Journal of Digital Convergence (디지털융복합연구)

The Society of Digital Policy and Management (한국디지털정책학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Relationship among Public's Risk Characteristics, Risk Severity, Risk Perception and Risk Acceptability of Human Stem Cell Technology

공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성, 위험심각성, 위험인식 및 위험수용의 관계

  • Song, Hae-Ryong (Dept. of Journalism and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University) ;
  • Kim, Won-je (Dept. of Journalism and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • Received : 2017.05.11
  • Accepted : 2017.07.20
  • Published : 2017.07.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among public's risk characteristics, risk severity, risk perception and risk acceptability of human stem cell technology. The subjects were 300 Koreans selected. The data were analyzed by the exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis and structural equation modeing analysis. The results were as followed. First, public's risk characteristics on human stem cell technology influenced positively on risk severity. Second, public's risk characteristics on human stem cell technology influenced positively on risk perception. Third, public's risk severity on human stem cell technology influenced positively on risk perception. Fourth, public's risk characteristics on human stem cell technology influenced negatively on risk acceptability. Fifth, public's risk severity on human stem cell technology influenced not significantly on risk acceptability. Sixth, public's risk perception on human stem cell technology influenced not significantly on risk acceptability. These results will contribute to develop the risk communication strategy on the acceptability of human stem cell technology.

본 연구는 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성, 위험심각성, 위험인식 및 위험수용의 관계를 살펴보기 위하여 서울에 거주하는 한국인 300명을 대상으로 IBM SPSS 21 프로그램과 IBM AMOS 21 프로그램을 활용하여 탐색적 요인분석과 확인적 요인분석, 상관관계 분석, 구조모형분석을 수행하였다. 주요결과를 요약 제시하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성은 위험심각성에 통계적으로 유의한 정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성은 위험인식에 통계적으로 유의한 정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험심각성은 위험인식에 통계적으로 유의한 정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 넷째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성은 위험수용에 통계적으로 유의한 부적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 다섯째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험심각성은 위험수용에 통계적으로 유의한 영향을 미치지 못하였다. 여섯째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험인식은 위험수용에 통계적으로 유의한 영향을 미치지 못하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Turner, J. C. and Oakes, P. J. "The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence". British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 237-252, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x
  2. Lanphier, E., Urnov, F. and Haecker, S. E. "Don't edit the human germ line". Nature, Vol. 519, pp. 410-411, 2015. [online available] http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111 https://doi.org/10.1038/519410a
  3. Leiss, W. and Chociolko, C. "Risk and responsibility". Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1994.
  4. Nathan, K. R., Heath, L and Douglas, W. "Tolerance for potential environmental health risks: The influence of knowledge, benefits, control, involvement, and uncertainty". Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 4, pp. 235-258, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0404_4
  5. Slovic, P. "Perceptions of risk". Science, Vol. 230, pp. 280-285, 1987.
  6. Johnson, R. J., McCaul, K. D and Klein, W. M. P. "Risk involvement and risk perception among adolescents and young adults". Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 25, pp. 67-82, 2001.
  7. Graham, J. D. and Rhomberg, L. "How risks are identified and assessed". Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 545, pp. 15-24, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716296545001002
  8. Mumpower, J. L. "LLRW disposal facility siting: Success and failures in six countries". Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
  9. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. "Lay foibles and expert fables in judgements about risk". American Statistician, Vol. 3, pp. 240-255, 1982.
  10. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. "Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety". Acta Psychologica, Vo. 56, pp. 183-203, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(84)90018-0
  11. Hae Ryong Song and Won Je Kim. "Relationship among nature perception, science technology perception, risk perception, and risk severity". Korean Review of Crisis & Emergency Management, Vol. 10, pp. 29-43, 2014.
  12. Keller, C., Siegrist, M. and Gutscher, H. "The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication". Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, pp. 631-639, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00773.x
  13. Slovic, P. "What's fear got to do with it? It's affect we need to worry about". Missouri Law Review, Vol. 69, pp. 971-990, 2004.
  14. Slovic, P. "Affect, reason, and mere hunches". Journal of Law, Economics and Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 191-211, 2007.
  15. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. "Characterizing perceived risk". In Kates, R. W., Hohenemster, C and Kasperson, J. (ed.), Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985.
  16. Jacobs, L. and Worthley, R. A. "A comparative study of risk appraisal: A new look at risk assessment in different countries". Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 59, pp. 225-247, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006163606270
  17. Kellens, W., Zaalberg, R. and Neutens, T. "An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the belgian coast". Risk Analysis, Vol. 31, pp. 1055-1068, 2010.
  18. Robinson, K. G., Robinson, C. H. and Raup, L. "Public attitudes and risk perception toward land application of biosolids within the south-eastern United States". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 98, pp. 29-36, 2012.
  19. Dobbie, M. F. and Brown, R. R. "A framework for understanding risk perception, explored from the perspective of the water practitioner". Risk Analysis, Vol. 34, pp. 294-308, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12100
  20. Sjoberg, L. "The methodology of risk perception research". Quality and Quantity, Vol. 34, pp. 407-418, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004838806793
  21. Song, G. "Understanding public perception of benefits and risk of childhood vaccinations in the United States". Risk Analysis, Vol. 34, pp. 541-555, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12114
  22. Meijnders, A. L., Midden, C. J. H. and Wilke, H. A. M. "Role of negative emotion in communication about CO2 risks". Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, pp. 955-966, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.215164
  23. Camerer, C. and Weber, M. "Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity". Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 325, pp, 325-370, 1992.
  24. Han, P. K. J., Moser, R. P. and Klein, W. M. P. "Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: Relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry". Journal of Health Communication, Vol. 11, pp. 51-69, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600637541
  25. Sjoberg, L., Moen, B. E. and Rundmo, T. "Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception". Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2004.
  26. Mumpower, J. L., Shi, S. and Stoutenborough, J. W. "Psychometric and demographic predictors of the perceived risk of terrorist threats and the willingness to pay for terrorism risk management programs". Risk Analysis, Vol. 33, pp. 1802-1811, 2013.
  27. Chen, N. T. N. "Predicting vaccination intention and benefit and risk perceptions: The incorporation of affect, trust, and television influence in a dual-mode model". Risk Analysis, Vol. 35, pp. 1268-1280, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12348
  28. Sjoberg, L. "Consequences of perceived risk: Demand for risk mitigation". Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 2, pp. 129-149, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698799376899
  29. Rundmo, T. and Moen, B. E. "Risk perception and demand for risk mitigation among experts, politicians and lay people in Norwa". Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 9, pp. 623-640, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870600813811
  30. Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. "Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?". Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, pp. 199-209, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00579.x
  31. Og Son Kim, Jin Hwan Oh and Kyung Hye Lee. "The convergence study on anxiety, knowledge, infection possibility, preventive possibility and preventive behavior level of MERS in nursing students". Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, Vol. 7, pp. 59-69, 2016.
  32. Seung Hwan Kimand Keun Ho Lee. "User authentication risk and countermeasure in intelligent vehicles". Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, Vol. 3, pp. 7-11, 2012.
  33. Dong Moon Kim. "Analysis of risk factors of sinkholes with geospatial information". Journal of IT Convergence Society for SMB, Vol. 6, pp. 37-43, 2016.