바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1229-0661
  • E-ISSN1229-0661
  • KCI

논문 상세

이전
논문 투고

Vol.17 No.4

Citation Share

테러 위험지각의 인지-사회 모형

A Cognitive-social Model for Risk Perception of Terrorism

한국심리학회지 : 문화 및 사회문제 / Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues, (P)1229-0661; (E)1229-0661
2011, v.17 no.4, pp.485-503
이현주 (이화여자대학교)
이영애 (이화여자대학교)
이현주, & 이영애. (2011). 테러 위험지각의 인지-사회 모형. 한국심리학회지 : 문화 및 사회문제, 17(4), 485-503.

초록

테러 위험에 대한 일반인의 행동반응에 영향을 주는 심리요인들을 밝히기 위하여 인지, 사회, 정서요인들을 포함하는 구조모형을 개발하고자 하였다. 본 연구의 모형에는 테러가 발생할 가능성, 테러 여파가 주는 심각성, 그리고 테러의 여파에 대해 개인이 대처할 수 있다는 지각(인지요인)과, 테러에 대응하는 정부기관에 대한 신뢰(사회요인), 그리고 테러에 대한 두려움과 걱정(정서요인), 개인적으로 준비하거나 정보를 검색 또는 분석하고 관계망을 점검하는 행동(행동반응)에 대한 측정이 포함되었다. 주된 결과는 인지와 사회요인이 정서요인에 영향을 주며 정서요인은 행동반응에 영향을 준다는 것이다. 특히 인지요인 중 지각된 대처는 행동반응에 직․간접 영향을 주는 요인으로서, 테러에 대한 개인적 대비를 향상시키기 위해서는 지각된 대처가 중요하다는 것을 논의하였다.

keywords
terrorism, risk perception, perceived coping, cognitive-social model, cognitive evaluation, emotion, individual behavior response, 테러, 위험지각, 대처효능성, 인지-사회 모형, 인지평가, 정서, 개인행동반응

Abstract

This study was to develope a structural model for risk perception and individual response against terrorism, including several psychological factors - cognitive, social and emotional factors. In this model we measured perceived probability of terrorism, perceived seriousness of the aftermath, and perceived coping(cognitive factors), trust in authorities, in expert group and in preparedness of institutions(social factors), fear and worry(emotional factors), individual preparedness, information seeking, information analysis, and checking relational network(individual behavior responses). Major finding was that cognitive and social factors influenced on emotional factors and then emotional factors influenced on the individual responses. The perceived coping, which one of cognitive factors was linked with individual responses directly and indirectly via emotion factors. We discussed the importance of perceived coping in preparing for terrorism.

keywords
terrorism, risk perception, perceived coping, cognitive-social model, cognitive evaluation, emotion, individual behavior response, 테러, 위험지각, 대처효능성, 인지-사회 모형, 인지평가, 정서, 개인행동반응

참고문헌

1.

국립국어원 (2011). 표준국어대사전. http:// stdweb2.korean.go.kr

2.

김상겸, 이대성 (2009). 북한의 뉴테러리즘과 대응책. 통일정책연구, 18, 67-96.

3.

노호래, 이대성 (2004). 북한에 의한 테러유형과 대응방안. 통일정책연구, 13, 135-162.

4.

홍세희 (2010). 구조방정식 모형. 고급연구방법론 워크샵 시리즈. S & M Research Group.

5.

Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

6.

Bergstrom, R. L., & McCaul, K. D. (2004). Perceived risk and worry: The effects of 9/11 on willingness to fly. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1846-1856.

7.

Dallaire, C., Krewski, D., Lemyre, L., Bouchard, L., Brand, K., & Mercier, P. (2005). Project 1.1: Interviewing Canadians about health risk perception and acceptabiliby. In D. Krewski, L. Lemyre, L. Bouchard, K. Brand, C. Dallaire, P. Mercier(Eds.) Public perception and acceptable levels of health risk among Canadians: A research report to health Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Health Canada, research management and dissemination division report, No. 6795-15-2002/4770021.

8.

Earle, T. C. (2010). Trust in risk management. Risk Analysis, 30. 541-574.

9.

Ellsworth, P. C. & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.) Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp.572- 595). Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.

10.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Comb, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 127-152.

11.

Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12, 417-429.

12.

Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: Does the West feel more invulnerable than the East? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 595-607.

13.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

14.

Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1, 11-27.

15.

Karasawa, K. (1995). Cognitive antecedents of emotions: Findings and future direction. Japanese Psychological Research, 37, 40-55.

16.

Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Gobel, R., Kasperson, J. X., & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework, Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187.

17.

Kobbeltved, T., Brun, W., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J. (2005). Risk as feelings or risk and feelings? A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 417-437.

18.

Lee, J. E. C., & Lemyre, L. (2009). A Social-cognitive perspective of terrorism risk perception and individual response in Canada. Risk Analysis, 29, 1265-1280.

19.

Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B. (2003). Emotion and perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144-150.

20.

Lerner, J. S., & Ketlner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 473-493.

21.

Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, E. S. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.

22.

Mathiens, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 1031- 1056.

23.

Midden, C. J. H., & Huijts, N. (2009). The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: The case of CO2 storage. Risk Analysis, 29, 743–751.

24.

Paton, D., Smith, L., Johnston, D. (2005). When good intentions turns bad: Promoting natural hazard preparedness. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 20, 25-30.

25.

Peters, E., Burraston, B., & Mertz, C. K. (2004). An emotional-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: Cognitive appraisal of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma, Risk Analysis, 24, 1349- 1367.

26.

Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food. Risk Analysis, 25, 197-207.

27.

Prati, G., Pietrantony, L., Zani, B. (2011). A Social-cognitive model of pandemic influenza H1N1 risk perception and recommended behaviors in Italy. Risk Analysis, 31, 645-656.

28.

Shiloh, S., Güvenç, G., & Önkal, D. (2007). Cognitive and emotional representations of terror attacks: A cross-cultural exploration. Risk Analysis, 27, 397-409.

29.

Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazard: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-719.

30.

Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., & Earle, T. C. (2005). Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research, 8, 145-156.

31.

Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 675-682.

32.

Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Earthscan Publications.

33.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311-322.

34.

Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 48, 813-838.

35.

Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Terrorism and probability neglect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 121-136.

36.

Tucker, L., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.

한국심리학회지 : 문화 및 사회문제

논문 투고 OA 정책