Current issue

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

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 155-187
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Apr 2022
Received 09 Dec 2021 Accepted 11 Mar 2022 Revised 01 Apr 2022
https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2022.66.2.004

위험가능성 인식 유형에 따른 예방행동에 대한 예측효과 검증 : 절대·비교 및 조건·무조건적 위험 인식의 예측효과 비교
정성은** ; 김율리*** ; 심민선****
**성균관대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 교수 (chseun@skku.edu)
***덴버대학교 커뮤니케이션학과 조교수 (youllee02@gmail.com)
****인하대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 교수 (mshim@inha.ac.kr)

Types of Perceived Risk Likelihood and Prediction of Preventive Behaviors : Absolute vs. Comparative, and Conditional vs. Unconditional Risk Perceptions
Sungeun Chung** ; Youllee Kim*** ; Minsun Shim****
**Professor, Department of Media and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University, first author (chseun@skku.edu)
***Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Denver (youllee02@gmail.com)
****Professor, Department of Media and Communication, Inha University, corresponding author (mshim@inha.ac.kr)
Funding Information ▼
초록

위험가능성 인식과 예방행동에 관한 기존 연구는 절대 위험 인식과 비교 위험 인식, 그리고 조건적 위험 인식과 무조건적 위험 인식을 혼재하여 사용하고 있다. 본 연구는 위험가능성 인식의 각 유형과 예방행동 사이의 관계를 논리적으로 규명하고 위험가능성 인식의 효과 검증 방식을 비판적으로 검토하였다. 어떤 유형의 위험가능성 인식이 감염병 예방행동을 예측하기에 가장 적합한지 규명하기 위해 코로나19에 대한 설문조사를 실시하였다(N = 445). 본 연구는 첫째, 여러 위험가능성 인식 유형 중 조건적 절대 위험 인식이 코로나19 예방행동 실천정도를 가장 잘 예측함을 발견하였다. 조건적 절대 위험 인식은 무조건적 절대 위험 인식, 직접 비교 위험 인식, 간접 비교 위험 인식에 비해 예방행동 실천과 가장 높은 상관관계를 보였고 예방행동에 대한 예측력이 가장 높았다. 둘째, 조건적 절대 위험 인식이 예방행동 실천 정도를 감소시킴으로써 미래의 위험 인식 즉 무조건적 절대 위험 인식을 감소시킴을 발견하였다. 이러한 발견점들은 위험가능성 인식을 정확하게 측정하고 예방행동에 대한 예측력을 높이기 위해서는 조건적 절대 위험 인식을 사용해야 함을 시사한다.

Abstract

Perceived risk likelihood has been considered to be one of the key factors that predict engagement in health protective behaviors. However, existing studies on perceived risk likelihood and preventive behaviors have used a mixture of concepts, including perceptions of absolute (i.e., one’s overall chances of experiencing the risk) versus comparative (i.e., one’s relative chances of experiencing the risk compared with other people) risk likelihood, and perceptions of conditional (i.e., likelihood estimated under a condition that specifies future inaction on health behaviors) versus unconditional (i.e., likelihood that does not specify future behavior engagement) risk likelihood. Therefore, this study aimed to untangle the mixed conceptualization and past findings by examining the relationships between each type of perceived risk likelihood and preventive behaviors. We first reviewed the rationale for the causal relationships between each type of perceived risk likelihood and preventive behaviors, and critically analyzed the method for verifying the effects of perceived risk likelihood. Based on the review and critical reasoning, we hypothesized that conditional absolute risk perception better predicts preventive behaviors in the face of health risks with obvious negative consequences like infectious diseases, in comparison to other types of risk perceptions, including unconditional absolute risk perception and comparative risk perception. We further hypothesized that conditional absolute risk perception is positively associated with preventive behaviors and unconditional absolute risk perception, while engagement in preventive behaviors has negative effects on unconditional absolute risk perception when the effect of conditional absolute risk perception is controlled for. A survey was conducted online in the context of COVID-19 with 445 adults aged 20 to 69 in Korea. The results supported both hypotheses. First, we found that among the various types of perceived risk likelihood assessed in the survey, conditional absolute risk perception best predicted COVID-19 preventive behaviors. Conditional absolute risk perception showed the highest correlation with preventive behaviors compared to unconditional absolute risk perception, direct comparative risk perception, and indirect comparative risk perception, and had the highest predictive power for preventive behaviors. Second, we found that conditional risk perception reduced unconditional risk perception indirectly by increasing preventive behaviors. These findings suggest that conditional absolute risk perception should be used to accurately measure risk perception and increase predictive power for preventive behaviors. This study has important theoretical implications for resolving inconsistencies in findings on the predictive power of different types of perceived risk likelihood on preventive behaviors. This study also has practical implications for health message design in strategic communication during infectious disease outbreaks.

Keywordsperceived risk likelihood, preventive behaviors, comparative risk perception, absolute risk perception, conditional risk perception
키워드: 위험가능성 인식, 예방행동, 비교 위험 인식, 절대 위험 인식, 조건적 위험 인식
Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021S1A5A2A03068831) and the Inha University Research Grant. 이 논문은 2021년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원(NRF-2021S1A5A2A03068831) 및 인하대학교의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임.

References
1. Abdelrahman, M. (2020). Personality traits, risk perception, and protective behaviors of Arab residents of Qatar during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1-12.
2. Bastardi, A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Ross, L. (2011). Wishful thinking: Belief, desire, and the motivated evaluation of scientific evidence. Psychological Science, 22(6), 731-732.
3. Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., ... & Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioral science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behavior, 4, 460-471.
4. Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief model and sick role behavior. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 409-419.
5. Bränström, R., Kristjansson, S., & Ullén, H. (2006). Risk perception, optimistic bias, and readiness to change sun related behaviour. The European Journal of Public Health, 16(5), 492-497.
6. Brewer, N. T., Weinstein, N. D., Cuite, C. L., & Herrington, J. E. (2004). Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27(2), 125-130.
7. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366-381.
8. Burger, J. M., & Burns, L. (1988). The illusion of unique invulnerability and the use of effective contraception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(2), 264-270.
9. Carpenter, C. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health belief model variables in predicting behavior. Health Communication, 25(8), 661-669.
10. Chambers, J. R., & Windschitl, P. D. (2004). Biases in social comparative judgments: The role of nonmotivated factors in above-average and comparative-optimism effects. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 813-838.
11. Chang, J., & Shim, J. C. (2013). Testing the links between health belief model, optimistic bias, and behavioral intention: The case study of foot-and-mouth disease, mad cow disease, and H1N1 flu. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 57(1), 111-137. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE02099549
12. Cho, H., Lee, J. S., & Lee, S. (2013). Optimistic bias about H1N1 flu: Testing the links between risk communication, optimistic bias, and self-protection behavior. Health Communication, 28(2), 146-158.
13. Cho, S. (2018). A study on the relationship between cervical cancer preventive behavioral intentions and optimistic bias among Korean female college students. Korean Journal of Communication Studies, 26(3), 101-214.
14. Cho, S., Tak, S. & Yoon, K. (2021). The policy model of responses to Covid-19 of Seoul City: Development of international sharing model (Publication No. 51-6110000-002494-01). Seoul: Seoul City Printing Office.
15. Chung, S., & Moon, S. (2016). Is the third-person effect real? A critical examination of rationales, testing methods, and previous findings of the third-person effect on censorship attitudes. Human Communication Research, 42(2), 312-337.
16. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum.
17. Davidson, K., & Prkachin, K. (1997). Optimism and unrealistic optimism have an interacting impact on health-promoting behavior and knowledge changes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(6), 617-625.
18. Dillard, A. J., McCaul, K. D., & Klein, W. M. (2006). Unrealistic optimism in smokers: Implications for smoking myth endorsement and self-protective motivation. Journal of Health Communication, 11(1), 93-102.
19. Ferrer, R. A., &　Klein, W. M. P. (2015). Risk perceptions and health behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 5, 85-89.
20. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
21. Harrison, J. A., Mullen, P. D., & Green, L. W. (1992). A meta-analysis of studies of the health belief model with adults. Health Education Research, 7(1), 107-116.
22. Iorfa, S. K., Ottu, I. F., Oguntayo, R., Ayandele, O., Kolawole, S. O., Gandi, J. C., ... & Olapegba, P. O. (2020). COVID-19 knowledge, risk perception and precautionary behaviour among Nigerians: A moderated mediation approach. medRxiv.
23. Kim, H., McKeever, R., Ha, J.-Y., & Chang, J. (2017). Factors influencing risk perceptions of nuclear technology. Asian Communication Research, 14(1), 36-62.
24. Kim, H. K., & Niederdeppe, J. (2016). Effects of self-affirmation, narratives, and informational messages in reducing unrealistic optimism about alcohol-related problems among college students. Human Communication Research, 42(2), 246-268.
25. Kim, M., Paek, H.-J., & Hove, T. (2021). Roles of temporal message framing and digital channel type in perception and dissemination of food risk rumors. Asian Communication Research, 18(2), 89-106.
26. Klein, W. M. (1997). Objective standards are not enough: Affective, self-evaluative, and behavioral responses to social comparison information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 763-774.
27. Klein, W., Geaghan, T., & MacDonald, T. (2007). Unplanned sexual activity as a consequence of alcohol use: A prospective study of risk perceptions and alcohol use among college freshmen. Journal of American College Health, 56(3), 317-323.
28. Korean Disease Control and Prevention Agency (2021). COVID-19 information. https://www.kdca.go.kr/search/search.es?mid=a20101000000
29. 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. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE07263963
30. Noar, S. M., & Zimmerman, R. S. (2005). Health behavior theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: Are we moving in the right direction? Health Education Research, 20(3), 275-290.
31. Paek, H.-J. (2018). How new media platform affects the relationships among risk characteristics, risk perceptions, and preventive behavioral intentions: A test of conditional process model. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 62(3), 215-245.
32. Portnoy, D. B., Kaufman, A. R., Klein, W. M. P., Doyle. T. A., & de Groot, M. (2014). Cognitive and affective perceptions of vulnerability as predictors of exercise intentions among people with type 2 diabetes. Journal of Risk Research, 17(2), 177-193.
33. Qin, H., Sanders, C., Prasetyo, Y., Syukron, M., and Prentice, E. (2021). Exploring the dynamic relationships between risk perception and behavior in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019. Social Science & Medicine, 285.
34. Radcliffe, N. M., & Klein, W. M. (2002). Dispositional, unrealistic, and comparative optimism: Differential relations with the knowledge and processing of risk information and beliefs about personal risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 836-846.
35. Ranby, K. W., Aiken, L. S., Gerend, M. A., & Erchull, M. J. (2010). Perceived susceptibility measures are not interchangeable: Absolute, direct comparative, and indirect comparative risk. Health Psychology, 29(1), 20-28.
36. Rippetoe, P. A., & Rogers, R. W. (1987). Effects of components of protection-motivation theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 596-604.
37. Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 340-352.
38. Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114.
39. Rogers, R. W., & Mewborn, C. R. (1976). Fear appeals and attitude change: Effects of a threat’s noxiousness, probability of occurrence, and the efficacy of coping responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 54-61.
40. Ronis, D. L. (1992). Conditional health threats: Health beliefs, decisions, and behaviors among adults. Health Psychology, 11(2), 127-134.
41. Rose, J. P. (2010). Are direct or indirect measures of comparative risk better predictors of concern and behavioural intentions? Psychology and Health, 25(2), 149-165.
42. Rosenthal, S. (2013). Measuring differentials in communication research: Issues with multicollinearity in three methods. Communication Methods and Measures, 7(2), 106-125.
43. Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1995). The multiply motivated self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(12). 1330-1335.
44. Sheeran, P., Harris, P. R., & Epton, T. (2014). Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychological Bulletin, 140(2), 511-543.
45. Shepperd, J. A., Klein, W. M., Waters, E. A., & Weinstein, N. D. (2013). Taking stock of unrealistic optimism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 395-411.
46. Sweeny, K., & Shepperd, J. A. (2010). The costs of optimism and the benefits of pessimism. Emotion, 10(5), 750-753.
47. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). Public health guidance for those fully vaccinated. https://korean.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html
48. van der Velde, F. W., Hooykaas, C., & van der Pligt, J. (1996). Conditional versus unconditional risk estimates in models of AIDS-related risk behaviour. Psychology and Health, 12(1), 87-100.
49. Wei, R., Lo, V. H., & Lu, H. Y. (2007). Reconsidering the relationship between the third-person perception and optimistic bias. Communication Research, 34(6), 665-684.
50. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 806-820.
51. Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won’t happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3(5), 431-457.
52. Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived probability, perceived severity, and health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 19(1), 65-74.
53. Weinstein, N. D., & Nicolich, M. (1993). Correct and incorrect interpretations of correlations between risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Health Psychology, 12(3), 235-245.
54. Whitley, B. E. Jr., & Hern, A. L. (1991). Perceptions of vulnerability to pregnancy and the use of effective contraception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(1), 104-110.
55. Winters, M., Jalloh, M F., Sengeh, P., Jalloh, M. B., Zeebari, Z., & Nordenstedt, H. (2020). Risk perception during the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. BMC Public Health, 20(1539). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-020-09648-80
56. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349.
57. Yang, S., & Cho, S. I. (2017). Middle East respiratory syndrome risk perception among students at a university in South Korea, 2015. American Journal of Infection Control, 45(6), e53-e60.
58. Yoo, H. J. (2016). Effects analysis of optimistic bias on anxiety among food consumers. Crisisonomy, 12(6), 103-114.
부록
1. 미국 질병통제예방센터 (2021). 백신 완전 접종자를 위한 임시 공중보건 권고사항. https://korean.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html
2. 백혜진 (2018). 뉴미디어 유형이 위험 특성, 위험 인식, 예방 행동 의도의 관계에 미치는 영향. <한국언론학보>, 62권 3호, 215-245.
3. 유현정 (2016). 식품소비자의 낙관적 편향이 불안감에 미치는 효과분석. Crisisonomy, 12권 6호, 103-114.
4. 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. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE07263963
5. 장정헌·심재철 (2013). 지각된 위험과 자기효능감이 행동의도에 영향을 미치는 과정을 조절하는 낙관적 편견의 간접효과에 관한 탐색적 연구. <한국언론학보>, 57권 1호, 111-137. http://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE02099549
6. 조성일·탁상우·윤규현 (2021). <서울시 코로나19 대응 방역 정책모형: ‘코로나19 감염병 대응 해외공유 모델 개발’ 연구용역 보고서> (조사 분석 51-6110000-002494-01). 서울: 서울특별시.
7. 조수영 (2018). 자궁경부암에 대한 낙관적 편견 수준 및 예방행위 의도와의 관계: 수도권 대학 여대생들을 중심으로. <커뮤니케이션학 연구>, 26권 3호, 101-124.
8. 질병관리청 (2021). 코로나바이러스감염증-19(COVID-19) 정보. https://www.kdca.go.kr/search/search.es?mid=a20101000000