Beliefs and Emotionality in Risk Appraisals

Many technology debates are characterized by uncertainty in scientific knowledge and emotional discussions between different stakeholders. A considerable amount of information is provided by different stakeholders, emphasizing different views of a controversial subject. This includes, on the one hand, technology-critical information that consists of arguments underlining possible negative effects, such as terrifying diseases, foment fear and concern and, on the other hand, information that supports a certain technology, usually comprising arguments that emphasize its harmlessness. A good example of this type of technology debate is the controversial issue of high-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF). The questions that arise from a risk-communication perspective are whether different accentuations in risk information—such as one-sided versus balanced arguments—have an impact on a layperson's risk appraisal and whether a layperson's prior beliefs are influenced by unbalanced information. These questions are investigated in a three-factorial experimental study with a between-subjects design. The findings suggest that people have already formed an opinion on the EMF issue. Firstly, these prior beliefs influence their risk judgments and, secondly, highly emotional information polarizes existing beliefs and thereby influences the laypersons' risk appraisals.