ArticleBioelectromagnetics2026
RF-EMF Risk Perception and Trust in Radiation Protection Authorities: A Comparative Study on Precautionary Information in Germany and Greece.
Article in Bioelectromagnetics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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 precautions are taken, but not for affective risk perception, trust, or general conditional risk perception assuming that precautions are taken. Notably, providing a more elaborate explanation of the precaution/prevention distinction did not decrease risk perception or increase trust compared to giving simple precautionary information only, and even increased risk perception compared to basic information. This suggests limited benefit in emphasizing this conceptual nuance of precaution. Considering other variables, precautionary information increased feelings of self-efficacy and perception of message consistency. The findings reveal significant country differences: Greek participants reported higher perceived risks and lower trust than German participants. Gender differences also emerged, with women expressing higher risk perception and less trust than men. In contrast to the previous literature, the results suggest that precautionary information concerning personal mobile phone use can be communicated without leading to higher public concern about RF-EMF exposure from mobile communications. However, we found some evidence that adding conceptual explanations to precautionary information leads to higher risk perception. The results also show that considering sociocultural and individual differences in risk communication can be relevant. Possible explanations for the findings and implications for risk communicators are discussed.
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.