IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v21y2001i1p199-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Siegrist
  • George Cvetkovich

Abstract

Do the results of a scientific study influence confidence in the study's validity and the magnitude of change in the resulting perceived danger of the health risk investigated? Findings from the three investigations reported here indicate that scientific results that confirm a danger (negative results) do affect confidence in a study's validity and resulting risk assessments differently than results indicating low risk (positive results). Findings of Study 1 revealed that research results indicating a health risk were more trusted than results indicating little health risk. This effect was independent of the credibility of the information source. Study 2 demonstrated that confidence in research results increased with an increasing indication of health risk. Study 3 showed that people have more confidence in the results of animal tests on a food additive indicating negative human health effects than in animal tests indicating that a food additive is harmless. The findings have important practical implications. The observed asymmetry between positive and negative research results may be one reason that people are afraid of many of the hazards they are faced with in modern society.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2001. "Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 199-206, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:1:p:199-206
    DOI: 10.1111/0272-4332.211102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.211102
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0272-4332.211102?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:21:y:2001:i:1:p:199-206. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.