journal article Open Access Mar 31, 2026

Efficacy and Threat Language in PFAS Messaging

Risk Analysis Vol. 46 No. 4 · Wiley
View at Publisher Save 10.1111/risa.70239
Abstract
ABSTRACT
As more Americans become aware of the threat of per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water, they seek information using internet searches. Little is known, however, about the content of the websites produced by those searches or how well such content aligns with risk communication best practices. Guided by the Extended Parallel Processing Model and its two primary components, threat and efficacy, we analyze the top websites produced by Google searches relating to PFAS and water. We utilized a mixed‐methods approach, with both qualitative content analysis and computational linguistic analysis, to examine how threat and efficacy are conveyed and how these portrayals differ by the type of message source. Our results show that news media sources and research sources are more likely to emphasize threat severity and individual susceptibility as well as to use negative emotion and anxious language, particularly in comparison with local government sites or water utility boards. News media was also more likely to provide efficacy information than other sources, but the overall emphasis on efficacy was low. Our results highlight the difference between established best practices and reality, offering recommendations for communicators across all source types to improve their PFAS communication and better aid the public.
Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References
66
[5]
Boyd R. L. (2022)
[6]
Brockovich E.2024. “These Chemicals are Hurting Us. Why Aren't We Regulating Them?”New York Times September 4.https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/04/opinion/erin‐brockovich‐pfas‐forever‐chemicals.html.
[9]
Claassen L. J.Hartmann andS.Wuijts.2021. “How to Address Consumers' Concerns and Information Needs about Emerging Chemical and Microbial Contaminants in Drinking Water; The Case of GenX in The Netherlands.”International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18 no.20:10615.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010615. 10.3390/ijerph182010615
[10]
Creswell J. W. (2022)
[14]
Evans S. D.Andrews T.Stoiber andO.Naidenko.2020. “PFAS Contamination of Drinking Water far More Prevalent Than Previously Reported.”Environmental Working Group. Published January 23.https://www.ewg.org/research/national‐pfas‐testing.
[15]
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research

Suzanne E. Fenton, Alan Ducatman, Alan Boobis et al.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10.1002/etc.4890
[17]
Fischhoff B. andA. L.Davis.2014. “Communicating Scientific Uncertainty.” Supplement PNAS111 no. S4:S13664–S13671.https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317504111. 10.1073/pnas.1317504111
[24]
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.2018. “Health Risks of Widely Used Chemicals May be Underestimated.”Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Published June 27.https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph‐in‐the‐news/pfas‐health‐risks‐underestimated/.
[25]
Hayes J.2021. “‘Forever Chemicals’ Contamination at Defense Department Sites Threatens Great Lakes Fish and Residents.”Environmental Working Group. Published August 31.https://www.ewg.org/news‐insights/news/2021/08/forever‐chemicals‐contamination‐defense‐department‐sites‐threatens‐great.
[29]
Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come

R. Burke Johnson, Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie

Educational Researcher 10.3102/0013189x033007014
[33]
Morgan M. G. (2002)
[37]
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2022)
[38]
National Wildlife Foundation. n.d. “The PFAS Crisis Fact Sheet.”National Wildlife Foundation. Accessed September 18 2024.https://www.nwf.org/‐/media/Documents/PDFs/Waters/The‐PFAS‐Crisis‐Fact‐Sheet.pdf.
[40]
Pennebaker J. W. R. J.Booth R. L.Boyd andM. E.Francis.2015.Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015 Operator's Manual.Pennebaker Conglomerates.https://www.liwc.app/help/psychometricsmanuals.
[41]
Pennebaker J. W. R. J.Booth andM. E.Francis.2007.Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2007.LIWC.www.liwc.net.
[42]
Pennebaker J. W. (2001)
[49]
Ryan K. "PFAS & Public Outreach: Risk Communication Best Practices & Lessons Learned" Journal of the New England Water Works Association (2021)
[50]
Saleh R. A.Bearth andM.Siegrist.2019. “‘Chemophobia’.”Today: Consumers' Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals.Risk Analysis39 no.12:2668–2682.https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13375. 10.1111/risa.13375

Showing 50 of 66 references

Related

You May Also Like

The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework

Roger E. Kasperson, Ortwin Renn · 1988

2,469 citations

On The Quantitative Definition of Risk

Stanley Kaplan, B. John Garrick · 1981

2,181 citations

The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence

Michael K. Lindell, Ronald W. Perry · 2011

1,415 citations