IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i19p7207-d422799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relationship between Risk Perception of Cell Phones and Objective Knowledge of EMF in Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Myung-Soon Seo

    (Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul 02481, Korea
    Institute for Environmental Health, Korea University, Seoul 02481, Korea)

  • Jae-Wook Choi

    (Institute for Environmental Health, Korea University, Seoul 02481, Korea
    Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul 02481, Korea)

  • Kyung-Hee Kim

    (Institute for Environmental Health, Korea University, Seoul 02481, Korea
    Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul 02481, Korea)

  • Hyung-Do Choi

    (Radio and Satellite Division, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, Daejeon 34129, Korea)

Abstract

This study examines differences between the level of objective knowledge regarding radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and risk perception of cell phones in Korea. We also investigate the extent to which socio-demographic factors, perceived EMF exposure, objective knowledge regarding EMF, and psychological factors influence the risk perception of cell phones using hierarchical multiple regression. All 3393 study subjects completed a survey measuring the degree of risk perception of EMF. They were sampled in accordance with representative proportions of sex, age group, and region of residence as shown in the 2019 Resident Registration Population Statistics reported by Korea. The variables that have the most influence on risk perception of cell phones can be induced from the beta values for each variable: The subjective factor, perceived level of exposure to EMF (β = 0.253), was more strongly related to risk perception of cell phones than level of knowledge regarding EMF, an objective factor in this study. Of the psychological factors, Dreadfulness (β = 0.331), Personal knowledge (β = −174), and Familiarity (β = −089) influenced risk perceptions of cell phones; Controllability did not. On the risk cognition map, people though that it was easy to control risk related to Cell phone use in daily life, while risk related to High technology was uncontrollable.

Suggested Citation

  • Myung-Soon Seo & Jae-Wook Choi & Kyung-Hee Kim & Hyung-Do Choi, 2020. "The Relationship between Risk Perception of Cell Phones and Objective Knowledge of EMF in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-10, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:19:p:7207-:d:422799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/19/7207/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/19/7207/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & M. Granger Morgan, 1994. "Perception of Risks From Electromagnetic Fields: A Psychometric Evaluation of a Risk‐Communication Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 815-828, October.
    2. Peter M. Wiedemann & Frederik Freudenstein & Christoph Böhmert & Joe Wiart & Rodney J. Croft, 2017. "RF EMF Risk Perception Revisited: Is the Focus on Concern Sufficient for Risk Perception Studies?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, June.
    3. M. Granger Morgan & Paul Slovic & Indira Nair & Dan Geisler & Donald MacGregor & Baruch Fischhoff & David Lincoln & Keith Florig, 1985. "Powerline Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: A Pilot Study of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 139-149, June.
    4. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    5. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt‐Marie Drottz‐Sjöberg, 1991. "Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Employees," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 607-618, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2011. "Cell Phones and Health Concerns: Impact of Knowledge and Voluntary Precautionary Recommendations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 301-311, February.
    2. Wouter Poortinga & Patrick Cox & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2008. "The Perceived Health Risks of Indoor Radon Gas and Overhead Powerlines: A Comparative Multilevel Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 235-248, February.
    3. Christoph Boehmert & Peter Wiedemann & Rodney Croft, 2016. "Improving Precautionary Communication in the EMF Field? Effects of Making Messages Consistent and Explaining the Effectiveness of Precautions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, October.
    4. Takumi Yamaguchi & Itsuko Horiguchi & Naoki Kunugita, 2022. "Factors Associated with Refraining from Purchasing Foods Produced in Affected Areas after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Accident," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    6. Wadley, David A. & Han, Jung Hoon & Elliott, Peter G., 2019. "Risk hidden in plain sight: Explaining homeowner perceptions of electricity transmission infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 744-753.
    7. Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2016. "Understanding Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions on the Benefits and Risks Associated with High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1983-1999, October.
    8. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    9. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    10. Lennart Sjöberg, 1998. "Worry and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 85-93, February.
    11. Mika Kivimäki & Raija Kalimo & Simo Salminen, 1995. "Perceived Nuclear Risk, Organizational Commitment, and Appraisals of Management: A Study of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 391-396, June.
    12. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    13. Peter M. Wiedemann & Holger Schuetz & Franziska Boerner & Martin Clauberg & Rodney Croft & Rajesh Shukla & Toshiko Kikkawa & Ray Kemp & Jan M. Gutteling & Barney de Villiers & Flavia N. da Silva Medei, 2013. "When Precaution Creates Misunderstandings: The Unintended Effects of Precautionary Information on Perceived Risks, the EMF Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1788-1801, October.
    14. Joseph Conti & Terre Satterfield & Barbara Herr Harthorn, 2011. "Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1734-1748, November.
    15. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    16. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    17. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    18. Donald G. MacGregor & Raymond Fleming, 1996. "Risk Perception and Symptom Reporting," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 773-783, December.
    19. Michael Yu & Tomás Lejarraga & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2012. "Context‐Specific, Scenario‐Based Risk Scales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2166-2181, December.
    20. Michael R. Greenberg, 2012. "The Affect Heuristic, Correspondence Analysis, and Understanding LULUs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 478-480, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:19:p:7207-:d:422799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.