Communicating radon risks: the impact of different risk formulations on risk perception and protection intention

Communication campaigns addressing radon-related health risks have struggled to promote health-protective behaviour effectively. Typically framed as a ‘naturally occurring gas’, this study explores whether this framing might attenuate radon risk perception. It compares the impact of framing radon as an ‘indoor air pollutant’ versus a ‘natural gas’ on risk perceptions and on intentions to protect against radon. It also explores the role of perceptions of the burdensomeness of mitigation, self-efficacy and stigma as potential moderators of the framing effect for health protection intentions. Using Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI), 2,012 stratified respondents, representative of the Slovenian adult population, completed a survey. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of two radon frames: ‘indoor air pollutant’ or ‘natural gas’. Results reveal low compliance to test and mitigate radon, regardless of residing in high- or low-risk areas. Risk perception was significantly higher when framed as ‘Indoor air pollution.’ However, the ‘natural gas’ frame resulted in slightly stronger intentions to test and mitigate radon. The impact of framing on intentions was significantly moderated by (a) perceptions of the burdensomeness and (b) the stigma. In conclusion, how radon risk is framed in communication strategies needs careful attention, as it influences risk perception and individuals’ intentions to take action.