Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication (KSJCS)
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication - Vol. 68, No. 6, pp.93-142
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2024
Received 04 Oct 2024 Revised 26 Nov 2024 Accepted 01 Dec 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.6.003

기후변화 인식 유형에 따른 메시지 전략 탐색 : 한국인에 대한 6가지 미국인 유형의 적용과 확장

임인재** ; 황애리*** ; 금희조****
**성균관대학교 글로벌융복합콘텐츠연구소 선임연구원 mimohhh@naver.com
***한국여성정책연구원 선임행정원 skurly@naver.com
****성균관대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 교수 hkeum@skku.edu
Exploring Message Strategies Based on Climate Change Perception Types : Applying and Extending the Six Americas Framework to South Koreans
In-jae Lim** ; Aeri Hwang*** ; Heejo Keum****
**Senior Researcher, Global Convergence Content Research Center, Sungkyunkwan University mimohhh@naver.com
***Senior Administrative Officer, Korean Women’s Development Institute skurly@naver.com
****Professor, Department of Media and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University hkeum@skku.edu

초록

본 연구는 기후변화에 대한 한국인의 인식을 유형별로 분류하고, 이를 바탕으로 기후변화 대응 행동을 촉구하는 메시지 전략을 탐색하는 데 목적이 있다. 특히, 본 연구는 미국인을 대상으로 한 선행연구(Global Warming’s Six Americas)의 변인인 태도적 유의성(attitudinal valence)과 이슈 관여도(issue involvement) 등을 한국인을 대상으로 적용하여 그 유형이 어떻게 나타나는지 분석하고, 유형별로 효과적인 메시지 전략을 제안하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 1,670명의 한국인을 대상으로 온라인 설문조사를 실시하고, 군집 분석을 통해 인식 유형을 구분하였다. 분석 결과, 한국인의 기후변화 인식 유형은 6개의 미국인 유형(경고형, 우려형, 신중형, 무관심형, 의심형, 무시형)과 비교하여 총 4개의 집단으로 구분되었다. 한국인 유형은 ‘무시형 집단’, ‘무관심형 집단’, ‘신중한 우려형 집단’, 그리고 ‘적극적 경고형 집단’으로 분류될 수 있었다. 또한 집단별로 기후변화에 대한 인식이나 인구통계학적 특성 등에서도 차이를 보였다.

가장 많은 비율을 차지하는 집단은 ‘무관심형 집단’이며, 가장 적은 비율을 차지하는 집단은 ‘신중한 우려형 집단’이었다. ‘무관심형 집단’은 모든 군집 중에 두 번째로 기후변화 신념이 낮은 집단이나 개인 효능감은 두 번째로 높게 나타났다. 반면, 인원이 가장 적은 ‘신중한 우려형 집단’은 기후변화에 대한 신념이나, 집단 효능감, 관여도는 두 번째로 높게 나타났지만, 개인 효능감은 집단 중에서 가장 낮은 것으로 나타났다. ‘적극적 경고형 집단’은 모든 군집 중에서 기후변화 신념과 효능감, 관여도가 가장 높았으며 50대 이상이 많이 차지하였다. 마지막으로, ‘무시형 집단’은 기후변화에 대한 신념, 집단 효능감, 관여도가 전체 군집 중에 가장 낮았고 개인 효능감도 두 번째로 낮은 집단으로 분석되었다.

이러한 분석 결과를 바탕으로 본 연구는 한국인 유형별 적합한 메시지 전략을 수립하여 기후변화에 대한 경각심을 높이고 행동 변화를 유도하는 것이 필요하다고 제언하였다. 본 연구는 한국에서의 기후변화 관련 인식 유형에 대한 체계적인 구분과 구체적인 논의에 기여하고, 향후 기후변화 관련 캠페인이나 커뮤니케이션 전략 발굴, 정책 개발에 있어 실질적인 아이디어를 제공할 수 있기를 기대한다.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to classify South Koreans' perceptions of climate change into distinct types and to explore targeted messaging strategies that promote climate action. Drawing on the Six Americas framework, which categorizes Americans based on beliefs and involvement in climate issues, the research examines how similar categories manifest among South Koreans and identifies the unique characteristics of each group.

International research often segments individuals by their attitudes toward climate change and trends in media consumption to suggest effective communication strategies. Although there are some examples in South Korea, the volume of accumulated studies is still limited. To address this gap, this study aims to classify South Korean perceptions of climate change through cluster analysis and propose targeted communication strategies.

An online survey of 1,670 South Koreans assessed their perceptions of climate change risk, followed by cluster analysis to distinguish types of perceptions. Several perception variables were used, including (1) confidence in the occurrence of climate change, (2) risk awareness, (3) agreement on harm to individuals, families, and future generations, (4) belief that human activity is a primary cause, (5) trust in scientists and public recognition of climate change, (6) personal and collective efficacy, and (7) engagement in climate issues.

The results of the analysis categorized respondents into groups comparable to the Global Warming’s Six Americas framework: ‘the Alarmed’, ‘the Concerned’, ‘the Cautious’, ‘the Disengaged’, ‘the Doubtful’, and ‘the Dismissive’. While the characteristics of these groups were largely consistent with the six types found in the American study, some differences were observed. South Koreans were divided into four groups: ‘the Dismissive’, ‘the Indifferent', ‘the Cautiously Concerned’, and ‘the Proactively Warning’. The Indifferent group was the largest, while the cautiously concerned group was the smallest. The Indifferent group had low overall awareness of climate change, but relatively high individual efficacy. In contrast, the Cautiously Concerned group, despite having low psychological distance from climate risks, showed moderate levels of worry and engagement, combining characteristics of the Cautious and Concerned groups identified in previous studies.

The Proactive Warning group showed the highest levels of climate change awareness and efficacy, unlike their American counterparts, where efficacy was lower in the Warning group. Finally, the Dismissive group showed generally low levels of climate change belief, efficacy, and awareness.

This study is significant because it adapts previous research on Americans to a Korean context, categorizes perceptions of climate change, explores the differences in these segments, and seeks to develop effective messaging strategies for the future. By providing a systematic classification of climate change perception types in South Korea and bridging cultural and perceptual differences, it provides a foundation for future climate change campaigns and policy development.

Keywords:

climate change, global warming’s six Americans, Korean types, cluster analysis

키워드:

기후변화, 6가지 미국인 유형, 한국인 유형, 군집분석

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted with the support of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea(이 연구는 2021년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임)[NRF-2021S1A5C2A02088387].

References

  • Ahn, J. I., & Seo, Y. K. (2024). Cluster analysis of media users types based on media literacy competencies. The Korean Journal of Literacy Research, 15(3), 127-162. [안정임·서윤경 (2024). 미디어 리터러시 역량으로 본 미디어 이용자 군집분석. <리터러시 연구>, 15권 3호, 127-162.] [https://doi.org/10.37736/KJLR.2024.06.15.3.05]
  • Ahn, J., & Kim, Y. J. (2022). Koreans’ climate change beliefs, risk perception, and climate action: Focusing on the effects of the communication channel type. Journal of Social Science, 48(2), 85-116. [안정선·김여정 (2022). 한국인의 기후변화 신념, 위험인식, 대응행동: 커뮤니케이션 채널 유형의 영향을 중심으로. <사회과학연구>, 48권 2호, 85-116.]
  • Akerlof, K., Maibach, E. W., Fitzgerald, D., Cedeno, A. Y., & Neuman, A. (2013). Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so, how, and does it matter? Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 81-91. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.006]
  • Aust, C. F., & Zillmann, D. (1996). Effects of victim exemplification in television news on viewer perception of social issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 787-803. [https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909607300403]
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
  • Bilandzic, H., Kinnebrock, S., & Klingler, M. (2020). The emotional effects of science narratives: A theoretical framework. Media and Communication, 8(1), 151-163. [https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i1.2602]
  • Bolsen, T., Kingsland, J., & Palm, R. (2018). The impact of frames highlighting coastal flooding in the USA on climate change beliefs. Climatic Change, 147, 359-368. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2143-0]
  • Boulianne, S., Lalancette, M., & Ilkiw, D. (2020). “School strike 4 climate”: Social media and the international youth protest on climate change. Media and Communication, 8(2), 208-218. [https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2768]
  • Carlton, J. S., & Jacobson, S. K. (2016). Using expert and non-expert models of climate change to enhance communication. Environmental Communication, 10(1), 1-24. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1016544]
  • Chadwick, A. E. (2015). Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication, 30(6), 598-611. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.916777]
  • Chae, S., Lee, S., & Kim, H. (2024). Characteristics of climate anxiety in South Korea. Health and Social Welfare Review, 44(1), 245-267. [채수미·김혜윤·이수빈 (2024). 한국인의 기후불안 수준 및 특성. <보건사회연구>, 44권 1호, 245-267.] [https://doi.org/10.15709/HSWR.2024.44.1.245]
  • Cho, H., & Friley, L. B. (2015). Narrative communication of risk: Toward balancing accuracy and acceptance. In H. Cho, T. Reimer, & K. A. McComas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of risk communication (pp. 180-192). Sage. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387918.n21]
  • Choi, H. J. (2017). Research of risk communication strategy for the enhancement of environmental risk perception and eco-friendly behavioral intention: Application of construal-level theory on global warming and particulate matter risk message. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea. [최현주 (2017). <환경 위험인식과 친환경행동의도 제고를 위한 커뮤니케이션 전략 연구: 지구온난화와 미세먼지 위험 메시지에 대한 해석수준 이론의 적용>. 성균관대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문.]
  • Chryst, B., Marlon, J., Van Der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, C. (2018). Global warming’s “six Americas short survey”: Audience segmentation of climate change views using a four question instrument. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 1109-1122. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1508047]
  • Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., ... & Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002. [https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002]
  • Crompton, T. (2011). Weathercocks and signposts: The environment movement at a crossroads. Retrived 2024/9/1 from http://wwf.org.uk/strategiesforchange
  • Damman, O. C., & Timmermans, D. R. (2012). Educating health consumers about cardio-metabolic health risk: What can we learn from lay mental models of risk? Patient Education and Counseling, 89(2), 300-308. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.030]
  • Detenber, B., Rosenthal, S., Liao, Y., & Ho, S. S. (2016). Audience segmentation for campaign design: Addressing climate change in Singapore. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4736-4758.
  • Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629-636. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408]
  • Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1(9), 462-466. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1295]
  • Dunwoody, S., & Peters, H. P. (1992). Mass media coverage of technological and environmental risks. Public Understanding of Science, 1(2), 199-230. [https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/2/004]
  • European Commission (2019). Special Eurobarometer 490: Climate change (ML-02-19-633-EN-N). https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-09/report_summary_2019_en.pdf
  • Gallup Korea (2024). Public perceptions on climate change: WWS multinational survey (Gallup Report G20240801). https://www.gallup.co.kr/gallupdb/reportContent.asp?seqNo=1503, [한국갤럽조사연구소 (2024). 기후변화 관련 인식: WWS 다국가 조사 (갤럽리포트 G20240801).]
  • Goldberg, M., van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2020). Perceived social consensus can reduce ideological biases on climate change. Environment and Behavior, 52(5), 495ᐨ517. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519853302]
  • Goodman, M. K., McNatt, M. B., & Boykoff, M. T. (2022). Communicating climate change in the Anthropocene: The dynamic cultural politics of climate change news coverage and social media around the world. In A. Hansen & R. Cox (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of environment and communication (pp. 253-271). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003119234-20]
  • Green, M., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701-721. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701]
  • Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 80(2), S230-S245. [https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1998.3940]
  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
  • Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701-723. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646]
  • Heo, M., & Lee Y. (2004). Reproducibility assessment of K-means clustering and applications. The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics, 17(1), 135-144. [허명회·이용구 (2004). K-평균 군집화의 재현성 평가 및 응용. <응용통계연구>, 17권 1호, 135-144.] [https://doi.org/10.5351/KJAS.2004.17.1.135]
  • Hine, D., Reser, J., Morrison, M., Phillips, W., Nunn, P., & Cooksey, R. (2014). Audience segmentation and climate change communication: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(4), 441-459. [https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.279]
  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
  • Hong, Y. L. (2024, January 8). [Opinion & Politics] The anxiety index of the 2030 generation reaches a dangerous level. Chosun Ilbo. https://www.chosun.com/opinion/column/2021/05/28/GHUW2L2KL5BBNAA2FLBC6KWJA4/?utm_source=naver&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=naver-news, [홍영림 (2024, 1, 8). [여론&정치] 위험 수위 도달한 2030 세대 불안 지수. <조선일보>.]
  • Hornsey, M. J., & Fielding, K. S. (2020). Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 3-35. [https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12058]
  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2018). Summary for policymakers (Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5°C). https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2021). Summary for policymakers (Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge University Press.
  • Johnson, B. B. (2012). Climate change communication: A provocative inquiry into motives, meanings, and means. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 973-990. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01731.x]
  • 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. [https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12601]
  • Kim, H. C., Kim, H. S., & Cho, S. K. (2011). Changes in news frames on climate change in Korean daily newspapers. Social Science Studies, 19(2), 76-106. [김현철·김학수·조성겸 (2011). 한국 일간신문의 기후변화 관련 뉴스프레임의 변화. <사회과학연구> 제19권 2호, 76-106.] [https://doi.org/10.17787/jsgiss.2011.19.2.76]
  • Kim, H. S. (2021, October 18). Insufficient climate communication by the government? 60% of citizens are unaware of the carbon neutrality scenario. Kyunghyang Shinmun. https://www.khan.co.kr/national/national-general/article/202110181104001, [김한솔 (2021, 10, 18). 정부의 부족한 기후소통? 시민 60% ‘탄소중립 시나리오 잘 모른다’. <경향신문>.]
  • Kim, K., & Kim, Y. W. (2017). The effects of message framing and uncertainty on the preventive behavioral intention: A focus on climate change. Advertising Research, 112, 154-198. [김경진·김영욱 (2017). 메시지 프레임과 불확실성 인식이 예방 행동 의도에 미치는 영향: 기후 변화 이슈를 중심으로. <광고연구> 112호, 154-198.] [https://doi.org/10.16914/ar.2017.112.154]
  • Kim, S. J., & Kim, Y. W. (2019). The effects of cultural bias on climate change policy compliance and support: An analysis of the mediating effects of risk perception, emotion, and efficacy. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication, 63(4), 230-274. [김수진·김영욱 (2019). 문화적 편향이 기후변화 정책 순응과 지지에 미치는 영향: 위험인식, 감정, 효능감의 매개 효과 중심 분석. <한국언론학보>, 63권 4호, 230ᐨ274.] [https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2019.63.4.007]
  • Kim, S. Y., & Kim, S. H. (2016). An analysis of the determinants of climate change awareness and response actions. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 54(1), 179-206. [김서용·김선희 (2016). 기후변화 의식과 대응행동 결정요인 분석. <행정논총>, 54권 1호, 179-206.]
  • Kim, Y. W. (2014). Risk communication. Communication Books. [김영욱 (2014). <위험 커뮤니케이션>. 커뮤니케이션북스.]
  • Kim, Y., Lee, H., Jang, Y., & Lee, H. (2016). A cluster analysis on the risk of particulate matter: Focusing on differences in risk perceptions and risk-related behaviors based on public segmentation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20(3), 201-235. [김영욱·이현승·장유진·이혜진 (2016). 미세먼지 위험을 둘러싼 공중 군집 분석: 공중 세분화에 따른 위험 인식 및 관련 행동에 대한 차이점 도출. <홍보학 연구>, 20권 3호, 201-235.] [https://doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2016.20.3.201]
  • Kim, Y., Park, D., & Min, H. (2018). The impact of psychological distance on risk-mitigative behaviors toward climate change among Koreans: A focus on the mediating effects of risk perception and the moderating effects of efficacy. Advertising Research, 118, 127-170. [김영욱·박단아·민혜민 (2018). 기후변화에 대한 심리적 거리감이 완화 행동 의도에 미치는 영향. <광고연구> 118호, 127-170.] [https://doi.org/10.16914/ar.2018.118.127]
  • Ko, H. J. (2024). A comparative study of citizen perceptions on climate change in 10 countries: Focusing on South Korean perceptions. Health and Welfare Forum, 335, 37-53. [고혜진 (2024). 기후변화에 대한 10개국 시민 인식 비교: 한국인의 인식을 중심으로. <보건복지포럼>, 335호, 37-53.] [https://doi.org/10.23062/2024.09.4]
  • Kreuter, M. W., Farrell, D. W., Olevitch, L. R., & Brennan, L. K. (2013). Tailoring healthmessages: Customizing communication with computer technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Krimsky, S. (1992). The role of theory in risk studies. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 3-23). Praeger.
  • Kronick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Lowe, L., & Visser, P. S. (2006). The origin and consequences of democratic citizen’s policy agendas: A study of popular concern about global warming. Climate Change, 77, 7-43. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9068-8]
  • Lee, B. H. (2021). How foreign media report on the climate crisis: Global media stepping up to tackle a worldwide disaster. Newspaper and Broadcasting, 605, 36-41. [이봉현 (2021). 외신은 기후위기를 어떻게 보도하고 있나: 범세계적 재앙에 팔 걷어붙인 세계 언론. <신문과 방송>, 605호, 36-41.]
  • Lee, D., Kim, J., & Kang, H. (2016). The emotional distress and fear of contagion related to Middle East Respiratory Syndrome(MERS) on general public in Korea. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 35(2), 355-383. [이동훈·김지윤·강현숙 (2016). 메르스(MERS) 감염에 대해 일반대중이 경험한 두려움과 정서적 디스트레스에 관한 탐색적 연구. <한국심리학회지: 일반>, 35권 2호, 355-383.] [https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2016.06.35.2.355]
  • Lee, H. S., & Ho, G. H. (2024). The voices of Korean youth towards climate change: Focusing on emotions caused by climate change and attempts at dialogue. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication, 68(5), 5-45. [이혜선·호규현 (2024). 기후변화를 향한 한국 청년들의 목소리: 기후변화로 인한 감정과 대화 시도를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 68권 5호, 5-45.] [https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.5.001]
  • Lee, H., & Kim, Y. W. (2022). A study on risk-coping behavioral intentions against particulate matter by situational publics: The extended application of the situational theory to local residents in the Chungnam province. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication, 66(3), 183-230. [이현승·김영욱 (2022). 공중유형에 따른 미세먼지 위험 대응 행동의도 연구: 충남지역 주민을 대상으로 한 공중 상황 이론의 확장 적용. <한국언론학보>, 66권 3호, 183-230.] [https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2022.66.3.005]
  • Lee, S., & Kim, Y. W. (2019). Communication strategies corresponding to the typology of Koreans’ perception on climate change risk. The Korean Journal of Public Administration, 28(1), 1-31. [이승준·김영욱 (2019). 한국인의 기후변화 위험인식 유형에 따른 소통방안. <한국행정연구>, 28권 1호, 1-31.]
  • Lee, T., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 1014-1020. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728]
  • Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change, 77(1), 45-72. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9]
  • Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Howe, P. (2013). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in April 2013. [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2298705]
  • Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Hmielowski, J. (2012). Global warming’s six Americas in March 2012 and November 2011. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Six-Americas-March-2012-and-November-2011.pdf
  • Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., Marlon, J., & Maibach, E. (2021). Global warming’s six Americas: A review and recommendations for climate change communication. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 97-103. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.04.007]
  • Lim, I., & Keum, H. (2024). Climate change news frames and policy support: The mediating paths of discrete emotions and risk perception. Korean Association for Broadcasting & Telecommunication Studies, 125, 104-143. [임인재·금희조 (2024). 기후변화 뉴스 프레임이 정책지지에 미치는 영향: 개별 감정과 위험 인식의 매개 경로 중심. <방송통신연구>, 125호, 104-143.] [https://doi.org/10.22876/kjbtr.2023..125.004]
  • Lim, I., & Kim, Y. W. (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. [임인재·김영욱 (2019). 기후변화 보도 유형이 행동의도에 영향을 미치는 경로 연구: 감정의 인지적 평가 이론 중심 분석. <한국언론정보학보>, 96호, 37ᐨ72.] [https://doi.org/10.46407/kjci.2019.08.96.37]
  • Lustria, M. L. A., Noar, S. M., Cortese, J., Van Stee, S. K., Glueckauf, R. L., & Lee, J. (2013). A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions. Journal of Health Communication, 18(9), 1039-1069. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.768727]
  • Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., & Mertz, C. K. (2011). Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PLoS ONE, 6(3), e17571. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017571]
  • Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2009). Global warming’s six Americas 2009: An audience segmentation analysis. Yale Project on Climate Change & George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.
  • Marshall, G. (2018). Don’t even think about it: Why our brains are wired to ignore climate change. Bloomsbury.
  • Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503-515. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001]
  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155-194. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x]
  • Metag, J., Füchslin, T., & Schäfer, M. (2017). Global warming’s five Germanys: A typology of Germans’ views on climate change and patterns of media use and information. Public Understanding of Science, 26(4), 434-451. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515592558]
  • Neumann, C., Stanley, S. K., Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. (2022). The six Australias: Concern about climate change (and global warming) is rising. Environmental Communication, 16(4), 433-444. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2048407]
  • Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23. [https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23]
  • Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., & Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(1-2), 127-150. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6]
  • O’Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461-471. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x]
  • Park, J. M. (2021). An analysis of the determinants of climate change risk perception and acceptance of climate change policies. Unpublished master’s thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. [박정민 (2021). <기후변화 위험인식과 기후변화정책 수용도의 결정요인 분석>. 서울대학교 대학원 석사학위 논문.]
  • Peters, G., Ruiter, R., & Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: A critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychology Review, 7(sup 1), S8-S31. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2012.703527]
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69-81. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69]
  • Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., & Fisher, S. (2019). Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: A cross-European analysis. Global Environmental Change, 55, 25-35. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.007]
  • Quick, B. L., Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2013). Reactance theory and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 167-183). SAGE. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452218410.n11]
  • Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. A. (2012). Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 992-1002. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01771.x]
  • Read, D., Bostrom, A., Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., & Smuts, T. (1994). What do people know about global climate change? 2. Survey studies of educated Laypeople. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 971-982. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00066.x]
  • Rimal, R. N., Brown, J., Mkandawire, G., Folda, L., Böse, K., & Creel, A. H. (2009). Audience segmentation as a social-marketing tool in health promotion: Use of the risk perception attitude framework in HIV prevention in Malawi. American Journal of Public Health, 99(12), 2224-2229. [https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.155234]
  • Rose, R. L., Bearden, W. O., & Manning, K. C. (1996). Using individual differences to segment the “market” for an attribution-based substance abuse intervention program. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(2), 252-262. [https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569601500207]
  • Roser-Renouf, C., Maibach, E., Leiserowitz, A., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2016). Faith, morality and the environment: Portraits of global warming’s six Americas. George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.
  • Roser-Renouf, C., Stenhouse, N., Rolfe-Redding, J., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Engaging diverse audiences with climate change: Message strategies for global warming’s six Americas. In A. Hansen & R. Cox (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of environment and communication (pp. 388-406). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2410650]
  • 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. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196]
  • Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., Siegrist, M., & Arvai, J. (2016). Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 759-762. [https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2997]
  • Shin, B. S. (2024, August 26). 100 years of temperature rise in the Korean peninsula: ‘1.6 degrees’ increase and triple the number of tropical nights. KBS News. https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/pc/view/view.do?ncd=8044090, [신방실 (2024, 8, 26). 한반도 100년간 ‘1.6도’ 상승…열대야 ‘3배’ 늘었다. <KBS 뉴스>.]
  • Slater, M. D., Kelley, K. J., & Thackeray, R. (2006). Segmentaion on a shoestring: Health audience segmentation in limited-budget and local social marketing intervention. Health Promotion Practice, 7(2), 170-173. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906286616]
  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507]
  • Slovic, P. (1992). Perceptions of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds), Social theories of risk (pp. 117-152). Praeger.
  • 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. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x]
  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. C. Schwing & W. A. Albers (Eds.), Societal risk assessment: How safe is safe enough? (pp. 181-214). Plenum. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0445-4_9]
  • Song, H. R., Kim, W. J., & Kim, C. W. (2015). A study on public’s credibility, risk perception and effectiveness of nuclear power plant: Focused on comparison between the degree of risk and fear. Crisisonomy, 11(4), 123-140. [송해룡·김원제·김찬원 (2015). 공중의 원자력발전소에 대한 신뢰성, 위험인식, 효용성에 관한 연구 - 위험군 및 두려움 정도의 비교를 중심으로. <한국위기관리논집>, 11권 4호, 123-140.]
  • Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957-972. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x]
  • Stedman, R. C. (2004). Risk and climate change: Perceptions of key policy actors in Canada. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1395-1406. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00534.x]
  • Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K., Darnton, A., McLachlan, C., & Devine-Wright, P. (2009). Public attitudes to environmental change: A selective review of theory and practice. A research synthesis for the Living with Environmental Change Programme, Research Councils UK. https://www.lwec.org.uk
  • Van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112-124. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012]
  • Van der Linden, S. (2017). Determinants and measurement of climate change risk perception, worry, and concern. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.318]
  • Van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2019). The gateway belief model: A largescale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 49-58. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009]
  • WEF (World Economic Forum) (2024). Global risks report 2024. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/digest/
  • Whitmarsh, L., & Mitev, K. (2022). Public perceptions of climate change and their variation across audiences. In The Routledge handbook of environment and communication (pp. 379-394). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003119234-31]
  • Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., & Seiden, J. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7-19. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.005]
  • Yoon, Y. (2024, November 20). South Korea’s ‘climate response’ ranked lowest again this year… “We can do it, but we don’t.” Hankyoreh. https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/environment/1168382.html, [윤연정 (2024, 11, 20). 한국 ‘기후대응’ 올해도 최하위 평가…“할 수 있는데도 안 한다” <한겨레신문>.]
  • YouGov (2020). OVO energy survey results. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/2lhk9n9so1/OVOEnergy_Climate_201104_W1.pdf
  • Yum, J. Y., & Kang, S. A. (2023). Public attitudes towards the environment: 2023 survey (KEI Project Report 2023-16-02). Korea Environment Institute. https://www.kei.re.kr/elibList.es?mid=a10101010000&elibName=researchreport&class_id=&act=view&c_id=760172, [염정윤·강선아 (2023). 2023 국민환경의식조사 (한국환경연구원 사업보고서, 2023-16-02). 한국환경연구원.]
  • Zahran, S., Brody, S. D., Grover, H., & Vedlitz, A. (2006). Climate change vulnerability and policy support. Society and Natural Resources, 19(9), 771-789. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920600835528]
  • Zhao, X., Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., & Roser-Renout, C. (2011). Attention to science/environment news positively predicts and attention to political news negatively predicts global warming risk perceptions and policy support. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 713-731. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01563.x]
  • Zhou, N., Ho, G., & Cho, J. (2022). Structural relationship between environmental interpersonal communication, media exposure to environmental information and eco-friendly behavior intentions: Environmental involvement as a mediator. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 113, 177-206. [주남·호규현·조재희 (2022). 환경 관련 대인 커뮤니케이션, 미디어 채널별 정보 노출이 친환경행동의도에 미치는 영향: 환경관여도의 매개 역할을 중심으로. <한국언론정보학보>, 113호, 177-206.] [https://doi.org/10.46407/kjci.2022.06.113.177]