↓ Skip to main content

When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case

Overview of attention for article published in Risk Analysis: An International Journal, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case
Published in
Risk Analysis: An International Journal, March 2013
DOI 10.1111/risa.12034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter M. Wiedemann, Holger Schuetz, Franziska Boerner, Martin Clauberg, Rodney Croft, Rajesh Shukla, Toshiko Kikkawa, Ray Kemp, Jan M. Gutteling, Barney de Villiers, Flavia N. da Silva Medeiros, Julie Barnett

Abstract

In the past decade, growing public concern about novel technologies with uncertain potential long-term impacts on the environment and human health has moved risk policies toward a more precautionary approach. Focusing on mobile telephony, the effects of precautionary information on risk perception were analyzed. A pooled multinational experimental study based on a 5 × 2 × 2 factorial design was conducted in nine countries. The first factor refers to whether or not information on different types of precautionary measures was present, the second factor to the framing of the precautionary information, and the third factor to the order in which cell phones and base stations were rated by the study participants. The data analysis on the country level indicates different effects. The main hypothesis that informing about precautionary measures results in increased risk perceptions found only partial support in the data. The effects are weaker, both in terms of the effect size and the frequency of significant effects, across the various precautionary information formats used in the experiment. Nevertheless, our findings do not support the assumption that informing people about implemented precautionary measures will decrease public concerns.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 41 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 12 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 16%
Psychology 5 11%
Environmental Science 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 14 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2015.
All research outputs
#5,210,842
of 25,478,886 outputs
Outputs from Risk Analysis: An International Journal
#772
of 2,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,851
of 210,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Analysis: An International Journal
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,478,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,456 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.