Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64 , No. 4

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64, No. 4, pp.400-435
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Aug 2020
Received 10 Jun 2020 Revised 27 Jul 2020 Accepted 04 Aug 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.4.011

해석수준과 대응수준이 기후변화 대응행동 의도에 미치는 영향 : 심리적 거리의 매개효과와 미래/즉각적 결과고려의 조절효과 중심
함승경* ; 김혜정** ; 김영욱***
*이화여자대학교 커뮤니케이션・미디어학부 강사 (hamseungkyung@gmail.com)
**이화여자대학교 커뮤니케이션・미디어학부 박사과정 (leslie1982hj@gmail.com)
***이화여자대학교 커뮤니케이션・미디어학부 교수 (kimyw@ewha.ac.kr)

The Effects of Construal and Response Levels on Coping Behavioral Intentions against Climate Change : The Mediation Effects of Psychological Distance and the Moderation Effects of Consideration of Future/Immediate Consequences(CFC/CIC)
Seungkyung Ham* ; Hyejung Kim** ; Yungwook Kim***
*Lecturer, Ewha Womans University (hamseungkyung@gmail.com)
**Doctoral Student, Ewha Womans University (leslie1982hj@gmail.com)
***Professor, Ewha Womans University, corresponding author (kimyw@ewha.ac.kr)

초록

이 연구는 해석수준과 대응수준이 기후변화 대응행동 의도에 미치는 영향에서 심리적 거리의 매개효과와 미래/즉각적 결과고려 변수의 조절 효과를 분석하였다. 선행 연구들이 기후변화와 관련해서 대응행동에 미치는 심리적 거리의 직접적 효과를 검증하였다면, 이 연구는 심리적 거리의 매개효과를 분석해, 해석수준, 심리적 거리 그리고 대응행동 간의 선형적 관계와 이에 영향 미치는 다양한 변인들의 관계를 분석하고자했다. 분석 결과, 메시지의 해석수준과 대응수준은 심리적 거리에 영향을 미치지 못했다. 하지만 즉각적 결과고려의 높고 낮음에 따라 해석수준과 대응수준의 상호작용이 심리적 거리를 매개해서 대응행동 의도에 영향을 미치는 것으로 분석되었다. 기후변화를 감소시키기 위한 개인적 노력을 강조하는 메시지를 제시하는 경우, 행동의 즉각적 결과에 관심이 높은 사람들은 낮은 사람들보다 기후변화에 대한 추상적 설명에서 기후변화에 대해 시간, 공간, 사회적 등의 심리적 거리를 멀게 느끼게 하고, 기후변화를 감소시키려는 대응행동 의도가 낮은 것으로 분석되었다. 이러한 결과는 해석수준 이론에서 제시하는 해석수준과 심리적 거리 간의 관계가 기후변화 맥락에서 단선적이지 않고 다양한 변인들 간의 상호작용을 통해 밝혀질 수 있는 관계임을 의미한다. 분석 결과에 근거해서 기후변화에 대한 심리적 거리와 대응행동 의도에 영향을 미치는 변인들 간의 관계를 이론적으로 논의하고 실무적 함의를 제시하였다.

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to investigate the effects of construal levels and response levels on coping behavioral intentions against climate change, focusing on the mediating roles of psychological distance and the moderating roles of consideration of future/immediate consequences(CFC/CIC). Previous studies that deal with the climate change issue from the perspective of the construal level theory have focused on investigating the direct relationship between psychological distance and coping behavioral intentions. However, not many studies have explored other influencing variables affecting psychological distance and the mediating role of psychological distance on coping behavioral intentions. This study is different from previous climate change-related studies in that it investigated relationships among various influencing factors increasing coping behavioral intentions against climate change such as who the responsive subject is (i.e. response level), the meditating role of psychological distance, and the moderating role of CFC/CIC. This study posed three research questions as follows: first, are there any differences in coping behavioral intentions by construal levels and response levels? Second, does psychological distance mediate the relationship between independent variables and coping behavioral intentions. Third, does CFC/CIC moderate the relationships in the second research question? To answer these research questions, a 2 (construal level: low vs. high) × 2 (response level: personal vs. societal) between subject factorial design experiment was conducted. Thus, four kinds of messages were produced, and the experiment was carried out through online survey service. A total of 446 respondents participated in the survey experiment from March 12 to March 17 in 2020. According to the results of the study, construal levels and response levels had no significant relationships with psychological distance, but CIC had a moderating effect. Specifically, in the high level of the CIC group, the personal response and high construal condition resulted in more psychological distance as well as lower coping behavioral intentions. Future studies need to verify more concrete relationships between CIC and coping behavioral intentions in the climate change context since it is important to explore factors decreasing coping behavioral intentions as well as increasing the intentions respectively. Finally, the results of this study imply that there may be many other interaction effects related to psychological distance in the context of construal levels and coping behavioral intentions against climate change. Theoretical implications and practical applications were discussed following the research results.


Keywords: Construal level, Response level, Psychological distance, CFC/CIC, Coping behavioral intentions against climate change
키워드: 해석수준, 대응수준, 심리적 거리, 미래/즉각적 결과고려, 기후변화 대응행동 의도

References
1. Arnocky, S., Milfont, T. L., & Nicol, J. R. (2014). Time perspective and sustainable behavior: Evidence for the distinction between consideration of immediate and future consequences. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 556-582.
2. Broomell, S. B., Budescu, D. V., & Por, H. H. (2015). Personal experience with climate change predicts intentions to act. Global Environmental Change, 32, 67-73.
3. Bruger, A., Morton, T. A., & Dessai, S. (2015). Hand in Hand: Public endorsement of climate change mitigation and adaptation [On-Line]. PLoS ONE, 10(4).
4. Brugger, A., Morton, T. A., & Dessai, S. (2016). “Proximising” climate change reconsidered: A construal level theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 125-142.
5. Chess, C., & Johnson, B. B. (2007). Information is not enough. In S. C. Moser & L. Dilling (Eds.), Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change (pp. 223-233). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. Collins, C. M., & Chambers, S. M. (2005). Psychological and situational influences on commuter-transport-mode choice. Environment and Behavior, 37(5), 640-661.
7. Confalonieri, U., Menne, B., Akhtar, R., Ebi, K. L., Hauengue, M., Kovats, R. S., Revich, B., & Woodward, A. (2007). Human health. In M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, & C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 391-431). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8. Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature [On-Line]. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2). Retrieved from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024#
9. Corral-Verdugo, V., Caso-Niebla, J., Tapia-Fonllem, C., & Frias-Armenta, M. (2017). Consideration of immediate and future consequences in accepting and responding to anthropogenic climate change. Psychology, 8(10), 1519-1531.
10. Crowley, T. J. (2000). Causes of climate change over the past 1000 years. Science, 289(5477), 270-277.
11. Ebreo, A., & Vining, J. (2001). How similar are recycling and waste reduction?: Future orientation and reasons for reducing waste as predictors of self-reported behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 424-448.
12. Eurobarometer (2009). Europeans' attitude towards climate change (Special Eurobarometer 322). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/703/p/4
13. Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 335-362.
14. Gifford, R. (2008). Psychology’s essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate change. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(4), 273-280.
15. Hendrickx, L., Poortinga, W., & van der Kooij. (2001). Temporal factors in resource dilemmas. Acta Psychologica, 108(2), 137-154.
16. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
17. Joireman, J. A., Lange, P., & Vugt, M. (2004). Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environment and Behavior, 36(2), 187-206.
18. Joireman, J. A., Posey, D. C., Truelove, H. B., & Parks, C. D. (2009). The environmentalist who cried drought: Reactions to repeated warnings about depleting resources under conditions of uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 181-192.
19. Joireman, J. A., Kees, J., & Sprott, D. (2010). Concern with immediate consequences magnifies the impact of compulsive buying tendencies on college students’ credit card debt. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44(1), 155-178.
20. Jones, C., Hine, D. W., & Marks, A. D. (2017). The future is now: Reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Analysis, 37(2), 331-341.
21. Jeong, Y., & Ha, J. (2015). The comparative study of perception of the public and stakeholder to climate change adaptation. Journal of Climate Change Research, 6(2), 159-166.
22. Jeong, H., & Choi, K. S. (2019, March 30). 93% of respondents feels crisis of climate change, 4 out of 10 consider moving or emigration. Hankook Ilbo, p. 21.
23. Kates, R. W., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2003). Making the global local responding to climate change concerns from the ground. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 45(3), 12-23.
24. Kim, H., & Kim, Y. (2018). The effects of controlling language and message orientation on pro-environmental behavioral intentions in environmental communication: Focusing on the moderation effects of issue involvement and the mediation effects of psychological reactance. Advertising Research, 116, 138-179.
25. Kim, J. H. (2013). The effect of perceived risk, environmental value orientation and perceived psychological distance on environmental behavior. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 14(1), 155-175.
26. Kim, Y. W. (2014). The meaning of the “boiling pot syndrome”: An analysis of press articles through the interaction between social conformity and the durability bias. Korean Journal of Communication Studies, 22(2), 33-62.
27. Kim, Y., & Ham, S. (2017). The effect of narrative reporting on stigmatization during the MERS incident: Focusing on the moderating and mediating effects of cultural bias, social captital and message responses. Crisisonomy, 13(1), 63-84.
28. Leiserowitz, A. (2005). American risk perception: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1433-1442.
29. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2010). Global warming’s six Americas, June 2010 [On-Line]. Retrieved from https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warmings-six-americas-june-2010/
30. Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 523-534.
31. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.
32. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 353-381). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
33. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 143-149.
34. Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2006). Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77(1-2), 73-95.
35. Maio, G. R., & Haddock, G. (2007). Attitude change. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 565-586). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
36. Milfont, T. L., & Gouveia, V. V. (2006). Time perspective and values: An exploratory study of their relations to environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 72-82.
37. Milfont, T. L., Wilson, J., & Diniz, P. (2012). Time perspective and environmental engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Psychology, 47(5), 325-334.
38. O’Neil, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). Fear won’t do it: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representation. Science Communications, 30(3), 355-379.
39. Park, Y. S., & Kyung, J. S. (2003). The effects of public service advertising: Involvement and self-monitoring. Review of Industry and Management, 16(1), 105-123.
40. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915-1926.
41. Pidgeon, N. (2012). Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Climate Policy, 12(1), s85-s106.
42. Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2011). Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 1015-1024.
43. Ratter, B., Philipp, K., & Storch, H. (2012). Between hype and decline: Recent trends in public perception of climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 18, 3-8.
44. Rickard, L. N., Yang, Z. J., Seo, M., & Harrison, T. M. (2014). The “I” in climate: The role of individual responsibility in systematic processing of climate change information. Global Environmental Change, 26, 39-52.
45. Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. (2013). Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60-85.
46. Sheppard, S. R. J. (2005). Landscape visualisation and climate change: The potential for influencing perceptions and behavior. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 637-654.
47. Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effect of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667.
48. Spence, A., Pooringa, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Ri sk Analysis, 32(6), 957-972.
49. Stephan, E., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 268-280.
50. Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742-752.
51. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876-889.
52. Trope, Y., & Liberman. N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421.
53. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
54. Whitmarsh, L. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 690-700.

부록
1. 김종흠 (2013). 환경오염의 심각성 인식, 가치지향성, 메시지 전달방식이 친환경 행동의도에 미치는 영향. <한국심리학회지: 소비자광고>, 14권 1호, 155-175.
2. 김영욱 (2014). 언론에 나타난 냄비근성의 의미 분석. <커뮤니케이션학 연구>, 22권 2호, 33-62.
3. 김영욱·함승경 (2017). 보도 내러티브와 문화적 편향 그리고 사회자본이 낙인에 미치는 영향-메르스(MERS) 사태를 중심으로 한 분석. <위기관리 이론과 실천>, 13권 1호, 63-84.
4. 김혜인·김영욱 (2018). 환경 커뮤니케이션에서 통제 언어 및 메시지 소구 방향의 영향력: 이슈 관여도의 조절 효과와 심리적 반발의 매개효과 중심. <광고연구>, 116권, 138-179.
5. 박유식·경종수 (2003). 환경보전 공익광고에서 소구방향, 관여도, 자기검색도가 광고효과에 미치는 영향. <산업과 경영>, 16권 1호, 105-123.
6. 정윤지·하종식 (2015). 일반국민 및 이해관계자의 기후변화 적응 인식비교 연구. <기후변화연구>, 6권 2호, 159-166.
7. 정한울·최광선 (2019, 3, 30). 기후변화 피부로 체감 93%, 10명 중 4명은 이사・이민도 고려. <한국일보>, 21면.