Risk perception

Risk perception is the subjective evaluation of risk. Risk perception comprises the following issues: trust in authorities and in media coverage, need for information, knowledge about risk factors, and the subjective evaluation of risk in respect to the individual benefits or harm.

In general, risk perception depends on many different factors such as age, gender, existing knowledge and anxiety of illness. In context with electromagnetic fields, additional factors are familiarity with the technology, direct benefit and voluntary or involuntary exposure (e.g. mobile phone versus mobile phone base station).

(Source: WHO)

In the EMF-Portal publications on risk communication, risk perception and risk assessment in the area of electromagnetic fields are categorized according to specific characteristics. Publications on risk perception are presented in the following:

• Anand P et al. (2022): Correlates of awareness level of Otorhinolaryngologists in India about the radiation hazards of mobile phone usage.
• Archana (2023): Understanding consumer's belief and fear: The case of smart meter installation.
• Barnett J et al. (2008): Precautionary advice about mobile phones: public understandings and intended responses.
• Barnett J et al. (2007): Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones.
• Berg-Beckhoff G et al. (2014): General Practitioners' Knowledge and Concern about Electromagnetic Fields.
• Berg-Beckhoff G et al. (2010): The Views of Primary Care Physicians on Health Risks From Electromagnetic Fields.
• Bianco A et al. (2008): Knowledge and perceptions of the health effects of environmental hazards in the general population in Italy.
• Bluhm R et al. (2023): "They Are Invasive in Different Ways.": Stakeholders' Perceptions of the Invasiveness of Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions.
• Bluhm R et al. (2021): They Affect the Person, but for Better or Worse? Perceptions of Electroceutical Interventions for Depression Among Psychiatrists, Patients, and the Public.
• Boehmert C et al. (2016): The Effects of Precautionary Messages about Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones and Base Stations Revisited: The Role of Recipient Characteristics.
• Boehmert C et al. (2016): Improving precautionary communication in the EMF field? Effects of making messages consistent and explaining the effectiveness of precautions.
• Büllingen F (2003): "Elektrosmog" durch Mobilfunk?
• Calvez M (2010): Complaints in environmental health and the construction of risk as cultural resource.
• Causebrook JH (1999): Mobile Phone Network Operators' Actions on RF Safety
• Chapman S et al. (1997): Not in our back yard: media coverage of community opposition to mobile phone towers--an application of Sandman's outrage model of risk perception.
• Claassen L et al (2015): Improving lay understanding of exposure to electromagnetic fields; the effect of information on perception of and responses to risk.
• Claassen L et al. (2014): Focal points for improving communications about electromagnetic fields and health: a mental models approach.
• Claassen L et al. (2012): Media coverage on electromagnetic fields and health: Content analysis of Dutch newspaper articles and websites.
• Collins JW (2010): Mobile phone masts, social rationalities and risk: negotiating lay perspectives on technological hazards.
• Cousin ME et al. (2011): The impact of specific information provision on base station siting preferences.
• Cousin ME et al. (2011): Cell phones and health concerns: impact of knowledge and voluntary precautionary recommendations.
• Cousin ME et al. (2010): Risk perception of mobile communication: a mental models approach.
• Cousin ME et al. (2010): The public's knowledge of mobile communication and its influence on base station siting preferences.
• Cousin ME et al. (2008): Laypeople's Health Concerns and Health Beliefs in Regard to Risk Perception of Mobile Communication.
• Cunningham JE et al. (2024): The differential effects of psychiatrists' and patients' prior experiences on views about psychiatric electroceutical interventions..
• Dalyot K et al. (2023): Justifying decision making in socio-scientific issues: the roles of reasoning and knowledge.
• Dalyot K et al. (2021): Public Engagement with Science in Everyday Life: Perceptions of Wi-Fi Radiation Risks in Schools.
• Deitinger P et al. (2011): Life styles, anxiety, expertise: the perception of risk from electromagnetic fields.
• Delpizzo V et al. (1993): Impact of Concise Information on the Layperson's Opinion of the Risks of Chronic Exposure to ELF Magnetic Fields.
• Dohle S et al. (2012): Fear and anger: antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication
• Dohle S et al. (2012): Mobile Communication in the Public Mind: Insights from Free Associations Related to Mobile Phone Base Stations.
• Domínguez M et al. (2019): From sweeteners to cell phones-Cancer myths and beliefs among journalism undergraduates.
• Eldridge-Thomas B et al. (2013): Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields: A Content Analysis of British Newspaper Reports.
• Ellaithy H (2005): RF Exposure Health Risk Perception: A Field Study on the Egyptian Public
• Elliott P et al (2016): Determinants of homeowners' attitudes to the installation of high-voltage overhead transmission lines.
• Elliott P et al (2012): Coming to Terms with Power Lines.
• Elshami et al (2024): Common misconceptions and myths about ovarian cancer causation: a national crosssectional study from palestine.
• EU (2010): Eurobarometer Special: Electromagnetic Fields.
• European Commission (2007): Electromagnetic Fields
• Farag AS et al. (1999): Development of an electromagnetic fields risk communication plan.
• Freudenstein F et al. (2023): Effects of generalization descriptions on risk perception.
• Freudenstein F et al. (2020): Framing Effects in Risk Communication Messages - Hazard Identification vs. Risk Assessment.
• Freudenstein F et al. (2014): Exposure Knowledge and Risk Perception of RF EMF.
• Frey R (2021): Psychological Drivers of Individual Differences in Risk Perception: A Systematic Case Study Focusing on 5G.
• Frick U et al. (2002): Risk perception, somatization, and self report of complaints related to electromagnetic fields - a randomized survey study.
• Furby L (1988): Public perceptions of electric power transmission lines..
• Garcia M et al. (2005): Cancer risk perceptions in an urban Mediterranean population.
• Gerakopoulou P et al. (2013): Clustering of excess health concerns for electromagnetic fields among health personnel: A quantitative and qualitative approach.
• Hassoy H et al. (2013): 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.
• Hawkins LK et al. (2014): Perceptions among infertile couples of lifestyle behaviors and in vitro fertilization (IVF) success.
• Hess DJ et al. (2014): Wireless smart meters and public acceptance: the environment, limited choices, and precautionary politics.
• Huiberts A et al. (2013): Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in the media - a qualitative content analysis of Norwegian newspapers.
• Huss A et al. (2006): Consultations in primary care for symptoms attributed to electromagnetic fields - a survey among general practitioners.
• Hutter HP et al. (2004): Public perception of risk concerning celltowers and mobile phones.
• Jung Y et al. (2014): Response to potential information technology risk: Users' valuation of electromagnetic field from mobile phones.
• Karadeniz H et al. (2020): Knowledge levels and attitudes of adult individuals about cancer and its risk factors.
• Keser I et al. (2023): The Awareness of Healthy Individuals About Attributable Risk Factors of Cancer.
• Kim K et al. (2014): Risk perception and public concerns of electromagnetic waves from cellular phones in Korea.
• Koh TH et al. (2020): Factors Affecting Risk Perception of Electromagnetic Waves From 5G Network Base Stations..
• Kowall B et al. (2015): General practitioners using complementary and alternative medicine differ from general practitioners using conventional medicine in their view of the risks of electromagnetic fields: a postal survey from Germany.
• Kowall B et al. (2012): Determinants and stability over time of perception of health risks related to mobile phone base stations.
• Kowall B et al. (2010): German wide cross sectional survey on health impacts of electromagnetic fields in the view of general practitioners.
• Kristiansen IS et al. (2009): Radiation from mobile phone systems: Is it perceived as a threat to people's health?
• Leitgeb N et al. (2005): Does "electromagnetic pollution" cause illness? An inquiry among Austrian general practitioners.
• Li M et al. (2020): Determinants of Maternal Behavior of Mobile Phone Use during Pregnancy.
• Link SC et al. (2024): Affective evaluation and exposure perception of everyday mobile phone usage situations.
• MacGregor DG et al. (1994): Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: a psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach.
• Maerli MB (1996): The Norwegian Public's Perception of Risk from Electromagnetic Fields
• Martha C et al. (2007): Brief report: How do adolescents perceive the risks related to cell-phone use?
• Marques MD et al. (2021): Associations between conspiracism and the rejection of scientific innovations.
• McMahan S et al. (2002): Attitudes about electric and magnetic fields: do scientists and other risk experts perceive risk similarly?
• McMahan S et al. (1998): The perception of risk messages regarding electromagnetic fields: extending the extended parallel process model to an unknown risk.
• Mgbe EK, Mgbe CG et al. (2020): Awareness and Perception of Undergraduate Students towards Risk Associated with Wireless Electromagnetic Field Radiation Exposure in Enugu, South-East Nigeria: A Cross-sectional Study.
• Mittendorff L et al. (2023): New Zealand and Australian MRI technologists' (radiographers) MRI safety knowledge and confidence levels.
• Morgan MG et al. (1990): Lay understanding of low-frequency electric and magnetic fields.
• Morgan MG et al. (1985): Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: a pilot study of risk perception.
• Morrison AS et al. (2022): Assessing and improving public mental health literacy concerning rTMS.
• Moyer RM et al. (2019): Cultural predispositions, specific affective feelings, and benefit–risk perceptions: explicating local policy elites’ perceived utility of high voltage power line installations.
• Nielsen JB et al. (2010): Effects of alternative styles of risk information on EMF risk perception.
• Nursan C et al. (2014): Parent's knowledge and perceptions of the health effects of environmental hazards in Sakarya, Turkey.
• Nyakyi CP et al. (2024): Assessment of public awareness on the effects of exposure to non-ionizing radiation sources in Tanzania.
• Pölzl C (2022): Was denkt Deutschland über Strahlung? Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie
• Pölzl C (2011): EMF recommendations specific for children?
• Porsius JT et al (2017): "These Power Lines Make Me Ill": A Typology of Residents' Health Responses to a New High-Voltage Power Line.
• Porsius JT et al (2016): They give you lots of information, but ignore what it's really about: Residents' experiences with the planned introduction of a new high-voltage power line.
• Porsius JT et al (2015): Symptom reporting after the introduction of a new high-voltage power line: A prospective field study.
• Pradhan R et al (2022): A study of risk perception of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure from mobile phones and base stations in India.
• Read D et al. (1998): The efficacy of different methods for informing the public about the range dependency of magnetic fields from high voltage power lines.
• Röösli M (2007): Electromagnetic fields and health: Risk perception in the general public.
• Ruddat M et al. (2010): Communication about a communication technology.
• Ruddat M et al. (2007): Abschlussbericht zum Forschungsprojekt "Operationalisierung des Leitbildes 'Risikomündigkeit' unter Berücksichtigung von Lebensstil und Wertorientierung als Grundlage für die Risikokommunikation im Strahlenschutz"
• Schröttner J et al. (2008): Sensitivity to electricity--temporal changes in Austria.
• Schütz H et al. (2005): Vorsorgeprinzip und Risikowahrnehmung des Mobilfunks.
• Seo MS et al. (2020): The Relationship between Risk Perception of Cell Phones and Objective Knowledge of EMF in Korea.
• Shahab L et al. (2018): Prevalence of beliefs about actual and mythical causes of cancer and their association with socio-demographic and health-related characteristics: Findings from a cross-sectional survey in England.
• Siegrist M et al. (2006): Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: support for the affect heuristic.
• Siegrist M et al. (2005): Perception of mobile phone and base station risks.
• Siegrist M et al. (2003): Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks.
• Siegrist M et al. (2000): Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge
• Small MJ et al. (2014): When Can Scientific Studies Promote Consensus Among Conflicting Stakeholders?
• Stege TAM et al. (2020): Electromagnetic field exposure in power plants: a qualitative assessment of work safety perceptions among employees.
• Sunyach C et al. (2018): Environmental Health in Perinatal and Early Childhood: Awareness, Representation, Knowledge and Practice of Southern France Perinatal Health Professionals.
• Thalmann AT, Wiedmann PM (2006): Beliefs and Emotionality in Risk Appraisals.
• Tchetchik A et al. (2024): Do non-ionizing radiation concerns affect people's choice between hybrid and traditional cars?
• Timotijevic L et al. (2006): Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and advice.
• Tseng MC et al. (2013): Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields.
• Turhal NS et al. (2010): Cancer-related false knowledge in relatives of cancer patients and the general public.
• Valberg PA (1993): A Public-Health Framework for Addressing a Layperson's Perception of EMF Health Risks.
• van Dongen D et al. (2013): People's responses to risks of electromagnetic fields and trust in government policy: the role of perceived risk, benefits and control.
• van Dongen D et al. (2011): Perception of health risks of electromagnetic fields by MRI radiographers and airport security officers compared to the general Dutch working population: a cross sectional analysis.
• van Kleef E et al. (2010): Risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phone and base station technology in Bangladesh.
• Varshini A and Geetha RV (2020): Knowledge and Awareness on the Effects of Radiation Emitted from Electronic Gadgets During Pregnancy Among Women.
• Vecchia P (2003): Perception of Risks from Electromagnetic Fields: Lessons for the Future
• White MP et al. (2007): Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risks? Comparative optimism, comparative utility, and regulatory preferences for mobile phone technology.
• Wiedemann P et al. (2021): Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2016): How far is how far enough? Safety perception and acceptance of extra-high-voltage power lines in Germany.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2014): Do people understand IARC's 2B categorization of RF fields from cell phones?
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2013): When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2008): Informing the public about information and participation strategies in the siting of mobile communication base stations: an experimental study.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2008): Influence of information about specific absorption rate (SAR) upon customers' purchase decisions and safety evaluation of mobile phones.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2006): SAR-Werte von Mobiltelefonen - Sicherheitsbewertung und Risikowahrnehmung.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2006): The Impacts of Precautionary Measures and the Disclosure of Scientific Uncertainty on EMF Risk Perception and Trust
• Wiedemann PM et al. (2005): The precautionary principle and risk perception: experimental studies in the EMF area.
• Wiedemann PM et al. (1999): Risk communication for environmental health hazards.
• Willis HH et al. (2010): Prioritizing Environmental Health Risks in the UAE.
• Witthöft Met al. (2017): On the origin of worries about modern health hazards: Experimental evidence for a conjoint influence of media reports and personality traits..
• Yayar R et al. (2014): Determination of factors affecting willingness to pay for low SAR value cell phones: A case study of Turkey.
• Zeleke BM et al. (2022): Mobile phone carrying locations and risk perception of men: A cross-sectional study.
• Zeleke BM et al. (2019): Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and risk perception: A pilot experimental study.