Fear and anger: Antecedents and consequences of emotional responses to mobile communication

Journal of Risk Research

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 435-446

  Dohle, Simone ^a   Keller, Carmen ^a   Siegrist, Michael ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

anger; cognitive appraisal; fear; mobile communication; risk

Indexed keywords

ANGER; COGNITIVE APPRAISAL; FEAR; HEALTH EFFECTS; IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING; MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS; MOBILE PHONE BASE STATIONS; RISK COMMUNICATION; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING;

BASE STATIONS; HEALTH RISKS; MOBILE PHONES; RISK PERCEPTION; RISKS; SITE SELECTION;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84856918262     PISSN: 13669877     EISSN: 14664461     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2011.636835     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Cousin, M.-E., and M. Siegrist. 2010a. Public's knowledge of mobile communication and its influence on base station siting preferences. Health, Risk & Society 13, no. 3: 261-78.
2. Cousin, M.-E., and M. Siegrist. 2010b. Risk perception of mobile communication: A mental models approach. Journal of Risk Research 13, no. 5: 599-620.
3. Dohle, S., C. Keller, and M. Siegrist. 2010. Conjoint measurement of base station siting preferences. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 16: 1-12.
4. Dunn, J.R., and M.E. Schweitzer. 2005. Feeling and believing: The influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88, no. 5: 736-48.
5. Earle, T.C., and M. Siegrist. 2008. On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis 28, no. 5: 1395-413.
6. Finucane, M.L., A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and M. Johnson. 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making 13: 1-17.
7. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 9: 127-52.
8. Frijda, N.H. 1986. The emotions. Studies in emotion and social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Hu, L.-T., and P.M. Bentler. 1995. Evaluating model fit. In Structural equation modeling, ed. Rh. Hoyle, 158-76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Hutter, H.-P., H. Moshammer, P. Wallner, and M. Kundi. 2004. Public perception of risk concerning cell towers and mobile phones. Sozial- und Praventivmedizin 49, no. 1: 62-6.
11. Kuppens, P., I. Van Mechelen, D.J.M. Smits, and P. De Boeck. 2003. The appraisal basis of anger: Specificity, necessity, and sufficiency of components. Emotion 3, no. 3: 254-69.
12. Lazarus, R.S., and S. Folkman. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
13. Lerner, J.S., and D. Keltner. 2000. Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion 14: 473-93.
14. Lerner, J.S., and D. Keltner. 2001. Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, no. 1: 146-59.
15. Mikula, G., K.R. Scherer, and U. Athenstaedt. 1998. The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24, no. 7: 769-83.
16. Niedenthal, P.M., S. Krauth-Gruber, and F. Ric. 2006. Psychology of emotion: Interpersonal, experiential, and cognitive approaches. Hove: Psychology Press.
17. Oliver, J.P., C.K. Chou, and Q. Balzano. 2003. Testing the effectiveness of small radiation shields for mobile phones. Bioelectromagnetics 24, no. 1: 66-9.
18. Peters, E., B. Burraston, and C.K. Mertz. 2004. An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: Cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Analysis 24: 1349-67.
19. Sandman, P.M. 1987. Risk communication: Facing public outrage. Environmental Protection Agency Journal 13: 21-2.
20. Scherer, K.R. 1997. Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing theoretical predictions across cultures. Cognition & Emotion 11, no. 2: 113-50.
21. Seligman, M. 1975. Helplessness on depression, development, and death. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
22. Siegrist, M. 2000. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20, no. 2: 195-203.
23. Siegrist, M., T.C. Earle, and H. Gutscher. 2003. Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Analysis 23, no. 4: 705-16.
24. Siegrist, M., T.C. Earle, H. Gutscher, and C. Keller. 2005. Perception of mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis 25, no. 5: 1253-64.
25. Sjöberg, L. 2000. Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis 20, no. 1: 1-11.
26. Sjöberg, L. 2007. Emotions and risk perception. Risk Management 9: 222-37.
27. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280-5.
28. Smith, C.A., and P.C. Ellsworth. 1985. Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, no. 4: 813-38.
29. Smith, C.A., and L.D. Kirby. 2009. Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of appraisal and emotion. Cognition & Emotion 23, no. 7: 1352-72.
30. Watson, L., and M.T. Spence. 2007. Causes and consequences of emotions on consumer behaviour - a review and integrative cognitive appraisal theory. European Journal of Marketing 41, no. 5-6: 487-511.
31. Weiss, H.M., K. Suckow, and R. Cropanzano. 1999. Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions. Journal of Applied Psychology 84, no. 5: 786-94.
32. White, M.P., J.R. Eiser, P.R. Harris, and S. Pahl. 2007. Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risks? Comparative optimism, comparative utility, and regulatory preferences for mobile phone technology. Risk Analysis 27, no. 3: 741-53.
33. WHO. 2000. Electromagnetic fields and public health: Mobile telephones and their base stations. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/.
34. WHO. 2009. What are electromagnetic fields? http://www.who.int/peh-emf/ about/WhatisEMF/en/.
35. Zeelenberg, M., R.M.A. Nelissen, S.M. Breugelmans, and R. Pieters. 2008. On emotion specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing. Judgment and Decision Making 3, no. 1: 18-27.