TY  - JOUR
PY  - 2022//
TI  - Effects of as-if risk framing of hazards on risk perception and its rebuttal
JO  - Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology
A1  - Wiedemann, P. M.
A1  - Kirsch, F.
A1  - Lohmann, M.
A1  - Boel, G. F.
A1  - Freudenstein, F.
SP  - ePub
EP  - ePub
VL  - ePub
IS  - ePub
N2  - BACKGROUND: The difference between hazard and risk is crucial in risk assessment but rather unknown by non-experts. Hyper-partisan activists could use this knowledge gap to amplify risk perception by framing hazards as as-if risks, i.e., describing hazards as if their exposure is critical. Thus, using this as-if risk framing can trigger impressions that a risk is present. Until now, this framing technique and its rebuttal was not empirically analyzed. <br><br>METHOD: An experimental 2 × 2 factorial online study (N = 404) with repeated measures after intervention was conducted to investigate how framing (hazard vs. as-if risk) and stigmatization (stigmatized vs. non-stigmatized chemical agent) affects affective and cognitive risk perception using an example of exposure to drifting pesticides. <br><br>RESULTS: As-if risk framing increased risk perception, effects of stigmatization were not observed. However, the a-priori risk perception influences the recorded risk perceptions after the experimental treatment. Rebuttal was successful, i.e., subjects with elevated risk perceptions due to as-if risk framing reduced their risk perception after receiving corrective information. <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: As-if risk framing investigated here is not a sequestered case. Accordingly, the present study may offer general insights into correcting biased information that neglects the difference between hazard and risk. Risk communicators can benefit from these insights.<p />  <p>Language: en</p>
LA  - en
SN  - 0273-2300
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105282
ID  - ref1
ER  -