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.362-397
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2024
Received 31 Jul 2024 Revised 26 Nov 2024 Accepted 28 Nov 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2024.68.6.010

후쿠시마 오염수 방류 위험지각에 영향을 미치는 요인 : 미디어 노출, 당파적 정체성, 휴리스틱-체계적 정보 처리를 중심으로

이숙정** ; 유연***
**중앙대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학부 교수 sjleecom@cau.ac.kr
***중앙대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션대학원 석사 yeonyoolucy@gmail.com
Determinants of Risk Perception on Fukushima Contaminated Water Discharge : Media Exposure, Partisan Identity, and Heuristic-Systematic Processing
Sook Jung Lee** ; Yeon Yoo***
**Professor, Department of Media & Communication, Chung-Ang University sjleecom@cau.ac.kr
***Master’s degree, Department of Media & Communication, Chung-Ang University yeonyoolucy@gmail.com

초록

후쿠시마 오염수 방류에 관한 일반인의 위험지각이 어떻게 형성되는지를 탐구하기 위해 미디어를 통한 관련 정보 노출, 당파적 정체성, 휴리스틱-체계적 정보 처리 방식이 위험지각에 미치는 영향과 휴리스틱-체계적 처리의 조절효과를 검증하고자 했다. 온·오프라인 설문조사를 실시했고 총 518명의 자료를 분석했다. 위험지각에 대한 요인분석을 한 결과, 후쿠시마 오염수 방류에 관한 공중의 위험지각은 지각된 유해성과 지각된 불확실성이라는 두 차원으로 구분됨을 확인했다. 연구가설에 대한 회귀분석 결과, 미디어를 통한 정보 노출량은 위험의 유해성 지각에 정적인 영향을 주었으나 그 영향력은 약한 편이었다. 독립변인 중, 당파적 정체성은 위험지각에 영향을 주는 가장 중요한 변인으로서 여당 정체성이 강할수록 유해성 지각이 낮아지는 경향을 보였다. 휴리스틱 처리는 위험의 지각된 유해성에 부적인 영향을 주었고 체계적 처리는 지각된 유해성과 지각된 불확실성에 정적인 영향을 주었다. 또한 휴리스틱 처리는 당파적 정체성이 지각된 유해성에 미치는 영향을 강화하고 체계적 처리는 당파적 정체성의 영향을 약화하는 것으로 조절효과가 유의한 것을 확인했다. 지각된 불확실성이라는 위험지각의 새로운 차원과 위험지각에서의 정치적 양극화 현상을 발견하고, 휴리스틱-체계적 처리가 당파적 정체성에 따른 위험지각을 조절하는 효과가 있음을 검증했다는 데 의의가 있다.

Abstract

Effective risk communication and management policies must be grounded in a clear understanding of public risk perception. To explore how public perceptions of risk have been shaped regarding the discharge of Fukushima's contaminated water, this study investigated the key factors influencing these perceptions. Based on the theoretical models of the social amplification of risk framework, social identity, and heuristic and systematic processing, this study hypothesized that media exposure, partisan identity, and heuristic and systematic processing would influence risk perception, and that heuristic and systematic information processing would moderate the effect of partisan identity on risk perception. To evaluate the hypotheses, both online and offline surveys were conducted, resulting in data from 518 participants. The findings are summarized as follows: First, a factor analysis of risk perception revealed that public perceptions of the Fukushima contaminated water discharge could be categorized into two dimensions: perceived harm and perceived uncertainty. Second, regression analysis of the hypotheses showed that the amount of information exposure through the media had a positive effect on the perceived harmfulness of the risk, but the effect was weak. Third, among the independent variables, partisan identity emerged as the most significant factor shaping risk perception. Stronger identification with the ruling party was associated with lower levels of both perceived harmfulness and perceived uncertainty. Fourth, cognitive processing styles played a pivotal role, with heuristic processing negatively affecting perceived harmfulness, while systematic processing positively influenced both perceived harmfulness and perceived uncertainty. Fifth, the moderation effects of heuristic-systematic processing were significant. Heuristic processing strengthened the effect of partisan identity on perceived harmfulness and systematic processing weakened the effect of partisan identity on perceived harmfulness. The present study has the following implications. First, this study identified a new dimension of risk perception, that is, perceived uncertainty. While the previous studies has focused on a severity dimension in risk perception, this study emphasizes perceived uncertainty as well as perceived harmfulness should be examined in order to understand the public’s risk perception. Second, the present study confirmed that political polarization was occurring in the area of risk perception. This shows that risk-related issues are becoming a matter of social conflict polarized by partisanship. Third, the present study found that systematic processing plays an important role in reducing political polarization or social conflict in risk perception. These findings suggest that the risk communication model in response to uncertainty and political polarization in risk perception should be developed.

Keywords:

Fukushima contaminated water discharge, risk perception, media exposure, partisan identity, heuristic-systematic processing

키워드:

후쿠시마 오염수 방류, 위험지각, 미디어 노출, 당파적 정체성, 휴리스틱-체계적 처리

Acknowledgments

This study is based on the data of the master’s thesis of Yeon Yoo at Chung-Ang university(이 논문은 유연의 중앙대학교 석사학위논문의 데이터를 활용하였음).

References

  • Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12(1), 1-11. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802488883]
  • Barrios, J. M., & Hochberg, Y. V. (2021). Risk perceptions and politics: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 862-879. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.05.039]
  • Binder, A. R., Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Brossard, D. (2014). The role of news media in the social amplification of risk. The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication, 69. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387918.n10]
  • Botzen, W. W., Duijndam, S. J., Robinson, P. J., & van Beukering, P. (2022). Behavioral biases and heuristics in perceptions of COVID‐19 risks and prevention decisions. Risk Analysis, 42(12), 2671-2690. [https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13882]
  • 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, 125-130. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm2702_7]
  • Bruine de Bruin, W., Saw, H. W., & Goldman, D. P. (2020). Political polarization in US residents’ COVID-19 risk perceptions, policy preferences, and protective behaviors. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 61(2), 177-194. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09336-3]
  • Cao, W., Yang, Q., & Zhang, X. (2023). Understanding information processing and protective behaviors during the pandemic: A three-wave longitudinal study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 4041. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054041]
  • Cha, Y. J. (2012). Risk perception model and nuclear risk: Test and application of psychometric paradigm. The Korea Association for Policy Studies, 21(1), 285-312. [차용진 (2012). 위험인식모형과 원자력위험-심리측정패러다임 검증 및 적용. <한국정책학회보>, 21권 1호, 285-312.]
  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752]
  • Chaiken, S. (2014). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence (pp. 3-39). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Chaiken, S., & Ledgerwood, A. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 246–266). Sage Publications Ltd. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n13]
  • Cho, A., & Kang, Y. (2014). A proposal for the reformation of risk governance: Centered on the south korean FMD crisis in 2010. The Korean Association for Environmental Sociology, 18(1), 187-234. [조아라·강윤재. (2014). 불확실성을 통해 본 위험거버넌스의 한계와 개선점: 2010 년 구제역 사태를 중심으로. <환경사회학연구 ECO>, 18권 1호, 187-234.]
  • Cho, Y., & Kim, S. (2021). How public’s age and political orientation affect COVID-19 risk perceptions, risk information seeking and processing, and evaluation of government’s response to COVID-19. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication, 65(4), 106-147. [조영리·김수연 (2021). 공중의 연령과 정치 성향이 코로나 19 위험 인식, 위험 정보의 탐색 처리, 정부의 재난 대응 평가에 미치는 영향: RISP 모델의 적용. <한국언론학보>, 65권 4호, 106-147.] [https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2021.65.4.003.]
  • Choi, C., & Kim, C. (2016). Path dependency and social amplification of risk in particulate matter air pollution management and its implications. Journal of the Korean Regional Development Association, 28(5), 89-107. [최충익·김철민 (2016). 미세먼지정책의 경로의존성과 위험의 사회적 확산. <한국지역개발학회지>, 28권 5호, 89-107.]
  • Choi, J. (2009). The factors affecting the social amplification of risk perception: The effects of media and social trust on the public’s judgment of risk associated with mad cow disease. Korean Policy Sciences Review, 13(3), 165-188. [최진식 (2009). 위험성 인식의 사회적 증폭요인에 관한 연구: 언론보도와 사회적 신뢰가 광우병 위험성 판단에 미치는 영향을 중심으로. <한국정책과학학회보>, 13권 3호, 165-188.]
  • Choi, M. I., Kim, K. H., & Joo, J. (2009). The effect of media exposure as a cue to action on purchase intention of U.S. beef : Focusing on the mediating effect of perceived susceptibility and perceived severity. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication, 53(6), 50-65. [최명일·김경환·주지혁 (2009). 행위단서로서 광우병 관련 미디어 노출이 미국산 쇠고기 구매 의도에 미치는 영향: 지각된 취약성, 지각된 심각성의 매개 효과를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 53권 6호, 50-65.]
  • Demel, R., Pooresmaeili, A., Gagsch, F., Spengler, M., & Schacht, A. (2024). Beyond bidimensional measures: Introducing a culturally tailored measure of political orientation. Political Psychology, 45(3), 517-535. [https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12935]
  • Dryhurst, S., Schneider, C. R., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L., Recchia, G., Van Der Bles, A. M., ... & Van Der Linden, S. (2022). Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. In COVID-19 (pp. 162-174). Routledge.
  • Erikson, R. S., & Tedin, K. L. (2003). American public opinion (6th ed.). New York: Longman.
  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 8, 127-152. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739]
  • Gil, J. (2019). How trust and distrust in government influence electoral participation: The moderating role of ideology and partisan preferences. Korean Journal of Legislative Studies Institute, 57, 103-140. [길정아 (2019). 정부신뢰와 정부불신, 그리고 투표 참여: 유권자의 이념성향과 정당호감도에 따른 차별적 유인. <의정연구>, 57권, 103-139.]
  • Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 136-153. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501010.x]
  • 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]
  • Heydari, S. T., Zarei, L., Sadati, A. K., Moradi, N., Akbari, M., Mehralian, G., & Lankarani, K. B. (2021). The effect of risk communication on preventive and protective behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak: Mediating role of risk perception. BMC Public Health, 21, 1-11. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10125-5]
  • Hong, E. Y., & Park, C. H. (2023). An analysis of the determinants of individual risk judgment on job loss by intelligent information technology. Information Society & Media, 24(2), 1-40. [홍은영·박천희 (2023). 누가 낙관하고, 누가 비관하는가?: 지능정보기술로 인한 일자리 대체에 대한 개인들의 위험 판단. <정보사회와 미디어>, 24권 2호, 1-40.] [https://doi.org/10.52558/ISM.2023.08.24.2.1]
  • Hong, H., & Kim, H. J. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of information overload in the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), 9305. [https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249305]
  • Huang, X., & Yang, T. (2020). How does background risk affect portfolio choice: An analysis based on uncertain mean-variance model with background risk. Journal of Banking & Finance, 111, 105726. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.105726]
  • Huddy, L., Mason, L., & Aarøe, L. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1-17. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604]
  • Jansen, T., Claassen, L., van Kamp, I., & Timmermans, D. R. (2019). Understanding of the concept of ‘uncertain risk’: A qualitative study among different societal groups. Journal of Risk Research, 22(5), 658-672. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1503614]
  • Jo, G. W. (2024). The democratic value of partisanship. Journal of Contemporary Politics, 17(1), 63-89. [조계원 (2024). 당파성의 민주적 가치. <현대정치연구>, 17권 1호, 63-89.] [https://doi.org/10.52594/jcp.2024.04.17.1.63]
  • Jun, J. W. (2021). Media cultivation and cultural difference effects affecting risk perception of COVID-19. Journal of Communication Research, 58(2), 66-91. [전종우 (2021). 코로나 위험지각에 영향을 미치는 미디어 배양효과와 개인의 문화적 차이. <언론정보연구>, 58권 2호, 66-91.] [https://doi.org/10.22174/jcr.2021.58.2.66]
  • Jung, D. J. (2018). Political polarization among south korean citizens after the 2018 local elections - The rise of partisan sorting and negative partisanship -. OUGHTOPIA, 33(3), 143-180. [정동준 (2018). 2018년 지방선거 이후 유권자들의 정치 양극화: 당파적 배열과 부정적 당파성을 중심으로: 당파적 배열과 부정적 당파성을 중심으로. <OUGHTOPIA>, 33권 3호, 143-180.] [https://doi.org/10.32355/OUGHTOPIA.2018.11.33.3.143]
  • Jwa, B., Yoon, M., & Paek, H. J. (2013). Media, risk characteristics, and risk perceptions: The context of carcinogenic hazards. Journal of Public Relations, 17(4), 72-109. [좌보경·윤문영·백혜진 (2013). 미디어, 지각된 위험 특성, 위험 인식의 관계에 대한 연구-발암물질 위험 이슈를 중심으로. <PR연구>, 17권 4호, 72-109.] [https://doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2013.17.4.72]
  • Kahlor, L. A. (2007). An augmented risk information seeking model: The case of global warming. Media Psychology, 10(3), 414-435. [https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701532971]
  • Kang, Y. (2020). Constructed risk and the vision of the sociology of risk: Centered on uncertainty and citizen science. Society and Theory, 37, 7-37, [강윤재 (2020). 구성된 위험과 위험의 사회학의 새로운 모색: 불확실성과 시민과학을 중심으로. <사회와이론>, 제37집, 7-37.] [https://doi.org/10.17209/st.2020.11.37.7]
  • Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., ... & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x]
  • Kerr, J., Panagopoulos, C., & Van Der Linden, S. (2021). Political polarization on COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, 110892. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110892]
  • Kim, G., & Lee, J. (2021). Partisan identity and affective polarization in South Korea. Korean Political Science Review, 55(2), 57-87. [김기동·이재묵 (2021). 한국 유권자의 당파적 정체성과 정서적 양극화. <한국정치학회보>, 55권 2호, 57-87.] [https://doi.org/10.18854/kpsr.2021.55.2.003]
  • Kim, H., & Hong, H. (2021). Protective health behaviors during the COVID-19 outbreak: Extending the protection motivation theory and testing the role of political orientation. The Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations, 23(2), 42-76. [김효정·홍혜현 (2021). 코로나 19 예방행동과 정보추구 의도 연구: 보호동기이론의 확장과 지지정당의 영향력 검증을 중심으로. <한국광고홍보학보>, 23권 2호, 42-76.] [https://doi.org/10.16914/kjapr.2021.23.2.42]
  • Kim, H., Oh, H., Hong, D., Shim, J., & Chang, J. (2018). The Effects of media use on risk perceptions and preventive behavioral intentions of an emerging infectious disease: Focused on the mediated effects of information processing. Advertising Research, 119, 123-152. [김활빈·오현정·홍다예·심재철·장정헌 (2018). 미디어 이용이 신종 감염병에 대한 위험 인식과 예방행동 의도에 미치는 영향: 정보 처리 전략의 매개 효과를 중심으로. <광고연구>, 119호, 123-152.] [https://doi.org/10.16914/ar.2018.119.123.]
  • Kim, S. (2024). Partisan identity, ideological difference, and mechanisms of affective polarization: Panel data analysis of the 2022 Korean presidential election. Peace Studies, 32(1), 39-71. [김성연 (2024). 정체성, 이념 차이, 그리고 정서적 양극화의 기제: 제20대 대선 패널 데이터 분석 결과. <평화연구>, 32권 1호, 39-71.] [https://doi.org/10.21051/PS.2024.04.32.1.39]
  • Kim, S., & Ryu, Y. (2014). Analyzing koreans’ risk judgement process in case of fukushima nuclear accident: The receiver’s involvement and ability in hsm(heuristic-systematic information processing model). Institute of Governmental Studies, 20(3), 315-343. [김서용·유연재 (2014). 후쿠시마 원전사고에 대한 한국민의 위험판단 과정에 대한 분석: 휴리스틱-체계적 모형(HSM)에서 정보수신자의 관여와 능력의 역할을 중심으로. <정부학연구>, 20권 3호, 315-343.] [https://doi.org/10.19067/jgs.2014.20.3.315.]
  • Kim, Y., & Kim, H. (2024). How are microplastics represented in the Korean media?: An analysis based on reporting periods, political inclinations and uncertainty. Korean Journal of Communication & Information, 123, 7-44. [김영욱·김혜정 (2024). 언론은 미세플라스틱을 어떻게 보도하는가?: 보도 시기와 언론사 정치적 성향, 그리고 불확실성 중심 분석. <한국언론정보학보>, 123호, 7-44.] [https://doi.org/10.46407/kjci.2024.02.123.7]
  • Kiviniemi, M. T., Orom, H., Hay, J. L., & Waters, E. A. (2022). Prevention is political: Political party affiliation predicts perceived risk and prevention behaviors for COVID-19. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 298. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12649-4]
  • Krishna, A., & Sokolova, T. (2017). A focus on partisanship: How it impacts voting behaviors and political attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 537-545. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.07.005]
  • Kyung, E., Thomas, M., & Krishna, A. (2022). How political identity influences COVID-19 risk perception: A model of identity-based risk perception. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 7(3), 316-324. [https://doi.org/10.1086/719672]
  • Lee, S. J. (2023a, September 27). Greenpeace’s journey to make fukushima polluted water discharge agenda. Greenpeace. https://www.greenpeace.org/korea/update/28378/blog-ce-fukushima-imo-second-story/, [이선주 (2023a. 9. 27.). 후쿠시마 오염수 방류 의제화를 위한 그린피스의 여정. <그린피스>.]
  • Lee, S. J. (2023b, October 11). What matters is an unbreakable heart - After the London Convention, the Conference of the Parties to the London Protocol. Greenpeace. https://www.greenpeace.org/korea/update/28419/blog-ce-fukushima-imo-third-story/, [이선주 (2023b. 10. 11.). 중요한 건 꺾이지 않는 마음 - 런던협약·런던의정서 당사국 총회 그 후. <그린피스>.]
  • Lee, S. Y. (2020). Partisan identity and political tribalism in the american electorate. Korean Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 1-27. [이소영 (2020). 미국 유권자의 당파적 정체성과 정치적 부족주의. <대한정치학회보>, 28권 1호, 1-27.] [https://doi.org/10.34221/KJPS.2020.28.1.1]
  • Lee, Y. A., & Lee, N. (2005). Psychological dimensions of risk perception. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 16(3), 199-211. [이영애·이나경 (2005). 위험지각의 심리적 차원. <인지과학>, 16권 3호, 199-211.]
  • Niu, C., Jiang, Z., Liu, H., Yang, K., Song, X., & Li, Z. (2022). The influence of media consumption on public risk perception: A meta-analysis. Journal of Risk Research, 25(1), 21-47. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1819385]
  • Office for Government Policy Coordination of the Republic of Korea. (2023a, July 7). Government “confirms with international standards such as daily contaminated water treatment plan and IAEA”. https://www.korea.kr/news/top50View.do?newsId=148917366, [국무조정실 (2023a, 7, 7). 정부 “일 오염수 처리계획, IAEA 등 국제기준에 부합 확인”. <대한민국 정책브리핑>.]
  • Office for Government Policy Coordination of the Republic of Korea. (2023b, August 22). Government “Fukushima nuclear power plant discharge polluted water, judging no scientific and technical problems in plan”. https://www.korea.kr/news/policyNewsView.do?newsId=148919248, [국무조정실 (2023b, 8, 22). 정부 “후쿠시마 원전 오염수 방류, 계획상 과학·기술적 문제없다 판단”. <대한민국 정책브리핑>.]
  • Park, H., Kim, S., & Yang, J. (2016). The effects of exposure to mers information and issue involvement on perceived information influence, disease prevention and information sharing. Journal of Media Economics & Culture, 14(3), 7-48. [박현갑·김선호·양정애 (2016). 메르스 (중동호흡기증후군) 정보 노출과 이슈 관여도가 정보의 영향력 지각, 예방 행동, 정보 공유에 미치는 영향. <미디어 경제와 문화>, 14권 3호, 7-48.] [https://doi.org/10.21328/JMEC.2016.08.14.3.7]
  • Park, H. J. (2012). Public perceptions of the risk of BSE and the risk-avoidance behavior in Korea. The Journal of Rural Society, 22(1), 311-341. [박희제 (2012). 한국인의 광우병 위험인식과 위험회피행동. <농촌사회>, 22권 1호, 311-341.]
  • Park, H., Lee, Y., & Lee, H. (2021). Scientific uncertainty and public broadcasting in the public sphere of disasters: Focusing on a frame analysis related to COVID-19 reports. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunication Studies, 35(1), 71-114. [박희봉·이연수·이해수 (2021). 과학적 불확실성과 공영방송, 재난의 공론장: COVID-19 보도에 대한 프레임 분석을 중심으로. <한국방송학보>, 35권 1호, 71-114.] [https://doi.org/10.22876/kab.2021.35.1.003]
  • Park, I., Song, C., & Yoo, N. (2021). Does the risk perception of climate change leads to actual response actions?: Focusing on the mediating effects of policy knowledge. Journal of Governance Studies, 16(1), 75-102. [박이레·Song Chengyu·유나리 (2021). 기후 변화 위험 인식은 실제 대응 행동으로 이어지는가?: 정책 지식의 매개효과를 중심으로. <국정관리연구>, 16권 1호, 75-102.] [https://doi.org/10.16973/jgs.2021.16.1.003]
  • Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Bago, B., & Rand, D. G. (2022). Beliefs about COVID-19 in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States: A novel test of political polarization and motivated reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(5), 750-765. [https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211023652]
  • Rau, E. G. (2022). Partisanship as cause, not consequence, of participation. Comparative Political Studies, 55(6), 1021-1058. [https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211047406]
  • Renn, O., Burns, W. J., Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Theoretical foundations and empirical applications. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 137-160. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01949.x]
  • Rowe, J. C. (1984). Psychoanalytical significances: The use and abuse of uncertainty in the turn of the screw. Short Story Criticism, 248.
  • Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 94-120. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00777.x]
  • Siegrist, M., & Árvai, J. (2020). Risk perception: Reflections on 40 years of research. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2191-2206. [https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13599]
  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. [https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507]
  • Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Godling (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 117-152). Praeger.
  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1986). The psychometric study of risk perception. In V. T. Covello, J. Menkes, & J. Mumpower (Eds.), Risk evaluation and management (pp. 3-24). Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_1]
  • Smith, K., Landon, A. C., Schroeder, S. A., & McInenly, L. E. (2023). Application of the heuristic-systematic model to chronic wasting disease risk perceptions. Society & Natural Resources, 36(6), 696-714. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2023.2183443]
  • Suldovsky, B., & Frank, L. B. (2022). Strengthening public engagement on environmental hazards: Insights from cross-disciplinary air pollution research. Environmental Hazards, 21(3), 218-234. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2021.1938506]
  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
  • Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic Press.
  • Trumbo, C. W. (2002). Information processing and risk perception: An adaptation of the heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Communication, 52(2), 367-382. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02550.x]
  • Yang, Z. J., Aloe, A. M., & Feeley, T. H. (2014). Risk information seeking and processing model: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 20-41. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12071]
  • Yoo, W., & Oh, S. (2023). The effects of social determinants of health on Covid-19-preventive behavioral intention: Mediating roles of information processing and information seeking. Advertising Research, 137, 47-74. [유우현·오상화 (2023). 건강의 사회적 결정요인이 코로나 19 예방행동 의도에 미치는 영향: 정보 처리와 정보 탐색의 매개 역할. <광고연구>, 137호, 47-74.] [https://doi.org/10.16914/ar.2023.137.47]