SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 1978; 9: 127152.
  • 2
    Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0001:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed on December 12, 2011.
  • 3
    Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH. Science and the precautionary principle. Science, 2000; 12(288): 5468, 979981.
  • 4
    Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Islami F, Galichet L, Kurt Straif K. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncology, 2011; 12(7): 624626.
  • 5
    IEGMP. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones. Mobile Phones and Health. NRPB, Oxford, 2000. Available at: http://www.iegmp.org.uk/report/text.htm. Accessed on December 12, 2011.
  • 6
    WHO 2003 Precautionary Framework for Public Health Protection. Available at: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/archive/en/Precaution_Draft_2May.pdf. Accessed on August 10, 2012.
  • 7
    Special Eurobarometer 272a. Electromagnetic Fields. Brussels, 2007. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_272a_en.pdf. Accessed on August 10, 2012.
  • 8
    Special Eurobarometer 347. Electromagnetic Fields. Brussels. 2010. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_347_en.pdf. Accessed on August 10, 2012.
  • 9
    Sheperd A, Jepson, R, Watterson A, Evans JMM. Risk perceptions of environmental hazards and human reproduction: A community based survey. ISRN Public Health, 2012; article ID 748080. Accessed on August 12, 2012
  • 10
    Liao CH. Public Attitude Toward Mobile Base Station Siting: More than Nimby. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1553672. Accessed on August 12, 2012.
  • 11
    Bond S, Wang KK. The impact of cell phone towers on house prices in residential neighborhoods. Appraisal Journal, 2005; 73(3): 256265
  • 12
    Slesin L. Public Concerns Over Microwave Radiation in the U.S.: Comparing the Perceived Health Risks of Phones and Towers. Available at: http://www.salzburg.gv.at/Proceedings_(26)_Slesin.pdf. Accessed on August 10, 2012.
  • 13
    Berg-Beckhoff G, Kowall B, Breckenkamp J, Schlehofer B, Schuez J, Blettner M. Stability of Risk Perception Related to Mobile Phone Stations Over Two Years on the Individual Level. The QUEBEB Study. Available at: http://www.egms.de/static/en/meetings/gmds2011/11gmds266.shtml#block1. Accessed on August 12, 2012.
  • 14
    Blettner M, Schlehofer B, Breckenkamp J, Kowall B, Schmiedel S, Reis U, Potthoff P, Schuez J, Berg-Beckhoff G. Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: Phase 1 of a population-based, crosssectional study in Germany. Occupational Environmental Medicine, 2009; 66: 118123.
  • 15
    Timotijevic L, Barnett J. Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and advice. Health, Risk & Society, 2006; 8(2): 143164.
  • 16
    Wiedemann PM, Thalmann, AT, Grutsch MA, Schütz H. The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust. Journal of Risk Research, 2006; 9(4): 361372.
  • 17
    Wiedemann PM, Schütz H. The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2005; 113: 402405.
  • 18
    Earle T, Siegrist M, Gutscher H eds. Trust, risk and the TCC of cooperation. Pp. 149 in Siegrist M, Earle T, Gutscher H(eds). Trust in Cooperative Risk Management. London: Earthscan, 2007.
  • 19
    Easterbrook JA. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 1959; 66: 183201.
  • 20
    Cousin ME, Siegrist M. Cell phones and health concerns: Impact of knowledge and voluntary precautionary recommendations. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(2): 301311.
  • 21
    Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H, Keller C. Perception of mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25(5): 12531264.
  • 22
    Hutter HP, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Public perception of risk concerning cell towers and mobile phones. Soz.- Präventivmed, 2004; 49: 6266.
  • 23
    Sandman P.How should public “outrage” affect application of the precautionary principle? Available at: http://www.psandman.com/articles/vodafone.pdf. Accessed on August 12, 2012.
  • 24
    Edwards A. Elwyn G, Mathews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information: A review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. Journal of Health Communication, 2001; 6: 6182.
  • 25
    Wilson DK, Purdon SE, Wallston KA. Compliance to health recommendations: A theoretical overview of message framing. Health Education Research, 1988; 3(2): 161171.
  • 26
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 1979; 47(2): 263291.
  • 27
    Masson, MEJ, Loftus, GR. Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue, 2003; 57(3): 203220.
  • 28
    Kahan D. Cultural cognition as conception of cultural theory of risk. Pp. 725760 in Hillerbrand, R, Sandin P, Roeser S, Peterson M (eds). Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics and Social Implications of Risk. Vol. 2. Heidelberg: Springer London, 2012.
  • 29
    Hofstede G. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.
  • 30
    Haidt J, Craig J. Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 2004; 133(4): 5566.
  • 31
    Gustafson PE. Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 1998; 18(6): 805811.
  • 32
    Harris CR, Jenkins M, Glaser D. Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgment and Decision Making, 2006, 1(1): 4863.
  • 33
    Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit, Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(6): 10851096.
  • 34
    Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
  • 35
    Kahneman D. Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane, 2011.
  • 36
    Spielberger CD, Gorssuch RL, Lushene PR, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1983.
  • 37
    Krohne HW. Untersuchungen mit einer deutschen Form der Repression-Sensitization-Skala. Zeitschrift für klinische Psychologie, 1974; 3: 238260.
  • 38
    Thompson MM, Naccarato ME, Parker KCH, Moskowitz G. The personal need for structure (PNS) and personal fear of invalidity (PFI) scales: Historical perspectives, present applications and future directions. Pp.1939 in Moskowitz G (ed). Cognitive Social Psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001.
  • 39
    Croft R, Magee Ch, Wiedemann PM. A “Personality” Approach to Understanding the Effect of Risk Communication Strategies in Telecommunications Messaging, 2012; Talk Given at the SRA World Congress of Risk, Sydney.
  • 40
    Pieter van Broekhuizen P, Lucas Reijnders L. Building blocks for a precautionary approach to the use of nanomaterials: Positions taken by trade unions and environmental NGOs in the European nanotechnologies debate. Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(10): 16471657.