ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
The effect of goal frame and risk perception on digital flood prevention tool acceptability.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To cope with catastrophic floods, people need to be better prepared. In this context, a self-assessment digital tool for habitat vulnerability was developed. To improve its take-up rate, we are looking at the motivations associated with the social acceptability of this tool. The motivations (hedonic-gain-normative), derived from goal-frame theory, as well as elements relating to risk perception, are tested. Method: One, 688 participants (aged between 18 and 87) first read a scenario presenting the application (reflecting either one of the motivations of the Goal Framing Theory or a control scenario with no motivation). After reading one of the scenarios, they completed an online questionnaire, measuring the acceptability of the tool using three measures: a direct one (items from the Technological Acceptability Model: ease of use, perceived usefulness and social influence), an indirect measure (by asking the percentage of neighbours interested in the tool) and a social measure (judgement of a person using the tool). The last part of the questionnaire was about subjects' risk perception. Results: The analyses show that, of all the scenarios, the one involving hedonic motivation leads to the lowest social acceptance of the tool. We also observe that a better risk perception predicts better tool acceptability. Finally, we observe interaction effects between risk perception and motivations, showing that normative motivation is better when risk perception increases and that the control condition is better when risk perception decreases. Discussion: Goal framing theory is usually used for ecological behaviors. It also appears here as relevant in the field of risk prevention. Although risk perception remains the best predictor of acceptability, these results lead us to conclude that hedonic motivation is not appropriate for the acceptability of a flood risk prevention tool. It is preferable to focus on normative and gain motivations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.