Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64 , No. 5

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 64, No. 5, pp.286-318
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Oct 2020
Received 10 Jun 2020 Revised 14 Sep 2020 Accepted 05 Oct 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.5.008

신종 코로나바이러스 발생에 따른 경제위기 평가에 대한 비개인적 영향가설 검증 : 경제단위와 평가시점에 대한 지각분화를 중심으로
이완수** ; 최명일*** ; 유재웅****
**동서대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학부 부교수 (wansoo1960@gmail.com)
***남서울대학교 광고홍보학과 부교수 (jhmi0410@nsu.ac.kr)
****을지대학교 홍보디자인학과 교수 (yoojw777@hanmail.net)

Impersonal Influences Hypothesis on the Novel Coronavirus(COVID-19) Economic Crisis : Perceptual Compartmentalization of Economic Levels and Evaluation Time Frames
Wan Soo Lee** ; Myungil Choi*** ; Jae Woong Yoo****
**Associate Professor, Division of Media & Communication, Dongseo University (wansoo1960@gmail.com)
***Associate Professor, Department of Advertising & Public Relations, Namseoul University (jhmi0410@nsu.ac.kr)
****Professor. Department of Public Relations and Design, Eulji University, corresponding author (yoojw777@hanmail.net)
Funding Information ▼

초록

본 연구는 사람들이 코로나19 경제위기 영향에 대해 개인, 사회, 그리고 국가단위 경제를 어떻게 평가하는지를 비개인적 영향가설(impersonal influence hypothesis)을 적용해 계량적으로 검증해 보았다. 이 논문은 성별과 인구비례 할당을 통해 수집한 전국 성인 579명의 표본 데이터를 대상으로 온라인 설문조사를 실시했다. 분석은 ‘반복 측정 ANOVA(repeated measure ANOVA)’를 이용하였으며, 사후검정은 ‘최소유의차(Least Significant Difference: LSD)’ 방법을 사용하였다. 검증결과, 첫째, 사람들은 코로나19 경제위기에 대해 개인 자신은 상대적으로 영향을 적게 받는다고 평가를 한 반면에, 이웃사람이 속한 사회경제나 국가경제는 상대적으로 영향을 더 크게 받는다는 상반된 평가를 내렸다. 특히 사람들은 개인 자신을 중심으로 사회, 국가단위로 사회적 거리가 멀어질수록 더 비관적으로 평가했다. 둘째, 사람들은 코로나19 경제위기 영향에 대해 평가시점과 관계없이 개인이나 사회경제보다 국가경제를 더 부정적으로 평가했다. 셋째, 사람들은 개인, 사회, 그리고 국가경제에 대해 과거의 회고적 평가를 할 때 가장 부정적이었으며, 현재에서 미래 순으로 갈수록 전망적 평가가 더 긍정적이었다. 넷째, 개인, 사회, 국가경제 위기에 대한 판단분화는 성별, 연령별, 소득수준별, 거주 지역별, 뉴스이용량 등 인구사회학적 속성과 관련성이 없는 것으로 나타났다. 다만, 사람들은 자신의 정치적 성향이 보수적이라고 생각할수록 과거, 현재, 그리고 미래시점 모두에서 국가경제를 부정적으로 평가한 반면에, 진보적이라고 생각할수록 국가경제를 더 긍정적으로 평가했다. 이론적으로 사람들은 불확실하고 위험한 상황에 직면할 때 본능적으로 자신을 타자들보다 더 긍정적으로 평가하는 이른바 ‘상대적 낙관주의’ 태도를 보인다. 사람들은 자기보호 동기와 자신이 다른 사람들보다 덜 불행하다고 생각하는 인지적 편향에 따라 ‘상대적 낙관주의’ 태도가 두드러진다. 특히 사람들은 직접 경험하지 못한 미래 상황에 대해 긍정적인 평가를 하는데, 이것 역시 “비현실적 낙관주의” 태도와 무관하지 않다. 이에 반해 사람들이 과거 상황을 회고적으로 평가할 때 부정적인 태도를 보이는 것은 머릿속의 부정적인 기억이 먼저 떠오르는 가용성 편향과 같은 휴리스틱(heuristic)이 작용하기 때문이다. 사람들에게 흔히 발견되는 “비현실적 낙관주의”는 부정적인 일은 자신에게는 잘 일어나지 않는다고 믿음으로써 심리적 불안감을 줄이는 “자기고양 편향” 관점에서 설명될 수 있다. 사람들이 코로나19 경제위기 영향을 평가할 때 비현실적 낙관주의가 어떻게 작동하는지를 중심으로 토론했다.

Abstract

This study applies the impersonal influence theory to quantitatively examine how individuals evaluate the economy at the individual, societal, and national level with regard to the crisis caused by the novel coronavirus pandemic. This paper conducted an online survey on sample data of 579 adults through proportional allocation by gender and population nationwide. We used the “repeated measure ANOVA” method and a post-test using the “Least Significant Difference (LSD)” method to examine the statistical difference between the three levels. To begin with, the results indicated that respondents evaluated conditions optimistically in terms of viewing themselves as not having been heavily impacted by the economic crisis, but negatively in terms of their prediction that the societal and national economies to which their neighbors belong will be affected to a relatively greater degree. Evaluations were found to be more negative when the societal and national levels were perceived as more distant from the respondents themselves. Second, respondents expressed negative attitudes regarding the economic crisis most strongly for the individual level followed by the societal and national levels, regardless of evaluation time frame. In particular, more negative evaluations were found for the national economy than for the individual or societal economy for the past, present, and future time frames alike. Third, the most negative attitudes in terms of the individual, societal, and national economy were found for the past time frame, with increasingly positive perspectives for the present and future time frames. Fourth, the compartmentalization of judgments regarding individual, societal, and national economic crisis were found to be unrelated to demographic characteristics such as gender, age, income, region of residence, or news consumption. However, respondents showed more strongly negative evaluations of the national economy for the past, present, and future time frames the more they identified themselves politically as “conservative,” and more positive evaluations when they identified as “liberal.” In theory, people have an attitude of so-called "comparative optimism," in which people instinctively evaluate themselves more positively than others when faced with uncertain and dangerous situations. People show this attitude of “comparative optimism” because of self-protective motives and cognitive biases, in which they consider to be less unhappy than others. In particular, the reason people give positive evaluations of future situations that they have not directly experienced is because of the attitude of “unrealistic optimism.” On the other hand, the reason why people show negative attitudes when making retrospective assessments of past situations is that “representative heuristic,” such as an availability bias, in which negative memories in their heads first come to mind. This unrealistic optimism found in people is linked to a “self-enhancement bias,” which reduces psychological anxiety by recognizing that negative things do not happen to the individual herself or himself. The discussion section focused on the ways in which unrealistic optimism operates when individuals are evaluating the impact on the economic crisis caused by the pandemic.


Keywords: COVID-19, Economic crisis, Impersonal influence hypothesis, Judgment compartmentalization, Unrealistic optimism
키워드: 코로나19, 경제위기, 비개인적 영향이론, 판단분화, 비현실적 낙관주의

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by Dongseo University, “Dongseo Cluster Project” Research Fund of 2020(DSU-20200009)(이 연구는 동서대학교 2020년도 “동서 클러스터 프로젝트” 지원으로 수행되었다).


References
1. Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., Davis, S. J., & Terry, S. J. (2020). Covid-induced economic uncertainty (No. w26983). National Bureau of Economic Research.
2. Bargsted, M. A., & Valenzuela, E. (2012). Political judgments and impersonal influence: Exploring the role of cognitive moderators. Retrieved from http://www.opiniaopublica.ufmg.br/site/files/biblioteca/Bargsted-e-Valenzuela-2012.pdf
3. Barua, S. (2020). Understanding Coronanomics: The economic implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic [On-Line]. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3566477
4. Blood, D. J., & Phillips, P. C. (1997). Economic headline news on the agenda: New approaches to understanding causes and effects. Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory, 97-113.
5. Brosius, H. B., & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or generalized negative attitudes towards media influence? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(2), 142-162.
6. Cha, D. P. (2011). The effects of mass communication and interpersonal communication on college students’ perceptions of risk to youth unemployment. Journal of Communication Science, 11(3), 325-348.
7. Cha, D. P. (2020). The impacts of mass communication, interpersonal communication, and multidimensional health locus of control to health related message on public`s risk perception. Journal of the Humanities, 58, 647-674.
8. Damstra, A., & Boukes, M. (2018). The economy, the news, and the public: A longitudinal study of the impact of economic news on economic evaluations and expectations [On-Line]. Communication Research. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217750971
9. Doms, M. E., & Morin, N. J. (2004). Consumer Sentiment, the Economy, and the News Media. (FRB of San Francisco Working Paper No. 2004-09). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.602763
10. Feldman, S. (1982). Economic self-interest and political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 26(3), 446-466.
11. Fernandes, N. (2020). Economic effects of coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) on the world economy [On-Line]. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3557504
12. Goethals, G. R., Messick, D. M., & Allison, S. T. (1991). The uniqueness bias: Studies of constructive social comparison. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 149–176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13. Haller, H. B., & Norpoth, H. (1997). Reality bites: News exposure and economic opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(4), 555-575.
14. Heo, Y.-C., & Im, Y.-H. (2015). The influence of audiences’ exposure to foreigners’ crime news on their perceived risk. Korean Criminological Review, 26(3), 267-302.
15. Hetherington, M. J. (1996). The media's role in forming voters' national economic evaluations in 1992. American Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 372-395.
16. Holbrook, T., & Garand, J. C. (1996). Homo economus? Economic information and economic voting. Political Research Quarterly, 49(2), 351-375.
17. Hoorens, V. (1993). Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 113-139.
18. Hu, Z., Yang, Z., Li, Q., Zhang, A., & Huang, Y. (2020). Infodemiological study on COVID-19 epidemic and COVID-19 infodemic. doi: 10.20944/preprints202002.0380.v3.
19. Jacobs, L. R., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1994). Questioning the conventional wisdom on public opinion toward health reform. PS:Political Science and Politics, 27(2), 208-214.
20. Katz, E. & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York, NY: The Free Press.
21. Kiewiet, D. R. (1983). Macroeconomics and micropolitics: The electoral effects of economic issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22. Kinder, D. R., Adams, G. S., & Gronke, P. W. (1989). Economics and politics in the 1984 American presidential election. American Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 491-515.
23. Kim. J. H. (2011). Effects of communication channels on nuclear risk perception: Testing impersonal impact hypothesis. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 55(6), 253-276.
24. Kolatsis, S. (2017). Differences in interpersonal and impersonal influences on clothing brand status consumption across different population groups. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
25. Lee, W.-S. (2012). Economy Communication. Seoul: Spinning Wheel of Time.
26. Lee, W.-S., & Sim, J.-C. (2012). Empirical analysis of economic communication effect theory: Path, direction, intensity, persistence test among Korean economic time series variables. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 61(1), 36-77.
27. MacKuen, M. B., Erikson, R. S., & Stimson, J. A. (1992). Peasants or bankers? The American electorate and the US economy. American Political Science Review, 86(3), 597-611.
28. Mutz, D. C. (1992). Impersonal influence: Effects of representations of public opinion on political attitudes. Political Behavior, 14(2), 89-122.
29. Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
30. Patterson, R. (1993). Collective identity, television and Europe. Nafional Idenfity and Europe, 1-7.
31. Seo, H. J., & Yang, S.-C. (2019). A study on the influence of impersonal collective information and experiences on personal behaviors. Journal of Political Science & Communication, 22(1), 127-162.
32. Seo, J.-G., & Jeong, I. K. (2012). Effects of mass media on the voting decisions in the national assembly: Focused on Mutz’s impersonal influence. Journal of Political Communication, 25, 87-130.
33. Sharot, T. (2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology, 21(23), R941-R945.
34. Shepperd, J. A., Carroll, P., Grace, J., & Terry, M. (2002). Exploring the causes of comparative optimism. Psychologica Belgica, 42(1/2), 65-98.
35. Shepperd, J. A., Pogge, G., & Howell, J. L. (2017). Assessing the consequences of unrealistic optimism: Challenges and recommendations. Consciousness and Cognition, 50, 69-78.
36. Snyder, L. B., & Rouse, R. A. (1995). The media can have more than an impersonal impact: The case of AIDS risk perceptions and behavior. Health Communication, 7(2), 25-145.
37. Soroka, S. N. (2014). Negativity in democratic politics: Causes and consequences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
38. Stapel, D. A., & Velthuijsen, A. S.(1996). “Just as if it happened to me”: The impact of vivid and self-relevant information on risk judgments. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 102-119.
39. Thomas, D. L., & Diener, E. (1990). Memory accuracy in the recall of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 291.
40. Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 693.
41. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
42. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806.
43. Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(1), 1-8.
44. Weinstein, N. D., & Lachendro, E. (1982). Egocentrism as a source of unrealistic optimism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(2), 195-200.
45. Weinstein, N. D. (1989). Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science, 246(4935), 1232-1234.
46. Wu, H. D., McCracken, M. W., & Saito, S. (2004). Economic communication in the ‘lost decade’ news coverage and the Japanese recession. Gazette(Leiden, Netherlands), 66(2), 133-149.
47. Yang, S. C. (2002). Mass media as a new 'general others'. Newspaper & broadcasting, 374, 68-73.
48. Yu, K. D. S., & Aviso, K. B. (2020). Modelling the economic impact and ripple effects of disease outbreaks. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, 1-4.
49. Zucker, H. G. (1978). The variable nature of news media influence. Annals of the International Communication Association, 2(1), 225-240. doi: 10.1080/23808985.1978.11923728

부록
1. 김준홍 (2011). 커뮤니케이션 채널이 원자력 위험지각에 미치는 영향: 비개인적 영향 가설 검증. <한국언론학보>, 55권 6호, 253-276.
2. 서정근·정일권 (2012). 국회 표결행위에 미치는 매스 미디어의 영향에 관한 연구: 머츠(Mutz)의 비대인적 영향력을 중심으로. <정치커뮤니케이션 연구>, 25호, 87-130.
3. 서희정·양승찬 (2019). 비개인적 타자 정보 평가와 다수에 대한 경험이 개인의 행동의사에 미치는 영향. <정치정보연구>, 22권 1호, 127-162.
4. 이완수 (2012). 경제와 커뮤니케이션. 서울: 시간의 물레.
5. 이완수·심재철 (2017). 경제커뮤니케이션 효과이론에 대한 실증적 분석. <한국언론학보>, 61권 1호, 36-77.
6. 양승찬 (2002). 새로운 ‘일반적 타자’로서 매스 미디어. <신문과 방송>, 374호, 68-73.
7. 차동필 (2011). 매스 커뮤니케이션과 대인 커뮤니케이션이 청년실업에 관한 대학생의 위험지각에 미치는 영향. <언론과학연구>, 11권 3호, 325-348.
8. 차동필 (2020). 건강 관련 위험에 대한 매스 커뮤니케이션, 대인 커뮤니케이션, 그리고 다차원 건강통제소재가 공중의 위험지각에 미치는 영향. <인문연구>, 58호, 647-674.
9. 허윤철·임영호 (2015). 외국인 범죄 뉴스 접촉이 수용자의 위험지각에 미치는 영향. <형사정책연구>, 26권 3호, 267-302.