Current issue

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

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 355-399
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Aug 2020
Received 06 Jun 2020 Revised 27 Jul 2020 Accepted 04 Aug 2020
https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.4.010

재난 보도 프레임이 수용자 감정과 인지에 미치는 영향 : 구체적 감정의 매개효과, 미디어 양식과 위험 신호가능성의 조절효과 중심
임인재**
**서울대학교 언론정보학과 박사후국내연수 (mimohhh@naver.com)

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
In-jae Lim**
**Post-Doc, Department of Communication at Seoul National University (mimohhh@naver.com)
초록

본 연구는 재난 보도 프레임의 영향력을 수용자의 인지적 효과에서 감정의 효과로 확장하는 데 목적이 있다. 구체적으로 재난 보도 프레임(일화 vs 수치)이 위험 관련 행동의도(예방, 회피, 처벌, 사회참여)에 영향을 미치는 과정에, 인지적 평가와 부정적 감정이 매개효과를 보이는지 탐구했다. 이와 함께 인지적 평가와 부정적 감정의 매개효과 경로도 살펴보았다. 그리고 재난 보도 프레이밍 효과 메커니즘에서 미디어 변수(미디어 양식, 동영상 vs. 텍스트)와 비미디어 변수(위험의 신호가능성, 높음 vs 낮음)가 조절변수로 역할을 하는지 알아보았다. 미세먼지와 산불 관련 보도를 실험 대상으로 삼고 유사실험을 진행했다(N=576). 분석결과, 재난의 일화적 프레임에서 유발된 인지적 평가들(심리적 거리감, 자아 관여도)과 구체적인 부정적 감정들(공포, 불안, 슬픔)은 행동의도에 직접적으로 유의미한 영향을 미쳤다. 재난 일화적 프레임이 행동의도에 영향을 미치는 과정에, ‘인지적 평가→부정적 감정’ 경로는 유의미했으며 ‘부정적 감정→인지적 평가’ 경로는 부분적으로 유의미하였다. 그리고 미디어 양식과 위험의 신호가능성의 조절된 매개효과는 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 토대로, 본 연구는 향후 재난 보도는 피해를 경험한 개인의 이야기를 포함하면서, 중간 정도 각성수준의 감정(슬픔, 불안)을 불러일으키는 프레임으로 전달돼야 한다고 제시하였다. 이와 더불어, 재난 관련 예방행동의도를 촉진하는 데 있어 동영상의 미디어 양식이 더 효과적이다는 결론을 도출하였다. 본 연구는 실증적인 연구를 통해 재난 보도 프레이밍의 인지 효과를 감정 중심의 효과로 확장했다는 것에서 의미가 있을 것이다.

Abstract

The study investigated the different impacts of the disaster reporting types (episodic frame vs. numeric frame) on cognitive appraisals and negative emotions. The mediating effects of negative emotions and cognitive appraisals were explored in the process of revealing the relationship between the types of disaster reporting and behavioral intentions (prevention, avoidance, punishment, and social participatory). Also, the moderating effects of a media variable (media modality, video vs. text) and non-media variable (signal potential of risk, high vs. low) were explored. Particulate matter and forest-fire disaster coverages were studied (N = 576). A total of eight stimuli were made for each experimental condition. Among the negative emotions, fear, anxiety, sadness, and anger were targeted. The cognitive appraisals consisted of psychological distance, ego involvement, and responsible attribution (others, environment). As a result, episodic frames had a greater impact on cognitive appraisals and negative emotions than numeric frames had. Also, the direct mediating effects of cognitive appraisals (psychological distance, ego involvement) and discrete negative emotions (fear, anxiety, sadness) caused by episodic frames were significant. In particular, the sadness and anxiety caused by episodic frames had a positive effect on preventive behavioral intention, and the fear induced by episodic frames had a positive effect on avoidance and social participatory behavioral intentions. Among cognitive appraisals, psychological distance and ego involvement had a positive effect on preventive behavioral intention. The dual mediating effects of cognitive appraisals and negative emotions were significant. Specifically, the mediation path of ‘cognitive appraisal→negative emotion’ was significant, and the mediation path of ‘negative emotion→cognitive appraisal’ was partially significant. The moderated mediation effects of media modality and signal potential of risk were confirmed. Based on these results, this study suggested that disaster reports should be delivered in a frame that arouses medium-level of arousal emotions (sadness, anxiety), including stories of individuals who have experienced disaster damage. It was also concluded that the media modality of video is more effective in promoting preventive behavioral intention. In addition, this study suggested that the qualitative characteristics of the disaster (signal potential of risk) can be a moderating variable that influences the effectiveness of the disaster reporting framing. This study showed that psychological distance can be one of the cognitive appraisals that has a significant effect on the emotional response (fear, anxiety, sadness, and anger) to disaster reporting. Finally, this study is meaningful by extending the cognitive framing effect on disaster reporting to an emotional framing effect through empirical studies. Research implications based on the results were discussed and further ramifications were suggested.

KeywordsDisaster reporting, Framing effect, Cognitive appraisals, Negative emotions, Behavioral intention
키워드: 재난 보도, 프레이밍 효과, 인지적 평가, 부정적 감정, 행동의도
Acknowledgments

This study is based on the data of Lim In-jae’s Ph.D. dissertation in Sogang University (February 2020, Advisor: Na Eun-Young). (이 논문은 임인재의 서강대학교 박사학위 논문(2020년 2월, 지도교수: 나은영) 중 일부를 발췌해 수정, 재구성한 것입니다.)

References
1. Allgaier, J., Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., Lo, Y.-Y., & Peters, H. P. (2013). Medialized science? Journalism Practice, 7(4), 413-429.
2. 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.
3. Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
4. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andre Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
5. Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgement: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45-62.
6. Böhm, G., & Pfister, H. (2000). Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks. Acta Psychologica, 104, 317-337.
7. Chae, J., & Lee, C. (2019). The psychological mechanism underlying communication effects on behavioral intention: Focusing on affect and cognition in cancer context. Communication Research, 46(5), 597-618.
8. Cho, H. (2013). A Study on disaster reports of the Korean media: Focused on daily newspapers' analyses of Typhoon, Heavy Rains and Heat Waves. Crisisonomy, 9(6), 21-44.
9. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
10. Davis, M., Walker, D. L., Miles, L., & Grillon, C. (2010). Phasic vs sustained fear in rats and humans: role of the extended amygdala in fear vs anxiety. Neuropsychopharmacology, 35, 105-135.
11. DeSteno, D., Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Wegener, D. T., & Braverman, J. (2004). Discrete emotion and persuasion: the role of emotion-induced expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 43-56.
12. Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements, Communication Research, 27(4), 461-495.
13. Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225-256.
14. Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.
15. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
16. Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchk, M. A. (1986). Category-Based Versus Piecemeal-Based Affective Responses: Developments in Schema-Triggered Affect. In R. M. Sorrention & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior (pp. 167-203). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17. Fisher, J. D., Bell, P. A., & Baum, A. (1984). Environmental psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
18. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 212-228.
19. Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
20. Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169-192.
21. Gross, K., & D’Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25(1), 1-29.
22. Hartley, C. A., & Phelps, E. A. (2012). Anxiety and decision making. Biological Psychiatry, 72(2), 113-118.
23. Helbing, D. (2009). Managing complexity in socio-economic systems. European Review, 17(2), 423-438.
24. Houston, J. B., Spialekm, M. L., & First, J. (2018). Disaster media effects: A systematic review and synthesis based on the differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 68, 734-757.
25. Igartua, J.-J., Moral-Toranzo, F., & Fernandez, I. (2011). Cognitive, attitudinal, and emotional effects of news frame and group cues, on processing news about immigration. Journal of Media Psychology, 4(23), 174-185.
26. Janis, I., & Feshbach, S. (1953). Effects of fear arousal. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78-92.
27. Kang, B., & Kweon, S. (2018). A study of the effects of cancer related news frames on cognitive attitude, emotional attitude, and preventive behavioral intention-In application of construal level theory. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 32(6), 5-56.
28. Kasperson, R. F., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187.
29. Keltner, D. T., & Lerner, J. S. (2010). Emotion. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 317-352). New York, NY: Wiley.
30. Kim, Y. (2014). Risk Communication. Seoul: Communication books.
31. Kühne, R., Weber, P., & Sommer, K. (2015). Beyond cognitive framing processes: Anger mediates the effects of responsibility framing on the preference for punitive measures. Journal of Communication, 65, 259-279.
32. Kwon, Y. (2016). Impact of the social and interpersonal anxiety on the social participation: Focusing on the mediate effect of the social comparison and information seeking. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 60(3), 237-267.
33. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34. Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2012). News framing and public opinion: A mediation analysis of framing effects on political attitudes. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(2), 185-204.
35. Lecheler, S., Schuck, R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Dealing with feelings: Positive and negative discrete emotions as mediators of news framing effects. The European Journal of Communication Research, 38(2), 189-209.
36. Lee, C., Kim, K., & Kang, B. (2019). A moderated mediation model of the relationship between media, social capital, and cancer knowledge. Health Communication, 34(6), 577-588.
37. Lee, H., & An, S. (2015). Social stigma toward suicide: Effects of group categorization and attributions in Korean health news. Health Communication, 31(4), 468-477.
38. Lee, G. (2002). Effects of voter' discrete emotions toward political candidates on political participation. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 46(5), 73-104.
39. Lee, G. (2002). Negative emotion, cynicism, and efficacy, political effect of media framing. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 46(3), 252-288.
40. Lee, J. (2014). Reason and emotion: Discussions on the human judgment process with brain neuroscience and biology perspectives. Communication Theories, 10(3), 161-194.
41. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition And Emotion, 14(4), 473-493.
42. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 799-823.
43. Leventhal, H., & Scherer, K. (1987). The relationship of emotion to cognition: A functional approach to a semantic controversy. Cognition and Emotion, 1(1), 3-28.
44. Lim, I., & Kim, Y. (2019). The influencing path of the types of climate change reporting on behavioral intentions: A focus on the cognitive appraisal theory of emotion. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 96, 37-72.
45. Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No sense of place: The impact of electronic media on behavior. Oxford: Oxford University of Press.
46. Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differently influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224-247.
47. Na, E., Song, H., Kim, H., & Rhee, J. (2008). News framing effects on discrete emotional responses. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 52(2), 378-406.
48. Na, E. (1998). Toward a new paradigm including biased processing of strong attitudes: Extension of the dual process model of attitude change. The Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 12(1), 37-70.
49. Nerb, J., Spada, H., & Wahl, S. (1998). Cognition and emotion in the evaluation of environmental accidents: Modelling and empirical studies. Experimental Psychology, 45(4), 251-269.
50. Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacites, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1), 127-150.
51. Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (1996). Understanding emotions. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
52. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high risk systems. New York, NY: Basic Books.
53. Peters, E. M., Burraston, B., & Mertz, C., K. (2004). An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: Cognitive appraisal of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1349-1366.
54. Pfau, M. R., Holbert, R. L., Zubric, S. J., Pasha, N. H., & Lin, W.-K. (2000). Role and influence of communication modality in the process of resistance to persuasion. Media Psychology, 2(1), 1-33.
55. Powell, T. E., Bommgaarden, H. G., Swert, K. D., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). A clearer picture: The contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 997-1017.
56. Rhee, J. (2001). Impacts of news frames in the coverage of conflicting issues on individual interpretation and opinion. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 46(1), 441-482.
57. Roseman, I. J. (2004). Appraisals, rather than unpleasantness or muscle movements, are the primary determinants of specific emotions. Emotion, 4(2), 145-150.
58. Ryffel, F. A., Wirz, D. S., Kühne, R., & Wirth, W. (2014). How emotional media report influence attitude formation and change: The interplay of attitude base, attitude certainty, and persuasion. Media Psychology, 17, 397-419.
59. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433-465). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
60. Slater, M. D., Hayes, A. F., & Ford, V. L. (2007). Examining the moderating and mediating roles of news exposure and attention on adolescent judgments of alcohol-related risks. Communication Research, 34(4), 355-381.
61. Slovic, P. (1987). Risk perception. Science, 236, 280-285.
62. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1984). Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety. Acta Psychologica, 56, 183-203.
63. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311-322.
64. Smith. C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1987). Patterns of appraisal and emotion related to taking exam. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 475-488.
65. Sparks, J. R., Areni, C. S., & Cox, K. C. (1998). An investigation of the effects of language power and communication modality on persuasion. Communication Monographs, 65, 108-125.
66. Song, H., Kim, H., & Rhee, J. (2008). Cognitive appraisal of primary polls, emotional responses, and their impacts on political action. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 52(4), 353-376.
67. Valkenburg, P. M., & Jochen Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221-243
68. Xie, X.-F., Wang, M., Zhang, R.-G., Li, J., & Yu, Q.-Y. (2011). The role of emotion in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 31(3), 450-465.
69. Yang, Y., & Cho, S. (2009). The influences of negative affect and processing styles on inference: The differential impact of anger and sadness. The Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 10(2), 299-319.
70. Yang, Z., Saini, R., & Freling, T. (2015). How anxiety leads to suboptimal decisions under risky choice situation. Risk Analysis, 35(10), 1789-1800.
71. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effects public health. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-615.
72. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
73. Zhao, X., Strasser, A., Cappella, J. N., Lerman, C., & Fishbein, M. (2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods & Measures, 5(1), 48-75.
부록
1. 강보영·권상희 (2018). 암 관련 뉴스 프레임이 인지적·정서적 태도와 예방행동의도에 미치는 영향 연구. <한국방송학보>, 32권 6호, 5-59.
2. 권예지 (2016). 사회불안과 대인불안이 사회참여에 미치는 영향: 사회비교와 정보추구의 매개효과를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 60권 3호, 237-267.
3. 김영욱 (2014). <위험 커뮤니케이션>. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스.
4. 나은경·송현주·김현석·이준웅 (2008). 정서의 프레이밍: 경제 뉴스 보도 기사의 정서 반응 유발 효과. <한국언론학보>, 52권 2호, 378-404.
5. 나은영 (1998). 강한 태도의 편파적 처리과정을 포괄하는 새로운 패러다임의 모색: 이중처리과정 이론의 확장. <한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격>, 12권 1호, 37-70.
6. 양윤·조수완 (2009). 부정적 감정과 정보처리 유형이 추론에 미치는 영향: 분노와 슬픔을 중심으로. <한국심리학회지: 소비자·광고>, 10권 2호, 299-319.
7. 이강형 (2002). 유권자의 정치후보에 대한 감정이 정치참여에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구. <한국언론학보>, 46권 5호, 73-104.
8. 이건혁 (2002). 미디어 프레임이 부정 감정, 정치 냉소, 그리고 정치 효능성에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 46권 3호, 252-288.
9. 이재신 (2014). 이성과 감정: 인간의 판단과정에 대한 뇌과학과 생물학적 접근. <커뮤니케이션 이론>, 10권 3호, 161-194.
10. 이준웅 (2001). 갈등적 이슈에 대한 뉴스 프레임 구성방식이 의견형성에 미치는 영향: 내러티브 해석모형의 경험적 검증을 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 46권 1호, 441-482.
11. 임인재·김영욱 (2019). 기후변화 보도 유형이 행동의도에 영향을 미치는 경로 연구: 감정의 인지적 평가 이론 중심 분석. <한국언론정보학보>, 96호, 37-72.
12. 송현주·김현석·이준웅 (2008). 대통령 후보 경선 여론조사보도에 대한 인지평가와 정서 반응이 정치적 행동성향에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 52권 4호, 353-376.
13. 조항민 (2013). 국내 언론의 재해보도에 관한 연구: 태풍·폭우·폭염에 대한 주요 일간신문 분석을 중심으로. <위기관리 이론과 실천>, 9권 6호, 21-44.
14. Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 최호영 (역) (2017). <감정은 어떻게 만들어지는가?>. 서울: 생각연구소.
15. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andre Moderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp. 홍성태 (역) (2014). <위험 사회: 새로운 근대(성)을 위하여>. 서울: 새물결.
16. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins. 김린 (역) (2017). <데카르트의 오류>. 서울: 눈출판그룹.