Advertisement

Consumer health risk awareness model of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones and base stations: An exploratory study

  • Rojalin PradhanEmail author
  • Mahim Sagar
  • Tushar Pandey
  • Ishwar Prasad
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Wireless Communication has become an integral part of our daily lives especially the use of mobile phones has increased drastically in the past decade. But this technology has also raised some concerns among certain group of people where the concerns are mainly regarding the radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure from mobile phones and base stations. It is believed that RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones and base stations is affecting human health. This paper seeks to develop a model on consumer health risk awareness of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones and base stations, where we have made use of grounded theory method (GTM) and total interpretive structural modelling (TISM). GTM has been used to identify the factors influencing consumer’s awareness on health risk related issues towards RF-EMF exposure and TISM was used to establish relationship between these factors and subsequently developed a hierarchical model to improve consumer awareness in context of perceived health risks associated with it. This model is developed on the premise of informed choice, aware consumer and safer absorption of technology. This model could have high social impact for all the stakeholders in the telecommunication industry (regulator, telecom service provider and consumer).

Keywords

Consumer awareness Risk communication Risk perception RF-EMF exposure Mobile phones Base stations 

Notes

References

  1. Aaker, D. A., & Day, G. S. (1982). Consumerism (4th ed.). New York:Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  2. Baliatsas, C., van Kamp, I., Bolte, J., Kelfkens, G., van Dijk, C., Spreeuwenberg, P., et al. (2016). Clinically defined non-specific symptoms in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: A retrospective before-after study. Science of the Total Environment, 565, 714–720.Google Scholar
  3. Beales, H., Mazis, M. B., Salop, S. C., & Staelin, R. (1981). Consumer search and public policy. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(1), 11–22.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, M. B. G. (2000). Are mobile phones harmful? Acta Oncologica, 39(8), 927–930.Google Scholar
  5. Blettner, M., Schlehofer, B., Breckenkamp, J., Kowall, B., Schmiedel, S., Reis, U., & Berg-Beckhoff, G. (2009). Mobile phone base stations and adverse health effects: Phase 1 of a population-based, cross-sectional study in Germany. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 66(2), 118–123.Google Scholar
  6. Bourgeois, J. C., & Barnes, J. G. (1979). Viability and profile of the consumerist segment. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(4), 217–228.Google Scholar
  7. Bronfman, N. C., & Cifuentes, L. A. (2003). Risk perception in a developing country: The case of Chile. Risk Analysis, 23(6), 1271–1285.Google Scholar
  8. Burgess, A. (2002). Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts. Health, Risk and Society, 4(2), 175–188.Google Scholar
  9. Burgess, A. (2004). Cellular phones, public fears, and a culture of precaution. Cambridge University Press New York.Google Scholar
  10. Burton, L. J., & Mazerolle, S. M. (2011). Survey instrument validity part I: Principles of survey instrument development and validation in athletic training education research. Athletic Training Education Journal, 6(1), 27–35.Google Scholar
  11. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Vol. 17). Sage publications.Google Scholar
  12. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  13. Cousin, M. E., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Risk perception of mobile communication: A mental models approach. Journal of Risk Research, 13(5), 599–620.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, S. L., Ward, S., & Faber, R. (1976). Consumer problems and consumerism: Analysis of calls to a consumer hot line: What kinds of people use a consumer hot line? Why do they call? What are their attitudes toward business? Journal of Marketing, 40(1), 58–62.Google Scholar
  15. Drake, F. (2006). Mobile phone masts: Protesting the scientific evidence. Public Understanding of Science, 15(4), 387–410.Google Scholar
  16. Elvers, H. D., Jandrig, B., Grummich, K., & Tannert, C. (2009). Mobile phones and health: Media coverage study of German newspapers on possible adverse health effects of mobile phone use. Health, Risk and Society, 11(2), 165–179.Google Scholar
  17. Federal Communication Commission (FCC) (2016). SAR for cell phones: What it means for you. Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/sar.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2018.
  18. File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1992). Positive word–of–mouth: Customer satisfaction and buyer behavior. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 10(1), 25–29.Google Scholar
  19. Foster, K. R. & Moulder, J. E. (2000). Are Mobile Phones Safe?. IEEE Spectrum Online.Google Scholar
  20. Freudenstein, F., Wiedemann, P. M., & Brown, W. C. T. (2015). Exposure perception as a key indicator of risk perception and acceptance of sources of radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2015, Article ID 198272, 9 pages.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  22. Greene, J. C. (2015). Preserving distinctions within the multimethod and mixed methods research merger. In The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry.Google Scholar
  23. Hadden, S. G. (1989). A citizen's right to know: Risk communication and public policy.Google Scholar
  24. Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. B. (1995). Multivariate data analysis: With readings. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Howells, G. (2005). The potential and limits of consumer empowerment by information. Journal of Law and Society, 32(3), 349–370.Google Scholar
  26. Hutter, H. P., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P., & Kundi, M. (2004). Public perception of risk concerning cell towers and mobile phones. Sozial–und Präventivmedizin/Social and Preventive Medicine, 49(1), 62–66.Google Scholar
  27. Hutter, H. P., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P., & Kundi, M. (2006). Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(5), 307–313.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, B. B. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 813–814.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, B. B. (2003). Further notes on public response to uncertainty in risks and science. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 781–789.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, B. B., & Slovic, P. (1998). Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research, 1(4), 261–279.Google Scholar
  31. Kheifets, L., Swanson, J., Kandel, S., & Malloy, T. F. (2010). Risk governance for mobile phones, power lines, and other EMF technologies. Risk Analysis, 30(10), 1481–1494.Google Scholar
  32. Krueger, J. (1998). On the perception of social consensus. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 163–240.Google Scholar
  33. Kundi, M., & Hutter, H. P. (2009). Mobile phone base stations—Effects on wellbeing and health. Pathophysiology, 16(2–3), 123–135.Google Scholar
  34. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575.Google Scholar
  35. Maclnnis, D. J., Shapiro, S., & Mani, G. (1999). Enhancing brand awareness through brand symbols. Advances in Consumer Research, 26(1), 601–608.Google Scholar
  36. Mason, J. B., & Himes, S. H., Jr. (1973). An exploratory behavioral and socio-economic profile of consumer action about dissatisfaction with selected household appliances. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 7(2), 121–127.Google Scholar
  37. Morgan, M. G. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. Hillsdale: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
  39. Peetz-Schou, M. (1997). How to measure consumer awareness of mass–media campaigns for public health purposes. Patient Education and Counseling, 30(1), 53–59.Google Scholar
  40. Pidgeon, N. (1998). Risk assessment, risk values and the social science programme: Why we do need risk perception research. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 59(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  41. Ram, S., & Jung, H. S. (1991). How product usage influences consumer satisfaction. Marketing Letters, 2(4), 403–411.Google Scholar
  42. Repacholi, M. H. (2001). Health risks from the use of mobile phones. Toxicology Letters, 120(1–3), 323–331.Google Scholar
  43. Repacholi, M. H., & Muc, A. M. (1999). EMF risk perception and communication: Proceedings. World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  44. Röösli, M. (2008). Radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and non–specific symptoms of ill health: A systematic review. Environmental Research, 107(2), 277–287.Google Scholar
  45. Röösli, M., Frei, P., Mohler, E., & Hug, K. (2010). Systematic review on the health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phone base stations. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 887–896.Google Scholar
  46. Rosa, E. A. (1998). Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 15–44.Google Scholar
  47. Siegrist, M., Earle, T. C., Gutscher, H., & Keller, C. (2005). Perception of mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 25(5), 1253–1264.Google Scholar
  48. Siro, I., Kapolna, E., Kápolna, B., & Lugasi, A. (2008). Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance – A review. Appetite, 51(3), 456–467.Google Scholar
  49. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  50. Sushil, S. (2012). Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 87–106.Google Scholar
  51. Valberg, P. A., Van Deventer, T. E., & Repacholi, M. H. (2006). Workgroup report: Base stations and wireless networks—Radiofrequency (RF) exposures and health consequences. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(3), 416–424.Google Scholar
  52. Van Kleef, E., Fischer, A. R., Khan, M., & Frewer, L. J. (2010). Risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phone and base station technology in Bangladesh. Risk Analysis, 30(6), 1002–1015.Google Scholar
  53. Veres, Z., Hetesi, E., & Vilmányi, M. (2009). Competences versus risk reduction in higher education. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 6(1), 51–61.Google Scholar
  54. Warfield, J. N. (1974). Toward interpretation of complex structural models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 4(5), 405–417.Google Scholar
  55. Warland, R. H., Herrmann, R. O., & Willits, J. (1975). Dissatisfied consumers: Who gets upset and who takes action. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 9(2), 148–163.Google Scholar
  56. Wiedemann, P. M., & Schütz, H. (2005). The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(4), 402–405.Google Scholar
  57. Wiedemann, P. M., & Schütz, H. (2008). Informing the public about information and participation strategies in the siting of mobile communication base stations: An experimental study. Health, Risk and Society, 10(6), 517–534.Google Scholar
  58. Wiedemann, P. M., Thalmann, A. T., Grutsch, M. A., & Schütz, H. (2006). The impacts of precautionary measures and the disclosure of scientific uncertainty on EMF risk perception and trust. Journal of Risk Research, 9(4), 361–372.Google Scholar
  59. Woodside, A. G., & Wilson, E. J. (1985). Effects of consumer awareness of brand advertising on preference. Journal of Advertising Research, 26(4), 41–48.Google Scholar
  60. World Health Organization (WHO) (2006). Electromagnetic fields and public health: Base stations and wireless technologies. http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs304/en/. Accessed on 20 March 2019.
  61. Wu, T., Shao, Q., Yang, L., Qi, D., Lin, J., Lin, X., & Yu, Z. (2012). A large-scale measurement of electromagnetic fields near GSM base stations in Guangxi, China for risk communication. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 155(1), 25–31.Google Scholar
  62. Yang, D. J. (2018). Exploring the communication effects of message framing of smoking cessation advertising on smokers’ mental processes. International review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 1-18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rojalin Pradhan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mahim Sagar
    • 2
  • Tushar Pandey
    • 2
  • Ishwar Prasad
    • 3
  1. 1.Bharti School of Telecommunication Technology and ManagementIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Management StudiesIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations