Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 66, No. 3, pp.183-230
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2022
Received 08 Apr 2022 Revised 01 Jun 2022 Accepted 12 Jun 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2022.66.3.005

공중유형에 따른 미세먼지 위험 대응 행동의도 연구 : 충남지역 주민을 대상으로 한 공중 상황 이론의 확장 적용

이현승** ; 김영욱***
**이화여자대학교 커뮤니케이션미디어연구소 연구위원 coolshey@hanmail.net
***이화여자대학교 커뮤니케이션미디어학과 교수 kimyw@ewha.ac.kr
A Study on Risk-Coping Behavioral Intentions against Particulate Matter by Situational Publics : The Extended Application of the Situational Theory to Local Residents in the Chungnam Province
Hyunseung Lee** ; Yungwook Kim***
**Researcher, Ewha Womans University coolshey@hanmail.net
***Professor, Ewha Womans University, corresponding author kimyw@ewha.ac.kr

초록

미세먼지 위험은 발생 원인을 둘러싼 불확실성이 높을 뿐 아니라 매우 작은 크기로 존재하기 때문에 우리 주변에 항상 존재함에도 불구하고, 대부분의 경우 직접 경험을 통해 감지되지 않는다. 또한 부문별·지역별 편차가 크게 나타난다. 연구 대상인 충남지역의 경우, 석탄화력발전소, 석유화학단지, 제철소를 포함한 대규모 배출시설이 소재해 있을 뿐 아니라 중국과 인접한 서쪽에 위치하고 있어 월경성 오염물질이나 황사의 영향도 크게 나타나는 것으로 알려져 있다. 이러한 상황에서 충남지역 주민의 미세먼지 위험 상황에 대한 인식을 분석하여 공중특성에 따라 미세먼지 위험에 대해 느끼는 불안과 공포의 정도, 위험 대처 반응 등이 어떻게 다르게 나타나는지 파악해보고자 하였다. 공중 상황 이론(situational theory of publics)을 확장하여 공중의 위험 상황에 대한 인식뿐 아니라 위험에 대한 정서적 반응이 고려되었을 때 대처 반응으로서 정보추구가 어떻게 다르게 나타나는지 부정적 정서의 매개역할에 대해 살펴보고, 상황 이론이 상정하고 있지 않은 행동의도를 포함하여 정보추구가 위험 대응 행동의도에 미치는 영향까지 함께 살펴봄으로써 충남지역 공중유형에 맞는 위험 커뮤니케이션 전략을 수립하는 타당한 근거를 마련하고자 하였다. 연구결과, 첫째, 위험 상황을 평가하는 기준으로 제시한 문제인식, 제약인식, 관여도 중 매개변수인 불안과 공포, 정보추구에 가장 큰 영향력을 행사하는 변수는 관여도였다. 미세먼지 위험에 대한 관여도가 높을수록 불안과 공포, 정보추구 성향이 높아지는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 미세먼지 위험에 대한 문제인식이 높을수록 불안이 높아지는 것으로 나타났으나, 불안과 공포, 정보추구에 미치는 제약인식의 효과는 통계적으로 유의하지 않았다. 둘째, 부정적 정서로 제시된 불안과 공포는 차별적인 효과를 보였다. 불안은 저감 행동의도와 적응 행도의도에 정적인 영향을 미쳤으나, 공포는 정보추구에 정적인 영향을, 적응 행동의도에는 부적인 영향을 미쳤다. 이러한 결과는 위험으로 인해 발생하는 불안과 공포가 하나의 통합된 정서가 아니라 핵심 관계적 주제에 따라 차별적으로 발생하는 개별 정서라는 것을 보여줄 뿐 아니라 행동 성향에 미치는 영향도 차별적이라는 것으로 보여준다. 셋째, 문제인식과 관여도가 불안을 거쳐 저감 행동의도와 적응 행동의도에 미치는 매개효과가 발견되었으며, 관여도가 공포를 매개하여 정보추구와 저감 행동의도에 미치는 이중 매개효과도 발견되었다. 넷째, 공중 세분화 결과 활동 공중과 인지 공중이 대부분을 차지했으며, 두 집단 간에 불안, 공포, 정보추구, 저감 행동의도에 차이가 있었다. 마지막으로 활동 공중과 인지 공중 간에 위험 대응 행동의도에 이르는 경로 차이를 발견할 수 있었다.

Abstract

The particulate matter (PM) risk, which is being dealt with at the level of social disaster in South Korea, is not detected through direct experience in most cases due to the minute size and occurrence uncertainty of PM, although it is always present in reality. Also opinions on the causes of PM are divided. PM is still in a world of uncertainty. In addition, there exist large differences by sectors and regions. The Chungnam province, which is the region of focus for the study, houses large-scale emission facilities including a number of coal-fired power plants, petrochemical complexes, and steel mills. The Chungnam province is located in the west of Korea, adjacent to China, and it is known that transboundary pollutants including PM and yellow dust are easily noticeable in this region. This situation causes conflicts among publics over the definition, management, and solution of the PM risk. PM becomes a key problem in the region, thus forming publics with different interests. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the publics’ perceptions of risk situations and to figure out how these different perceptions lead to the different levels of anxiety and fear toward the PM risk, and result in different risk-coping responses such as information seeking, adaptive behaviorsn and mitigating behaviors. In this context, Grunig's situational theory of publics was expanded by examining the mediating role of anxiety and fear and by including various behavioral intentions against PM that have not been investigated by the original situational theory. Based on this background, this study aims to provide an empirical basis for establishing an effective risk-communication strategy for the Chungnam public. A survey was conducted with 533 residents of the Chungnam province, and a structural equation model was analyzed using SPSS and AMOS statistical programs. First, level of involvement had the greatest influence on anxiety, fear, and information seeking among three situational variables, which include problem recognition, constraint recognition, and level of involvement. It was found that the higher the level of involvement with the PM risk in the Chungnam province, the greater the levels of anxiety, fear, and information seeking tendency. In addition, it was found that the higher the level of problem recognition of the PM risk in the Chungnam province, the greater the anxiety. However, the effects of constraint recognition on anxiety, fear, and information seeking were not statistically significant. Second, anxiety and fear showed differential effects on information seeking, mitigation behavioral intentions, and adaptive behavioral intentions for coping with PM risks. These results not only show that anxiety and fear are differentially generated according to key issues, but also indicate that their influences on behavioral tendencies are also different. Anxiety and fear also have different effects on behavioral tendencies. Third, the mediating effects of problem recognition and level of involvement on mitigation behavioral intention and adaptive behavioral intention through anxiety were found, and a mediating effect of involvement on mitigation behavioral intention through fear and information seeking was also found. Lastly, influencing variable path differences to risk-coping behavior intentions between active and aware publics were detected. Based on these results, communication strategies for PM risk communication in the Chungnam province were discussed.

Keywords:

Particulate Matter, Situational Theory, Negative Emotion, Coping Response, Risk Communication

키워드:

미세먼지, 상황 이론, 부정적 정서, 대처 반응, 위험 커뮤니케이션

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Technology Development Program to Solve Climate Changes through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT(2019M1A2A2103953) (이 논문은 2019년도 정부(과학기술정보통신부)의 재원으로 한국연구재단-기후변화대응기술개발사업의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(No. 2019M1A2A2103953)).

References

  • Air Korea (2021). Air pollutants. Retrieved 12/16/2021 from https://www.airkorea.or.kr/web/airMatter?pMENU_NO=130
  • Aldoory, L., & Sha, B. L. (2007). Elaborations of the situational theory of publics for more effective application to public realtions scholarship and practice. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The handbook of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation (pp. 339-355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • An, C.-S. (2017). A study on the public’s recognition of public conflict situation and their communication behavior: Focusing on the case of public conflict in the selecting process of new nuclear plant site. Korean Comparative Government Review, 21(3), 111-136.
  • Bae, M.-K. (2003). Online public: Discussing of concept, characteristics and public segments. Journal of Public Relations, 7(2), 213-245.
  • Balzarotti, S., & Ciceri, M. R. (2014). News reports of catastrophes and viewers' fear: Threat appraisal of positively versus negatively framed events. Media Psychology, 17(4), 357-377. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2013.826588]
  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191]
  • Bang, S., & Shin, H. (2013). Public relations campaign strategies to overcoming low fertility applying situational theory. The Journal of Political Science & Communication, 16(2), 349-375. [https://doi.org/10.15617/psc.2013.12.16.2.349]
  • Ben-Ze'ev, A. (1990). Describing the emotions: A review of the cognitive structure of emotions by Ortony, Clore & Collins. Philosophical Psychology, 3(2-3), 305-317. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089008573006]
  • Böhm, G., & Pfister, H. (2000). Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks. Acta Psychologica, 104, 317-337. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00035-4]
  • Cha, J.-W. (2009). Mitigation and Adaptation etc. National Territory, 333, 67.
  • Cheung, M. F., & To, W. M. (2011). Customer involvement and perceptions: The moderating role of customer co-production. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(4), 271-277. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.12.011]
  • Cho, C.-H. (2019). Blue sky red earth.. Seoul: East Asia.
  • Chon, M.-G., & Kim, J.-N. (2016). Understanding active publics and their communicative actions through public segmentation applying situational theory of problem solving to public segmentation in an organizational crisis situation. Journal of Public Relations, 20(3), 113-138. [https://doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2016.20.3.113]
  • Collaboration with Relevant Ministries (2019). Comprehensive plan for PM management [2020-2024]. Retrieved 12/20/2021 from https://policy.nl.go.kr/search/searchDetail.do?rec_key=SH2_PLC20190242990&kwd=
  • Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
  • Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). Shades of joy: Patterns of appraisal differentiating pleasant emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 2(4), 301-331. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02699938808412702]
  • Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80(2), S230-S245. [https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1998.3940]
  • Griffin, R. J., Yang, Z., Ter Huurne, E., Boerner, F., Ortiz, S., & Dunwoody, S. (2008). After the flood: Anger, attribution, and the seeking of information. Science Communication, 29(3), 285-315. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007312309]
  • Grunig, J. E. (1989). Sierra club study shows who become activists. Public Relations Review, 15(3), 3-24. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(89)80001-3]
  • Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3-46). London: International Thomson Business Press.
  • Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Hamilton, P. K. (1992). Grunig's situational theory: A replication, application, and extension, Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(3), 123-149. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr0403_01]
  • Han, H., Kim, Y., & Kum, H. (2017). A study on the PR strategies based on the situational theory of publics : Focusing on particulate matter issues. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 61(3), 222-254. [https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2017.61.3.007]
  • Han, S., & Lee, S. (2018). Statistical analysis for health and nurse. Seoul: Hannarae.
  • Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelly, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Huh, S., & Kim, Y. (2015). A comparative study on the application of RISP in the context of risk types: Focusing on typhoon and Hydrofluoric acid spill risks. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 70(2), 246-276.
  • Kang, J.-A., An, S.-K., & Kwak, K. Y. (2013). Anger as a predictor of active public protest: Extended application of the situational theory of publics to a health crisis. Journalism and Mass Communication, 3(3), 199-211.
  • Kim, H.-J., & Hong, H. (2021). Protective health behaviors during the COVID-19 outbreak: Extending the protection motivation theory and testing the role of political orientation. The Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations, 23(2), 42-76. [https://doi.org/10.16914/kjapr.2021.23.2.42]
  • Kim, I.-S. (2008). The study of communication behaviors and issue related behaviors of situational publics. Journal of Communication Science, 8(3), 201-232.
  • Kim, J.-B., Yoon, S.-H., Jeong, S.-H., Kim, S.-H., & Lee, S.-S. (2019). Emission status of air pollutants and local air pollution levels in Chungcheongnam-do. Korea Society for Atmospheric Environment Conference Thesis Collection, 102.
  • Kim, J. N., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120-149. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x]
  • Kim, J.-N., Park, N., & Kim, S. (2014). Building further on the situational theory of publics: Theoretical evolution to situational theory of problem solving and future research. Journal of Public Relations, 18(1), 330-366. [https://doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2014.18.1.330]
  • Kim, S.-J., & Sung, M.-J. (2011). The effects of the perception of an online risk and prior knowledge on public’s communication behavior. The Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations, 13(4), 528-567.
  • Kim, Y. (2013). The evolution of PR communication theory. Seoul: CommunicationBooks.
  • Kim, Y., Lee, H., Kim, H., Han, J., & Lee, S. (2022). Analyzing perceptual differences among key publics about risk perceptions toward particulate matter and conflict factors: The application of the mental models to key publics in the Chungnam region. Crisisonomy, 18(1), 1-36. [https://doi.org/10.14251/crisisonomy.2022.18.1.1]
  • Kim, Y., Lee, H., Lee, H., & Kim, H. (2017). A study on the environmental risk information seeking and processing model about particulate matter: Focusing on the moderating effects of China attribution, healthe symptom experience, perceived information capacity, and relevant channel beliefs. Korean Journal of Communication Studies, 25(2), 5-44. [https://doi.org/10.23875/kca.25.2.1]
  • Kim, Y., Lee, H., Jang, Y., & Lee, H. (2015). How does media construct particulate matter risks?. Korean Journal of Journalsim & Communication Studies, 59(2), 121-154.
  • Kim, Y., Lee, H., Jang, Y., & Lee, H. (2016). A cluster analysis on the risk of particulate matter: Focusing on differences of risk perceptions and risk-related behaviors based on public segmentation. Journal of Public Relations, 20(3), 201-235. [https://doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2016.20.3.201]
  • Kim, Y.-P. (2006). Air pollution in Seoul caused by aerosols. Journal of Korean Society for Atmospheric Environment, 22(5), 535-553.
  • Kim, Y.-S., & Choi, D.-M. (2020). Publics segmentation by the issuance of disaster-related crisis alert. Fire Science and Engineering, 34(3), 91-99. [https://doi.org/10.7731/KIFSE.1444c95b]
  • Ku, Y., Ahn, J., & Noh, G.-Y. (2020). Relationships between particulate matter risk perception, information seeking and preventive behaviors: An application of extended risk information seeking and processing model. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 34(1), 5-28.
  • Ku, Y., & Noh, G.-Y. (2018). A study on the effect of info seeking on breast cancer screening intention: Focusing on HBM and Autonomous Motives. Journal of Digital Contents Society, 19(7), 1381-1387. [https://doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2018.19.7.1381]
  • Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaption. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Lee, H., Kim, H., Han, J., Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2021). News media coverage of Particulate Matter(PM): Comparing national and local news frames of the Chungcheongnam-do PM case. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 65(6), 88-146. [https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2021.65.6.003]
  • Lee, H., & Kim, Y. (2022). A coorientation study on the risk perception of particulate matter: Between experts and local residents in the Chungnam region. Korean Journal of Communication Studies, 30(1), 5-44. [https://doi.org/10.23875/kca.30.1.1]
  • Lee, H., & Lim, J. (2013). Structual equation model analysis and AMOS 20.0. Seoul: Jibhyunjae.
  • Lee, K., Jin, B., Choi, Y.-S., Han, J.-S. (2017). The effects of types of cognitive risk perception of tuberculosis on issue salience, information-seeking, and preventive behavioral intention: The mediating role of worry. The Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations, 19(4), 64-107. [https://doi.org/10.16914/kjapr.2017.19.4.64]
  • Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 119-186). New York, NY: Academic Press. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60091-X]
  • Li, J., & Zheng, H. (2020). Online information seeking and disease prevention intent during COVID-19 outbreak. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 99(1), 69-88. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699020961518]
  • Lim, I.-J. (2020). The influence of disaster reporting frames on emotion and cognition: A focus on the mediating effect of discrete emotions, the moderating effect of media modality and signal potential of risk. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 64(4), 355-399. [https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.4.010]
  • Liu, P. L. (2020). COVID-19 information seeking on digital media and preventive behaviors: The mediation role of worry. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(10), 677-682. [https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0250]
  • Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference?. Communication Research, 30(2), 224-247. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881]
  • Newsom, D., Turk, J., & Kruckeberg, D. (2004). This is PR - The realities of Public Relations. CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
  • Park, S., & Lee, S. (2011). Exploring categories of health information users on the basis of illness attitude and health information seeking behavior on the Internet. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 55(4), 105-133.
  • Reeve, J. (2015). Understanding motivation and emotion. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Rhee, Y., Moon., B., Park, G., Jung, J., & Yoon, Y. (2009). Rethinking Grunig’s situational theory: Information seeking and processing as predictors of public's attitudes and intentions about tap water drinking. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 7-28.
  • Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803]
  • Scherer, K. R. (2011). The nature and dynamics of relevance and valence appraisals: Theoretical advances and recent evidence. Emotion Review, 5, 150-162. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073912468166]
  • Seo, M. (2016). Effects of risk information seeking and processing on MERS preventive behaviors and moderating roles of SNS use during 2015 MERS outbreak in Korea. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 78(4), 116-140.
  • Shin, B., Kim, G., Kim, T., & Cho, S. (2020). Who is affected by paticulate matter? : A comparative analysis on preventing and reducing behaviors of metropolitan and non-metropolitan residents. The Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations, 22(2), 115-155. [https://doi.org/10.16914/kjapr.2020.22.2.115]
  • Shin, H., Moon, B., Jo, S., Lee, Y., Kim, Y., & Cha, H. (2017). The handbook of Public Relations. Seoul: CommunicationBooks.
  • Shin, K.-A. (2013). A study on public’s communicative motivation: Extension of the situational theory of problem solving with negative emotion and need for closure. Doctoral dissertation, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.
  • Shiota, M. N., & Kalat, J. W. (2012). Emotion. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
  • Slovic, P. (1992). Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117-152). Santa Babara, CA: Praeger.
  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311-322. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x]
  • Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 322-325. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x]
  • So, J. (2013). A further extension of the extended parallel processing model (E-EPPM): Implications of cognitive appraisal theory of emotions and dispositional coping style. Health Communication, 28(1), 72–83. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.708633]
  • So, J., Kuang, K., & Cho, H. (2016). Reexamining fear appeal models from cognitive appraisal theory and functional emotion theory perspectives. Communication Monographs, 83(1), 120-144. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1044257]
  • Song, H.-R., & Kim, W.-J. (2014). A study of communication behavior on public’s environmental risk: Focused on global warming. Speech & Communication, 23, 273-309.
  • Standard Korean Language Dictionary (2022). Daejung. Retrieved 2/10/2022 from https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/08ec7af6ab0d497b90604482c9099f28
  • Yang, Z. J., Rickard, L. N., Harrison, T. M., & Seo, M. (2014). Applying the risk information seeking and processing model to examine support for climate change mitigation policy. Science Communication, 36(3), 296-324. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547014525350]
  • Yoo, S., Park, K., & Na, E. (2010). The effect of psychological reactance and fear of influenza a (H1N1) message on the preventive behavioral intention. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 54(3), 27-53.
  • Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59(4), 329-349. [https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276]
  • Witte, K., Meyer, G., & Martell, D. (2001). Effective health risk messages: A step-by-step guide. Sage. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233239]
  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.2.151]
  • Zhao, X., & Nan, X. (2016). The influence of absolute and comparative risk perceptions on cervical cancer screening and the mediating role of cancer worry. Journal of Health Communication, 21(1), 100-108. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1033114]

Appendix

부록

  • 관계부처합동 (2019). 미세먼지 관리 종합계획 [2020-2024]. Retrieved 12/20/2021 from https://policy.nl.go.kr/search/searchDetail.do?rec_key=SH2_PLC20190242990&kwd=
  • 구윤희·노기영. (2018). 건강 정보 추구가 유방암 검진행동에 미치는 영향 연구: 건강신념모형과 자율적 동기를 중심으로. <Journal of Digital Contents Society>, 19권 7호, 1381-1387.
  • 구윤희·안지수·노기영 (2020). 미세먼지 위험인식이 위험정보 처리와 예방행동에 미치는 영향: 확장된 위험정보 탐색처리 모형의 적용. <한국방송학보>, 34권 1호, 5-28.
  • 김수정·성민정 (2011). 온라인 위험에 대한 상황 인식과 사전 지식 수준이 커뮤니케이션 행동에 미치는 영향. <한국광고홍보학보>, 13권 4호, 528-567.
  • 김영욱 (2013). <PR 커뮤니케이션 이론의 진화>. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.
  • 김영욱·이현승·김혜정·한지원·이성주 (2022). 미세먼지를 둘러싼 핵심 공중 간 위험 인식 차이 및 갈등 요인 분석: 충남지역 핵심 공중을 대상으로 한 인간심리모델의 적용. <Crisisonomy>, 18권 1호, 1-36.
  • 김영욱·이현승·이혜진·김혜인 (2017). 미세먼지 위험에 대한 공중들의 정보탐색과 처리에 대한 연구: 인지된 정보 수집 능력, 언론 정보원 신뢰, 책임 귀인과 경험정도의 조절 효과 분석. <커뮤니케이션학 연구>, 25권 2호, 5-44.
  • 김영욱·이현승·장유진·이혜진 (2015). 언론은 미세먼지 위험을 어떻게 구성하는가?. <한국언론학보>, 59권 2호, 121-154.
  • 김영욱·이현승·장유진·이혜진 (2016). 미세먼지 위험을 둘러싼 공중 군집 분석 공중 세분화에 따른 위험 인식 및 관련 행동에 대한 차이점 도출. <홍보학 연구>, 20권 3호, 201-235.
  • 김용순·최돈묵 (2020). 재난 관련 위기경보 발령에 따른 공중유형 분류에 관한 연구. <한국화재소방학회논문지>, 34권 3호, 91-99.
  • 김용표 (2006). 서울의 미세먼지에 의한 대기오염. <한국대기환경학회지>, 22권 5호, 535-553.
  • 김인숙 (2008). 상황 지각과 공중의 유형에 따른 커뮤니케이션 행동과 이슈관련 행동에 관한 연구. <언론과학연구>, 8권 3호, 201-232
  • 김정남·박노일·김수진 (2014). 공중 상황이론의 수정과 진화 문제해결 상황이론을 중심으로. <홍보학 연구>, 18권 1호, 330-366.
  • 김종범·윤수향·정석한·김세호·이상신 (2019). 충청남도의 대기오염물질 배출현황 및 지역별 대기오염 수준. <한국대기환경학회 학술대회논문집>, 102.
  • 김효정·홍혜현 (2021). 코로나 19 예방행동과 정보추구 의도 연구: 보호동기이론의 확장과 지지정당의 영향력 검증을 중심으로. <한국광고홍보학보>, 23권 2호, 42-76.
  • 박상희·이수영. (2011). 질병태도와 인터넷에서의 건강정보추구행태에 기반한 건강정보 이용자 유형에 관한 탐색적 연구. <한국언론학보>, 55권 4호, 105-133.
  • 방성곤·신호창 (2013). 상황이론(Situational Theory)을 적용한 저출산 극복 PR캠페인 전략연구. <정치정보연구>, 16권 2호, 349-375.
  • 배미경 (2003). 온라인 공중: 개념, 특성, 공중세분화에 관한 논의. <홍보학 연구>, 7권 2호, 213-245.
  • 서미혜 (2016). 메르스 관련 위험정보 탐색과 처리가 메르스 예방행동에 미치는 영향. <한국언론정보학보>, 78권 4호, 116-140.
  • 송해룡·김원제 (2014). 공중의 환경위험이슈에 대한 커뮤니케이션 행동 연구 : 지구온난화 쟁점(상황)을 중심으로. <한국소통학보>, 23권, 273-309.
  • 신경아 (2013). 공중의 커뮤니케이션 행동 동기에 관한 연구: 부정적 감정과 인지 종결 욕구를 적용한 문제 해결 상황이론의 확장. 한양대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문.
  • 신별·김가람·김태경·조수영 (2020). 미세먼지는 누구의 문제인가?: 수도권과 지방의 미세먼지에 대한 심리적 거리감, 인식 및 대응행동 비교 분석. <한국광고홍보학보>, 22권 2호, 115-155.
  • 신호창·문빛·조삼섭·이유나·김영욱·차희원 (2017). <공중 관계 핸드북>. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.
  • 안치순 (2017) 공중의 공공갈등에 대한 상황인식과 커뮤니케이션 행동에 관한 연구 : 신규 원전입지 선정과정에서의 공공갈등 사례를 중심으로. <한국비교정부학보>, 21권 3호, 111-136.
  • 에어코리아 (2021). 대기오염물질. Retrieved 12/16/2021 from https://www.airkorea.or.kr/web/airMatter?pMENU_NO=130
  • 유선욱·박계현·나은영 (2010). 신종플루 메시지에 대한 심리적 반발과 공포감이 예방행동의도에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 54권 3호, 27-53.
  • 이경진·진범섭·최유석·한정석 (2017). 결핵에 대한 인지적 위험 인식 유형이 이슈 부각 인식, 정보 추구 의도, 예방 행위 의도에 미치는 영향. <한국광고홍보학보>, 19권 4호, 64-107.
  • 이유나·문빛·박건희·정지은·윤여전 (2009). 공중의 커뮤니케이션 특성과 수돗물 직접음용 태도 및 의도에 관한 연구: 상황이론 (situational theory)의 재해석. <광고학연구>, 20권 3호, 7-28.
  • 이학식·임지훈 (2013). <구조방정식 모형분석과 AMOS 20.0>. 서울: 집현재.
  • 이현승·김영욱 (2022). 미세먼지 위험에 대한 전문가와 사업장 소재 지역주민 간 상호지향성 연구: 충남지역 미세먼지 문제를 중심으로 한 분석. <커뮤니케이션학 연구>, 30권 1호, 5-44.
  • 이현승·김혜정·한지원·이성주·김영욱 (2021). 미세먼지 언론 보도 내용분석: 충남지역 미세먼지 관련 전국지와 지역지 비교. <한국언론학보>, 65권 6호, 88-146.
  • 임인재 (2020). 재난 보도 프레임이 수용자 감정과 인지에 미치는 영향 : 구체적 감정의 매개효과, 미디어 양식과 위험 신호가능성의 조절효과 중심. <한국언론학보>, 64권 4호, 355-399.
  • 조천호 (2019). <푸른 하늘 빨간 지구>. 서울: 동아시아.
  • 차정우 (2009). 완화 (Mitigation) 와 적응 (Adaptation) 외. <국토>, 333권 67-67.
  • 천명기·김정남 (2016). 적극적 공중에 대한 이해와 공중 세분화 방법에 대한 연구 문제 해결 상황 이론 (Situational Theory of Problem Solving)을 적용한 공중 세분화 방법론 제안. <홍보학 연구>, 20권 3호, 113-138.
  • 표준국어대사전 (2022). 대중. Retrieved 2/10/2022 from https://ko.dict.naver.com/#/entry/koko/08ec7af6ab0d497b90604482c9099f28
  • 한상숙·이상철 (2018). <간호·보건 통계분석>. 서울: 한나래.
  • 한혁·김영욱·금현섭 (2017). 공중상황이론을 바탕으로 한 PR전략 연구. <한국언론학보>, 61권 3호, 222-254.
  • 허서현·김영욱 (2015). 위험 유형에 따른 위험 정보 탐색과 처리 과정 연구. <한국언론정보학보>, 70권 2호, 246-276.
  • Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins. 김린 (역) (2017). <데카르트의 오류>. 서울: 눈출판그룹.
  • Newsom, D., Turk, J., & Kruckeberg, D. (2004). This is PR: The realities of public relations. CA: Thomson Wadsworth. 박현순 (역) (2007). <This is PR: 공중합의 형성 과정과 전략>. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.
  • Reeve, J. (2015). Understanding motivation and emotion. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 김아영·도승이·신태섭·이우걸·이은주·장형심 (역) (2018). <동기와 정서의 이해>. 서울: 박학사.
  • Shiota, M. N., & Kalat, J. W. (2012). Emotion. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. 민경환·이옥경·이주일·김민희·장승민·김명철 (역) (2015). <정서심리학>. 서울: 센게이지러닝코리아.