Effects of selective outcome reporting on risk perception

Environmental research · 2021 · Harm · Low evidence

← Research stream

HarmLow evidencePaper 1220

Study snapshot

PublicationEnvironmental research · 2021

Study typeother

Reported directionHarm

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Effects of selective outcome reporting on risk perception F Freudenstein, R J Croft, S P Loughran, B M Zeleke, P M Wiedemann. Effects of selective outcome reporting on risk perception. Environ Res. 2021 Feb 3;110821. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110821. Highlights • An experimental study investigated how selective reporting of study results - indicating increased health effects - influenced its receiver’s risk perception. • Selective reporting of risk information increased risk perception when compared to receiving the full information. • Selectively informed subjects revealed a stronger tendency towards overgeneralization of health risks. • The results indicate that reporting of full study results is an important factor in effective risk communication. Abstract 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. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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 directionharm

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In an online experiment using information framed from the Interphone Study (2010), participants who received selectively reported results indicating increased health effects showed higher risk perception than those who received the full results. Selectively informed participants more often overgeneralized an elevated brain cancer (glioma) risk to all mobile phone users, but this did not extend to overgeneralization to other EMF sources or to differences in perceived usage-time dependency.

Outcomes measured

Risk perception
Overgeneralization of perceived brain cancer risk (glioma) to all mobile phone users
Perception of usage time dependency for possible health risks
Overgeneralization to other electromagnetic field sources (risk perception)

Limitations

Sample size not reported in provided abstract/metadata
Population characteristics not reported in provided abstract/metadata
Exposure parameters (frequency, SAR, actual exposure) not reported; study concerns communication of study results rather than measuring EMF exposure
Uses Interphone Study results as an example; findings pertain to selective reporting effects on perception

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "mobile phone",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Risk perception",
    "Overgeneralization of perceived brain cancer risk (glioma) to all mobile phone users",
    "Perception of usage time dependency for possible health risks",
    "Overgeneralization to other electromagnetic field sources (risk perception)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In an online experiment using information framed from the Interphone Study (2010), participants who received selectively reported results indicating increased health effects showed higher risk perception than those who received the full results. Selectively informed participants more often overgeneralized an elevated brain cancer (glioma) risk to all mobile phone users, but this did not extend to overgeneralization to other EMF sources or to differences in perceived usage-time dependency.",
  "effect_direction": "harm",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in provided abstract/metadata",
    "Population characteristics not reported in provided abstract/metadata",
    "Exposure parameters (frequency, SAR, actual exposure) not reported; study concerns communication of study results rather than measuring EMF exposure",
    "Uses Interphone Study results as an example; findings pertain to selective reporting effects on perception"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "selective outcome reporting",
    "risk communication",
    "risk perception",
    "mobile phone",
    "glioma",
    "brain cancer",
    "Interphone Study",
    "electromagnetic fields"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.25,
      "reason": "Addresses risk communication and interpretation of evidence about mobile phone RF and cancer, relevant to major health-risk assessment frameworks."
    }
  ]
}

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: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110821
PubMed: 33548295

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library