Effects of as-if risk framing of hazards on risk perception and its rebuttal.

BACKGROUND: The difference between hazard and risk is crucial in risk assessment but rather unknown by non-experts. Hyper-partisan activists could use this knowledge gap to amplify risk perception by framing hazards as as-if risks, i.e., describing hazards as if their exposure is critical. Thus, using this as-if risk framing can trigger impressions that a risk is present. Until now, this framing technique and its rebuttal was not empirically analyzed. METHOD: An experimental 2 × 2 factorial online study (N = 404) with repeated measures after intervention was conducted to investigate how framing (hazard vs. as-if risk) and stigmatization (stigmatized vs. non-stigmatized chemical agent) affects affective and cognitive risk perception using an example of exposure to drifting pesticides. RESULTS: As-if risk framing increased risk perception, effects of stigmatization were not observed. However, the a-priori risk perception influences the recorded risk perceptions after the experimental treatment. Rebuttal was successful, i.e., subjects with elevated risk perceptions due to as-if risk framing reduced their risk perception after receiving corrective information. CONCLUSIONS: As-if risk framing investigated here is not a sequestered case. Accordingly, the present study may offer general insights into correcting biased information that neglects the difference between hazard and risk. Risk communicators can benefit from these insights.

Mobile phone carrying locations and risk perception of men: A cross-sectional study.

Little was known about the relationship between carrying mobile phone handsets by men and their risk perception of radiofrequency-electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure due to carrying handsets close to the body. This study aimed to determine where men usually carried their handsets and to assess the relationship to risk perception of RF-EMF. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire about mobile phone use, handset carrying locations, and levels of risk perception to RF-EMF. Data were analysed using linear regression models to examine if risk perception differed by mobile phone carrying location. The participants were 356 men, aged 18-72 years. They owned a mobile phone for 2-29 years, with over three quarters (78.7%) having a mobile phone for over 20 years. The most common locations that men kept their handsets when they were 'indoors' were: on a table/desk (54.0%) or in close contact with the body (34.7%). When outside, 54.0% of men kept the handset in the front trouser pocket. While making or receiving calls, 85.0% of men held their mobile phone handset against the head and 15.0% either used earphones or loudspeaker. Men who carried their handset in close contact with the body perceived higher risks from RF-EMF exposure compared to those who kept it away from the body (p<0.01). A substantial proportion of men carried their mobile phone handsets in close proximity to reproductive organs i.e. front pocket of trousers (46.5%). Men who kept their handset with the hand (p < .05), and those who placed it in the T-shirt pocket (p < .05), while the phone was not in use, were more likely to perceive health risks from their behaviour, compared to those who kept it away from the body. However, whether this indicates a causal relationship, remains open.

Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection.

Uncertainty is a crucial issue for any risk assessment. Consequently, it also poses crucial challenges for risk communications. Many guidebooks advise reporting uncertainties in risk assessments, expecting that the audience will appreciate this disclosure. However, the empirical evidence about the effects of uncertainty reporting is sparse and inconclusive. Therefore, based on examples of potential health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMF), three experiments were conducted analysing the effects of communicating uncertainties separately for hazard identification, risk characterisation and risk protection. The setups aimed to explore how reporting and how explaining of uncertainty affects dependent variables such as risk perception, perceived competence of the risk assessors, and trust in risk management. Each of the three experiments used a 2x2 design with a first factor presenting uncertainty descriptions (as used in public controversies on EMF related health effects) or describing a certainty conditions; and a second factor explaining the causes of uncertainties (by pointing at knowledge gaps) or not explaining them. The study results indicate that qualitative uncertainty descriptions regarding hazard identification reduce the confidence in the professional competencies of the assessors. In contrast, a quantitative uncertainty description in risk characterisation-regarding the magnitude of the risk-does not affect any of the dependent variables. Concerning risk protection, trust in exposure limit values is not affected by qualitative uncertainty information. However, the qualitative description of uncertainty regarding the adequacy of protection amplifies fears. Furthermore, explaining this uncertainty results in lower text understandability.

Wi-fi related radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF): a pilot experimental study of personal exposure and risk perception.

The impact of providing people with an objectively measured personal radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) exposure information on the risk perception of people is not well understood. We conducted an experimental study, among three groups of participants, to investigate the risk perception of people towards RF-EMF from Wi-Fi sources (ISM 2.4 GHz) by providing participants with either basic text, precautionary information, or a summary of their personal RF-EMF exposure measurement levels. Participants provided with personal RF-EMF exposure measurement information were more confident in protecting themselves from RF-EMF exposure, compared to those provided with only basic information. Nonetheless, neither the exposure perception nor the risk perception of people to Wi-Fi related RF-EMF differed by the type of information provided. The measured Wi-Fi signal levels were far below international exposure limits. Furthermore, self-rated levels of personal RF-EMF exposure perception were not associated with objectively measured RF-EMF exposure levels. Providing people with objectively measured information may help them build confidence in protecting themselves from Wi-Fi related RF-EMF exposure.

Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and risk perception: A pilot experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to far-field radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) has raised public concerns in recent decades. However, it is not known if individuals' perception towards the health risks of RF-EMF is dependent on their knowledge of the objectively measured personal RF-EMF exposure levels. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of objectively measuring personal RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone base stations (MPBS) and to determine if the risk perception of people to the potential health risk of exposure to RF-EMF from MPBS is dependent on their knowledge of personal RF-EMF exposure levels. DESIGN: An experimental study was conducted in 383 adults, recruited in Melbourne, Australia. Participants were randomized to one of the three groups: 1) basic information group who were provided with basic information about RF-EMF to read prior to completing a risk perception assessment questionnaire; 2) precautionary group who were provided with an information pack which included precautionary messages; and 3) personal exposure measurement group who were provided with a summary of their quantitative RF-EMF exposure from MPBS. The same basic information about RF-EMF was also given to the precautionary and personal exposure measurement groups. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (±â€¯SD) age of 36.9 ±â€¯12.5 years; 66.7% were women. Overall, 44.1% had noticed an MPBS in their neighbourhood. The mean (SD) values (from 1 to 7) for risk perceptions to RF-EMF from MPBS were 4.02 (1.67) for basic information, 3.82 (1.62) for precautionary messages, and 3.97 (1.72) for the personal exposure measurement groups. These differences were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the personal exposure measurement group were more confident that they could protect themselves from RF-EMF than the precautionary or basic information groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that providing people with personal RF-EMF exposure measurements may not affect their perceived risk from MPBS, but increase their confidence in protecting themselves.

Personal Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields among Australian Adults.

The measurement of personal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) is important for epidemiological studies. RF-EMF exposure can be measured using personal exposimeters that register RF-EMFs over a wide range of frequency bands. This study aimed to measure and describe personal RF-EMF exposure levels from a wide range of frequency bands. Measurements were recorded from 63 participants over an average of 27.4 (±4.5) hours. RF-EMF exposure levels were computed for each frequency band, as well as from downlink (RF from mobile phone base station), uplink (RF from mobile phone handsets), broadcast, and Wi-Fi. Participants had a mean (±SD) age of 36.9 ± 12.5 years; 66.7% were women; and almost all (98.2%) from urban areas. A Wi-Fi router at home was reported by 61 participants (96.8%), with 38 (61.2%) having a Wi-Fi enabled smart TV. Overall, 26 (41.3%) participants had noticed the existence of a mobile phone base station in their neighborhood. On average, participants estimated the distance between the base station and their usual residence to be about 500 m. The median personal RF-EMF exposure was 208 mV/m. Downlink contributed 40.4% of the total RF-EMF exposure, followed by broadcast (22.4%), uplink (17.3%), and Wi-Fi (15.9%). RF-EMF exposure levels on weekdays were higher than weekends (p < 0.05). Downlink and broadcast are the main contributors to total RF-EMF personal exposure. Personal RF-EMF exposure levels vary according to day of the week and time of day.

Can explicit suggestions about the harmfulness of EMF exposure exacerbate a nocebo response in healthy controls?

While there has been consistent evidence that symptoms reported by individuals who suffer from Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance attributed to Electromagnetic Fields (IEI-EMF) are not caused by EMF and are more closely associated with a nocebo effect, whether this response is specific to IEI-EMF sufferers and what triggers it, remains unclear. The present experiment tested whether perceived EMF exposure could elicit symptoms in healthy participants, and whether viewing an 'alarmist' video could exacerbate a nocebo response. Participants were randomly assigned to watch either an alarmist (N = 22) or control video (N = 22) before completing a series of sham and active radiofrequency (RF) EMF exposure provocation trials (2 open-label, followed by 12 randomized, double-blind, counterbalanced trials). Pre- and post-video state anxiety and risk perception, as well as belief of exposure and symptom ratings during the open-label and double-blind provocation trials, were assessed. Symptoms were higher in the open-label RF-ON than RF-OFF trial (p < .001). No difference in either symptoms (p = .183) or belief of exposure (p = .144) was observed in the double-blind trials. Participants who viewed the alarmist video had a significant increase in symptoms (p = .041), state anxiety (p < .01) and risk perception (p < .001) relative to the control group. These results reveal the crucial role of awareness and belief in the presentation of symptoms during perceived exposure to EMF, showing that healthy participants exhibit a nocebo response, and that alarmist media reports emphasizing adverse effects of EMF also contribute to a nocebo response.

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

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.

Exposure Knowledge and Perception of Wireless Communication Technologies.

The presented survey investigates risk and exposure perceptions of radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) associated with base stations, mobile phones and other sources, the key issue being the interaction between both sets of perceptions. The study is based on a cross-sectional design, and conducted with an online sample of 838 citizens from Portugal. The results indicate that respondents' intuitive exposure perception differs from the actual exposure levels. Furthermore, exposure and risk perceptions are found to be highly correlated. Respondents' beliefs about exposure factors, which might influence possible health risks, is appropriate. A regression analysis between exposure characteristics, as predictor variables, and RF EMF risk perception, as the response variable, indicates that people seem to use simple heuristics to form their perceptions. What is bigger, more frequent and longer lasting is seen as riskier. Moreover, the quality of exposure knowledge is not an indicator for amplified EMF risk perception. These findings show that exposure perception is key to future risk communication.

Exposure Perception as a Key Indicator of Risk Perception and Acceptance of Sources of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields.

The presented survey was conducted in six European countries as an online study. A total of 2454 subjects participated. Two main research questions were investigated: firstly, how does the cognitive, moral, and affective framing of radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure perception influence RF EMF risk perception? Secondly, can the deployment of mobile phone base stations have greater acceptance with RF EMF exposure reduction? The findings with respect to the first question clearly indicated that the cognitive framed exposure perception is the main determinant of RF EMF risk perception. The concomitant sensitivity to exposure strength offers an opportunity to improve the acceptance of base stations by exposure reduction. A linear regression analysis supported this assumption: in a fictional test situation, exposure reduction improved the acceptance of base stations, operationalized as the requested distance of the base station from one's own home. Furthermore, subjects with high RF EMF risk perception were most sensitive to exposure reduction. On average, a 70% exposure reduction reduced the requested distance from about 2000 meters to 1000 meters. The consequences for risk communication are discussed.

Exposure Knowledge and Risk Perception of RF EMF.

The presented study is part of the EU-Project Low EMF Exposure Future Networks (LEXNET), which deals among other things with the issue of whether a reduction of the radiofrequency (RF) electro-magnetic fields (EMF) exposure will result in more acceptance of wireless communication networks in the public sphere. We assume that the effects of any reduction of EMF exposure will depend on the subjective link between exposure perception and risk perception (RP). Therefore we evaluated respondents' RP of different RF EMF sources and their subjective knowledge about various exposure characteristics with regard to their impact on potential health risks. The results show that participants are more concerned about base stations than about all other RF EMF sources. Concerning the subjective exposure knowledge the results suggest that people have a quite appropriate impact model. The question how RF EMF RP is actually affected by the knowledge about the various exposure characteristics was tested in a linear regression analysis. The regression indicates that these features - except distance - do influence people's general RF EMF RP. In addition, we analyzed the effect of the quality of exposure knowledge on RF EMF RP of various sources. The results show a tendency that better exposure knowledge leads to higher RP, especially for mobile phones. The study provides empirical support for models of the relationships between exposure perception and RP. It is not the aim to extrapolate these findings to the whole population because the samples are not exactly representative for the general public in the participating countries.