Levels of trust in risk-only negative health messages issued by public agencies
A quantitative research-based mindsponge framework
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22232001 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nanae Tanemura (0000-0002-1787-9571, National Institute of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, corresponding author), Masako Kakizaki (0000-0001-6030-8953, Nagoya City University), Takashi Kusumi (0000-0001-7968-2304, Kyoto University), Rie Onodera (0000-0002-9987-0473, Osaka Metropolitan University), Tsuyoshi Chiba (0000-0002-7853-6089, National Institute of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2022-10-25 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2662-9992 • E-ISSN: 2662-9992 |
| Publisher | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1057/s41599-022-01415-x |
| OpenAlex | W4307386705 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 14 |
Trust in messengers is essential for a public agency to ensure effective benefit-risk communication. However, there is insufficient research on the difference in trust between risk-only or benefit-and-risk messages that deal with negative topics. To clarify these differences, this study used three radiation topics to determine the best benefit-risk communication design. We conducted a randomized comparative study in November 2020 on 1100 Japanese individuals (550 men and 550 women), who were allocated either to the risk message group (risk-only) or the benefit-and-risk message group (benefit-and-risk). The questionnaire focused on the trust level in a public agency for each message. We conducted an independent sample t -test using the trust mean at the time of registration. There were significant differences in the trust level in the public agency for all three topics ( p
Business · Computer security · Perception · Political science · Public health · Public relations · Public trust · Risk assessment · Risk communication · Risk perception · Sociology · Behavioral Health and Interventions · Computer Science · Medicine · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology · Risk Perception and Management
From beauty to belief
The influence of visual and auditory environments in parks on visitors’ landscape preference, emotional state, and perceived restorativeness
Factors influencing user’s health information discernment abilities in online health communities
Trust, trust repair, and public health
Political vs. expert
Ocean economic and cultural benefit perceptions as stakeholders' constraints for supporting conservation policies
Cognitive Dissonance or Credibility? A Comparison of Two Theoretical Explanations for Selective Exposure to Partisan News
Making sense of credibility in complex information environments
Selecting Science Information in Web 2.0
Acculturation and global mindsponge
Conflicting Evidence or Conflicting Opinions? Two-Sided Expert Discussions Contribute to Experts’ Trustworthiness
| Citations per year | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |