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.
Background: "Message order" and "active participation" could be effective as risk communication methods. "Anticipated regret" (AR) has also been recognized as affecting risk perception and vaccine uptake in vaccination risk communication. We aimed to evaluate the effects of message order and active participation and the interactions between these two interventions on AR for vaccination. Methods: We conducted a 2 (message order: positive-negative or negative-positive) 9 2 (message calendar: with or without planning) factorial design study among 81 study participants. The effects of message order and active participation of mothers, using a message calendar, were evaluated on mothers' decision-making regarding vaccination with Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine and pneumococcal conjugate vaccine for their children. Participants completed questionnaires to evaluate the AR of infection if unvaccinated (anticipated regret of inaction) and of side effects if vaccinated (anticipated regret of action, ARA) twice: immediately after interventions and 1 month later. Results: An interaction between message order and active participation was significant with regard to anticipated regret of inaction immediately after interventions (P = 0.01), but this effect disappeared 1 month after interventions. The message order showed no main effect with regard to ARA. However, the main effect of active participation was marginally significant with regard to ARA 1 month after intervention (P = 0.09); AR over vaccine side effects was lower when vaccination was planned than in the condition without planning. Conclusions: The effect of message order was hardly detectable in a clinical setting. However, active participation induced by planning may affect AR. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effect of active participation in decision-making for vaccination.
Two-sided messages that include two perspectives (i.e., risks and benefits) are more effective than one-sided messages that convey only one perspective (usually only the benefits). Refutational two-sided messages are effective for communicating risks regarding vaccines. To examine the effectiveness of refutational two-sided messages in risk communication regarding novel vaccines against emerging infectious diseases, we conducted the randomized controlled study based on a 3 × 3 × 2 mixed design (Intervention 1: vaccines against subcutaneous influenza, “novel severe infectious disease,” or intranasal influenza; intervention 2: one-sided, non-refutational two-sided, or refutational two-sided messages; two questionnaires) using a Japanese online panel. Participants completed questionnaires before and after receiving an attack message (negative information). We evaluated the impact of attack messages on the willingness to be vaccinated, and the anticipated regret of inaction (ARI). Among 1,184 participants, there was a significant difference in the willingness to be vaccinated among the message groups (p < 0.01). After receiving the attack message, willingness to be vaccinated decreased in the one-sided message group and increased in the non-refutational two-sided and refutational two-sided message groups. Additionally, ARI in the refutational two-sided message groups was significantly higher than in the one-sided groups (p = 0.03). In conclusion, two-sided messages are more effective than one-sided messages in terms of willingness to be vaccinated. Furthermore, the high ARI in the refutational two-sided message group indicated that refutational two-sided messages were more effective than one-sided messages for communicating the risks of vaccines, especially those against emerging infectious diseases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.