Framing Effects in Risk Communication Messages - Hazard Identification vs. Risk Assessment

Environmental research · 2020 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 1339

Study snapshot

PublicationEnvironmental research · 2020

Study typeother

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Framing Effects in Risk Communication Messages - Hazard Identification vs. Risk Assessment F Freudenstein, R J Croft, P M Wiedemann, A Verrender, C Böhmert, S P Loughran. Framing Effects in Risk Communication Messages - Hazard Identification vs. Risk Assessment. Environ Res. 2020 Aug 2;109934. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109934. Abstract 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. 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 directionno_effect

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In an online survey experiment comparing three versions of an IARC press release about mobile phones and cancer (original vs framed as risk assessment vs framed as hazard identification), no differences in RF-EMF risk perception were found between groups. Pre-existing interpretations of “risk” and “hazard” strongly predicted risk perception; participants who believed IARC conducted a hazard identification perceived lower risks and were less convinced that mobile phone RF-EMF increases cancer risk.

Outcomes measured

Risk perception (radiofrequency electromagnetic fields)
Beliefs about whether IARC conducted hazard identification vs risk assessment
Beliefs about mobile phone RF-EMF exposure increasing cancer risk

Limitations

Sample size not reported in abstract
Population characteristics not reported in abstract
Exposure metrics (frequency, SAR, duration) not applicable/not reported; study concerns message framing rather than measured exposure
Outcomes are self-reported perceptions/beliefs rather than health outcomes

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 (radiofrequency electromagnetic fields)",
    "Beliefs about whether IARC conducted hazard identification vs risk assessment",
    "Beliefs about mobile phone RF-EMF exposure increasing cancer risk"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In an online survey experiment comparing three versions of an IARC press release about mobile phones and cancer (original vs framed as risk assessment vs framed as hazard identification), no differences in RF-EMF risk perception were found between groups. Pre-existing interpretations of “risk” and “hazard” strongly predicted risk perception; participants who believed IARC conducted a hazard identification perceived lower risks and were less convinced that mobile phone RF-EMF increases cancer risk.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Population characteristics not reported in abstract",
    "Exposure metrics (frequency, SAR, duration) not applicable/not reported; study concerns message framing rather than measured exposure",
    "Outcomes are self-reported perceptions/beliefs rather than health outcomes"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "risk communication",
    "framing effects",
    "hazard identification",
    "risk assessment",
    "mobile phones",
    "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields",
    "IARC",
    "cancer",
    "risk perception",
    "press release",
    "online survey"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.55,
      "reason": "Study evaluates public interpretation of an IARC press release and distinctions between hazard identification and risk assessment in RF-EMF communication."
    }
  ]
}

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.2020.109934
PubMed: 32755556

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library