Effects of as-if risk framing of hazards on risk perception and its rebuttal.
Framing
Hazard identification
Rebuttal
Risk assessment
Risk characterization
Risk communication
Risk perception
Journal
Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP
ISSN: 1096-0295
Titre abrégé: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8214983
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
03
08
2022
revised:
05
10
2022
accepted:
24
10
2022
pubmed:
4
11
2022
medline:
30
11
2022
entrez:
3
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The difference between hazard and risk is crucial in risk assessment but rather unknown by non-experts. Hyper-partisan activists could use this knowledge gap to amplify risk perception by framing hazards as as-if risks, i.e., describing hazards as if their exposure is critical. Thus, using this as-if risk framing can trigger impressions that a risk is present. Until now, this framing technique and its rebuttal was not empirically analyzed. An experimental 2 × 2 factorial online study (N = 404) with repeated measures after intervention was conducted to investigate how framing (hazard vs. as-if risk) and stigmatization (stigmatized vs. non-stigmatized chemical agent) affects affective and cognitive risk perception using an example of exposure to drifting pesticides. As-if risk framing increased risk perception, effects of stigmatization were not observed. However, the a-priori risk perception influences the recorded risk perceptions after the experimental treatment. Rebuttal was successful, i.e., subjects with elevated risk perceptions due to as-if risk framing reduced their risk perception after receiving corrective information. As-if risk framing investigated here is not a sequestered case. Accordingly, the present study may offer general insights into correcting biased information that neglects the difference between hazard and risk. Risk communicators can benefit from these insights.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The difference between hazard and risk is crucial in risk assessment but rather unknown by non-experts. Hyper-partisan activists could use this knowledge gap to amplify risk perception by framing hazards as as-if risks, i.e., describing hazards as if their exposure is critical. Thus, using this as-if risk framing can trigger impressions that a risk is present. Until now, this framing technique and its rebuttal was not empirically analyzed.
METHOD
METHODS
An experimental 2 × 2 factorial online study (N = 404) with repeated measures after intervention was conducted to investigate how framing (hazard vs. as-if risk) and stigmatization (stigmatized vs. non-stigmatized chemical agent) affects affective and cognitive risk perception using an example of exposure to drifting pesticides.
RESULTS
RESULTS
As-if risk framing increased risk perception, effects of stigmatization were not observed. However, the a-priori risk perception influences the recorded risk perceptions after the experimental treatment. Rebuttal was successful, i.e., subjects with elevated risk perceptions due to as-if risk framing reduced their risk perception after receiving corrective information.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
As-if risk framing investigated here is not a sequestered case. Accordingly, the present study may offer general insights into correcting biased information that neglects the difference between hazard and risk. Risk communicators can benefit from these insights.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36328135
pii: S0273-2300(22)00169-6
doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105282
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105282Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.