Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and Base Station Technology in Bangladesh

Risk Analysis, Vol. 30, No. 6, 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01386.x

Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phone and BaseStation Technology in Bangladesh

Ellen van Kleef,1,∗ Arnout R. H. Fischer,1 Moin Khan,2 and Lynn J. Frewer1

Research in developed countries showed that many citizens perceive that radio signals trans-mitted by mobile phones and base stations represent potential health risks. Less research hasbeen conducted in developing countries focused on citizen perceptions of risks and benefits,despite the recent and rapid introduction of mobile communication technologies. This studyaims to identify factors that are influential in determining the tradeoffs that Bangladeshi cit-izens make between risks and benefits in terms of mobile phone technology acceptance andhealth concerns associated with the technology. Bangladesh was selected as representative ofmany developing countries inasmuch as terrestrial telephone infrastructure is insubstantial,and mobile phone use has expanded rapidly over the last decade, even among the poor. Issuesof importance were identified in a small-scale qualitative study among Bangladeshi citizens(n = 13), followed by a survey within a sample of Bangladeshi citizens (n = 500). The resultsdemonstrate that, in general, the perceived benefits of mobile phone technology outweighthe risks. The perceived benefits are primarily related to the social and personal advantagesof mobile phone use, including the ability to receive emergency news about floods, cyclones,and other natural disasters. Base stations were seen as a symbol of societal advance. The re-sults furthermore suggest that overall risk perceptions are relatively low, in particular healthrisks, and are primarily driven by perceptions that related to crime and social inconvenience.Perceived health risks are relatively small. These findings show that risk communication andmanagement may be particularly effective when contextual factors of the society where thesystem is implemented are taken into consideration.

KEY WORDS: Bangladesh; base stations; mobile phones; risk and benefit perceptions; trust

1. INTRODUCTION

Mobile communication technology has increasedrapidly during recent decades. This is presumably be-cause the perceived benefits of mobile phones aresubstantial in terms of improved communication. As

1Wageningen University, Marketing & Consumer BehaviourGroup, Hollandseweg, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

2Metatude Asia Ltd, Uttara, Dhaka, Bangladesh.∗Address correspondence to Ellen van Kleef, Wageningen Uni-

versity, Marketing & Consumer Behaviour Group, Holland-seweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands; tel: +31 317-482205; fax: +31 317-484 361; [email protected].

a result, the number of people using mobile phoneshas dramatically increased internationally. Mobilephones are believed to represent one of the mostrapidly adopted technologies in the history of tech-nological innovation.(1)

There is evidence to suggest, however, that po-tential risks associated with mobile phone technol-ogy are a source of concern to some citizens. Re-search into risk perception associated with mobilecommunication technology have focused on the po-tential for negative impacts on human health, in par-ticular associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF)emitted from mobile handsets and base stations (anessential component in the process of receiving and

1002 0272-4332/10/0100-1002$22.00/1 C© 2010 Society for Risk Analysis

Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phones 1003

transmitting phone calls within a delineated geo-graphical area). If expert opinions regarding thehealth impacts of mobile phones are summarized,it can be concluded that research into the potentialadverse health effects of mobile phones is inconclu-sive.(2,3) However, research into the risk perceptionof citizens in developed countries has indicated thatmany people have health concerns with regard to theuse of both handsets and base stations.(4,5)

To date, research focused on citizens’ risk andbenefit perceptions associated with mobile technol-ogy has primarily been conducted in developed coun-tries, such as Austria,(6) Spain,(7) Denmark,(8) Aus-tralia,(9) France,(10) and the United Kingdom.(11,12)

Due to cultural and economic differences, theextrapolation of the results of these studies in thedeveloping world may not be straightforward, as lit-tle is understood about cultural preferences and per-ceptions associated with mobile communication tech-nology. At the same time, mobile communication isbecoming available to many people in less affluentsocieties. Under circumstances (such as those foundin some developing countries) where terrestrial tele-phone infrastructures have not been implanted, theintroduction of mobile phone networks may offerprofound benefits. The mobile phone industry hasclaimed that the widespread use of mobile phoneshas promoted economic growth, raised living stan-dards, and reduced poverty.(13) There is some empir-ical evidence to support this assertion. For example,the growth in access to cell phones in Ghana has re-sulted in a positive impact on small traders’ businesspractices.(14) Another example concerns fish mer-chants in the south of India who use mobile phonesto check fish prices at distant markets before buyingfish. As a result, their income stabilized and less fishwas wasted.(15) In countries where there is a lack ofterrestrial telephone infrastructure, the need for mo-bile phone networks may be perceived by consumersas more immediate. Understanding how consumersperceive the risks and benefits of mobile phone tech-nology will provide insights into how to developproactive risk management measures, including ef-fective risk and benefit communication with mobilephone users about both handsets and base stations.This is closely related to the increasing appeal to ini-tiate and integrate the evaluation of potential socialimpacts of new or controversial technologies utilizingapproaches such as the social impact assessment ap-proach, which is currently refocusing from the envi-ronment to broader issues associated with health andsociety.(16)

In this study, Bangladesh was selected as a par-ticularly suitable country to study risk and benefitperceptions of mobile phone technology. Bangladeshis one of the most densely populated countries inthe world, with about 159 million inhabitants, aswell as one of the least affluent. According to theHuman Development Index of the United Nations,Bangladesh falls into the “low” category of hu-man development, which indicates a low averageprogress.(17) Until the beginning of the 21st cen-tury, land phone lines were a privilege of the urbanelite in the capital Dhaka and a few of the largertowns. Poorer people, and those living in rural ar-eas, were highly disadvantaged in terms of their ac-cess to telecommunication. This situation began tochange in the mid 1990s, when the Grameen Bankof Bangladesh, a village-based microfinance organi-zation, leased mobile phones to people in the com-munity, as part of the “Village Pay Phones” scheme,with the intention that mobile phones could be uti-lized as business tools during this period. An impor-tant consequence was the rapid spread of the useof phones to areas where previously no phone con-nections were available, providing numerous bene-fits to the poor, such as improved social and familyrelations, savings in transportation costs, social em-powerment, and improved law enforcement.(18) TheGrameen project has been a focus of media attention,in particular from the perspective of how ordinarypeople living in poor rural areas can be empoweredby access to communication technologies.(19) Morerecently, Bangladesh has experienced a rapid growthin the mobile communication sector. The increase inthe growth in the number of subscribers of mobilephones in the last decade has been substantial, inpart reflecting the reduction in cost associated withmobile telecom services, increasing availability toindividual subscribers. In addition, people who can-not afford their own phone increasingly have ac-cess to mobile phones through public telecom facil-ities based on mobile communication technology. Atthe time of writing, the coverage of mobile servicesis adequate, even in smaller towns and rural areas.Bangladesh shows a relatively poor performance interms of the number of fixed telephone lines in rela-tion to the number of inhabitants, even when com-pared to other Asian countries.(20,21)

These developments suggest that the utility ofmobile phone technology for Bangladeshi citizensis potentially great. Nonetheless, implementation ofregulations associated with consumer protection (inthe area of health as well as financial protection)

1004 van Kleef et al.

need to take into account consumer concerns, inparticular those associated with the risks. There is,at present, little information about risk and benefitperceptions associated with mobile communicationtechnology in developing countries in general, andBangladesh in particular. Hence, the overall objec-tive of this study is to increase the knowledge aboutconsumers’ perceptions of risks and benefits associ-ated with base stations and handsets in Bangladesh.In particular, the type of risks and benefits perceivedare explored, and how these relate to each other andother relevant aspects such as trust in societal actorsand personal characteristics of the participant such associoeconomic status.

1.1. Previous Research on Risk and BenefitPerception and Trust

Research within the psychometric paradigm hasshed light on the underlying factors that determinehow people perceive risks, and why this may dif-fer from how experts perceive them. An importantfactor that determines risk perceptions are the psy-chological determinants of risk perception, includ-ing the perception of “dread” associated with a par-ticular hazard. Dreaded hazards may arouse strongfeelings of fear. Mobile phone technology evokesmild to moderate feelings of dread for some popu-lations.(22,23) Concerns about EMFs may also be re-lated to the negative emotional associations that theword “radiation” evokes among the public.(24) Theinvisible nature of EMF and the technical proper-ties that can only be understood by science may in-crease the intensity of negative emotional responses.This result is similar to earlier studies in the 1980s,which found that electromagnetic power lines wereperceived as an unknown risk increasing the feelingof dread.(25) When people feel that they can exercisecontrol over the amount of risk to which they are ex-posed, their risk perceptions may be lower. Further-more, the level of perceived risk is closely related tothe perception of unknown consequences of a tech-nology.(26) Familiarity with a technology may reducethe risks people perceive. For example, Siegrist andcolleagues (27) found that the more frequently peo-ple use their mobile phone, the lower risk is per-ceived to be associated with use. Other factors mayalso play a role. For example, people tend to be es-pecially concerned about situations in which childrenand teenagers are affected by a specific hazard.(27)

The relationship between perceived risk and per-ceived benefit is also of importance. The most com-

monly observed relationship between these percep-tions is inverse, such that that the greater the benefitperceived, the lower (or more acceptable) the per-ceived risks,(28) although this may not be true whenrisks are severe.(29)

It is important to note that studies of risk (andmore recently benefit) perceptions associated withnew technologies, at least in developed countries,have provided information relevant to public andprivate risk management and communication poli-cies,(30,31) although comparative studies with devel-oping countries are scarce. For example, more thanhalf of the sample of Swiss individuals surveyed hasexpressed concerns about the adverse health effectsof EMF, although they generally do not attributetheir own health problems to mobile phone expo-sure. For people who do attribute certain healthcomplaints to EMF exposure (about 5%), the mostcommon health symptoms reported were sleep dis-orders and headaches, which were mostly attributedto power lines and mobile phone handsets.(32) InGerman research, the majority of participants re-ported EMF-associated health complaints such as fa-tigue and problem concentrating on work.(23) In an-other Swiss study, base stations were seen as morerisky than mobile phones and a substantial number ofpeople found the regulation around base stations tobe insufficient.(27) In numerous developed countries(e.g., the United Kingdom), citizen concern about thelocation of base stations near houses and schools hasbeen reported, and some people feel that the use ofmobile phones by children and teenagers should berestricted due to possible health risks.(33−35)

Trust in institutions responsible for riskmanagement and communication is an importantdeterminant for risk acceptance and perceptions.(36)

Communication with the public about potential risksand regulations, which have been put into place tominimize risks, is typically seen as highly relevant inmany European countries.(37) In particular, differ-ences in the levels and patterns of trust people havetoward various regulatory organizations and theimpact this has on risk perception have been exam-ined,(38) although it is sometimes difficult to identifywhether trust is a determinant of societal responsesto technology development and implementation, ora consequence of how effective such developmentand implementation has been.(39)

These studies suggest a disparity exists betweencitizen risk perceptions associated with mobile phoneuse and consumer demand for handsets, whichhas increased.(40) It is also important to note that

Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phones 1005

concern about the siting of mobile phone base sta-tions is not the same as concern focused on the useof mobile handsets themselves. In other words, in-creasing public concerns about potential health riskcaused by radiation of mobile phones and base sta-tions (41) do not seem to have a negative impact onconsumer uptake of the technology, although con-cerns about base station siting might suggest that per-ceptions are focused on location of enabling facilitiesrather than on the technology per se.

2. METHODOLOGY

Previous research into Bangladeshis’ perceptionsof mobile phone technology has been extremely lim-ited. As there is no reason Bangladeshis’ perceptionshave evolved following in the same way as in Westerncountries, in particular considering the lack of terres-trial telephone infrastructure offering an alternativemeans of communication, a two-phase study was con-ducted. In the first phase, a small-scale qualitativestudy was considered to be necessary as a means toidentify issues of potential importance. The results ofthis study were incorporated into a large-scale sur-vey, which was conducted in the second phase ofthe research. Both the qualitative exploratory initialstudy and the survey were administrated by a profes-sional social research agency (Capacity Building Ser-vice Group) in Bangladesh in the autumn and winterof 2008.

2.1. Qualitative Exploratory Study

2.1.1. Participants

The qualitative study was conducted among 13Bangladeshi participants. Participants were recruitedin Dhaka (nine participants) and in the rural areaoutside Dhaka (four participants). Participants wererecruited to ensure that there was variation in termsof age, economic situation, and stage in life cycle.The final sample consisted of eight men and fivewomen in the age range of 15 to 62 years. Two ofthem were students, three participants had a max-imum of four years, schooling, three were of inter-mediate to highly educated, and five participants hadexperienced no education at all. For the participantsliving in Dhaka, the interview was held in the officeof the Bangladeshi social research agency. Other par-ticipants were interviewed in their own homes.

Table I. Interview Guide for the Conduct of theConsumer Interviews

Topic Sample Question

Free associationsabout mobilephones andbase stations

What is the first thing that comes to mindwhen thinking of a mobile phone?

What is the first thing that comes to mindwhen thinking of base stations?∗

How positive or negative do you perceivethese thoughts to be?

Benefitperceptions

How beneficial/useful do you considermobile phones to be, for yourself and yourfamily?

What are the main advantages according toyou?

Do you find mobile phones easy to use?

Risk perceptions How risky do you perceive mobile phones tobe?

Are you sometimes worried about the safetyof mobile phones in terms of health or theenvironment?

How risky do you perceive base stations tobe?

Socialenvironment

What do people in your environment (forexample, friends, family or colleagues)think about mobile phones and basestations?

Trustworthinessof regulators

In general, how much trust do you have inthe authorities who regulate mobilephones and base stations?

Are you aware of measures being taken toprevent negative effects or potential risks?

Issues notdiscussed

Are there any issues that we have not askedabout?

∗If necessary, base stations were explained to participants as an-tennas/towers needed to receive and send signals from mobiles.

2.1.2. Interview Guide and Procedure

To ensure application of systematic data col-lection procedure,(42) an interview guide was devel-oped that included the following topics: risk andbenefit perceptions, social environment, and trustin regulation (Table I). First, the interviewer ex-plained the purpose of the interview and privacyissues to the participants. A question about thefree associations that people have regarding mo-bile phones and base stations followed to “warmup” participants. Next, risk and benefit percep-tions held by participants were discussed. Partic-ipants were also asked what people in their so-cial environment thought about mobile phones interms of risks, benefits, and other salient features.Finally, participants were asked about their trustin the authorities who have responsibility to regu-late mobile phones and base stations. The interviews

1006 van Kleef et al.

were semi-structured in the sense that participantswere encouraged to raise any aspect of the topic con-sidered important. The interviews lasted about 30 to45 minutes each. Upon completion of the interview,participants received a small gift.

2.1.3. Data Analysis

All interviews were audio recorded with permis-sion of the participants. The audio recording wastranscribed and translated into English. The writ-ten transcript was then complemented with the notestaken by the researcher and a separate observer.Next, each interview was systematically examined forpatterns and trends to identify key issues relating toparticipants’ perceptions of mobile phone technol-ogy. To refine interpretations, the analysis was dis-cussed at a meeting with the local social researchagency.

2.2. SURVEY

2.2.1. Participants

Participants were selected to be as representa-tive as possible of the national population. This wasdone by randomly sampling people on age (Table II),and by means of quota sampling on gender and in-come level. Quotas were formed of gender (of thetotal sample of 500 participants, 50% were women)and income. In discussion with the social researchagency, monthly income categories were created tocapture a sample of the Bangladeshi population thathas sound similarities with the actual population interms of socioeconomic status. One hundred and fiftyparticipants were included who were considered tobe “poor” (monthly income of $50 or less3), 150 par-ticipants belonged to the lower middle class ($51 to$125), 100 participants belonged to the middle class($126 to $185), 50 participants belong to the uppermiddle class ($186 to $300), and 50 participants wereconsidered to belong to the most affluent socioeco-nomic group (more than $300). For context, a laborerworking in the garment industry had, in 2007, an av-erage monthly income of 3,888 Taka, which is ap-proximately $56.(43) In the total sample, the mean ageof participants was 37 years (SD = 12.4, age rangewas 18–80). Compared to the age distribution of theBangladesh population of 2001 (no more recent dataare available), our sample is slightly skewed towardolder people.(44)

3US $1 was equivalent to about 70 Bangladesh Taka during thestudy period.

Table II. Characteristics of Study Participants (n = 500)of Survey

Characteristic Total Sample

GenderMale 250 (50%)Female 250 (50%)

Age (mean, SD) 37.1 (12.4)

Educational Level (%)No education 253 (50.6%)Low education 44 (8.8%)Middle education 120 (24%)High education 83 (16.6%)

Ownership and Use of Mobile PhoneHas own mobile phone 323 (64.6%)Does not own, but borrows from others 94 (18.8%)Does not own, but goes to shops 82 (16.4%)Does not own and never used 1 (0.2%)

Spending on Mobile Phone per Month (%)∗Less than 175 Taka∗∗ 174 (34.9%)176 to 265 Taka 175 (35%)More than 265 Taka 150 (30.1%)

Frequency of Mobile Phone Use (%)∗Once a week or less 84 (16.8%)A few times a week 96 (19.2%)Every day 319 (63.9%)

Estimated Average Call Duration 3.5 (3.1)in Minutes (mean, SD)∗

Awareness about Base Station Location (%)Yes, there is one 258 (51.6%)No, there is none 151 (30.2%)I do not know 91 (18.2%)

∗Data are not available for 1 participant, as this individual neveruses mobile phones.∗∗175 Taka (Bangladesh currency) was about $2.60 US during thestudy period.

The majority of participants (almost 64%) re-ported using a mobile phone every day, and spend-ing 175 Bangladeshi Taka or more (approximatelyUS $2.60) on their mobile phone each month. Morethan half of the sample was aware of base stationsand their function. It should also be noted that morethan 50% of the sample had received no formal edu-cation. In general, this is in line with the educationalprofile of population of Bangladesh (according to theHuman Development Index of the United Nations,the illiteracy rate of adults in Bangladesh is 53%).

2.2.2. Survey Instrument

The survey instrument was developed based onresults of qualitative study, personal interviews withexperts in Bangladesh, and key sources in academic

Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phones 1007

Table III. Description of Scales and Response Categories in Order Presented in the Survey

Scale End PointsDescription ofScale/Question Low (1) High (5)

Perceived benefitsof mobile phones

Spontaneously - -

Overall benefitevaluations

The benefits associated with the use ofcell phones to me personally are . . .

Very low Very high

The benefits associated with the use ofcell phones to the average personare . . .

The benefits associated with the use ofcell phones to society are . . .

Benefit importance4 How do you assess the following benefitsassociated with mobile phones?

No benefit at all Very high benefit

Perceived risks ofmobile phones

Spontaneously - -

Overall riskevaluations

The risks associated with the use of cellphones to me personally are . . .

Very low Very high

The risks associated with the use of cellphones to the average person are . . .

The risks associated with the use of cellphones to society are . . .

Risk importance1 How do you assess the following risksassociated with mobile phones?

No benefit at all Very high benefit

Trust in societalactors

How convinced are you that thefollowing institutions take care thatthere are no risks associated withmobile phones and antennas?

No trust at all Very high trust

Trust in societalactors to mitigatepotential risks

How convinced are you that thefollowing institutions would stop theuse of mobile phones in case there arerisks involved?

No trust at all Very high trust

Need to regulate5 Please indicate the extent to which youfeel that mobile phones and antennasrequires regulation by society

Requires noregulation

Requires strictregulation

literature.(18,45) On the basis of this qualitative work,various key themes were identified as being impor-tant in relation to consumers’ evaluation of mobilephone technology. Table III summarizes the keyconcepts that were measured by the questionnaire.Consistent with the literature, risk perception andbenefit perception were measured by three items. Afive-point Likert-type response format was used forall items (anchored at agree-disagree). “Don’t know”was also offered as a response option. At first, par-

4List of benefits and risks is based on qualitative study (n =13 Bengali consumers), personal interviews with experts inBangladesh (e.g., experts from CBSG and Prof. Aminuzzamanof Dhaka University and literature(18)).

5Based on McDaniels et al.(54)

ticipants were asked to freely indicate their thoughtsabout risks and benefits they perceived to be asso-ciated with mobile phone technology. The questionasked to them was: “What are, in your opinion, themajor benefits (risk) of mobile phones?” The resultsof these questions were used to gain a better under-standing of the meaning and implications of the sur-vey findings. In addition to various sociodemographicvariables (age, gender, educational level, place ofresidence, monthly family income, occupational de-scription), the questionnaire also included questionsregarding the personal use of mobile phones. A ques-tion about handset ownership was asked, as wellas questions about the average frequency and du-ration of phone calls. In addition, the amount ofmoney spent on making phone calls each month was

1008 van Kleef et al.

requested in the local currency (Taka). Finally, par-ticipants were asked to indicate their awareness ofthe presence of base stations in their local neighbor-hood.

A professional social research company was usedto collect the data. A pretest of the questionnaire wascarried out with five participants. Based on their re-sponses, some questions were reworded. Data in thefinal survey were collected by means of personal in-terviews. Potential participants were approached onthe street and near to their home. Participants weretold that the survey was carried out by a univer-sity in the Netherlands. Those who agreed to partic-ipate were interviewed face to face by trained andsupervised interviewers at the participant’s home.Participants were compensated with a small gift (adrinking glass). The survey was administrated inNovember and December 2008, and resulted in a re-sponse rate of nearly 100% (only three individualswere not willing or able to cooperate).

2.2.3. Data Analysis

The construct “benefit perception” was mea-sured using three items that reflect consumers’ evalu-ation of the benefits related to mobile phones: “Howgreat are the benefits associated with the use of cellphones to you personally?” “How great are the ben-efits associated with the use of cell phones to the av-erage person?” and “How great are the benefits as-sociated with the use of cell phones to society?” Theconstruct “risk perception” was measured in a similarway. Both scales showed good reliability (both hada Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77). Reliability proceduresapplied to the remaining measures included factoranalysis and calculation of Cronbach’s alpha in ac-cordance with the recommendations of Churchill.(46)

These analyses resulted in six scales containing 25items in total that were also associated with adequatereliability. The following scales showed reasonableto good reliability (see Tables IV and V for descrip-tive statistics): annoyances and crime (Cronbach’s al-pha 0.86), health and personal safety (Cronbach’s al-pha 0.77), functional daily benefits (Cronbach’s alpha0.66), social benefit (Cronbach’s alpha 0.62), trust insocietal actors (Cronbach’s alpha 0.71), and trust insocietal actors to mitigate potential risks (Cronbach’salpha 0.72). The “annoyances and crime” scale cap-tures the concept of misconduct in relation to mo-bile phones. The “health and personal safety” scalecaptures the concept of health problems due to useof mobile phones and accidents that can happened

because antennas may fall during storm or earth-quake or explosion or fire hazards associated withthe mobile phone itself. The items of the “functionaldaily benefits” scale concentrate on the key advan-tages of mobile phone use in daily life, such as re-duced travel costs and the usefulness of phones incase of emergencies, cyclone, and flood news. Otherresearch has suggested that the accessibility of mo-bile phones in terms of low costs is of key impor-tance in Bangladesh.(18,47) The scale “social benefits”comprises two items that capture the affordabilityand the feeling of “being proud” regarding the own-ership of a phone. However, because of relativelylow reliability, care has to be taken in the interpre-tation of this scale. Next, trust in societal actors wasmeasured using two scales. Actors determining pol-icy in Bangladesh were selected, such as the mobilephone industry, law enforcing agencies, and civil so-ciety NGOs. In addition, the Bangladesh Telecom-munication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) was in-cluded. In 2002, the BTRC was installed to regulatethe telecom industry and protect consumers’ inter-ests. Post hoc comparisons were done using Student-Newman-Keuls multiple range tests to examine dif-ferences between means of personal, average person,or societal risk, and benefit perceptions. A standardmultiple regression model was estimated to investi-gate the influence of a set of predictor variables onboth risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phones.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Study 1: Qualitative Study

The themes discussed below emerged from thequalitative analysis of the interviews.

3.1.1. Key Benefits and Risks

The first things that come to mind when partic-ipants discussed mobile phones were various posi-tive evaluations of the impact that the technology hashad on their lives. All participants were extremelypositive about the benefits of mobile phone tech-nology for a variety of reasons, for example, theability to communicate with family and friends any-where and anytime and the ability to convey essen-tial emergency news in relation to threatening situ-ations. The latter is highly relevant as Bangladeshis frequently subjected to severe floods, cyclones,and other natural disasters. Mobile phones provide auseful device to deliver emergency news quickly to

Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phones 1009

vulnerable people. Participants indicated that bothmobile phones and mobile services (e.g., call rates)are now affordable to a large part of the populationof Bangladesh. Some participants compared their ex-periences of mobile phones with fixed-line phones inwhich mobile phones predominated the evaluationin terms of being more convenient, being associatedwith reduced transportation costs, providing betterquality calls, and the ability to make internationalcalls. Moreover, several participants reported usingthe mobile phone service to obtain market informa-tion about vegetable or fertilizer prices. Study par-ticipants indicated that mobile phones are not solelyused for conversations but also provide improved ac-cess to information and entertainment, and the var-ious services such as games, sports scores, camera,and voice mail were highly appreciated. Participantsfound it difficult to now conceive of daily life withoutmobile phones. One participant summarized this asfollows:

It is as essential as a clock or watch (was) before, evenmore.

The comparison with the situation before the in-troduction of mobile phone was exemplified by vari-ous personal stories. One participant recounted thathe used to write letters to inform family and friendsabout important matters. Unfortunately, this couldlead to sad circumstances such as that news about thedeath of loved ones being received more than sevendays after the person passed away. This has changedcompletely nowadays. Many poor rural families haveone or more family members working in the capi-tal Dhaka, other big towns, and even abroad. Beingable to call to family members reduces worries asso-ciated with the need for rapid communication. Fur-thermore, having a mobile offers a feeling of securityin outdoor situations that are perceived to be danger-ous. The ability to take photographs and videos byuse of convergent mobile phone technology was alsoseen as an important tool to fight crime, according toone male participant. Another example of a benefitof the technology was identified in the case of trafficaccidents, so that the police can be informed instantlyso that immediate action can be taken.

Participants had to take time to consider poten-tial risks associated with mobile phones and base sta-tions. Some could not identify risks at all: “there is norisk at all, otherwise people would not buy it” (maleparticipant), while quite a few others discussed issuesrelated to crime and security, such as theft, hijack-ing, and robbery. Several participants have been ha-

rassed by unknown callers, which made them veryconcerned and annoyed. A few participants men-tioned health concerns in relation to mobile phoneuse, although the majority did not identify with spe-cific risks relating to health. Concerns about healthseemed to be very much influenced by others (of-ten, participants indicated that they had heard aboutthese from somebody else). Long-term and frequentuse was believed to lead to heart problems or braincancers. For example, one woman reported hearingthat mobile phones may create heart problems, par-ticularly when phones are kept in the chest pocket.Participants mentioned the addictive nature of mo-bile phones for young people, leading them to spendtoo much money and preventing them from havinga good night of sleep. There was also criticism aboutpoorer people, who earned small amounts of money,spending too much on the “entertaining” aspects ofmobile phones. One male participant pointed to ac-cidents occurring because drivers are not paying at-tention to the traffic while driving. These health-related concerns, and concerns about addictions andincreased accident risk while performing other tasks,are not substantially different to perceptions of neg-ative effects in developed countries. However, thedifficulty those participants had in articulating theseconcerns suggested that they are less of a concernthan has been suggested is the case in the developedworld. This was further explored in the quantitativestudy.

3.1.2. Perceptions Associated with Base Stations

Participants were asked to indicate the “firstthing that comes to mind” when thinking of basestations. Participants were neutral or positive aboutbase stations. Some participants needed additionalexplanation from the interviewer in order to under-stand exactly what a base station is. For many, a basestation represented the opportunity to communicate:

When I see any tower, outside Dhaka or in any remotearea, I feel that I am close to a good network, which en-sures me that I can communicate easily.

For several participants, a base station stands foradvances in technology and society, as the followingexample shows:

Towers provide the network for our mobile, they astonishme. Such towers help us to speak with persons who livefar from us.

Others stressed the appearance, such as one par-ticipant, who stated “a tower is good looking, its

1010 van Kleef et al.

construction design is very beautiful.” Other benefitsmentioned are the additional income opportunity forhome owners if a base station is sited on their prop-erty. Most participants found it difficult to describenegative aspects of base stations. Some mentionedthe high costs involved in establishing them, and thefact that the network is not available all the time, soapparently the tower is not working properly.

Some negative issues were associated with basestations. Certain participants, however, consideredthem to represent “wastage of space” and worriedabout the possibility of base stations falling duringstorm, leading to serious damage to people, houses,and crops. One participant also mentioned that basestations could be hit by lightening. A few mentionedpossible health problems; they wondered whetherthere is a greater risk of getting cancer due to basestations:

I am not sure, but I heard that there is a possibility of can-cer within the range of towers. If it is true, then the con-cerned authorities should take necessary actions to elimi-nate this risk.

3.1.3. Trustworthiness of Regulators

When discussing the issue of trust in the author-ities responsible for regulating mobile communica-tion technology, participants started discussing theirexperiences with the mobile phone industry. Trustin the mobile phone companies was relatively highamong all participants, as indicated by statementssuch as “they are sincere and offer good service.”Some mentioned that this is not surprising, as the mo-bile phone industry is forced to pay attention to cus-tomers and provide good service in order to protecttheir reputation and profits. Some complaints relatedto financial issues, such as lack of transparency in callrates and packages, and the need for a more proac-tive approach in preventing misuse of mobile phones.One female participant expressed concerns that for-eign mobile phone companies take money out of thecountry.

Participants were asked whether they wereaware of measures being taken to prevent negativeeffects or potential risks. More than half of the partic-ipants indicated that they were not aware of anythingbeing done. Some participants discussed some mea-sures that mobile phone companies implemented todeal with criminal activities (e.g., blocking phones).Two male participants argued that, if health risks canbe identified, all the relevant actors involved (suchas mobile phone companies and the government)

should take action to reduce risks as mobile technol-ogy will become even more important in the future.

3.2. Study 2: Survey

The means and standard deviations of risk andbenefit perceptions are summarized in Table IV.Overall, results of an analysis of variance indi-cated that participants perceived higher benefits(M = 4.16) than risks (M = 2.98) related to mobilephones (F (1,999) = 604.62, p < 0.001). Furthermore,Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test of differencesin means showed that participants perceived risks tobe smaller to themselves than for the average person.With regard to benefit perceptions, personal benefitsand benefits to society were significantly higher thanbenefits to the average person (Table IV). On aver-age, of all attitude questions, 2.6% of participants an-swered “don’t know.” However, there were differ-ences in how often this response option was used.Almost half of the questions had no “don’t know”answers. One question was apparently more difficultto answer as 24% of all participants answered “don’tknow.” This was the question referring to explosionand fire hazards of mobile phones.

Risk perception and benefit perception are inde-pendent concepts, as indicated by their correlationcoefficient (r = 0.01, p = 0.89). A multiple regressionanalysis was carried out to test simultaneously the ef-fect of both psychological and demographic variableson benefit perception and risk perception (Table VI).The proportion of variance of the dependent variablerisk perception explained by the independent vari-ables is 22% regarding benefit perceptions and 17%regarding risk perceptions.

The results indicate that concerns about healthand personal safety have a significant negative in-fluence on benefit perceptions (β = −0.15, p <

0.05). Benefit perceptions are primarily driven by

Table IV. Scale Means (Standard Deviations) of Risk andBenefit Perceptions

Benefit Perception Risk Perception(α = 0.77) (α = 0.77)

Items Means/Scale Means 4.16 (0.66) 2.98 (0.85)Personal 4.31 (0.74)a 2.55 (1.17)aTo the average person 3.87 (0.91)b 3.10(0.92)bTo society 4.31 (0.73)a 3.29 (1.00)c

∗a,b,c mean values sharing the same letter within a column are notsignificantly different (p = 0.01).

Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phones 1011

Table V. Scale Means (Standard Deviations) of Constructs andSingle Items

Constructs Mean (SD)

Annoyances and crime (α = 0.86) 4.01 (0.87)Traffic accidents due to drivers calling 4.42 (0.88)Organized crime 4.42 (0.91)Mobile phone gets stolen or hijacked 4.20 (1.06)Unwanted calls and teasing 3.65 (1.26)Sleeping problems due to night time calls 3.62 (1.28)

Health and personal safety (α = 0.77) 2.72 (0.90)Health problems—cancer, etc. 3.01 (1.32)Increased risk of heart disease 2.82 (1.22)Antennas may fall during storm or earthquake 2.59 (1.08)Explosion and fire hazards 1.73 (0.89)

Functional daily benefits (α = 0.66)∗ 3.12 (0.65)Easy access to latest and market information 2.73 (1.12)Valuable additional devices of mobile 2.64 (1.22)Useful in receiving news about cyclone, flood 3.03 (1.32)Facility of payment of bills and utility services 1.77 (0.96)Reduced travel cost and hazards 4.67 (0.59)Useful in emergency 3.75 (1.05)

Social benefits (α = 0.62)∗ 2.71 (1.17)Affordable to the poor 2.81 (1.27)Feeling proud to have a phone 2.61 (1.46)

Trust in societal actors (α = 0.71) 2.42 (0.84)Mobile phone industry 3.75 (1.12)Law enforcing agencies 2.22 (1.32)

(police, RAB, BDR, etc.)Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory 2.16 (1.26)

Commission (BTRC)Civil society NGO 1.56 (0.83)

Trust in societal actors to mitigate 2.54 (0.81)potential risks (α = 0.72)

Mobile phone industry 4.06 (1.03)Law enforcing agencies 2.53 (1.27)

(police, RAB, BDR, etc.)Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory 2.12 (1.28)

Commission (BTRC)Civil society NGO 1.43 (0.72)

Additional 1-item measuresNeed to regulate 2.96 (1.29)Virus spread by mobile phones 1.89 (1.05)Wastage of land for installment of towers 2.12 (1.04)Network interruption and problems 2.97 (1.24)Personal financial loss for excessive calling 3.26 (1.36)Improved contact with family and relatives 4.77 (0.53)

∗Care should be taken to interpret the overall scale.

perceptions of improved contact with family andfriends (β = 0.23, p < 0.05) and the functional dailybenefit a mobile phone provides (β = 0.21, p < 0.05).“Annoyances and crime” is the strongest indepen-dent predictor of risk perceptions (β = 0.40, p <

0.05). The lower an individual’s trust in institutions toapply precautionary measures if risks are identified,

the higher the risk perception held by that individual(β = −0.20, p < 0.05). People who perceive that mo-bile phone and base stations need greater regulationby society have higher benefit perceptions (β = 0.12,p < 0.05).

Age was significantly related to risk perceptioninasmuch as older participants perceived lower risks.The gender of the participant has a significant ef-fect on both risk and benefit perceptions. For ben-efit perception, the beta coefficient is negative. Asthis dummy variable was assigned a value of one forfemales and zero for males, this indicates that fe-male participants have somewhat lower benefit per-ceptions and somewhat higher risk perceptions. Fur-thermore, owners of mobile phones perceive reducedrisks compared to those who do not own a mobilephone. Awareness of a base station only influencesbenefit perceptions in the sense that participants whoare aware of a base stations have significantly higherbenefit perceptions than those who are not aware ofbase stations.

4. DISCUSSION

The overall objective of this study is to identifyfactors that are influential in determining the trade-offs that Bangladeshi consumers make between risksand benefits in terms of mobile phone technologyacceptance (including the base stations). The studysheds light on some important issues regarding whichrisk and benefit perceptions may be country specificand which ones are more universal in nature. In par-ticular, the lack of terrestrial telephone infrastructuremight increase benefit perceptions in Bangladesh.Other negative perceptions may be related to specificlocally determined conditions, or align with interna-tional citizen opinion. This is important for deliver-ing effective risk management and communicationin different national contexts. For example, it is in-creasingly acknowledged that the concerns and com-munication preferences of citizens need to be takeninto account when developing effective risk (benefit)communication about a specific issue, and this needto be taken into account if best practice in gover-nance is to be developed.(48)

Drawing on the results of the qualitative per-sonal interviews and the survey, in Bangladesh theperceived benefits of mobile phone technology ap-pear to outweigh the perceived risks. Whilst this isnot dissimilar to the pattern of perception in moreaffluent countries (people still use mobile phonesdespite the debate about the potential for negative

1012 van Kleef et al.

Table VI. Regression Coefficients(Benefit and Risk Perception)

Independent VariablesBenefit

Perception Risk Perception

Beta t-Value∗ Beta t-Value∗

Psychological factorsAnnoyances and crime 0.01 0.18 0.40 7.46Health and personal safety −0.15 −3.10 0.01 0.19Functional daily benefits 0.21 4.04 −0.08 −1.51Improved contact with family and friends 0.23 5.44 0.06 1.27Social benefits 0.03 0.52 0.05 1.04Trust in societal actors 0.10 1.24 0.15 1.68Trust in societal actors mitigating potential risks 0.11 1.37 −0.20 −2.42Regulation needed by society 0.12 2.54 0.07 1.50

Demographic factorsAge −0.01 −0.17 −0.09 −2.16Gender∗ −0.12 −2.13 0.13 2.26Educational level∗ 0.01 0.24 0.03 0.64Economic situation∗ −0.05 −1.18 −0.04 −0.86Place of residence∗ 0.04 0.89 −0.01 −0.10Ownership of phone∗ 0.07 1.66 −0.11 −2.30Awareness of base stations∗ 0.18 4.12 −0.01 −0.15

Adjusted R2 0.22 0.17

∗Significant beta-coefficients are bold (p < 0.05). Reported beta coefficients are standardized.∗∗These six variables are dummy variables. “Gender” of participant was assigned a value ofone for females and zero for males. “Education” was assigned one for middle or highly edu-cated participants and zero for participants with low or no education. The variable “economicsituation” was assigned a value of one if the participant belongs to the middle class, uppermiddle class, or very affluent class and zero for the poor and low middle class. “Place of resi-dence” carried a zero for participants living in Dhaka (capital) and one for participants livingoutside Dhaka in (small) town or rural area. Ownership of mobile phone was assigned a onefor owning a phone and a zero for not owning a phone. The last dummy, “awareness of basestations,” carried a one for participants not aware of base stations and zero for participantsaware of base stations in their environment.

health effects associated with handsets and basestations), the need for such communication tech-nology may be perceived to be greater given thenascence of a terrestrial telephone infrastructure andrisk perceptions appear to be derived primarily fromdifferent concerns (predominantly related to malev-olence, societal problems, and financial issues asopposed to negative health effects). Using multipleregression analysis, the impact of a variety of fac-tors on the perception of mobile phone technologybenefits was examined. In Bangladesh, these bene-fits include the ease of staying in touch with familyand friends, and the ability to receive essential newsabout threatening situations (such as severe floodsor cyclones). People perceive the benefit to them-selves as high. A similar perception can be identi-fied for society more generally as many aspects of thepersonal life of Bangladeshis have been altered bythe advances of mobile phone technology. Previousstudies have shown that mobile phones originatedas business phones in Bangladesh,(18) but are now

highly valued instruments in social daily life. Mobilephones in Bangladesh clearly have an empoweringfunction, which means that they increase the num-ber of alternative actions available to individuals andsocial groups.(49) Many people from a wide range ofsocioeconomic backgrounds nowadays possess a mo-bile phone, which may decrease earlier value of themobile as a status symbol, but overall has a positiveimpact on quality of life.

In contrast to the strong negative reactions ofthe public in some developed countries regarding thesiting of base stations,(37,41) in Bangladesh, base sta-tions are primarily viewed as symbols of economicprogress and valued positively. An interesting resultis that people who are aware of a base station in theirlocal environment appear to be very more positiveabout the benefits in comparison to people who arenot aware of the physical proximity of such base-stations. Whilst some risks are perceived to be as-sociated with base stations, for example, the dam-age that base stations can cause during earthquakes

Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phones 1013

and storms, these are qualitatively different concernsto those identified in Western countries, which tendto focus on the effects of EMF on health. Overall,perceived risks associate with both mobile phonesand base stations are relatively low, particularly per-sonal risks. Using multiple regression analysis, theimpact of a variety of factors on the perception ofmobile phone technology risks was examined. Re-sponses to the factor “annoyances and crime” wasthe best predictor of risk perceptions. This suggeststhat, in the Bangladeshi population surveyed, riskperceptions are primarily driven by perceptions ofcrime and annoyances, such as “teasing” and hand-set theft, rather than risks to health. As has been thecase in other studies, risk perceptions associated withmobile phone use are higher among women thanmen,(8,27) an observation that aligns with the interna-tional risk perception literature in general.(50) Chenand Katz (51) argue that early studies of the adoptionof mobile phone technology in developed countriesshowed that safety and accessibility were the primaryreasons why people adopted the new technology, re-flecting what might be described as its instrumentalfunction. Later on, mobile phones become an ever-present social instrument in daily life, with a strongfocus on networking advantages. In Bangladesh, peo-ple are exposed to many immediate hazards (floods)and that could make the perceived hazard of EMFless significant.

Many studies found that there exist an inverserelationship between perceived risks and benefits forvarious technologies and activities.(29) This meansthat if a technology is perceived as highly beneficial,less risk are associated with it. The survey results re-ported here do not support the existence of such aninverse relationship.

Trust in the mobile phone industry is relativelyhigh, while trust in other actors such as law enforcingagencies and civil societies was found to be lower. Inthe results presented here trust in societal actors wasnot directly related to either perceived risk or per-ceived benefit. However, a lack of trust in societalactors with responsibility for consumer protection inrelation to mitigating potential risks was a predictorof risk perceptions. In other words, if people perceivethat the authorities and the industry are potentiallypromoting a vested interest at the expense of con-sumer protection, although not necessarily related toconsumer health, then risk perceptions increase. Re-search on trust has shown that trust is strongly relatedto truthfulness, honesty, and concern for public wel-fare.(52) Although primarily identified in the devel-

oped world, this finding seems to align with our re-sults. Overall, however, it may be concluded that, inBangladesh, benefit perception is an important factordetermining responses to mobile phone technology.

This study has some potential limitations. First,the statistical models applied in the analysis of thesurvey data explain only part of the variance inperceptions. Second, we found relatively high ben-efit perceptions and low risk perceptions of mobilephone technology. It is a possibility that certain par-ticipants felt pressurized into providing “positive” re-sponses regarding mobile phone technology duringthe personal interview. Bangladesh, as an Asian so-ciety, is characterized by hierarchical relationships.It could be that participants, who perceived them-selves relatively distant from the interviewer in termsof hierarchy, had the tendency to be more modest intheir answers and eager to not offend the interviewer.Asian people tend to have a positivity bias in avoid-ing negative answers.(53) Despite these limitations,the results of this study could be applied to improverisk and benefit communication in Bangladesh. Mostprevious research examining risk and benefit per-ceptions of mobile communication technology havebeen carried out in Western countries. Countries dif-fer, however, in many characteristics, such as culture,demographics, economy, and geography. Such differ-ences are likely to influence the way people deal withrisks and benefits, as shown in this study. An im-portant conclusion is therefore that there is a needto assess risk and benefit perceptions in local cul-tural contexts. For example, health concerns aboutmobile phone technology are not a priority for mostBangladeshis, while concerns about crime related tomobile phones may be. Hence, it is not appropriateto extrapolate observations about citizen perceptionsfrom one cultural context to another. Future researchshould explicitly take these differences into accountas a basis for a better understanding of what risk andbenefit perception phenomena are universal in na-ture and which are more country specific.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported is funded by the GSM As-sociation. The views expressed by the authors maynot be those of the sponsor or member companies.The authors would like to thank Joyanta Roy and allthe interviewers of Capacity Building Service Groupin Dhaka, Bangladesh (CBSG) for all their work andhelp.

1014 van Kleef et al.

REFERENCES

1. Van Biljon J, Kotze P. Modelling the factors that influence mo-bile phone adoption. In ACM International Conference Pro-ceeding Series, 2007.

2. Ahlbom A, Feychting M, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz DA,Swerdlow AJ et al. Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phonesand tumor risk: A review. Epidemiology, 2009; 20(5):639–652.

3. Ahlbom A, Feychting M, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz DA,Swerdlow AJ et al. Epidemiology of health effects of radiofre-quency exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2004;112(17):1741–1754.

4. Burgess A. Comparing national responses to perceived healthrisks from mobile phone masts. Health, Risk and Society,2002; 4(2):175–188.

5. Aoki K, Downes EJ. An analysis of young people’s use ofand attitudes toward cell phones. Telematics and Informatics,2003; 20(4):349–364.

6. Thalmann AT, Wiedemann PM. Beliefs and emotionality inrisk appraisals. Journal of Risk Research, 2006; 9(5):453–466.

7. Garcia-Montes JM, Caballero-Munoz D, PeIrez-AIvarez M.Changes in the self resulting from the use of mobile phones.Media, Culture and Society, 2006; 28(1):67–82.

8. Kristiansen IS, Elstein AS, Gyrd-Hansen D, Kildemoes HW,Nielsen JB. Radiation from mobile phone systems: Is it per-ceived as a threat to people’s health? Bioelectromagnetics,2009; 30(5):393–401.

9. Chapman S, Wutzke S. Not in our back yard: Media cover-age of community opposition to mobile phone towers—Anapplication of Sandman’s outrage model of risk perception.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 1997;21(6):614–620.

10. Martha C, Griffet J. Brief report: How do adolescents perceivethe risks related to cell-phone use? Journal of Adolescence,2007; 30(3):513–521.

11. Barnett J, Timotijevic L, Shepherd R, Senior V. Public re-sponses to precautionary information from the Department ofHealth (UK) about possible health risks from mobile phones.Health Policy, 2007; 82(2):240–250.

12. Timotijevic L, Barnett J. Managing the possible health risksof mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of pre-cautionary action and advice. Health, Risk and Society, 2006;8(2):143–164.

13. GSM Association. Gateway Liberalisation- StimulatingEconomic Growth. Report, 2007. Available at: http://www.gsmworld.com/our-work/public-policy/regulatory-affairs/policy-recommendations-for-developing-countries/gatewayliberalization.htm, Accessed March 5, 2010.

14. Overa R. Networks, distance, and trust: Telecommunicationsdevelopment and changing trading practices in Ghana. WorldDevelopment, 2006; 34(7):1301–1315.

15. Economist. To do with the price of fish. Economist, 2007; May12.

16. Dreyer M, Renn O, Cope S, Frewer LJ. Including social im-pact assessment in food safety governance. Food Control, inpress. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.05.007.

17. United Nations. Human Development Index 2008 StatisticalUpdate Bangladesh, 2009. Available at: http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/2008/countries/country fact sheets/cty fs BGD.html,Accessed on July 13, 2008.

18. Aminuzzaman S, Baldersheim H, Jamil I. Talking back! Em-powerment and mobile phones in rural Bangladesh: A studyof the village phone scheme of Grameen Bank. ContemporarySouth Asia, 2003; 12(3):327–348.

19. May H, Hearn G. The mobile phone as media. InternationalJournal of Cultural Studies, 2005; 8(2):195–211.

20. International Telecommunications Union. Information So-ciety Statistical Profiles 2009: Asia and the Pacific, 2009.

Available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/ISSP09-AP final.pdf, Accessed on June 18, 2009.

21. Al-mutawkkil A, Heshmati A, Hwang J. Development oftelecommunication and broadcasting infrastructure indicesat the global level. Telecommunications Policy, 2009; 33(3–4):176–199.

22. Bronfman NC, Cifuentes LA. Risk perception in a developingcountry: The case of Chile. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(6):1271–1285.

23. Frick U, Rehm J, Eichhammer P. Risk perception, somatiza-tion, and self report of complaints related to electromagneticfields—A randomized survey study. International Journal ofHygiene and Environmental Health, 2002; 205(5):353–360.

24. Soneryd L. Deliberations on the unknown, the unsensed, andthe unsayable?: Public protests and the development of third-generation mobile phones in Sweden. Science Technology Hu-man Values, 2007; 32(3):287–314.

25. Morgan MG, Slovic P, Nair I, Geisler D, MacGregor D, Fish-hoff B et al. Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields:A pilot study of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 1985; 5:139–149.

26. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987; 236(4799):280–285.27. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H, Keller C. Perception of

mobile phone and base station risks. Risk Analysis, 2005;25(5):1253–1264.

28. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SH. The affectheuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behav-ioral Decision Making, 2000; 13(1):1–17.

29. Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverserelationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit.Risk Analysis, 1994; 14(6):1085–1096.

30. Houghton JR, Rowe G, Frewer LJ, Van Kleef E, Chrysso-choidis G, Kehagia O et al. The quality of food risk manage-ment in Europe: Perspectives and priorities. Food Policy, 2008;33(1):13–26.

31. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Trust in risk regulation: Cause orconsequence of the acceptability of GM food? Risk Analysis,2005; 25(1):199–209.

32. Schreier N, Huss A, Roosli M. The prevalence of symp-toms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: A cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Sozial- undPraventivmedizin, 2006; 51(4):202–209.

33. Drake F. Mobile phone masts: Protesting the scientific evi-dence. Public Understanding of Science, 2006; 15(4):387–410.

34. Kemp R. Perceived risk as a material consideration: The caseof telecoms developments. Journal of Planning and Environ-ment Law, 2003; (January 2003):13–22.

35. Law A, McNeish W. Contesting the new irrational actormodel: A case study of mobile phone mast protest. Sociology,2007; 41(3):439–456.

36. Frewer LJ, Miles S. Temporal stability of the psychologicaldeterminants of trust: Implications for communication aboutfood risks. Health, Risk and Society, 2003; 5(3):259–271.

37. Wiedemann PM, Schutz H. Informing the public about infor-mation and participation strategies in the siting of mobile com-munication base stations: An experimental study. Health, Risk& Society, 2008; 10(6):517–534.

38. Walls J, Pidgeon N, Weyman A, Horlick-Jones T. Criticaltrust: Understanding lay perceptions of health and safety riskregulation. Health, Risk and Society, 2004; 6(2):133–150.

39. Poortinga W, Pidgeon NF. Exploring the dimensionalityof trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(5):961–972.

40. Massoud S, Guptam OK. Consumer perception and attitudetoward mobile communication. International Journal of Mo-bile Communication, 2003; 1(4):390–408.

41. Law A, McNeish W, Gray L. Base station fears: Theparadox of mobile geography. Geography, 2003; 88(4):320–330.

Risk and Benefit Perceptions of Mobile Phones 1015

42. Malterud K. Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, andguidelines. Lancet, 2001; 358(9280):483–488.

43. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Key Indicators from theWage Survey-2007, 2007. Available at: http://www.bbs.gov.bd/dataindex/key wage07.pdf, 2007, Accessed on December 15,2009.

44. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Population Statistics: Cen-sus at a Glance, 2007. Available at: http://www.bbs.gov.bd/dataindex/census/bang atg.pdf, Accessed on December 15,2009.

45. Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H. Test of a trust and confi-dence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field(EMF) risks. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(4): 705–716.

46. Churchill GA Jr. A paradigm for developing better measuresof marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 1979;16(1):64–73.

47. Shawon IA. How mobile is bridging the digital divide inBangladesh. Fortune, 2005; 153(3).

48. Frewer L. The public and effective risk communication. Toxi-cology Letters, 2004; 149(1–3):391–397.

49. Geser H. Towards a Sociological Theory of the Mobile Phone.2004, University of Zurich, retrieved June 18, 2009 fromhttp://socio.ch/mobile/t geser1.htm.

50. Kahan DM, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G. Culturalcognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. NatureNanotechnology, 2009; 4(2):87–90.

51. Chen YF, Katz JE. Extending family to school life: Collegestudents’ use of the mobile phone. International Journal ofHuman Computer Studies, 2009; 67(2):179–191.

52. Frewer LJ, Howard C, Hedderley D, Shepherd R. What deter-mines trust in information about food-related risks? Underly-ing psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 1996; 16(4):473–485.

53. Cox DN. Understanding Asian consumers of food products.Pp. 359–389 in Frewer LJ, Van Trijp HCM (eds). Understand-ing Consumers of Food Products. Cambridge, UK: WoodheadPublishing Limited, 2007.

54. McDaniels TL, Axelrod LJ, Cavanagh NS, Slovic P. Percep-tion of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis,1997; 17(3):341–352.