Health Concerns Versus Mobile Data Needs: Conjoint Measurement of Preferences for Mobile Communication Network Scenarios

REFERENCES

• Ajzen I and Fishbein M. 1977. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 84:888–918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ajzen I and Fishbein M. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA
   Google Scholar
• Alhakami AS and Slovic P. 1994. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14(6):1085–96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arning K, Gaul S, and Ziefle M. 2010. “Same same but different.” How service contexts of mobile technologies shape usage motives and barriers. In: Leitner G, Hitz M, and Holzinger A (eds), HCI in Work & Learning, Life & Leisure, pp 34–54, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany
   Google Scholar
• Arning K, Kowalewski S, and Ziefle M. 2013. Modelling user acceptance of wireless medical technologies. In: Balwant Godara, Konstantina S. Nikita (Eds.). Wireless Mobile Communication and Healthcare. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 61:146–53.
   Google Scholar
• Baliatsas C, van Kamp I, Kelfkens G, et al. 2011. Non-specific physical symptoms in relation to actual and perceived proximity to mobile phone base stations and powerlines. BMC Public Health 11:421. . doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bortkiewicz A, Gadzicka E, Szyjkowska A, et al. 2012. Subjective complaints of people living near mobile phone base stations in Poland. Internat J Occupat Med Environ Health 25(1):31–40. . doi:10.2478/s13382-012-0007-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claro E. 2007. Exchange relationships and the environment: The acceptability of compensation in the siting of waste disposal facilities. Environ Val 16:187–208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousin M-E and Siegrist M. 2010a. Risk perception of mobile communication: A mental models approach. J Risk Res 13(5):599–620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousin M-E and Siegrist M. 2010b. Public's knowledge of mobile communication and its influence on base station siting preferences. Health Risk Soc 12(3):231–50
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford R. 2004. Risk ritual and the management of control and anxiety in medical culture. Health 8:505–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dohle S, Keller C, and Siegrist M. 2010. Conjoint measurement of base station siting preferences. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16(4):825–36
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericson. 2012. Traffic and Market Data Report: On the Pulse of the Networked Society. . Available at http://www.ericsson.com/traffic-market-report (accessed July 28, 2013)
   Google Scholar
• Farber S and Griner B. 2000. Using conjoint analysis to value ecosystem change. Environ Sci Technol 34(8):1407–12
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, USA
   Google Scholar
• Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, et al. 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behavioral Decision Making 13(1):1–17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraenkel L, Bodardus S, and Wittink DR. 2001. Understanding patient preferences for the treatment of lupus nephritis with adaptive conjoint analysis. Med Care 39(11):1203–16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frick U, Rehm J, and Eichhammer P. 2002. Risk perception, somatization, and self report of complaints related to electromagnetic fields–A randomized survey study. Internat J Hygiene Environ Health 205(5):353–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, and Gigerenzer G. 2009. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: Overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol 28(2):210–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green PE and Srinivasan V. 1990. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J Marketing 54:3–19
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groothuis PA, Groothuis JD, and Whitehead JC. 2008. Green vs. green: Measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed. Energ Policy 36:1545–50
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ITU (International Telecommunication Union). 2011. The World in 2011: ICT Facts and Figures. . Available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/facts/2011/index.html (accessed July 28, 2013)
   Google Scholar
• Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, et al. 1988. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):177–87
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korpinen LH and Pääkkönen RJ. 2009. Self-report of physical symptoms associated with using mobile phones and other electrical devices. Bioelectromagnetics 30(6):431–7. . doi:10.1002/bem.20500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kowalewski S, Arning K. Minwegen A, et al. 2013. Extending the engineering trade-off analysis by integrating user preferences in conjoint analysis. Expert Systems Applicat 40(8):2947–55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipkus IM and Hollands JG. 1999. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer I Monogr 25:149–63
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luce RD and Tukey JW. 1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement. J Math Psychol 1:1–27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melenhorst A-S, Rogers WA, and Bouwhuis DG. 2006. Older adults’ motivated choice for technological innovation: Evidence for benefit-driven selectivity. Psychol Aging 21(1):190–5. . doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orme B. 2010a. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 3rd Edit. Research Publishers LLC, Chicago, IL, USA
   Google Scholar
• Orme B. 2010b. SSI Web Documentation: SSI Web v 7.0-Software for Web Interviewing and Conjoint Analyses. Sawtooth Software Inc, Sequim, WA, USA
   Google Scholar
• Pagani M. 2004. Determinants of adoption of third generation mobile multimedia services. J Interact Mark 18(3):46–59
   Google Scholar
• Renn O and Levine D. 1991. Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson R and Stallen PJ (eds), Communicating Risk to the Public, pp 175–218. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
   Google Scholar
• Revermann C. 2003. Risiko Mobilfunk. Wissenschaftlicher Diskurs, öffentliche Debatte und politische Rahmenbedingungen, Vol 15Ed. Sigma. . Available at http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/de/pdf/publikationen/buecher/revermann-2003–082.pdf (accessed July 28, 2013)
   Google Scholar
• Sackmann R and Winkler O. 2013. Technology generations revisited: The internet generation. Gerontechnology 11(4):493–503
   Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software. 2008a. CBC v6.0 Technical Paper. . Available at http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/techpap.shtml (accessed July 28, 2013)
   Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software. 2008b. The CBC Advanced Design Module (ADM) Technical Paper (Technical Paper). Sawtooth Software Inc, Sequim, WA, USA
   Google Scholar
• Schenk MF, Fischer ARH, Frewer LJ, et al. 2008. The influence of perceived benefits on acceptance of GM applications for allergy prevention. Health, Risk & Soc 10(3):263–82. . doi:10.1080/13698570802160947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreier N, Huss A, and Röösli M. 2006. The prevalence of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic field exposure: A cross-sectional representative survey in Switzerland. Sozial- und Präventivmedizin 51(4):202–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2001. Vascular patients’ preferences for local treatment: An application of conjoint analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy 6(3):151–7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Siegrist M, Earle TC, Gutscher H, et al. 200525:1253–64
   Google Scholar
• Slovic P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236(4799):280–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Fischhoff B, and Lichtenstein S. 1982. Why study risk perception? Risk Anal 2(2):83–93. . doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x
   Google Scholar
• Slovic P, Fischhoff B, and Lichtenstein S. 1986. The psychometric study of risk perception. In: Covello VT, Menkes J, and Mumpower J (eds), Risk Evaluation and Management, pp. 3–24. Springer US, Boston, MA, USA. . Available at http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_1.pdf (accessed July 28, 2013)
   Google Scholar
• SSI Web 7.0. 2012. Sawtooth Software, Sequim, Washington, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Swallow SK, Oplauch JJ, and Weaver TF. 1992. Siting noxious facilities: An approach that integrates technical, economic, and political considerations. Land Econ 68(3):283–301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor S, Young A, Kumar N, et al. 2012. The Mobile Cloud: When Two Explosive Markets Collide (Cisco IBSG Research Report). . Available at http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/sp/Mobile-Cloud-Overview-POV.pdf (accessed July 28, 2013)
   Google Scholar
• van Biljon J and Kotzé P. 2007. Modelling the factors that influence mobile phone adoption. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries (SAICSIT ‘07), pp 152–61. ACM, New York, NY, USA
   Google Scholar
• van Kleef E, Fischer ARH, Khan M, et al. 2010. Risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phone and base station technology in Bangladesh. J Risk Anal 30:1002–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warschauer M and Matuchinak T. 2010. New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Rev Res Educ 34(1):179–225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wehmeyer K. 2005. Consumer preferences for location-based service attributes: A conjoint analysis. IJMDM 6(1):16–32
   Google Scholar
• Wiedemann PM and Schütz H. 2005. The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environ Health Perspect. 113(4):402–5. . doi:10.1289/ehp.7538
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkowska W and Ziefle M. 2012. Privacy and data security in E-health: Requirements from the user's perspective. Health Informatics 18(3):191–201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar