RF Safe

Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic.

Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2006 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream
UnclearLow evidencePaper 5107

Study 1 found that the IAT revealed negative implicit attitudes toward nuclear power that were not detected by an explicit questionnaire. Study 2 found that cell phone base stations and power lines were judged similarly risky, and base stations were more clos…

Study snapshot

PublicationRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2006
Study typeother
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

The implicit association test (IAT) measures automatic associations. In the present research, the IAT was adapted to measure implicit attitudes toward technological hazards. In Study 1, implicit and explicit attitudes toward nuclear power were examined. Implicit measures (i.e., the IAT) revealed negative attitudes toward nuclear power that were not detected by explicit measures (i.e., a questionnaire). In Study 2, implicit attitudes toward EMF (electro-magnetic field) hazards were examined. Results showed that cell phone base stations and power lines are judged to be similarly risky and, further, that base stations are more closely related to risk concepts than home appliances are. No differences between experts and lay people were observed. Results of the present studies are in line with the affect heuristic proposed by Slovic and colleagues. Affect seems to be an important factor in risk perception.

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
PopulationNot supplied
Sample sizeNot supplied
ExposureNot supplied
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Study 1 found that the IAT revealed negative implicit attitudes toward nuclear power that were not detected by an explicit questionnaire. Study 2 found that cell phone base stations and power lines were judged similarly risky, and base stations were more closely related to risk concepts than home appliances; no differences between experts and lay people were observed.

Outcomes measured

  • Implicit attitudes toward technological hazards (IAT)
  • Explicit attitudes (questionnaire)
  • Risk perception/judgments of EMF hazards (base stations, power lines, home appliances)
  • Expert vs lay differences in risk perception
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "base station",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Implicit attitudes toward technological hazards (IAT)",
    "Explicit attitudes (questionnaire)",
    "Risk perception/judgments of EMF hazards (base stations, power lines, home appliances)",
    "Expert vs lay differences in risk perception"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Study 1 found that the IAT revealed negative implicit attitudes toward nuclear power that were not detected by an explicit questionnaire. Study 2 found that cell phone base stations and power lines were judged similarly risky, and base stations were more closely related to risk concepts than home appliances; no differences between experts and lay people were observed.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "implicit association test",
    "IAT",
    "risk perception",
    "affect heuristic",
    "nuclear power",
    "EMF hazards",
    "mobile phone base stations",
    "power lines",
    "experts vs lay people"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Addresses perceptions of EMF hazards (base stations, power lines) relevant to broader EMF risk communication and guideline context."
    }
  ]
}
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: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00797.x
PubMed: 16948694

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library