Determinants of Preventive Behavior Intention to the Particulate Matter: An Application of the Expansion of Health Belief Model

미세먼지 예방행동의도 결정요인: 건강신념모델 확장을 중심으로

  • Chung, Donghun (School of Media and Communication, Kwangwoon University)
  • 정동훈 (광운대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학부)
  • Received : 2019.07.01
  • Accepted : 2019.08.20
  • Published : 2019.08.28


The purpose of this study was to investigate the determinants of preventive behavior intention to the particulate matter. The results based on the survey of 280 university students showed that the perceived susceptibility and barriers to the particulate matter do not have statistically significant effects on the preventive behavior intention. However, perceived severity and benefits, subjective norm, and self-efficacy to the particulate matter had statistically significant positive effects on the preventive behavior intention. The results of this study suggested that communication strategies to increase perceived severity and benefits, subjective norm and self-efficacy should be required to improve the degree of preventive behavior intention to the particulate matter of college students. It is expected to contribute explaining preventive actions against environmental hazards such as air pollution in the future.


Perceived Severity;Perceived Benefits;Subjective Norm;Self-Efficacy;Particulate Matter


Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea


  1. J. S. Na. (2018). A study on the factors influencing the intention to wear a dustproof mask and effective communication planning. Master's Thesis, Hongik University.
  2. E. S. Park, H. J. Oh, S. H. Kim & A. R. Min. (2018). The relationships between particulate matter risk perception, knowledge, and health promoting behaviors among college students. Journal of Korean Biological Nursing Science, 20(1), 20-29.
  3. S. U. Yun & J. G. Chang. (2018). A study on determinants of particulate matter prevention behavior intention based on SNS: Focused on SNS Users. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 90, 74-98.
  4. S. J. Yoo, H. J. Jeong & H. S. Park. (2010). The analysis on factors affecting the intention for H1N1 virus vaccination and the impact of negative news reports the comparison between HBM and TPB. The Korean Journal of Advertising Public Relations, 12(3), 283-319.
  5. Y. W. Kim, H. S. Lee, Y. J. Jang & H. J. Lee. (2016). A cluster analysis on the risk of particulate matter: Focusing on difference of risk perception and risk related behaviors based on public segmentation. Journal of Public Relations, 20(3), 201-235. DOI : 10.15814/jpr.2016.20.3.201
  6. H. S. Lee & J. H. Lim. (2015). Structural equation model analysis and AMOS 22. Seoul: Jyphyunjae.
  7. J. Joo. (2017). Exploration of structural relations on health behavior related to particulate matter: Focused on multi-dimensional health locus of control, perceived susceptibility and severity, and health behavioral intention. Journal of the Korea Convergence Soceity, 8(11), 413-421.
  8. K. Witte & M. Allen. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health and Education Behavior, 27, 591-615. DOI: 10.1177/109019810002700506
  9. Y. W. Kim, H. S. Lee, Y. J. Jang & H. J. Lee. (2015). How does media construct particulate matter risks?: A news frame and source analysis on particulate matter risks. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 59(2), 121-154.
  10. Y. W. Kim, H. S. Lee, H. J. Lee & Y. J. Jang. (2015). A study of the public's perception and opinion formation on particulate matter risk: Focusing on the moderating effects of the perceptions toward promotional news and involvement. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 52-91.
  11. R. Cox. (2013). Enviromental communication and the public sphere(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
  12. Y. W. Kim, H. S. Lee, H. J. Lee & Y. J. Jang. (2016). A study on differences between experts and lay people about risk perceptions toward particulate matter: A focus on the utilization of mental models. Communication Theories, 12(1), 53-117.
  13. H. J. Choi. (2017). Research of risk communication strategy for the enhancement of environmental risk perception and eco-friendly behavioral intention: Application of construcal-level theory on global warming and particulate matter risk message. Doctoral Dissertation, Sungkyunkwan University.
  14. N. Smith & A. Leiserowitz. (2012). The rise of global warming skepticism: Exploring affective image assoications in the United States over time. Risk Anlaysis, 32(6), 1021-1032. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01801.x
  15. S. H. Choi. (2018). A study on the factors affecting fine dust cognition, knowledge, and attitude among college students. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 18(12), 281-290.
  16. I. M. Rosenstock. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328-335.
  17. K. Witte, G. Meyer & D. Martell. (2001). Effective health risk messages: A step-by-step guide. Sage.
  18. I. M. Rosenstock, V. Stretcher & M. Becker. (1994). The health belief model and HIV risk behavior. In R. DiClemente & J. Peterson. (ed.), Preventing AIDS: Theories and methods of behavioral intervnentions (pp. 5-22). New York: Plenum Press.
  19. M. Conner & P. Norman. (1995). Predicting health behavior: Research and practice with social cognition models. buckingham: Open University Press.
  20. N. K. Janz & M. H. Becker. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1-47. DOI: 10.1177/109019818401100101
  21. B. K. Lee, Y. K. Sohn, L. L. Sang, M. Y. Yoon, M. H. Kim & C. R. Kim. (2014). An efficacy of social cognitive theory to predict health behavior: A meta-analysis on the health belief model studies in Korea. Journal of Public Relations, 18(2), 163-206.
  22. J. A. Harrison, P. D. Mullen & L. W. Green. (1992). A meta-analysis of studies of the health belief model with adults. Health Education Research, 7, 107-116. DOI: 10.1093/her/7.1.107
  23. I. Ajzen. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
  24. V. Venkatesch & F. D. Davis. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.
  25. N. M. AskeIson, S. Campo, J. B. Lowe, S. Smith, L. K. Dennis & J. Andsager. (2010). Using the theory of planned behavior to predict mothers' intention to vaccinate their daughters against HPV. The Journal of School Nursing, 26(3), 194-202. DOI: 10.1177/1059840510366022
  26. Y. W. Kim, H. N. Lee, H, I. Kim & H. J. Moon. (2017). A study on usage effect and acceptance factors of a particulate matter application (App). Journal of Public Relations, 21(4), 114-142. DOI: 10.15814/jpr.2017.21.4.114
  27. L. A. Martin, K. B. Haskard-ZoInierek & DiMatteo. (2010). Health behavior change and treatment adherence: Evidence-based guidelines for improving healthcare. New York: Oxford University Press.
  28. A. Bandura. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
  29. V. Champion, C. S. Skinner & U. Menon. (2005). Development of a self-efficacy scale for mammography. Research in Nursing & Health, 28(4), 329-336. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20088
  30. T. Gore & C. C. Bracken. (2005). Testing the theoretical design of a helath risk message: Reexamining the major tenets of the extended parallel process model. Health Education & Behavior, 32(1), 27-41. DOI: 10.1177/1090198104266901
  31. B. K. Lee, H. J. Oh, K. A. Shin & J. Y. Ko. (2008). The effect of media campaign as a cue to action on influenza prevention behavior: Extending health belief model. Korean Journal of Advertising, 10(4), 108-138.
  32. Z. Sheng. (2015). User acceptance of mobile healthcare applications: An integrated model of UTAUT and HBM theory. The Korean Association for Policy Science, 19(3), 203-236.
  33. S. E. Jo, H. C. Shin, S. W. Yoo & H. S. Roh. (2012). The study of factors affecting tuberculosis preventive behavior intentions: An extension of HBM with mediating effects of self-efficacy and fear. Jornal of Public Realtions, 16(1), 148-177.