Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 68 , No. 1
[Paper List]

[ Journalism Communication ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 65-95
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2019
Received 11 Oct 2019 Revised 29 Nov 2019 Accepted 01 Dec 2019
https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2019.63.6.002

과학 이슈의 정치 프레임이 메시지 평가, 정서적 태도, 정책 지지에 미치는 영향 : 접종과 정서의 조절 효과를 중심으로
김소영* ; 금희조**
*성균관대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 박사과정 (skim710@gmail.com)
**성균관대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 교수 (hkeum@skku.edu)

The Politicization of Science : The Main and Interaction Effects of Frame, Inoculation, and Emotion on Message Evaluation, Emotional Attitude and Policy Support
Soyoung Kim* ; Heejo Keum**
*Doctoral Student, Department of Media and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University (skim710@gmail.com)
**Professor, Department of Media and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University, corresponding author (hkeum@skku.edu)
초록

과학이슈의 정치화 현상은 시민들로 하여금 전문가들이 제공한 객관적 근거보다는 정치적 이해에 의해 왜곡된 정보를 참고로 판단하게 하고 정책에 관한 여론을 양극화시킨다는 점에서 학자들 사이의 학문적 관심과 우려의 대상이 되고 있다. 본 연구는 과학 이슈의 정치적 프레임이 메시지에 대한 사실성, 신뢰도 평가와 이슈 관련 개인의 정서적 태도, 정책적 지지에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지 탐구하기 위해 미세먼지 이슈에 관한 메시지를 조작적으로 제작하여 대학생 118명을 대상으로 실험연구를 실시했다. 본 연구는 2(정치/과학 프레임) x 2(접종메시지 유무) x 2(분노/걱정 정서 처치) 실험 디자인을 활용하여 접종과 정서의 조절효과도 탐구하였다. 분석 결과, 정치 프레임은 과학 프레임에 비해 수용자들이 메시지의 사실성과 신뢰도는 낮게 평가하게 하는 반면, 긍정적인 정서적 태도와 정책적 지지를 유도하는데 효과적인 것으로 나타났다. 상호작용과 관련해서는 미세먼지 이슈 정치화의 부작용에 대해 경고하는 접종 메시지를 받은 경우 메시지 사실성 평가에 대한 정치 프레임과 과학 프레임의 효과에 있어 차이가 크게 나지 않았다. 그러나 접종 메시지를 사전에 접하지 못한 경우에는 과학 프레임이 정치 프레임보다 사실성 평가를 더 촉진하는 것을 발견했다. 미세먼지 관련 정책 지지를 설명하는데 있어서는 프레임과 정서간의 상호작용이 유의미하게 나타났는데, 분노의 정서로 처치된 개인들에게는 프레임에 따른 차이가 유의미하지 않았다. 반면 걱정의 정서로 처치된 개인들은 과학 프레임보다 정치 프레임을 접했을 때 높은 수준의 정책적 지지를 보였다.

Abstract

The politicization of science can weaken the influence of facts or a consensus of experts, and cause the public to reject reliable scientific evidence. Recent studies suggest that widespread publicizing of a scientific consensus may in fact undermine public acceptance of the consensus. However, only a few studies have directly examined whether the public can accept, and maintain over the long term, scientific perspectives without being swayed by politics. To address this issue, we explored how individuals process information on the science of fine dust pollution, a subject characterized by a high level of public interest and strong and distinct attitudes. We predicted that participants exposed to information on the issue in a political context would consider the information less valid than would those exposed exclusively to scientifically framed information. Additionally, we tested the inoculation theory, which states that a short warning message can counteract the effects of political persuasion. We proposed that political frames carrying inoculation messages are perceived to be less accurate, whereas scientific frames are perceived to be more accurate and valid. Our study addressed the moderating role of emotions on framing. To explore how the political framing of a scientific issue affects evaluation of accuracy and validity, affective attitudes, and policy support, 118 college students were exposed to fine dust messages in political and scientific frames. We also explored the moderating roles of inoculation and emotions by utilizing a 2 (political/scientific frame) × 2 (presence or absence of inoculation message) × 2 (state of treated emotion: anger vs. concern) experimental design. The results showed that political frames can induce positive emotional attitudes and policy support, and lower the perceived accuracy and validity of messages compared with scientific frames. As for interactions, when a warning inoculation message on the side effects of fine dust issues was supplied to participants, no significant difference in the effectiveness of the political or scientific frames was present in assessing content accuracy. However, if participants were not exposed to an inoculation message in advance, messages with a scientific frame were considered more accurate than those with a political frame. When it comes to explaining support for fine dust–related policies, the interaction between frames and emotions was significant, although the difference between frames was not significant for individuals dealing with anger. Individuals who were being treated for anxiety showed a high level of policy support when faced with political frames rather than scientific frames.

Keywordsscience communication, politicization, inoculation theory, emotion
키워드: 과학 커뮤니케이션, 정치화, 접종이론, 정서
References
1. Bauer, M., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95.
2. Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion, 4(2), 107-130.
3. Bodenhausen, G. V., Shepard, L., & Kraemer, G. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45-62.
4. Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65, 745-769.
5. Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2018). Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(3), 389-402.
6. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: Politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(1), 1-26.
7. Choi, D. H. (2015). The politicization and polarization of science in the course of the formation of public opinion. Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies Conference Book, 141-143.
8. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 663-680.
9. Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(3), 14081-14087.
10. Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Wackman, D. B. (1998). Media priming effects: Accessibility, association, and activation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10(1), 51-74.
11. Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61, 659-688.
12. Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behavior, 30(3), 297-321.
13. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2017). Using frames to make scientific communication effective. In D. Scheufele, D. M., Kahan, K. H., Jamieson (Eds.), Handbook of the Science of Science Communication(pp. 13-31). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.
15. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
16. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
17. Forgas, J. P. (1989). Mood effects on decision making strategies. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41(2), 197-214.
18. Goldberg, D. S. (2012). Against the very idea of the politicization of public health policy. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 44-49.
19. Goodall, C. E., Slater, M. D., & Myers, T. A. (2013). Fear and anger responses to local news coverage of alcohol-related crimes, accidents, and injuries: Explaining news effects on policy support using a representative sample of messages and people. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 373-392.
20. Hamilton, L. C. (2011). Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change, 104(2), 231-242.
21. Han, J., & Federico, C. M. (2018). The polarizing effect of news framing: Comparing the mediating roles of motivated reasoning, self-stereotyping, and intergroup animus. Journal of Communication, 68, 685-711.
22. Hwang, Y. S. (2013). Does progressive political orientation and political knowledge promote political dialogue? Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 57(3), 221-248.
23. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431.
24. Kahan, D. M. (2016). The ‘gateway belief’ illusion: reanalyzing the results of a scientific-consensus messaging study. Journal of Science Communication, 16(5), 1-20.
25. Kruglanski, A. W., Stroebe, W. (2005). The influence of beliefs and goals on attitudes: Issues of structure, function, and dynamics. The Handbook of Attitudes, 1, 323-368.
26. Lee, G. (2006). The cognitive antecedents and effects of campaign communication channels on voters’ discrete emotions toward presidential candidates. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 50(3), 337-366.
27. Lee, G. H. (2002). Negative emotion, cynicism, and efficacy-political effect of media framing. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 46(3), 252-288.
28. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 473-493.
29. Lerner, J. S., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decision maker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger's influence on cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2), 115-137.
30. Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Processing deficits and the mediation of positive affect in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 27-40.
31. MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2005, July). Emotion and citizenship. In annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Toronto, July (pp. 3-5).
32. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. B. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. McGuire, W. J. (1964). Some contemporary approaches. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 191-229.
34. McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 327-337.
35. McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1962). Effectiveness of forewarning in developing resistance to persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26(1), 24-34.
36. Michaud, K. E. H., Carlisle, J. E., & Smith, E. R. A. N. (2009). The relationship between cultural values and political ideology, and the role of political knowledge. Political Psychology, 30(1), 27-42.
37. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112, 29-48.
38. Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223.
39. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273-294.
40. 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.
41. Nature (2010). Science scorned. Nature, 467(7312), 133.
42. Nisbet, M. C., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778.
43. O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion(2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44. Papacharissi, Z. (2012). Without you, I’m nothing: Performances of the self on Twitter. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1989-2006.
45. Park, J. (2014). The interplay of frames and emotions: What triggers people to think deeply about the North Korean nuclear issue (Master’s thesis). Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul.
46. Pfau, M. (1995). Designing messages for behavioral inoculation, In E. Maibach and R. L. Parrott (Eds.), Designing health messages: approaches from communication theory and public health practice (pp. 99-113). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
47. Pfau, M., & Burgoon, M. (1988). Inoculation in political campaign communication. Human Communication Research, 15(1), 91-111.
48. Pfau, M., Tusing, K. J., Koerner, A. F., Lee, W., Godbold, L. C., Penaloza, L. J., Yang, V. S., & Hong, Y. (1997). Enriching the inoculation construct: The role of critical components in the process of resistance. Human Communication Research, 24(2), 187-215.
49. Pielke, R. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50. Polaky, S., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., & Keeler, B. (2011). Decision-making under great uncertainty: Environmental management in an era of global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(8), 398-404.
51. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). “To thine own self be true”values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23(5), 509-560.
52. Scheufele, D. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13585-13592.
53. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2006). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
54. Schwarz, N. (1990). What respondents learn from scales: The informative functions of response alternatives. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(3), 274-285.
55. Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 973-988.
56. Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. (2008). Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet. Political Psychology, 29(2), 247-273.
57. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008.
58. Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65, 699-719.
59. Weisenfeld, U., & Ott, I. (2011). Academic discipline and risk perception of technologies: An empirical study. Research Policy, 40(3), 487-499.
60. Zhang, C. X., Keum, H., & Cho, J. (2019). Resistance to rumors in the social media environment. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 33(1), 197-229.
부록
1. 이강형 (2006). 정치후보에 대한 유권자 감정 유발 요인 및 미디어 캠페인 활동의 효과에 관한 연구. <한국언론학보>, 50권 3호, 337-366.
2. 이건혁 (2002). 미디어 프레임이 부정 감정, 정치 냉소, 그리고 정치 효능성에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 46권 3호, 252-288.
3. 최두훈 (2015). <여론 형성 과정에서 나타난 과학의 정치화와 양극화>. 한국언론학회 학술대회 발표논문집, 141-143.
4. 황유선 (2013). 진보적 정치 성향과 정치 지식은 정치 대화를 촉진하는가?: 트위터 매개 정치 대화와 트위터 연계 정치 대화에 관한 영향력 탐색. <한국언론학보>, 57권 3호, 221-248.