IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v7y2017i2p7-d95863.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Older People, Mobile Communication and Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Loredana Ivan

    (Communication Department, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration (SNSPA), Bucharest 012104, Romania)

  • Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol

    (Interdisciplinary Internet Institute (IN3); Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona 08018, Spain)

Abstract

Starting from Beck’s concept of reflexivity, the paper investigates differences in risk perception regarding wireless technologies expressed by older people living in Romania and Catalonia (Spain). We combine evidence from conversations held with older individuals in different research projects together with an ad-hoc media content analysis. Our research reveals that seniors’ discourses were consistent with the media prominence of different types of risks in each country. Results show that seniors’ discourses on health risks relate to the way the media discussed them, with Romanian participants, in contrast to older people from Catalonia, expressing no concerns about electromagnetic radiation. Also, Romanian seniors were more concerned about the risk to others—younger family members—whereas seniors in Catalonia were more concerned about their own risks. Seniors from Romania made more references to the country’s development. We discuss aging futures in societies with different risk perceptions. As the media presents the risks associated with digital technologies in differing lights, people’s perceptions are formed accordingly. Also, in countries where technology is perceived as good per se , the techno-optimistic discourse would be reinforced not only by the media but also by the groups exposed to the highest social pressure towards technology adoption—for example, seniors.

Suggested Citation

  • Loredana Ivan & Mireia Fernández-Ardèvol, 2017. "Older People, Mobile Communication and Risks," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:7:y:2017:i:2:p:7-:d:95863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/7/2/7/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/7/2/7/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ortwin Renn & Christina Benighaus, 2013. "Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3-4), pages 293-313, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Donkers, Bas & Melenberg, Bertrand & Van Soest, Arthur, 2001. "Estimating Risk Attitudes Using Lotteries: A Large Sample Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 165-195, March.
    4. Josep Espluga, 2005. "Precautionary local politics and coping with risks of radiofrequency fields in Spain," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(1/2), pages 68-77.
    5. Fischhoff, Baruch & Kadvany, John, 2011. "Risk: A Very Short Introduction," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199576203.
    6. Bernd Kowall & Jürgen Breckenkamp & Maria Blettner & Brigitte Schlehofer & Joachim Schüz & Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff, 2012. "Determinants and stability over time of perception of health risks related to mobile phone base stations," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 57(4), pages 735-743, August.
    7. 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.
    8. Anna Olofsson & Susanna Öhman, 2007. "Views of Risk in Sweden: Global Fatalism and Local Control - An Empirical Investigation of Ulrich Beck's Theory of New Risks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 177-196, March.
    9. 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.
    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. Iancu, Ioana & Iancu, Bogdan, 2020. "Designing mobile technology for elderly. A theoretical overview," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).

    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 & 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    4. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    5. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    6. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    7. King, Timothy & Srivastav, Abhishek & Williams, Jonathan, 2016. "What's in an education? Implications of CEO education for bank performance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 287-308.
    8. 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.
    9. Nicos Nicolaou & Scott Shane, 2019. "Common genetic effects on risk-taking preferences and choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 261-279, December.
    10. Alison L. Booth & Patrick Nolen, 2012. "Gender differences in risk behaviour: does nurture matter?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(558), pages 56-78, February.
    11. Nolan Miller & Alexander Wagner & Richard Zeckhauser, 2013. "Solomonic separation: Risk decisions as productivity indicators," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 265-297, June.
    12. Seeun Jung, 2015. "Does education affect risk aversion? Evidence from the British education reform," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(28), pages 2924-2938, June.
    13. Tansel Yilmazer & Angela Lyons, 2010. "Marriage and the Allocation of Assets in Women’s Defined Contribution Plans," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 121-137, June.
    14. Günther G. Schulze & Björn Frank, 2003. "Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: Experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 143-160, August.
    15. Joseph G. Eisenhauer, 2003. "Approximation bias in estimating risk aversion," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(38), pages 1-10.
    16. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    17. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    18. Eiichi Tomiura & Banri Ito & Hiroshi Mukunoki & Ryuhei Wakasugi, 2016. "Individual Characteristics, Behavioral Biases, and Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey in Japan," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1081-1095, November.
    19. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Obst, Cosima & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2023. "Risk preferences and training investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 668-686.
    20. Lehmann, Erik E. & Warning, Susanne, 2003. "The impact of gender on individual decisions: Evidence from the "Millionaire Show"," Discussion Papers, Series I 325, University of Konstanz, Department of Economics.

    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:jsoctx:v:7:y:2017:i:2:p:7-:d:95863. 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.