Precautionary advice about mobile phones: Public understandings and intended responses

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 525-540

  Barnett, Julie ^a   Timotijevic, Lada ^a   Vassallo, Marco ^b   Shepherd, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

^b ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DELLA NUTRIZIONE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Mobile phones; Precaution; Public health information provision; Risk communication; Trust; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

HEALTH RISKS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MOBILE PHONES; TELECOMMUNICATION; TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT; TELEPHONE; TELEPHONE SETS;

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES; MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS; PUBLIC HEALTH; TWO DIMENSIONS;

PUBLIC POLICY;

EID: 47249150115     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669870802086430     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50: 179-211.
2. Barnett, J., L. Timotijevic, R. Shepherd, and V. Senior. 2007. Public responses to precautionary information from the Department of Health (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones. Health Policy 82: 240-50.
3. Barnett, J., H. Cooper, and V. Senior. 2007. Belief in public efficacy, trust and attitudes towards modern genetic science. Risk Analysis 27: 921-33.
4. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review 84: 191-215.
5. Becker, M.H. 1974. The health belief model and personal health behaviour. Health Education Monographs 2: 324-473.
6. Bord, R.J., and R.E. O'Connor. 1992. Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site. Risk Analysis 12: 411-6.
7. Bromley, C., J. Curtice, and B. Seyd. 2001. Political engagement, trust and constitutional reform. In British social attitudes: The 18th report, Chapter 9, ed. A. Park, J. Curtice, K. Thomson, M. Phillips, and M. Johnson, 199-225. London: Sage.
8. Burgess, A. 2004. Cellular phones, public fears and a culture of precaution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Conner, M., and C.J. Armitage. 1998. Extending the theory of planned behaviour: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28: 1429-64.
10. Department of Health. 2000a. Mobile phones and health. London: Department of Health.
11. _. 2000b. Mobile phone base stations and health. London: Department of Health.
12. Durodie, B. 2003. The true cost of precautionary chemicals regulation. Risk Analysis 23: 389-128.
13. Flynn, J., P. Slovic, and H. Kunreuther. 2001. Risk, media and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology. London: Earthscan.
14. Frewer, L.J., S. Miles, M. Brennan, S. Kuznesof, M. Ness, and C. Ritson. 2002. Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science 11: 363-72.
15. Furedi, F. 1997. Culture of fear: Risk taking and the morality of low expectation. London: Cassell.
16. Grove-White, R., P. Macnaughton, S. Mayer, and B. Wynne. 1997. Uncertain world: Genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. Lancaster: Centre for the Study of Environment Change, University of Lancaster.
17. ICNIRP. 1998. Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Physics 74: 494.
18. IEGMP. 2000. Mobile phones and health. Didcot: NRPB.
19. Johnson, B.B., and P. Slovic. 1995. Explaining uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effect on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis 15: 485-94.
20. Jörenskog, K., and D. Sörbom. 1996. LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Hillsdale, NJ: SSI Scientific Software International/ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Kuhn, K.M. 2000. Message format and audience values: Interactive effects of uncertainty information and environmental attitudes on perceived risk. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20:41-51.
22. McGregor, D.G., P. Slovic, and G.M. Morgan. 1994. Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: A psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach. Risk Analysis 14: 815-28.
23. Maule, A.J. 2004. Translating risk management knowledge: The lessons to be learned from research on the perception and communication of risk. Risk Management: An International Journal 6: 15-27.
24. Miles, S., and L. Frewer. 2002. Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards. Journal of Risk Research 6: 267-83.
25. Morgan, M.G., P. Slovic, I. Nair, D. Geisler, D. Macgregor, B. Fischhoff, D. Lincoln, and K. Florig. 1985. Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: A pilot study of risk perception. Risk Analysis 5: 139-49.
26. Neuwirth, K., S. Dunwoody, and R.J. Griffin. 2000. Protection motivation and risk communication. Risk Analysis 20: 721-34.
27. Peterson, A. 2007. The precautionary principle should not be used as basis for decision making. EMBO Reports 8: 305-8.
28. Poortinga, W., and N.F. Pidgeon. 2003. Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis 23: 961-72.
29. _. 2005. Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis 25: 199-209.
30. Rogers, R.W. 1983. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In Socialpsychophysiology, ed. J. Cacioppo and R. Petty. New York: Guilford Press.
31. Roth, E., M.G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, and L. Lave. 1990. What do we know about making risk comparisons. Risk Analysis 10: 375-87.
32. Siegrist, M., T.C. Earle, and H. Gutscher. 2007. Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. London: Earthscan.
33. Sjöberg, L. 1998. Worry and risk perception. Risk Analysis 18, no. 1: 85-93.
34. Slovic, P., M. 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.
35. Sparks, P., and R. Shepherd. 1994. Public perceptions of the hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis 14: 799-806.
36. Stirling, A. 2007. Risk, precaution and science: Towards a more constructive policy debate. EMBO Reports 8: 309-15.
37. Tickner, J. 2003. The role of environmental science in precautionary decision making. In Environmental science and preventative public policy, ed. J.A. Tickner. London: Island Press.
38. Timotijevic, L., and J. Barnett. 2006. Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and advice. Health, Risk and Society 8: 143-64.
39. Walls, J., N. Pidgeon, A. Weyman, and T. Horlick-Jones. 2004. Critical trust: Understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation. Health, Risk and Society 6: 133-50.
40. Wiedemann, P.M., and H. Schütz. 2005. The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 402-5.
41. Wiedemann, P., H. Schütz, and M. Clauberg. 2007. The public perception of precaution. EMBO Reports 8: 1-2.
42. Wiedemann, P., A.T. Thalmann, M.A. Grutsch, and H. Schütz. 2006. The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust. Journal of Risk Research 9: 361-72.