It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
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 < 0.001). The trust level was ranked as risk-only, followed by benefit-and-risk; however, the trust level was still high enough when the trust level at baseline was high from the outset. In risk-only communication on negative topics, perceptions were consistent with the types of risk message due to confirmation bias. Hence, trust in risk-only negative health messages promoted a preferential higher information absorptivity under the mindsponge mechanism. However, effective benefit-risk communication is assured by high trust levels between a public agency and the public, so it is important to consistently build trust with all stakeholders on a regular basis.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition, Tokyo, Japan (GRID:grid.482562.f)
2 Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan (GRID:grid.260433.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 0728 1069)
3 Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan (GRID:grid.258799.8) (ISNI:0000 0004 0372 2033)
4 Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan (GRID:grid.258799.8)