Effects of generalization descriptions on risk perception

Abstract

Effects of generalization descriptions on risk perception Freudenstein F, Boerner F, Croft RJ, Leung RWS, Loughran SP, Wiedemann PM. Effects of generalization descriptions on risk perception. Environ Res. 2023 Feb 2:115422. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115422. Abstract 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. Highlights • The study investigated how different description formats regarding potential health effects influence risk perception. • Further the role of respondents' risk generalization beliefs was investigated. • The example of risk communication on electromagnetic fields (EMF) was used in an experimental setup. • The study results indicate that all description formats elevated respondents' risk perception. • It is also shown that a strong risk generalization belief leads to higher risk perceptions for all tested EMF sources. Conclusion Our findings point to the usefulness of Reyna's fuzzy trace theory for risk communication research (Reyna, 2021a, 2021b). This is because information does not equal knowledge. Studies analyzing effects of different information provision, such as in our study, cannot assume that the same information leads to the same knowledge and that different information leads to different knowledge. Therefore, it makes sense to consider manipulation checks that are common in psychological experiments from a theoretically perspective. Risk communication research would benefit from considering how information is interpreted and which mental representations are formed is essential when it comes to relevant risk communication. The mental representation of given risk information, particularly the risk generalization belief, is critical for risk perception. These beliefs determine the risk perception of a group of associated exposure sources, in our case, mobile communication devices. Therefore, the risk generalization belief is a significant component of intuitive risk appraisal that should have a place in risk perception studies. Furthermore, we would like to underline that risk assessors should pay attention to indicate the scope of their risk evaluations, i.e., under which conditions and for which exposure sources they are valid. In addition, risk communicators should be aware of people's tendency towards risk generalization, and further research should explore how to correct generalization biases. Open access paper: sciencedirect.com

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

In a 1-factorial online experiment (3 groups) using IARC press-release text variants about mobile phones and cancer, no post-reading differences in risk perceptions were observed between groups. Across all groups, risk perceptions increased for all electromagnetic field sources after reading the texts; participants with strong risk generalization beliefs reported higher risk perceptions for all tested EMF sources (except mobile phones) than those with weak generalization beliefs.

Outcomes measured

• Risk perception (cell phones and related personal devices)
• Risk perception (base stations)
• Risk perception (high voltage power lines)
• Risk generalization belief / generalization from cell phone-related to other RF EMF exposures

Limitations

• Exposure was informational (risk communication text) rather than measured EMF exposure.
• Outcomes were self-reported risk perceptions measured before/after reading; no health outcomes were assessed.
• No details provided in abstract on participant recruitment/representativeness or follow-up duration.

Suggested hubs

• who-icnirp (0.4)
  Uses IARC classification/press release about RF EMF and cancer as the risk communication stimulus.

{
    "study_type": "randomized_trial",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "mobile phone",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": "Online experiment participants",
    "sample_size": 629,
    "outcomes": [
        "Risk perception (cell phones and related personal devices)",
        "Risk perception (base stations)",
        "Risk perception (high voltage power lines)",
        "Risk generalization belief / generalization from cell phone-related to other RF EMF exposures"
    ],
    "main_findings": "In a 1-factorial online experiment (3 groups) using IARC press-release text variants about mobile phones and cancer, no post-reading differences in risk perceptions were observed between groups. Across all groups, risk perceptions increased for all electromagnetic field sources after reading the texts; participants with strong risk generalization beliefs reported higher risk perceptions for all tested EMF sources (except mobile phones) than those with weak generalization beliefs.",
    "effect_direction": "mixed",
    "limitations": [
        "Exposure was informational (risk communication text) rather than measured EMF exposure.",
        "Outcomes were self-reported risk perceptions measured before/after reading; no health outcomes were assessed.",
        "No details provided in abstract on participant recruitment/representativeness or follow-up duration."
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "moderate",
    "confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "risk perception",
        "risk communication",
        "generalization",
        "IARC",
        "mobile phones",
        "RF EMF",
        "base stations",
        "high voltage power lines",
        "fuzzy trace theory",
        "online experiment"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.40000000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
            "reason": "Uses IARC classification/press release about RF EMF and cancer as the risk communication stimulus."
        }
    ]
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.