The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers
Abstract
Do the results of a scientific study influence confidence in the study's validity and the magnitude of change in the resulting perceived danger of the health risk investigated? Findings from the three investigations reported here indicate that scientific results that confirm a danger (negative results) do affect confidence in a study's validity and resulting risk assessments differently than results indicating low risk (positive results). Findings of Study 1 revealed that research results indicating a health risk were more trusted than results indicating little health risk. This effect was independent of the credibility of the information source. Study 2 demonstrated that confidence in research results increased with an increasing indication of health risk. Study 3 showed that people have more confidence in the results of animal tests on a food additive indicating negative human health effects than in animal tests indicating that a food additive is harmless. The findings have important practical implications. The observed asymmetry between positive and negative research results may be one reason that people are afraid of many of the hazards they are faced with in modern society.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Using behavioral insights to increase vaccination policy effectiveness
Betsch, C., Böhm, R., & Chapman, G. B. (2015) · Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1177/2372732215600716 · Cited by 378
Verbeke, W., Sioen, I., Pieniak, Z., Van Camp, J., & De Henauw, S. (2005) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1079/phn2004697 · Cited by 271
Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220500484419 · Cited by 179
Golbach, L. A., Portelli, L. A., Savelkoul, H. F. J., Terwel, S. R., Kuster, N., de Vries, R. B. M., & Verburg-van Kemenade, B. M. L. (2016) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.014 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 199-206
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2072399592
- Cited by
- 199
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/0272-4332.211102
- The paper
- Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2001). Better Negative than Positive? Evidence of a Bias for Negative Information about Possible Health Dangers. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.211102
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.