651658. 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.