Effects of as-if risk framing of hazards on risk perception and its rebuttal.

Background: The difference between hazard and risk is crucial in risk assessment but rather unknown by non-experts. Hyper-partisan activists could use this knowledge gap to amplify risk perception by framing hazards as as-if risks, i.e., describing hazards as if their exposure is critical. Thus, using this as-if risk framing can trigger impressions that a risk is present. Until now, this framing technique and its rebuttal was not empirically analyzed.

Method: An experimental 2 × 2 factorial online study (N = 404) with repeated measures after intervention was conducted to investigate how framing (hazard vs. as-if risk) and stigmatization (stigmatized vs. non-stigmatized chemical agent) affects affective and cognitive risk perception using an example of exposure to drifting pesticides.

Results: As-if risk framing increased risk perception, effects of stigmatization were not observed. However, the a-priori risk perception influences the recorded risk perceptions after the experimental treatment. Rebuttal was successful, i.e., subjects with elevated risk perceptions due to as-if risk framing reduced their risk perception after receiving corrective information.

Conclusions: As-if risk framing investigated here is not a sequestered case. Accordingly, the present study may offer general insights into correcting biased information that neglects the difference between hazard and risk. Risk communicators can benefit from these insights.