Innovation research fighting for public attention and counteracting science-skeptical views raise the need for insights into why individuals are motivated to engage with scientific knowledge. Guided by the Planned Risk Information Seeking Model (PRISM), additionally considering mistrust in science and innovativeness, the study aimed to explain individuals’ intention to seek information about medical innovations. Findings of an online survey among German residents (N = 5,322) supported the utility of the extended PRISM to predict seeking intent. Most of the postulates of the PRISM were supported; mistrust served as a barrier to engagement with scientific knowledge, whereas innovativeness was of minor relevance.
AhnJ.KahlorL. A. (2020). No regrets when it comes to your health: Anticipated regret, subjective norms, information insufficiency and intent to seek health information from multiple sources. Health Communication, 35(10), 1295–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1626535
Aldás-ManzanoJ.Lassala-NavarréC.Ruiz-MaféC.Sanz-BlasS. (2009). The role of consumer innovativeness and perceived risk in online banking usage. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320910928245
4.
AlhakamiA. S.SlovicP. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085–1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x
5.
BarnettJ.VasileiouK.DjemilF.BrooksL.YoungT. (2011). Understanding innovators’ experiences of barriers and facilitators in implementation and diffusion of healthcare service innovations: A qualitative study. BMC Health Services Research, 11, Article 342. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-342
6.
BearthA.SiegristM. (2016). Are risk or benefit perceptions more important for public acceptance of innovative food technologies: A meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 49, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.003
7.
BessetteD.ZwickleS.WilsonR. (2019). In the weeds: Distinguishing organic farmers who want information about ecological weed management from those who need it. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 34(5), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170518000042
BrinkerD. L.ZhouY.Acevedo CallejasM. L.MacGeorgeE. L. (2020). Increasing information seeking about antibiotic risks: Testing a clinical intervention message using the risk information seeking and processing model. Science Communication, 42(2), 218–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020914610
10.
BrownS. A. (2005). Measuring perceived benefits and perceived barriers for physical activity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 29(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.29.2.2
11.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
12.
ChasiotisA.WedderhoffO.RosmanT.MayerA.-K. (2020). Why do we want health information? The goals associated with health information seeking (GAINS) questionnaire. Psychology & Health, 35(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2019.1644336
13.
ChauhanV.YadavR.ChoudharyV. (2019). Analyzing the impact of consumer innovativeness and perceived risk in internet banking adoption. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(1), 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-02-2018-0028
14.
CialdiniR. B.RenoR. R.KallgrenC. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
15.
Côté-BoileauÉ.DenisJ.-L.CalleryB.SabeanM. (2019). The unpredictable journeys of spreading, sustaining and scaling healthcare innovations: A scoping review. Health Research Policy and Systems, 17(1), Article 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0482-6
DubéE.LabergeC.GuayM.BramadatP.RoyR.BettingerJ. (2013). Vaccine hesitancy: An overview. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 9(8), 1763–1773. https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24657
20.
DunwoodyS.GriffinR. J. (2015). Risk information seeking and processing model. In ChoH.ReimerT.McComasK. A. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of risk communication (pp. 102–116). Sage.
21.
EarleT. C.CvetkovichG. T. (1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Praeger.
22.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
23.
GauchatG. (2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510365246
24.
GoldsmithR. E. (2011). The validity of a scale to measure global innovativeness. Journal of Applied Business Research, 7(2), 89. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v7i2.6249
25.
GriffinR. J.DunwoodyS.NeuwirthK. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80(2, Pt. 2), S230–S245. https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1998.3940
26.
GriffinR. J.NeuwirthK.DunwoodyS.GieseJ. (2004). Information sufficiency and risk communication. Media Psychology, 6(1), 23–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0601_2
27.
GuttelingJ. M.de VriesP. W. (2017). Determinants of seeking and avoiding risk-related information in times of crisis. Risk Analysis, 37(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12632
28.
HartmanR. O.DieckmannN. F.SprengerA. M.StastnyB. J.DeMarreeK. G. (2017). Modeling attitudes toward science: Development and validation of the credibility of science scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(6), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2017.1372284
29.
HeidenreichS.SpiethP.PetschnigM. (2017). Ready, steady, green: Examining the effectiveness of external policies to enhance the adoption of eco-friendly innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 343–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12364
30.
HeinschM.WyllieJ.CarlsonJ.WellsH.TicknerC.Kay-LambkinF. (2021). Theories informing eHealth implementation: Systematic review and typology classification. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(5), Article e18500. https://doi.org/10.2196/18500
31.
HendriksF.KienhuesD.BrommeR. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster epistemic trustworthiness inventory (METI). PLOS ONE, 10(10), Article e0139309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
32.
HendriksF.KienhuesD.BrommeR. (2016). Trust in science and the science of trust. In BlöbaumB. (Ed.), Progress in IS. Trust and communication in a digitized world (pp. 143–159). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
33.
HirschmanE. C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283–295.
34.
HirunyawipadaT.PaswanA. K. (2006). Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: Implications for high technology product adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(4), 182–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610674310
35.
HmielowskiJ. D.FeldmanL.MyersT. A.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 23(7), 866–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513480091
36.
HongJ.-C.LinP.-H.HsiehP.-C. (2017). The effect of consumer innovativeness on perceived value and continuance intention to use smartwatch. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 264–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.001
37.
HovickS. R.KahlorL.LiangM.-C. (2014). Personal cancer knowledge and information seeking through PRISM: The planned risk information seeking model. Journal of Health Communication, 19(4), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.821556
38.
HowellJ. L.ShepperdJ. A. (2016). Establishing an Information Avoidance Scale. Psychological Assessment, 28(12), 1695–1708. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000315
39.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
40.
JohnsonJ. D.MeischkeH. (1993). A comprehensive model of cancer-related information seeking applied to magazines. Human Communication Research, 19(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1993.tb00305.x
KahlorL. A.YangJ.LiX.WangW.OlsonH. C.AtkinsonL. (2020). Environmental risk (and benefit) information seeking intentions: The case of carbon capture and storage in Southeast Texas. Environmental Communication, 14(4), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1699136
44.
KesslerS. H.ZillichA. F. (2019). Searching online for information about vaccination: Assessing the influence of user-specific cognitive factors using eye-tracking. Health Communication, 34(10), 1150–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1465793
45.
LachapelleE.MontpetitÉ.GauvinJ. P. (2014). Public perceptions of expert credibility on policy issues: The role of expert framing and political worldviews. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 674–697.
LedetE. H.LiddleB.KradinovaK.HarperS. (2018). Smart implants in orthopedic surgery, improving patient outcomes: A review. Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Health, 5, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.2147/IEH.S133518
48.
LeeS. Y.HwangH.HawkinsR.PingreeS. (2008). Interplay of negative emotion and health self-efficacy on the use of health information and its outcomes. Communication Research, 35(3), 358–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208315962
49.
LiL.WangZ.LiY.LiaoA. (2021). Consumer innovativeness and organic food adoption: The mediation effects of consumer knowledge and attitudes. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 1465–1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.08.022
50.
LinkE.BaumannE.KlimmtC. (2021). Explaining online information seeking behaviors in people with different health statuses: German representative cross-sectional survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(12), Article e25963. https://doi.org/10.2196/25963
51.
LinkE.BaumannE.KlimmtC. (2024). Understanding the importance of trust in patients’ coping with uncertainty via health information-seeking behaviors. Communications, 49(1), 74–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2021-0117
52.
LinkE.KahlorL. A. (2023). The planned risk information seeking model applied to vaccine information avoidance and the role of affect, emotion and perceived benefits. Health Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2268912
53.
LiuH.PriestS. (2009). Understanding public support for stem cell research: Media communication, interpersonal communication and trust in key actors. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 704–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508097625
54.
LiuM.ChenY.ShiD.YanT. (2021). The public’s risk information seeking and avoidance in China during early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 649180. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.649180
55.
LiuZ.YangJ. Z. (2023). Information seeking and information avoidance about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination: Knowledge, personal control, or affect?Journal of Risk Research, 26(11), 1227–1243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2270605
56.
LuhmannN. (1989). Vertrauen: Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität [Trust: A mechanism for reducing social complexity] (3rd ed.). Flexibles Taschenbuch SOZ.
57.
MarksG.MillerN. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 72–90.
58.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
59.
MoonW.-K.AtkinsonL.KahlorL. A.YunC.SonH. (2022). U.S. political partisanship and COVID-19: Risk information seeking and prevention behaviors. Health Communication, 37(13), 1671–1681. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1912948
60.
NadelsonL. S.JorcykC.YangD.Jarratt SmithM.MatsonS.CornellK.HustingV. (2014). I just don’t trust them: The development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114(2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12051
61.
OuM.HoS. S. (2022). A meta-analysis of factors related to health information seeking: An integration from six theoretical frameworks. Communication Research, 49(4), 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211043024
62.
ParkH. S.SmithS. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and societal descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00296.x
63.
PlohlN.MusilB. (2021). Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: The critical role of trust in science. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2020.1772988
64.
PriestS. H.BonfadelliH.RusanenM. (2003). The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751–766.
65.
ProchaskaJ. O. (2008). Decision making in the transtheoretical model of behavior change. Medical Decision Making, 28(6), 845–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08327068
66.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Free Press.
67.
RousseauD. M.SitkinS. B.BurtR. S.CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
68.
RutjensB. T.SenguptaN.van der LeeR.van KoningsbruggenG. M.MartensJ. P.RabeloA.SuttonR. M. (2022). Science skepticism across 24 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211001329
69.
SiegristM. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195–203.
70.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20(5), 713–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.205064
SoJ. (2013). A further extension of the extended parallel process model (E-EPPM): Implications of cognitive appraisal theory of emotion and dispositional coping style. Health Communication, 28(1), 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.708633
73.
TakahashiB.TandocE. C. (2016). Media sources, credibility, and perceptions of science: Learning about how people learn about science. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 674–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515574986
74.
TavaniJ. L.PiermattéoA.Lo MonacoG.DelouvéeS. (2021). Skepticism and defiance: Assessing credibility and representations of science. PLOS ONE, 16(9), Article e0250823.
75.
van AelstP.StrömbäckJ.AalbergT.EsserF.VreeseC.de MatthesJ.HopmannD.SalgadoS.HubéN.StępińskaA.PapathanassopoulosS.BerganzaR.LegnanteG.ReinemannC.SheaferT.StanyerJ. (2017). Political communication in a high-choice media environment: A challenge for democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551
YangZ. J.AloeA. M.FeeleyT. H. (2014). Risk information seeking and processing model: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12071
79.
YangZ. J.KahlorL. (2013). What, me worry? The role of affect in information seeking and avoidance. Science Communication, 35(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012441873
80.
YangZ. J.McComasK. A.GayG.LeonardJ. P.DannenbergA. J.DillonH. (2011). Information seeking related to clinical trial enrollment. Communication Research, 38(6), 856–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210380411
81.
ZhangM.LuoM.NieR.ZhangY. (2017). Technical attributes, health attribute, consumer attributes and their roles in adoption intention of healthcare wearable technology. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 108, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.09.016
82.
ZhangZ.HouY. (2017). The effect of perceived risk on information search for innovative products and services: The moderating role of innate consumer innovativeness. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(3), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2016-1768
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
