Specifying factors in radiation risk perception

Improving Precautionary Communication in the EMF Field? Effects of Making Messages Consistent and Explaining the Effectiveness of Precautions

Many radiation health agencies communicate precautionary measures regarding the use of mobile communication devices, e.g. the use of a headset while talking on the phone. These precautionary messages have, however, been shown to unintentionally increase risk perceptions about radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs). The current study tested two potential ways of amending precautionary messages in order to minimise this unintentional effect. Firstly, the messages’ potential to be perceived as inconsistent and thereby raise suspicions was addressed; secondly, the effectiveness of the precautions was explained. An experimental design was applied in which a quota sample of 1717 Australian residents was randomly assigned to one of six message conditions. Three different risk perception measures served as dependent variables, two of them are conditional measures. The original effect of precautionary messages to amplify risk perceptions could not be replicated. Furthermore, amending precautionary messages in favour of more consistency had no effect, while explaining the effectiveness of the precautions increased conditional risk perception under the condition that no precautions are taken. This was contrary to our assumptions. We infer from these results that changing precautionary messages in terms of consistency and effectiveness in order to reduce risk perception is hardly possible. The use of conditional risk perception measures seems fruitful for studies looking at the effects of precautionary or protective messages, given that previous studies have only investigated effects on unconditional risk perception. However, the present results should not be over-interpreted as the measures’ validity in the EMF context still needs further investigation.

Units related to radiation exposure and radioactivity in mass media: the Fukushima case study in Europe and Russia

Using an analysis of the way European newspapers covered the Fukushima nuclear accident, this article explores how the mass media transmit information about radiation risks from experts to the general public. The study applied a media content analysis method on a total of 1340 articles from 12 leading newspapers in 6 countries: Belgium (N = 260), Italy (N = 270), Norway (N = 133), Russia (N = 172), Slovenia (N = 190) and Spain (N = 315). All articles analysed were selected as being directly or indirectly related to the Fukushima accident by containing the word 'nuclear' and/or 'Fukushima' and were published between the 11th March and the 11th May 2011. The data presented here focus specifically on a cross-cultural comparison of the way the media use quantitative units. Results suggest that although experts are accustomed to communicating about radiological risks in technical language, often using quantitative units to describe the risks, mass media do not tend to use these units in their reporting. Although the study found a large variation in the measurement units used in different countries, it appeared that journalists in all the analysed countries preferred to describe radioactivity by comparing different radiation exposures, rather than reporting the actual measured units. The paper concludes with some practical guidelines for sound public communication about radiation risks.

How does the general public evaluate risk information? The impact of associations with other risks

There is a considerable body of knowledge about the way people perceive risks using heuristics and qualitative characteristics, and about how risk information should be communicated to the public. However, little is known about the way people use the perception of known risks (associated risks) to judge an unknown risk. In a first, qualitative study, six different risks were discussed in in-depth interviews and focus group interviews. The interviews showed that risk associations played a prominent role in forming risk perceptions. Associated risks were often mentioned spontaneously. Second, a survey study was conducted to confirm the importance of risk associations quantitatively. This study investigated whether people related unknown risks to known risks. This was indeed confirmed. Furthermore, some insight was gained into how and why people form risk associations. Results showed that the semantic category of the unknown risks was more important in forming associations than the perceived level of risk or specific risk characteristics. These findings were in line with the semantic network theory. Based on these two studies, we recommend using the mental models approach in developing new risk communications.

Travel risks in a time of terror: judgments and choices

Shortly after the 2002 terrorist attacks in Bali, readers of Conde Nast Traveler magazine were surveyed regarding their views on the risks of travel to various destinations. Their risk estimates were highest for Israel, and lowest for Canada. Estimates for the different destinations correlated positively with (1) one another, (2) concern over aspects of travel that can make one feel at risk (e.g., sticking out as an American), (3) worries about other travel problems (e.g., contracting an infectious disease), and (4) attitudes toward risk. Respondents' willingness to travel to a destination was predicted well by whether their estimate of its risk was above or below their general threshold for the acceptability of travel risks. Overall, the responses suggest orderly choices, based on highly uncertain judgments of risks. Worry played a significant role in these choices, even after controlling for cognitive considerations, thereby supporting the recently proposed "risk as feelings" hypothesis. Thus, even among people who have generally consistent and defensible beliefs, emotions may affect choices. These results emerged with people selected for their interest in and experience with the decision domain (travel), but challenged to incorporate a new concern (terror).

Differences in the perception of blood transfusion risk between laypeople and physicians

BACKGROUND

There is little objective evidence to support the commonly held belief that laypeople perceive blood transfusion risk differently from physicians. Acknowledging and characterizing such differences may improve risk communication. The objective of this study was to characterize how laypeople and physicians perceive the risks of blood transfusion in comparison with a wide variety of other hazards.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 161 laypeople and 91 physicians and medical trainees were surveyed in Kingston, Ontario, between March and August 2000. The perceived riskiness and other qualitative characteristics of blood transfusion and 9 other hazards were measured by psychometric scaling and principal components analysis.

RESULTS

The overall return rate was 100 percent, with 86 percent of surveys having no missing responses. Physicians perceived the risks of blood transfusion and most other hazards to be less dreaded and severe, but also less understood and controllable than laypeople.

CONCLUSION

Laypeople and physicians perceive risk differently for blood transfusion, but this perceptual gap between the groups for blood transfusion may be representative of a more generalized phenomenon that spans different types of hazards, both medical and nonmedical. Awareness of such differences may facilitate risk communication and shared decision making between physicians and their patients.

Are received risk perception models alive and well?

Two recent papers on risk perception models are discussed. In these papers, quantitative analyses are presented of risk perception in relation to risk characteristics as specified in the Psychometric Model, and to cultural biases according to Cultural Theory. This comment points out that the data quality of these two studies is doubtful, with a very small convenience sample and a very low response rate. More importantly, the analyses show the same low levels of explained variance of risk perception as other researchers have found previously, but the authors still draw optimistic conclusions from their data. Such conclusions are unjustified.