RF‐EMF Risk Perception and Trust in Radiation Protection Authorities: A Comparative Study on Precautionary Information in Germany and Greece
Marie Eggeling‐Böcker, Efthymios Karabetsos, Maria Christopoulou, Sarah C. Link, Ferdinand Abacioglu, Christoph Boehmert

TL;DR
This study compares how different types of precautionary information about 5G radiation affect people's risk perception and trust in authorities in Germany and Greece.
Contribution
It reveals that precautionary messages increase self-efficacy without raising public concern, and that conceptual explanations may unexpectedly increase perceived risk.
Findings
Precautionary information increased self-efficacy and message consistency perception without increasing risk perception or decreasing trust.
Adding conceptual explanations to precautionary messages unexpectedly increased risk perception compared to basic information.
Greek and female participants reported higher risk perception and lower trust compared to German and male participants.
Abstract
This study investigates how different types of precautionary information affect risk perception and trust in national radiation protection authorities regarding radio‐frequency electromagnetic fields (RF‐EMF) from mobile communications, with a specific focus on 5G networks. A total of 2169 participants (1040 in Germany, 1129 in Greece) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) basic information, (2) simple precautionary information regarding possibilities to reduce personal RF‐EMF exposure while using a mobile phone, and (3) conceptual precautionary information, including an explanation distinguishing “precaution” from “prevention” (1 × 3 factorial design). Contrary to the expectation that simple precautionary messages lead to higher risk perception and lower trust compared to basic messages, this was only the case for general conditional risk perception assuming that no…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsRisk Perception and Management · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Safety Warnings and Signage
