## 3 Results
### Affective, Moral and Subjective Exposure Evaluations in Risk Perception Groups  
This section analyzes how people from the three risk perception groups evaluate RF EMF exposure from base stations and mobile phones in fictional exposure situations. For both scenarios, we asked the subjects for their affective and moral evaluation of the RF EMF exposure situation, as well as their subjective exposure evaluations of the particular situations. Differences in group means are displayed in Table 3.  
A consistent picture emerged. As in each case, the enduringly concerned group had the highest means for affective (mean\({}_{\text{MP}}\)(Mobile\({}_{\text{phone}}\)) = 3.46, means\({}_{\text{BS}}\)(Base\({}_{\text{station}}\)) = 4.05) and moral (mean\({}_{\text{MP}}\) = 3.80, mean\({}_{\text{BS}}\) = 4.47) evaluations. Furthermore, the subjective evaluation of exposure strength (mean\({}_{\text{MP}}\) = 4.08, mean\({}_{\text{BS}}\) = 4.63) was consistently the highest for respondents with enduring concerns of potential EMF health risks. An analysis of variances using the three predictor variables of RF EMF risk perception (affective, moral, and exposure perception) as dependent variables was calculated to differentiate between the risk perception groups using the Welch Test. The results demonstrated statistically significant differences between the groups for affective, moral and exposure perception. [PERSON]'s F values are indicated in Table 3, with highly significant differences (\(p<0.001\)) across all evaluations. Games-Howell post hoc test also revealed significant results between all groups. Differential Effects of RF EMF Exposure Reduction on the Acceptance of Base Stations in Risk Perception Groups  
The effects of RF EMF exposure reduction on the acceptance of a base station were investigated for the three different risk perception groups. A general linear model with repeated measures was calculated using the three risk perception groups as between subjects factor, and the four exposure reduction scenarios as within subjects factor (exposure is reduced by 0%, 30%, 50%, and 70%). The acceptable distance between a base station and the respondent's home was used as the dependent variable. The results showed a significant main effect for the repeated factor exposure scenario (F(1.42, 2173.55) = 360.22, \(p<0.001\) using Greenhouse-Geisser, \(\eta^{2}=0.190\)), as well as for the between-subject effect for risk perception groups (F(2, 1536) = 31.26, \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}=0.039\)). The interaction between the exposure reduction scenario and the non-repeated factor risk perception group also showed a significant difference: (F(2.83, 2173.55) = 17.08 and \(p<0.001\), using Greenhouse-Geisser, \(\eta^{2}=0.022\)). These results indicate that the factors \"exposure reduction\" and \"risk perception group\" have a statistically significant influence on the accepted distance from the base station, and that the impact of the exposure reduction on this distance depends on group membership. The highest impact was found for the enduringly concerned group, where the mean required distance to the base station was reduced from 2897 m at 0% exposure reduction, to 1674 m for 70% reduction. The mean distance for the not \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Evaluation of** & **N/I** Con & **Not End Con** & **End Con** & **Total Mean** & \(p\) & **F (Welch)** \\ \hline Mobile phone (MP) calls: & & & & & & \\ Affective evaluation & 2.86 & 3.09 & 3.46 & 3.02 & \(<\)0.001 & 53.31 \\ Moral evaluation & 2.37 & 3.08 & 3.80 & 2.79 & \(<\)0.001 & 154.67 \\ Subjective exposure perception & 2.92 & 3.63 & 4.08 & 3.31 & \(<\)0.001 & 185.33 \\ Base stations & & & & & & \\ Affective evaluation & 3.41 & 3.69 & 4.05 & 3.59 & \(<\)0.001 & 31.22 \\ Moral evaluation & 3.21 & 3.94 & 4.47 & 3.62 & \(<\)0.001 & 149.43 \\ Subjective exposure perception & 3.42 & 4.20 & 4.63 & 3.85 & \(<\)0.001 & 131.98 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}