Effects of generalization descriptions on risk perception.

The study addresses the effects of generalization descriptions on risk perceptions. In a 1-factorial online experiment, 629 participants were randomly allocated to one of three groups. Group G1 received an excerpt of an original press release from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) regarding mobile phones and cancer, classifying RF EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Group G2 received an additional explanatory text module, and Group G3 received a rewritten text, with both G2 and G3 highlighting that the possible cancer risk only refers to mobile phones. Risk perceptions regarding cell phones and related personal devices, base stations, and high voltage power lines were used as dependent variables measured before and after text reading. Further, the degree to which participants generalized from cell phone-related to other RF EMF exposures was assessed to determine whether this was predictive of their post-text risk perceptions. Regarding risk perceptions, no differences between the three groups were observed after reading the presented texts. Instead, all three experimental groups indicated increased risk perceptions for all electromagnetic field sources. However, we found significant differences according to the prevailing risk generalization belief. Respondents expressing a strong risk generalization belief showed significantly higher risk perceptions for all tested EMF sources (except mobile phones) than subjects with a weak risk generalization belief.

Eliminating the effects of reporting bias on risk perception.

Taking the public discourse on health risks due to aluminum in antiperspirants as an example, we conducted a randomized controlled study with repeated measurements to research how selective reporting of risk information affects risk perception and trust in risk information. First, the study varied the information scope that the experimental subjects received (selective vs. complete information). Selective information highlighted that a health risk is given. Considering the full range of studies, complete information is indicated the opposite. A second variation referred to the facticity of the hazardous agent mentioned in the risk information (a reference to either an actual or fictitious agent). Moreover, the selectively informed subjects received the complete information after the effects of the selective information were measured. Four risk perceptions constructs were chosen as dependent variables, differing on two dimensions (affective vs. cognitive and personal risk vs. risk for others). In addition, subjects´ trust in the given risk information was measured. The study reveals that presenting selective information amplifies risk perceptions. The effect was observed, irrespective of whether the hazardous agent mentioned in the risk information was actual or fictitious. When subjects who first received the selective information obtained the complete information, indicating no elevated risk, risk perceptions decreased. However, the analysis also indicates that corrective information (indicating no risk) is less trusted than selective information that points to health risks. Furthermore, proper toxicological understanding, i.e., taking into account the dose-response relationship, supports the effect of corrective information on risk perceptions.

Effects of selective outcome reporting on risk perception.

The current study aimed to investigate how selective reporting of study results indicating increased health effects will influence its receiver's risk perception. Using the example of the Interphone Study from 2010 on mobile phone usage and cancer, an online experiment was conducted separating respondents into two groups. One group of subjects was informed selectively about a relationship between heavy mobile phone use and an elevated risk of glioma (brain cancer) only. The other group of subjects was informed about the full results of the analyses of glioma risk by cumulative call time, which suggests that other than for the heavy users, there were no statistically significant elevated risks related to mobile phone use. The results showed that selective reporting of risk information increased risk perception when compared to receiving the full information. Additionally, the selectively informed subjects revealed a stronger tendency towards overgeneralization of the 'elevated brain cancer risk' to all mobile phone users, although this did not extend to an overgeneralization to other electromagnetic field sources or differences in the perception of a usage time dependency for possible health risks. These results indicate that reporting of full results is an important factor in effective risk communication.

Framing effects in risk communication messages - Hazard identification vs. risk assessment.

The way in which risk communication messages are framed can influence recipients' risk perceptions. Despite this, there is a limited understanding of how framing is responsible for influencing risk perception. One particularly important element may be whether a risk communication message is framed as a completed 'risk assessment' (specifying a magnitude of risk to the public as a function of the exposure level), or as a 'hazard identification' (a statement regarding whether an environmental agent could in principle cause detrimental health effects in humans, without addressing whether such effects may occur in practice). The current study aimed to investigate for the first time whether framing a risk communication message regarding 'mobile phones and health' as a hazard identification or as a risk assessment affects the reader's risk perception. Using an online survey, participants were separated into three groups and shown either an original press release from the International Agency for Research on Cancer regarding mobile phones and cancer (Group 1), or the press release with additional text modules intended to frame the press release as either a risk assessment (Group 2) or a hazard identification (Group 3). The experimental manipulation was successful in that framing the message as a hazard identification reduced the number of people that believed the press release was a risk assessment, whereas framing it as a risk assessment was not able to increase the number of people who thought that it was a risk assessment. However, no differences in risk perception were found between the groups. In an attempt to ascertain the reason for this lack of framing effect on the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields risk perception measures, it was found that pre-existing interpretations of risk and hazard strongly predicted risk perception, regardless of experimental group. Participants who believed that the International Agency for Research on Cancer conducted a hazard identification perceived lower risks and were less convinced that radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure from mobile phones increases cancer risks. The results of the study demonstrate the importance of understanding the distinction between a hazard identification and a risk assessment, and suggest that radiofrequency electromagnetic field risk communication needs to develop means for empowering the public to differentiate between hazards and risks.

The neural basis of risk ratings: evidence from a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study.

Research investigating risk perception suggests that not only the quantitative parameters used in technical risk assessment (i.e., frequency and severity of harm) but also 'qualitative' aspects such as the dread a hazard provokes or its controllability influence risk judgments. It remains to be elucidated, however, which neural mechanism underlie risk ratings in healthy subjects. Using fMRI to detect changes in neural activity we compared the neural activations elicited by risk ratings with those elicited by a letter detection task performed on the same stimuli. The latter task served to control for basic stimulus processing, response selection and button-pressing during task performance. Risk ratings differentially activated the medial prefrontal cortex, the inferior frontal gyrus, the cerebellum (P<0.05, FWE corrected, whole brain approach), and in an additional ROI analysis the amygdala (P<0.05, FWE corrected). Of these structures, particularly the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex have been previously associated with decisions about affective interference. Furthermore our data suggest both, similarities and differences between the neural correlates of risk ratings and risk taking as involved, for e.g., in gambling tasks.

[SAR values of mobile phones. Safety evaluation and risk perception]. / SAR-Werte von Mobiltelefonen. Sicherheitsbewertung und Risikowahrnehmung.

The specific absorption rate (SAR) is a prominent topic in the discussion about precautionary health protection. An experimental study investigated the effect of information about various SAR values (below the existing partial body limit value of 2 W/kg) on safety judgments of potential mobile phones users. It turns out that about 94% of the participants do not know the SAR value of their own mobile phone. SAR values below existing limits are not perceived as equally safe. Rather, the lower the SAR value, the higher the perceived safety. However, a majority of the participants does not consider these SAR values to be 100% safe, even if they are clearly below the existing limits. Explicitly indicating a precautionary limit value (referring to the Federal Office for Radiation Protection or to consumer organizations) does not change this safety evaluation. As expected, safety evaluation of the SAR values is also related to the perception of mobile phone risks. Those who are concerned about mobile phone communication give lower safety judgments than the unconcerned-independent of the level of the SAR values. Irrespective of that, our results suggest that establishing the SAR value as a criterion for mobile phones depends first of all on making it known to the public.

Risk communication for environmental health hazards.

Starting with the analysis of communication problems in the field of therapeutical and environmental risks the special requirements and challenges of communicating environmental health risks will be outlined. Important problems of this type of risk communication include: (1) The political context which imposes a new role structure upon the doctor and the people involved, (2) the special importance of credibility of scientific statements, given the limited understanding of health risks related to the environment, and (3) the strong emotional component and therefore the conflict-proneness of communication.

[Cognitive and affective components of the judgement of environmental risks]. / Kognitive und affektive Komponenten der Bewertung von Umweltrisiken.

The goal of the present study was to clarify the determinants underlying people's subjective appraisal of the riskiness of environmental problems for human beings. It is assumed that judgments of environmental risks are a function of their ratings on the relevant psychological risk dimensions. In a psychometric study, 186 subjects evaluated 30 environmental problems on 13 judgment scales. Regression analysis shows that the essential predictors of risk judgments are the perceived frequency of harm, the perceived amount of harm and the emotions evoked by thinking about the threats arising from environmental problems. The results show that the subjective judgment of both the perceived frequency and amount of harm vary according to the risk source. By contrast, the various emotions evoked by the different risk sources are explained above all by interindividual differences. The regression model does not satisfactorily predict the risk judgments for one class of environmental risks, namely the condition of and changes in the biosphere. This finding points to the conclusion that subjects use more specific evaluation criteria to evaluate this class of risks.

Judgments of personal and environmental risks of consumer products--do they differ?

Many psychometric studies have investigated judgments concerning personal risks from technologies, activities or consumer products, but only a few studies have included judgments of risk to the environment. Thus, little is known about this aspect of environmental risk perception, and whether it differs from personal risk perception. This study investigates risk judgments for 30 consumer products of various types such as herbal remedies, mobile telephones, genetically engineered drugs, or garden pesticides. A survey was conducted in two German cities: Leipzig and West Berlin. In total, 408 subjects evaluated the consumer products with regard to personal and environmental risk (and other risk-related aspects) and whether they would recommend the product to others. The findings show statistically significant differences between the mean values of perceived personal risk and environmental risk for most products. Despite these differences, the rank order of mean personal risk and environmental risk judgments for the products is quite similar. However, separate analyses for each product reveal that correlations between perceived personal and environmental risk vary strongly across products. Multiple regression analyses with personal and environmental risk judgments as predictors and product recommendation as criterion, run separately for each consumer product, show that it is mainly the judgment of perceived personal risk that explains product recommendation. Perceived risk to the environment adds little explanatory power. The study also explores differences in judgments of personal and environmental risk with regard to two sociodemographic variables: location (former East Germany vs. West Germany) and gender. Differences in both types of risk judgments are found with regard to location but not for gender.

[Risk perception and risk communication in environmental medicine]. / Risikoperzeption und Risikokommunikation in der Umweltmedizin.

Environmental medicine requires special communicative talents in order to inform about risks, to change risk-related behavior or to reassure people with excessive risk-related anxieties. We provide some guidance on how to accomplish these communication tasks. First, the results of psychological risk perception research are outlined, and the cognitive and affective factors, which determine laypeople's risk appraisal, are explained. Then, the basic problems of risk communication are described and the tasks and duties of medical risk communication are specified: How can risk information be indicated in an appropriate way? Which risk comparisons can be provided to enhance understanding? What are the advantages and drawbacks of risk comparisons? What criteria can be used to evaluate the quality of risk assessment studies? What are the Do's and Dont's of risk communication? And, how should anxieties about risks be approached?

[Possibilities of standardized qualitative content analysis]. / Möglichkeiten der regelgeleiteten qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse.

This paper aims to develop further content analysis with reference to recent models of communication (pragmalinguistics, conversational analysis, and theory of texts). The central thesis is that any content analysis of linguistic symbols must include the conditions of their realization in the spoken discourse. Accordingly, the concepts for analyzing discourse are introduced which serve as the basis for the critique of traditional content analysis in psychotherapeutic research and indicate future perspectives. The first part presents concepts for analyzing spoken language: a model of the formal organization of speech, speech act theory, and a model for analyzing macrostructures in texts. In the second part the discoveries and problems of content analysis are discussed and evaluated with reference to these concepts.