Psychological Drivers of Individual Differences in Risk Perception: A Systematic Case Study Focusing on 5G

2021 · Unclear · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

UnclearModerate evidencePaper 860

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2021

Study typeother

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Psychological Drivers of Individual Differences in Risk Perception: A Systematic Case Study Focusing on 5G Renato Frey. Psychological Drivers of Individual Differences in Risk Perception: A Systematic Case Study Focusing on 5G. Psychol Sci. 2021 Oct;32(10):1592-1604. doi: 10.1177/0956797621998312. Abstract What drives people's perceptions of novel risks, and how malleable are such risk perceptions? Psychological research has identified multiple potential drivers of risk perception, but no studies have yet tested within a unified analytic framework how well each of these drivers accounts for individual differences in large population samples. To provide such a framework, I harnessed the deployment of 5G-the latest generation of cellular network technology. Specifically, I conducted a multiverse analysis using a representative population sample in Switzerland (Study 1; N = 2,919 individuals between 15 and 94 years old), finding that interindividual differences in risk perceptions were strongly associated with hazard-related drivers (e.g., trust in the institutions regulating 5G, dread) and person-specific drivers (e.g., electromagnetic hypersensitivity)-and strongly predictive of people's policy-related attitudes (e.g., voting intentions). Further, a field experiment based on a national expert report on 5G (N = 839 individuals in a longitudinal sample between 17 and 79 years old) identified links between intraindividual changes in psychological drivers and perceived risk, thus highlighting potential targets for future policy interventions. Excerpt ... three hazard-related drivers stood out in terms of their associations with interindividual differences in risk perceptions: Dread of 5G was strongly associated with higher risk perceptions, whereas trust in the institutions regulating 5G and objective knowledge about 5G were strongly associated with lower risk perceptions. Two more generic, person-specific drivers (electromagnetic hypersensitivity and gender) were further predictors of interindividual differences. Crucially, changes in risk perception that occurred within individuals across time were primarily associated with intraindividual changes in dread and trust, whereas changes in perceived benefit were primarily associated with intraindividual changes in trust and objective knowledge. Finally, people’s policy- related attitudes proved to hinge strongly on perceived risk (inversely) and benefit (positively) as well as to be sensitive to respective changes in these two dimensions that occurred across time. Open access paper: journals.sagepub.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionunclear

PopulationRepresentative population sample in Switzerland (Study 1: individuals 15–94 years); longitudinal sample (field experiment) (17–79 years)

Sample size2919

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a multiverse analysis of a representative Swiss sample (N=2,919), individual differences in perceived 5G risk were strongly associated with hazard-related drivers (e.g., dread, trust in institutions regulating 5G, objective knowledge) and person-specific drivers (e.g., electromagnetic hypersensitivity, gender), and perceived risk/benefit strongly predicted policy-related attitudes (e.g., voting intentions). In a longitudinal field experiment based on a national expert report on 5G (N=839), within-person changes in perceived risk were primarily linked to changes in dread and trust, and changes in perceived benefit were linked to changes in trust and objective knowledge.

Outcomes measured

Perceived risk of 5G
Perceived benefit of 5G
Psychological drivers of risk perception (e.g., dread, trust in institutions regulating 5G, objective knowledge, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, gender)
Policy-related attitudes (e.g., voting intentions)
Within-person changes in perceived risk/benefit over time (field experiment)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "5G cellular network technology",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Representative population sample in Switzerland (Study 1: individuals 15–94 years); longitudinal sample (field experiment) (17–79 years)",
  "sample_size": 2919,
  "outcomes": [
    "Perceived risk of 5G",
    "Perceived benefit of 5G",
    "Psychological drivers of risk perception (e.g., dread, trust in institutions regulating 5G, objective knowledge, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, gender)",
    "Policy-related attitudes (e.g., voting intentions)",
    "Within-person changes in perceived risk/benefit over time (field experiment)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a multiverse analysis of a representative Swiss sample (N=2,919), individual differences in perceived 5G risk were strongly associated with hazard-related drivers (e.g., dread, trust in institutions regulating 5G, objective knowledge) and person-specific drivers (e.g., electromagnetic hypersensitivity, gender), and perceived risk/benefit strongly predicted policy-related attitudes (e.g., voting intentions). In a longitudinal field experiment based on a national expert report on 5G (N=839), within-person changes in perceived risk were primarily linked to changes in dread and trust, and changes in perceived benefit were linked to changes in trust and objective knowledge.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "5G",
    "risk perception",
    "dread",
    "trust",
    "objective knowledge",
    "electromagnetic hypersensitivity",
    "policy attitudes",
    "voting intentions",
    "multiverse analysis",
    "field experiment",
    "Switzerland"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "5g-policy",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Focuses on 5G risk perception and links to policy-related attitudes (e.g., voting intentions) and policy interventions."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1177/0956797621998312
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library