Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

The Public's Reactions To Precaution - On The Effects Of Health Recommendations Regarding Wireless Communication Technologies

C. Boehmert
Published 2018 · Business

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
.......................................................................................................................... 46
This paper references
FROM THE COMMISSION on the precautionary principle
10.1080/136698701750128042
The precautionary principle and EMF: implementation and evaluation
L. Kheifets (2001)
10.1111/J.1539-6924.1997.TB00868.X
Exploring the "psychometric paradigm": comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses.
C. Marris (1997)
Frequenzplan: gemäß § 54 TKG über die Aufteilung des Frequenzbereichs von 0 kHz bis 3000 GHz auf die Frequenznutzungen sowie über die Festlegungen für diese Frequenznutzungen
Bundesnetzagentur. (2016)
World in transition : Strategies for managing global environmental risks : annual report 1998
W. B. D. B. G. Umweltveränderungen (2000)
Global Sense of Risk: Media Reporting on Scientific Studies and Potential Risk of Mobile Phones
Tapio Litmanen (2008)
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01398.x
Trust in risk management: a model-based review of empirical research.
Timothy C. Earle (2010)
10.1109/MTAS.2003.1166563
Regulating radio-frequency fields in Italy
Paolo Vecchia (2002)
10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1.
R. Rogers (1975)
10.1016/j.envint.2012.07.006
Personal radiofrequency electromagnetic field measurements in The Netherlands: exposure level and variability for everyday activities, times of day and types of area.
J. Bolte (2012)
10.1289/ehp.0900727
The Precautionary Principle in the Context of Mobile Phone and Base Station Radiofrequency Exposures
M. Dolan (2009)
10.1093/RPD/NCM373
Determination of the general public exposure around GSM and UMTS base stations.
Christian Bornkessel (2007)
10.1002/bem.20518
Hypersensitivity to RF fields emitted from CDMA cellular phones: a provocation study.
K. Nam (2009)
10.1016/J.HEALTHPOL.2006.10.002
Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones.
J. Barnett (2007)
10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
Risk as Feelings
George Loewenstein (2001)
10.1002/bem.20536
Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity'): An updated systematic review of provocation studies.
G. J. Rubin (2010)
The uncertainty factor did not affect any of the three dependent variables risk perception, appraisal of scientific knowledge and trust in public protection
Wiedemann (2006)
10.1037//0278-6133.11.2.127
Conditional health threats: health beliefs, decisions, and behaviors among adults.
D. Ronis (1992)
The weirdest people in the world
C. B. Colby (1973)
survey only) Representation
Ruddat (2007)
10.1002/bem.20660
WHO research agenda for radiofrequency fields.
E. van Deventer (2011)
10.1002/9780470386347
Statistical Meta-Analysis with Applications
J. Hartung (2008)
10.1080/10410236.2012.755603
Content and Effects of News Stories About Uncertain Cancer Causes and Preventive Behaviors
J. Niederdeppe (2014)
10.1093/POQ/NFQ065
Total Survey Error: Past, Present, and Future
R. Groves (2010)
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration
J. Higgins (2013)
10.1016/j.envres.2017.03.040
Are media reports able to cause somatic symptoms attributed to WiFi radiation? An experimental test of the negative expectation hypothesis
Anne-Kathrin Bräscher (2017)
10.1080/13669870600802111
The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust
P. Wiedemann (2006)
Concerns in Everyday Life or Abstract Concerns? The Utility of Frequency Measures of Risk Perception. Society for Risk Analysis - Europe, Lisbon
C. Boehmert (2017)
Non-ionizing radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Iarc Monographs (2013)
10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9
Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change
J. E. Maddux (1983)
10.1007/S10584-006-9060-3
Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming does not Scare us (Yet)
E. Weber (2006)
10.1017/CBO9780511550461
The Social Amplification of Risk: Contents
N. Pidgeon (2003)
Bioinitiative 2012: A Rationale for Biologicallybased Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation
Bioinitiative Working Group. (2012)
10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4
The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self
C. Steele (1988)
10.1348/135910710X514120
Measuring risk perceptions of skin cancer: reliability and validity of different operationalizations.
Eva Janssen (2011)
10.1080/13669870600717566
Beliefs and Emotionality in Risk Appraisals
A. Thalmann (2006)
Office of Technology Assessment Report OTA-BP-E-53
I. Nair (1989)
10.1080/08870449608406924
Conditional versus unconditional risk estimates in models of aids-related risk behaviour
F. Velde (1996)
10.1146/ANNUREV.PUBLHEALTH.26.021304.144445
EMF and health.
M. Feychting (2005)
10.1524/9783050063782
Logik der Forschung
K. Popper (1935)
10.1016/j.pec.2012.07.010
The effects of communicating uncertainty in quantitative health risk estimates.
T. Longman (2012)
10.1080/13669877.2016.1220415
How far is how far enough? Safety perception and acceptance of extra-high-voltage power lines in Germany
P. Wiedemann (2018)
10.1111/J.1539-6924.2007.00881.X
Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risks? Comparative optimism, comparative utility, and regulatory preferences for mobile phone technology.
M. White (2007)
Perceived persuasiveness of arguments
Wiedemann (2014)
10.1080/13669877.2011.553732
The impact of specific information provision on base station siting preferences
Marie-Eve Cousin (2011)
2011) and one study reporting an increase in the subjectively rated comprehensibility
Cousin (2010)
STATIC AND EXTREMELY LOW-FREQUENCY ( ELF ) ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS MAGNETIC FIELDS ( EXTREMELY LOW-FREQUENCY ) ( Group 2 B ) ELECTRIC FIELDS ( EXTREMELY LOW-FREQUENCY ) ( Group 3 ) ELECTRIC FIELDS
(2005)
10.1080/13669870903236751
Risk perception of mobile communication: a mental models approach
Marie-Eve Cousin (2010)
10.1002/9781119284673.CH26
Radiofrequency Fields and the Precautionary Principle
K. Foster (2017)
10.1002/BEM.20298
Feasibility of future epidemiological studies on possible health effects of mobile phone base stations.
G. Neubauer (2007)
Qualitative Information
J. S. Downs (2011)
10.1177/0013916596283003
Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns
D. Davidson (1996)
10.1037/a0029305
The role of dispositional factors in moderating message framing effects.
J. Covey (2014)
The Personal Need for Structure (PNS) and Personal Fear of Invalidity (PFI) scales: Historical perspectives, present applications and future directions
M. M. Thompson (2001)
10.1556/0406.17.2016.1.4
Artificial concerns. Effects of a commercial advertisement on modern health worries and sympathetic activation
F. Köteles (2016)
Statistische Methoden für Psychologen (2
M. A. Wirtz (2002)
10.1080/13698570902784273
Mobile phones and health: Media coverage study of German newspapers on possible adverse health effects of mobile phone use
H. Elvers (2009)
Risiko : über den gesellschaftlichen Umgang mit Unsicherheit
O. Renn (2007)
10.1111/0272-4332.205064
Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge
Siegrist (2000)
10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.12.002
Are media warnings about the adverse health effects of modern life self-fulfilling? An experimental study on idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF).
M. Witthöft (2013)
2013), four studies base station risk perception (Boehmert, Wiedemann et al., 2017
Claassen et al (2015)
10.1016/j.ijheh.2010.05.001
Polluted places or polluted minds? An experimental sham-exposure study on background psychological factors of symptom formation in 'Idiophatic Environmental Intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields'.
R. Szemerszky (2010)
10.3390/ijerph13100992
Improving Precautionary Communication in the EMF Field? Effects of Making Messages Consistent and Explaining the Effectiveness of Precautions
C. Boehmert (2016)
10.1002/bem.21851
Do people understand IARC's 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?
P. Wiedemann (2014)
10.1080/13669870050132568
Perceived risk and tampering with nature
L. Sjöberg (2000)
Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface.
A. Kruglanski (1996)
10.1080/13698571003710332
The public's knowledge of mobile communication and its influence on base station siting preferences
M. Cousin (2010)
10.1136/BMJ.328.7434.292
Cellular Phones, Public Fears, and a Culture of Precaution
S. Derbyshire (2004)
The Precautionary Principle and Radiation Protection
K. Mossman (2002)
10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
The End of Framing as we Know it … and the Future of Media Effects
M. Cacciatore (2016)
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01612.x
On different types of uncertainties in the context of the precautionary principle.
T. Aven (2011)
10.1196/annals.1399.001
Numeracy and the Perception and Communication of Risk
Ellen Peters (2008)
10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
R. M. Baron (1986)
10.1002/BEM.20279
Development and evaluation of the electromagnetic hypersensitivity questionnaire.
Stacy Eltiti (2007)
10.1002/bem.20586
Effects of alternative styles of risk information on EMF risk perception.
J. Nielsen (2010)
10.1007/s00103-005-1211-6
SAR-Werte von Mobiltelefonen
P. Wiedemann (2005)
10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01336.x
Mobile Phone Headache: A Double Blind, Sham-Controlled Provocation Study
G. Oftedal (2007)
Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung : eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken
P. Mayring (1999)
10.1080/03605310490500527
Precaution, prevention, and public health ethics.
D. Weed (2004)
10.1080/13669877.2016.1147492
Do closed survey questions overestimate public perceptions of food risks?
G. Gaskell (2017)
10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.415
Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation.
G. Cohen (2007)
10.1007/978-3-531-92175-4
Vorsorgeprinzip und Risikoängste
P. Wiedemann (2010)
10.2307/3984511
Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers
M. Douglas (1982)
10.1111/J.1460-2466.1993.TB01304.X
Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm
R. Entman (1983)
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00781.x
The Precautionary Principle is Incoherent
M. Peterson (2006)
10.1097/HP.0b013e3181aff9db
ICNIRP statement on the "Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz)".
国際非電離放射線防護委員会 (2009)
Risk Perceptions and Risk Attitudes in the United States and Europe
E. U. Weber (2010)
Perspektiven der Risikowahrnehmung. In Bayerische Rück (Ed.), Reihe: Gesellschaft und Unsicherheit: Vol. 2. Risiko ist ein Konstrukt: Wahrnehmungen zur Risikowahrnehmung (pp. 9–19)
F. Holzheu (1993)
10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.031
Effects of personalised exposure on self-rated electromagnetic hypersensitivity and sensibility - A double-blind randomised controlled trial.
Imke van Moorselaar (2017)
Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development: Annex I - Rio Declaration on Environment and Delevopment
United Nations. (1992)
10.1111/risa.12634
The Effects of Precautionary Messages about Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones and Base Stations Revisited: The Role of Recipient Characteristics.
C. Boehmert (2017)
10.1080/13669877.2014.961519
Focal points for improving communications about electromagnetic fields and health: a mental models approach
L. Claassen (2016)
Varianzanalysen -Prüfen der Voraussetzungen und nichtparametrische Methodensowie praktische Anwendungen mit R und SPSS. Version 1.1 (2.3.2015)
Haiko Luepsen (2015)
10.1002/BDM.689
Emotion and Reason in Everyday Risk Perception
R. Hogarth (2011)
10.1017/S0033291708003097
Cognitive and neurobiological alterations in electromagnetic hypersensitive patients: results of a case-control study.
M. Landgrebe (2008)
10.1026/0943-8149/A000049
Entwicklung der Fünf-Item-Kurzskala STAI-SKD zur Messung von Zustandsangst
C. Englert (2011)
10.1007/s00038-011-0310-4
Determinants and stability over time of perception of health risks related to mobile phone base stations
B. Kowall (2011)
10.1080/13698570600677324
Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and advice
L. Timotijevic (2006)
10.1080/13698575.2012.716820
Media coverage on electromagnetic fields and health: Content analysis of Dutch newspaper articles and websites
L. Claassen (2012)
Divergierende Risikobewertungen im Bereich Mobilfunk - Vorhaben FM8865 (Ressortforschungsberichte zur kerntechnischen Sicherheit und zum Strahlenschutz No. urn:nbn:de:0221-2017050314269)
R. Högg (2017)
10.1002/bem.20681
Cognitive and physiological responses in humans exposed to a TETRA base station signal in relation to perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
Denise Wallace (2012)
10.1080/13669870110073729
Five charges against the precautionary principle
P. Sandin (2002)
10.1080/08870446.2017.1357814
On the origin of worries about modern health hazards: Experimental evidence for a conjoint influence of media reports and personality traits
M. Witthöft (2018)
10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x
Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics
G. Gigerenzer (2007)
10.1111/J.1539-6924.1988.TB01168.X
The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework
R. Kasperson (1988)
10.1080/13698570220137051
Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts
A. Burgess (2002)
10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.917
Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: development and application of a slope difference test.
J. Dawson (2006)
10.1016/J.JEMERMED.2011.09.015
Communicating Data about the Benefits and Harms of Treatment: A Randomized Trial
K. Rahimi (2011)
10.1080/13669877.2015.1017831
Effective risk communication and CCS: the road to success in Europe
R. Löfstedt (2015)
10.1111/J.1539-6924.1995.TB00308.X
Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process.
B. Fischhoff (1995)
Wer fürchtet den Mobilfunk? Gruppenspezifische Differenzen bei der Risikowahrnehmung (Arbeiten zur Risiko-Kommunikation No. 84)
P. M. Wiedemann (2002)
exposure. There was no effect on the acceptance of the erection of a 3G mast. Change in risk perception about base stations
Boehmert (2016)
10.1177/0267323108092538
A Model for Evaluating Risk Reporting
P. Vasterman (2008)
Prudent Avoidance
K. Nuttall (2017)
10.1177/0141076814562718
The environment and disease: association or causation?
A. B. Hill (2015)
10.1007/978-1-4020-5614-7_2822
Protection Motivation Theory
P. Norman (1996)
10.1111/1468-5965.00345
The Precautionary Principle and its Policy Implications
G. Majone (2002)
10.1016/0022-3956(90)90004-A
The somatosensory amplification scale and its relationship to hypochondriasis.
A. Barsky (1990)
did not find an interaction between prior risk perception and information about the source of information
Wiedemann (2008)
10.1002/BEM.20195
Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms.
J. Wilén (2006)
10.1126/science.298.5591.49b
From PUS to PEST
(2002)
10.2307/2981421
The Effect of the Question on Survey Responses: A Review
G. Kalton (1982)
10.1080/10807039991289185
Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle
P. Sandin (1999)
10.1111/J.0272-4332.2003.00400.X
Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile.
N. Bronfman (2003)
10.1016/j.ijheh.2015.02.001
Actual and perceived exposure to electromagnetic fields and non-specific physical symptoms: an epidemiological study based on self-reported data and electronic medical records.
C. Baliatsas (2015)
10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70147-4
Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Robert A. Baan (2011)
The study selection process. Quality Assessment Eligible studies with an experimental design were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool (Higgins
D Figure (2011)
10.1080/13669877.2015.1031268
Improving lay understanding of exposure to electromagnetic fields; the effect of information on perception of and responses to risk
L. Claassen (2017)
10.1136/oem.2007.037721
Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: phase 1 of a population-based, cross-sectional study in Germany
M. Blettner (2008)
Specifying factors in radiation risk perception.
L. Sjöberg (2000)
10.1111/j.1467-842X.1997.tb01765.x
Not in our back yard: media coverage of community opposition to mobile phone towers–an application of Sandman's outrage model of risk perception
S. Chapman (1997)
10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.222
The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, and Relations
Joachim Stoeber (2001)
10.1023/A:1018738019346
A Cognitive Model of Selective Processing in Anxiety
A. Mathews (2004)
10.1207/S15327027HC1003_4
The perception of risk messages regarding electromagnetic fields: extending the extended parallel process model to an unknown risk.
S. McMahan (1998)
Evaluation kompakt (1
M. Gollwitzer (2009)
10.1037/0278-6133.12.3.235
Correct and incorrect interpretations of correlations between risk perceptions and risk behaviors.
N. Weinstein (1993)
Psychological research has identified methods to overcome misinformation and motivated information processing
Lewandowsky (1988)
10.1111/risa.12034
When precaution creates misunderstandings: the unintended effects of precautionary information on perceived risks, the EMF case.
P. Wiedemann (2013)
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00672.x
Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks
M. Siegrist (2005)
10.2307/2286442
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences
J. Cohen (1975)
10.5860/choice.43-3692
Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle
C. Sunstein (2005)
10.1186/1476-069X-12-10
Adolescents’ risk perceptions on mobile phones and their base stations, their trust to authorities and incivility in using mobile phones: a cross-sectional survey on 2240 high school students in Izmir, Turkey
Hur Hassoy (2013)
Comparison of international policies on electromagnetic fields (power frequency and radiofrequency fields)
R. Stam (2017)
10.1177/1529100612451018
Misinformation and Its Correction
S. Lewandowsky (2012)
10.3917/SPUB.062.0275
Les risques liés à l'usage du téléphone portable et leur représentation médiatique : l'exemple de trois quotidiens français
C. Martha (2006)
Risk management. Science and the precautionary principle.
K. Foster (2000)
10.1080/13669870701315872
Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus
Nicolás C. Bronfman (2007)
10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5
Normal Personality Assessment in Clinical Practice: The NEO Personality Inventory.
P. Costa (1992)
10.3390/ijerph14060620
RF EMF Risk Perception Revisited: Is the Focus on Concern Sufficient for Risk Perception Studies?
P. Wiedemann (2017)
10.1177/01461672002611011
When Beliefs Yield to Evidence: Reducing Biased Evaluation by Affirming the Self
G. Cohen (2000)
10.1023/A:1004838806793
The Methodology of Risk Perception Research
L. Sjöberg (2000)
10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S
The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits
M. Finucane (2000)
10.1111/J.1539-6924.1995.TB00307.X
Improving Risk Communication in Government: Research Priorities
C. Chess (1995)
Sicherheit
H. Lübbe (1993)
Internationaler Vergleich der rechtlichen Regelungen im nichtionisierenden Bereich: Ländervergleich der Regelungen für elektrische, magnetische und elektromagnetische Felder (0 Hz - 300 GHz)
S. Missling (2015)
10.2307/2289186
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
L. Hedges (1985)
10.1002/BEM.20379
The effects of 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals on headache and other symptoms: an experimental provocation study.
L. Hillert (2008)
10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.07.011
Somatosensory amplification - An old construct from a new perspective.
F. Köteles (2017)
Das Risikoparadox: Warum wir uns vor dem Falschen fürchten (3rd ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch
O. Renn (2014)
10.1080/136698700376626
Manifest anxiety, general self-efficacy and locus of control as determinants of personal and general risk perception
H. Kallmen (2000)
10.1080/10807039.2012.672900
Mobile Communication in the Public Mind: Insights from Free Associations Related to Mobile Phone Base Stations
S. Dohle (2012)
Wingspread statement on the precautionary principle
N. Ashford (1999)
10.1093/eurpub/ckw171
Actual and perceived exposure to base stations and non-specific symptoms in a longitudinal study
A. Martens (2016)
10.1080/10807030802494527
Biased Confidence in Risk Assessment Studies
M. Siegrist (2008)
10.5840/ENVIROETHICS200224315
Formulating the Precautionary Principle
N. Manson (2002)
10.1016/J.TOXLET.2003.12.049
The public and effective risk communication.
L. Frewer (2004)
Prudent precaution (No
Health Council of the Netherlands. (2008)
Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk
Dan Kahan (2005)
Die Wissenschaft der Öffentlichkeit
P. Weingart (2005)
10.1002/9781119284673.CH16
Possible Low‐Level Radiofrequency Effects
A. Wood (2017)
10.18419/OPUS-7248
Concepts of risk : a classification
O. Renn (1992)
10.1126/SCIENCE.3563507
Perception of risk.
P. Slovic (1987)
Weighing the Risks: Which Risks are Acceptable? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development
B. Fischhoff (1979)
Factors in risk perception
Sjoberg (2000)
10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00631-5
Precaution and Ecological Risk
O. Renn (2008)
10.1186/1471-2458-8-310
Sensitivity to electricity – Temporal changes in Austria
J. Schroettner (2008)
LEXNET - Low EMF Exposure Future Networks Project Report: Risk and Exposure Perception I & II
P. M. Wiedemann (2014)
10.1186/1471-2458-11-421
Non-specific physical symptoms in relation to actual and perceived proximity to mobile phone base stations and powerlines
C. Baliatsas (2011)
LEXNET‐-Low EMFExposure Future Networks Project Report, Risk andExposure Perception I & II
P. Wiedemann (2014)
10.1037/a0024787
Risk perception measures' associations with behavior intentions, affect, and cognition following colon cancer screening messages.
Amanda J Dillard (2012)
The perception of risks: An overview of research and theory
T. R. Lee (1998)
10.1111/J.1539-6924.1994.TB00293.X
Perception of Risks from Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk-Communication Approach
D. MacGregor (1994)
10.1289/ehp.1103693
Mobile Phones, Brain Tumors, and the Interphone Study: Where Are We Now?
A. Swerdlow (2011)
10.1037/H0025848
Attitudinal effects of mere exposure.
R. Zajonc (1968)
10.5167/UZH-163784
Public's perception of mobile communication and the associated health hazard
M. Cousin (2008)
Risk assessment terminology - Part 1 and Part 2
IPCS. (2004)
Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence Based User's Guide
B. Fischhoff (2012)
10.4324/9781315776835.CH5
The reconceptualization of risk
T. Aven (2016)
10.1023/B:RIAN.0000005926.03250.C0
Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives
P. Gustafson (1998)
10.1002/BDM.3960010205
Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public
K. Teigen (1988)
10.1080/1366987032000105315
Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence
M. Siegrist (2005)
Quantitative Information
A. Fagerlin (2011)
10.1080/13698570802533002
Informing the public about information and participation strategies in the siting of mobile communication base stations: an experimental study
P. Wiedemann (2008)
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.x
Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature.
V. Visschers (2009)
survey only) Measurement
Ruddat (2007)
The Application of the Precautionary Principle in the European Union
O. Renn (2009)
10.1016/0886-1633(93)90008-D
Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions
J. M. Sinacore (1993)
10.1111/J.1539-6924.1994.TB00253.X
Why Rules for Risk Communication Are Not Enough: A Problem‐Solving Approach to Risk Communication
K. Rowan (1994)
10.1155/2015/198272
Exposure Perception as a Key Indicator of Risk Perception and Acceptance of Sources of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields
Frederik Freudenstein (2015)
10.1002/9781119284673.CH12
Thermal Effects of Microwave and Radiofrequency Radiation
K. Foster (2017)
10.7326/M14-0295
Evidence-Based Risk Communication
D. Zipkin (2014)
10.1016/J.JCPS.2014.06.003
Revisiting gender differences: What we know and what lies ahead☆
Joan Meyers-Levy (2015)
10.1093/phr/117.6.521
Science, Precaution, and Practice
A. Stirling (2002)
10.1080/10810730.2014.977465
Scientific Uncertainty as a Moderator of the Relationship between Descriptive Norm and Intentions to Engage in Cancer Risk–Reducing Behaviors
H. Kim (2015)
10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136
Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination.
N. Brewer (2007)
10.1086/422116
When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk
S. Chandran (2004)
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01498.x
Cell phones and health concerns: impact of knowledge and voluntary precautionary recommendations.
M. Cousin (2011)
10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x
A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards
M. Siegrist (2005)
10.1080/136698798377141
Understanding public attitudes to technology
L. Frewer (1998)
10.1196/annals.1399.011
Science, Precaution, and the Politics of Technological Risk
Andrew Stirling (2008)
10.1016/j.neuroscience.2007.02.020
When words are painful: Unraveling the mechanisms of the nocebo effect
F. Benedetti (2007)
Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones: Fact Sheet No 193
WHO. (2014)
Reducing Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: The Effects of Low- and High-Threat Risk Messages on Behavior Change
S. McMahan (1997)
One article reported on two studies with two separate samples (Wiedemann & Schütz, 2005) and one article reported results from 8 different samples
Sachse (2014)
10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x
Risk Perception and Affect
P. Slovic (2006)
10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684
How to Improve Bayesian Reasoning Without Instruction: Frequency Formats
G. Gigerenzer (1995)
10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
Heuristic decision making.
G. Gigerenzer (2011)
10.1289/ehp.7538
The Precautionary Principle and Risk Perception: Experimental Studies in the EMF Area
P. Wiedemann (2005)
10.1111/J.1559-1816.2008.00357.X
Measuring an individual's tendency to take risks: The risk propensity scale.
R. Meertens (2008)
10.1080/13669870903305911
Mobile phone masts, social rationalities and risk: negotiating lay perspectives on technological hazards
J. Collins (2010)
Differenzierte Betrachtung der Nutzung und der Wahrnehmung des Mobilfunks - Vorhaben FM8854 (Ressortforschungsberichte zur kerntechnischen Sicherheit und zum Strahlenschutz No
LINK Institut. (2013)
10.1080/13669870152023791
The theoretical features of some current approaches to risk perception
A. A. Wåhlberg (2001)
10.1126/SCIENCE.165.3899.1232
Social benefit versus technological risk.
C. Starr (1969)
10.1002/0471667196.ESS2148.PUB2
Question‐Wording Effects in Surveys
G. Kalton (2006)
International EMF Project: 17th International Advisory Committee Meeting
WHO. (2012)
10.1080/13669870500064150
Risk as perceived by the German public: pervasive risks and “switching” risks
Michael Zwick (2005)
10.3102/0013189X033007014
Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come
R. Johnson (2004)
10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673
Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions.
S. Noar (2007)
10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.93
Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.
N. Schwarz (1999)
10.1080/13669870802086430
Precautionary advice about mobile phones: public understandings and intended responses
J. Barnett (2008)
10.1037/HEA0000416
A systematic review of factors that contribute to nocebo effects.
R. Webster (2016)
2017), study 2, and Köteles et al. (2016) did not find any significant interactions between the type of video and several personality variables
Witthöft (2016)
10.1038/sj.embor.7400953
Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate
A. Stirling (2007)
10.1111/J.1468-2958.1979.TB00646.X
REPLICATION IN EXPERIMENTAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH: AN ANALYSIS
Clifford W. Kelly (1979)
10.1016/0001-6918(92)90004-W
The evaluation of risk communication effectiveness
B. Rohrmann (1992)
10.1111/J.1742-9544.2010.00003.X
Percentile Norms and Accompanying Interval Estimates from an Australian General Adult Population Sample for Self‐Report Mood Scales (BAI, BDI, CRSD, CES‐D, DASS, DASS‐21, STAI‐X, STAI‐Y, SRDS, and SRAS)
J. Crawford (2011)
Abschlussbericht der Risikokommission
Risikokommission. (2003)
10.1111/J.1460-2466.2012.01668.X
Why are Tailored Messages More Effective? A Multiple Mediation Analysis of a Breast Cancer Screening Intervention.
Jakob D. Jensen (2012)
10.1080/10807039.2012.716679
A Boomerang Effect of an All-Clear Message on Radiation Risk
U. Hartung (2014)
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH CAUTIONARY POLICIES
CAUTIONARY POLICIES (2003)
10.2471/BLT.09.071852
Systematic review on the health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations.
M. Röösli (2010)
10.1177/1075547008326943
From Public Understanding to Public Engagement
Mike S. Schäfer (2009)
There are officially more mobile devices than people in the world
Z. D. Boren (2014)
10.1289/EHP.02110S4619
Study of self-reported hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields in California.
P. Levallois (2002)
10.1111/J.1559-1816.1993.TB01050.X
The Evaluative Factor of Risk Perception
E. Mullet (1993)
10.3402/jchimp.v3i2.21217
Health literacy
R. Ferguson (2013)
10.2307/1420234
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
L. Festinger (1957)
10.1111/risa.12346
The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise.
J. Sokołowska (2015)
Product standard to demonstrate the compliance of mobile phones with the basic restrictions related to human exposure to electromagnetic fields (300 MHz - 3 GHz)
CENELEC (2012)
10.1111/J.1539-6924.1994.TB00080.X
A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit.
A. Alhakami (1994)
10.1002/9781119284673.CH13
RF Guidelines and Standards
A. Wood (2017)
10.1007/BF00143739
How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits
B. Fischhoff (1978)
10.1002/BEM.20371
Influence of information about specific absorption rate (SAR) upon customers' purchase decisions and safety evaluation of mobile phones.
P. Wiedemann (2008)
10.1007/s10549-011-1450-1
Women’s interest in taking tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer prevention: response to a tailored decision aid
Angela Fagerlin (2011)
10.1080/136698701750128105
Precautionary principle and discursive strategies: classifying and managing risks
A. Klinke (2001)
10.1080/13669870902899062
Communication about a communication technology
M. Ruddat (2010)
10.1002/9781119284673.CH1
Overview: The electromagnetic spectrum and nonionizing radiation
A. Wood (2017)
Risikopotenziale elektromagnetischer Felder: Bewertungsansätze und Vorsorgeoptionen: Endbericht für das Bayerische Staatsministerium für Landesentwicklung und Umweltfragen
P. M. Wiedemann (2001)
The public understanding of science: Report of the Ad-Hoc Group
Royal Society. (1985)
Readablity, Comprehension, and Usability
L. Neuhauser (2011)
10.1111/J.1539-6924.1998.TB00918.X
Worry and risk perception.
L. Sjöberg (1998)
10.1037/0021-843X.100.2.144
Bias in interpretation of ambiguous sentences related to threat in anxiety.
M. Eysenck (1991)
10.1016/J.BETH.2005.11.003
The role of risk avoidance in anxiety.
J. Maner (2006)
10.1037/T54701-000
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory--Form Y; Chinese Version
Y. Cao (2016)
10.1111/0272-4332.213125
Personality correlates of risk perception.
M. Bouyer (2001)
report a focus group study and a survey. The focus group study is not included in this review, because it insufficiently reports the study’s methods (e.g. no sample size for focus groups reported)
2014 Niederdeppe et al (2010)
Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.
A. Ahlbom (1998)
10.1007/s00038-006-5061-2
The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: a cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland
N. Schreier (2006)
Kommunikation von Risiko und Gefährdungspotential: Abschlussbericht. BfR Wissenschaft: Vol. 2010,1. Berlin: Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung
D. Scheer (2009)
Mobile phones and health detection method
张庭硕 (2011)
10.1016/S0167-4730(01)00005-4
Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle
D. Blockley (2001)
10.1002/bem.21937
Does electromagnetic hypersensitivity originate from nocebo responses? Indications from a qualitative study.
M. Dieudonné (2016)
10.1080/10807030802494550
Laypeople's Health Concerns and Health Beliefs in Regard to Risk Perception of Mobile Communication
M. Cousin (2008)
Implementing Precaution: assessment and application tools for health and environmental decision making
A. Stirling (2004)
10.1197/jamia.M2115
The Practice of Informatics: Design Features of Graphs in Health Risk Communication: A Systematic Review
J. Ancker (2006)
10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language
J. Searle (1969)
10.1177/016224398901400404
The Policy Implications of Differing Concepts of Risk
J. Bradbury (1989)
10.1177/1359105315588216
The many faces of somatosensory amplification: The relative contribution of body awareness, symptom labeling, and anxiety
F. Köteles (2016)
10.1016/j.jfma.2011.08.005
Prevalence and psychiatric comorbidity of self-reported electromagnetic field sensitivity in Taiwan: a population-based study.
Mei-Chih Meg Tseng (2011)
health effect: cancer) than in the low emotionality condition (health effect: Ca2+ Flux). The opposite was true for participants with low prior concerns
Siegrist (2008)
Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach
A. Hayes (2013)
10.1037/0013246
Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution.
N. Cavior (1975)
10.1289/ehp.10286
Does Short-Term Exposure to Mobile Phone Base Station Signals Increase Symptoms in Individuals Who Report Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields? A Double-Blind Randomized Provocation Study
Stacy Eltiti (2007)
10.5271/SJWEH.644
Prevalence of self-reported hypersensitivity to electric or magnetic fields in a population-based questionnaire survey.
L. Hillert (2002)



Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar