DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Perception and Attitude about Risk from Science & Technology-Focused on Risk from Electromagnetic Wave-

과학기술 위험에 대한 인지 및 태도 -전자파 위험을 중심으로-

  • Received : 2010.02.09
  • Accepted : 2010.05.04
  • Published : 2010.05.28

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to know what factors have impacts on their risk perception and attitude in risk communications. This research shows the research findings that the determinant factors of risk perception are the possibility to control the risk, benefits of recognition, the specialty of risk management, and the usefulness of information about the risk. And also the results have shown that the determinant factors of risk attitudes are the possibility to control the risk, the understanding of science and technology, the familiarity with the risk, the usefulness information about the risk, the accuracy of information, and the initiative in the protection of citizens from the risk. As the results have indicated, common determinant factors are the usefulness of information about the risk and the possibility to control the risk. Both of them that affect risk perception and attitudes on electromagnetic waves are important factors in risk communication research. Therefore this study shows that what factors suppose to be considered important in risk communication process about risk of electromagnetic waves.

본 연구는 전자파 위험에 대한 위험인지와 위험태도의 결정요인을 알아보고자 하였다. 이를 위해 이론적 논의 및 위험 커뮤니케이션 모델에 근거하여 위험인지와 위험태도를 위험 커뮤니케이션 효과 범주로 설정하고, 이에 대한 선행요인들을 정보원, 메시지, 채널, 수용자 범주로 범주화 하였다. 그리고 각 범주의 선행요인들이 효과범주에 속하는 위험인지와 위험태도에 미치는 영향을 살펴보기 위한 조사를 실시하였다. 분석결과, 전자파 위험에 대한 위험인지에 유의미한 영향을 미치는 요인은 수용자 차원의 위험통제성과 인지된 혜택, 정보원 차원의 위험대응전문성, 메시지 차원의 정보유용성으로 나타났다. 위험태도에 유의미한 영향을 미치는 요인은 수용자 차원의 위험통제성, 과학적 이해, 위험친숙성, 메시지 차원의 정보유용성과 정보정확성, 정보원 차원의 시민보호적극성으로 분석되었다. 따라서 위험인지와 위험태도 모두에 공통적으로 영향을 미치는 요인은 위험통제성과 정보유용성임을 알 수 있었다. 이 같은 연구결과는 전자파 위험과 관련한 위험 커뮤니케이션 과정에서 중요하게 고려되어야 할 요인들이 무엇인지를 시사한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 송해룡, 위험보도론, 커뮤니케이션북스, 2003.
  2. Z. Gurabardhi, J. M. Gutteling, and M. Kuttschreuter, “The development of risk communication : An empirical analysis of the literature in the field," Science Communication, Vol.25, pp.323-349, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004265148
  3. L. Fraenkel, S. T. Bogardus, and D. R. Wittink, “Risk-attitude and patient treatment preferences," Lupus, Vol.12, pp.370-376, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1191/0961203303lu371oa
  4. C. Keller and M. Siegrist, “Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy," Medical Decision Making, Vol.29, pp.483-490, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09333122
  5. G. Gaivoronskaia and B. Hvinden, “Consumers with allergic reaction to food: Perception of and response to food risk in general and genetically modified food in particular," Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol.31, pp.702-703, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906291867
  6. M. Billig, “Is my home my castle? Place attachment, risk perception, and religious faith,” Environment and Behavior, Vol.38, pp.248-265, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505277608
  7. T. Sanders, R. Campbell, J. Donovan, and D. Sharp, “Narrative accounts of hereditary risk:Knowledge about family history, Lay Theories of disease, and ‘Internal’ and ‘External’ causation," Qualitative Health Research, Vol.17, pp.510-520, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306297882
  8. B. L. Elledge, M. Brand, J. L. Regens, and D. T. Boatright, “Implications of public understanding of avian influenza for fostering effective risk communication," Health Promotion Practice, Vol.9, pp.54-59, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839908319089
  9. A. L. Brown, T. L. M. Moore, A. G. Miller, and G. Stasser, “Sexual victimization in relation to perceptions of risk: Mediation, Generalization, and Temporal stability," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol.31, pp.963-976, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204274101
  10. S. C. Quinn, “Crisis and emergency risk communication in a pandemic: A model for building capacity and resilience of minority communities,” Health Promotion Practice, Vol.9, pp.18-25, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839908324022
  11. W. Leiss and C. Chociolko, “Risk and responsibility," Quebec: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1994.
  12. 한국전파진흥원, 전자파에 대한 위험인식 특성 및 그에 따른 리스크커뮤니케이션 정책 방안, 2009.
  13. 송해룡, 김원제, 조항민, “과학기술 위험보도에 관한 수용자 인식 연구”, 한국언론학보, 제49권, 제3호, pp.105-128, 2005.
  14. 송해룡, 김원제, 조항민, 리스크 커뮤니케이션과 위기관리전략, 한국학술정보, 2008.
  15. M. Jensen and A. Blok, “Pesticides in the risk society: The view from everyday life," Current Sociology, Vol.56, pp.757-778, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392108093834
  16. J. P. Roche and M. A. T. Muskavitch, “Limited precision in print media communication of west nile virus risks. Science Communication,"Vol.24, pp.353-365, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547002250300
  17. L. A. Prosser and E. Wittenberg, “Do risk attitudes differ across domains and respondent types?" Medical Decision Making, Vol.27, pp.281-287, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07300602
  18. L. Rodriguez, “The impact of risk communication on the acceptance of irradiated food," Science Communication, Vol.28, pp.476-500, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007302307

Cited by

  1. Does Trust Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Trust on the Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Energy vol.10, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030758