Audiovisual risk communication unravelled: Effects on gut feelings and cognitive processes

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 11, Issue 1-2, 2008, Pages 207-221

  Visschers, Vivianne H M ^a   Meertens, Ree M ^a,b   Passchier, Wim F ^a   De Vries, Nanne K ^b  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Audiovisual risk communication; Dual processes; EAST; Indirect test

Indexed keywords

MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS; PROBLEM SOLVING; RISK PERCEPTION; SOCIAL SCIENCES;

AUDIOVISUAL RISK COMMUNICATION; DUAL PROCESSES; INDIRECT TESTS; SELF-REPORTED RISK PERCEPTION;

RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 42249094249     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870801947954     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Callan, M.J., and J.H. Ellard. 2003. The effects of justice outcome on implicit victim derogation. Paper presented at the Justice Preconference of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, February, in Universal City, Los Angeles, CA.
2. Chaiken, S., and A.H. Eagly. 1983. Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 251-6.
3. Chaiken, S., A. Liberman, and A.H. Eagly. 1989. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Unintended thought, ed. J.S. Uleman and J.A. Bargh, 212-52. New York: Guilford.
4. Clark, J.M., and A. Paivio. 1991. Dual coding theory and education. Educational Psychology Review 3: 149-210.
5. de Houwer, J. 2003. The Extrinsic Affective Simon Task. Experimental Psychology 50: 77-85.
6. de Houwer, J., and E. de Bruycker. 2007. Implicit attitudes toward meat and vegetables in vegetarians and nonvegetarians. International Journal of Psychology 42: 158-65.
7. Fazio, R.H., and M.A. Olson. 2003. Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology 54: 297-327.
8. Finucane, M.L., A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S.M. Johnson, 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13: 1-17.
9. Finucane, M.L., E. Peters, and P. Slovic. 2003. Judgment and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. In Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research, ed. S.L. Schneider and J. Shanteau, 327-64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Greenwald, A.G., D.E. McGhee, and J.L.K. Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1464-80.
11. Hendrickx, L., C. Vlek, and H. Oppewal. 1989. Relative importance of scenario information and frequency information in the judgment of risk. Acta Psychologica 72: 41-63.
12. Huijding, J., and P.J. de Jong. 2005. A pictorial version of the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task: Sensitivity to generally affective and phobia-relevant stimuli in high and low spider fearful individuals. Experimental Psychology 52: 289-95.
13. Kumkale, G.T., and D. Albarracín. 2004. The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytical review. Psychological Bulletin 130: 143-72.
14. Loewenstein, G.F., E.U. Weber, C.K. Hsee, and N. Welch. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin 127: 267-86.
15. MacGregor, D.G., P. Slovic, and M.G. Morgan. 1994. Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: A psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk Analysis 14: 815-28.
16. 2 risks. Risk Analysis 21: 955-66.
17. Mousavi, S.Y., R. Low, and J. Sweller. 1995. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology 87: 319-34.
18. Pfau, M., R.L. Holbert, S.J. Zubric, N.H. Pasha, and W.K. Lin. 2000. Role and influence of communication modality in the process of resistance to persuasion. Media Psychology 2: 1-33.
19. Pratkanis, A.R., A.G. Greenwald, M.R. Leippe, and M.H. Baumgardner. 1988. In search of reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead. Long live the sleeper effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 203-18.
20. Schneider, W., A. Eschman, and A. Zuccolotto. 2002. E-Prime [1.1] Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
21. Sherman, S.J., R.B. Cialdini, D.F. Schwartzman, and K.D. Reynolds. 1985. Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 11: 118-27.
22. Siegrist, M., C Keller, and M.E. Cousin. 2006. Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: Support for the affect heuristic. Risk Analysis 26: 1021-9.
23. Slovic, P., M.L. Finucane, E. Peters, and D.G. MacGregor. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24: 311-22.
24. Strack, F., and R. Deutsch. 2004. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8: 220-47.
25. The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport. htm.
26. van Est, R., I. Malsch, and A. Rip. 2004. Om het kleine te waarderen... Een schets van nanotechnologie: publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten [To value the small things... A draft of nanotechnology: public debate, fields of application and social points of interest]. (Working document 93). The Hague: Rathenau Instituut.
27. Visschers, V.H.M., R.M. Meertens, W.F. Passchier, and N.K. de Vries. 2007. An associative approach to risk perception: Measuring the effects of risk communications directly and indirectly. Journal of Risk Research 10: 371-83.
28. Zajonc, R.B. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 35: 151-75.