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

  • ENGLISH
  • P-ISSN1229-067X
  • E-ISSN2734-1127
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-067X

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.27 No.2

Citation Share

유전공학 응용 식품 및 의약품에 대한 위험 지각의 성차

Sex differences in risk perception of genetically engineered food and medicine

한국심리학회지: 일반 / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2008, v.27 no.2, pp.389-402
이나경 (이화여자대학교)
임혜숙 (이화여자대학교 심리학과)
이영애 (이화여자대학교)
이나경, 임혜숙, & 이영애. (2008). 유전공학 응용 식품 및 의약품에 대한 위험 지각의 성차. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 27(2), 389-402.

초록

본 연구는 유전공학 응용 식품 및 의약품에 대한 남녀 간 위험 지각의 차이를 설명하는 성역할 이론과 제도신뢰 가설의 타당성을 519명의 대학생을 대상으로 심리측정 연구방법을 이용하여 검증하였다. 남녀 간 사회적 역할의 차이를 강조하는 성역할 이론은 양육자의 역할을 담당하는 여성들이 위험에 대하여 두려움과 같은 부정적 정서를 더 강하게 경험하기 때문에 위험을 더 크게 지각한다고 주장한다. 제도신뢰가설은 위험 관리 기관 또는 제도에 대한 남녀 간 신뢰 수준의 차이로 위험지각의 성차를 설명한다. 선행 연구들과 마찬가지로 본 연구의 조사대상인 여성들은 남성들보다 유전공학 위험을 더 강하게 지각하고 있었다. 유전공학 위험을 지식과 두려움의 차원에서 지각하는 것은 남녀 간 차이가 없었다. 유전공학 위험을 관리하는 제도 또는 기관에 대한 신뢰에서는 성차가 나타나지 않았지만, 두려움이라는 정서 반응의 강도에서 남녀 간 차이가 확실히 나타났다. 회귀분석에서 신뢰 변수는 지각된 위험 강도를 예측하지 못하였지만, 두려움과 관련된 위험특성들이 주요 예측 변수로 밝혀졌다. 또한 두려움은 남성보다 여성에게서 보다 강력한 예측 변수로 작용하고 있었다. 이 결과들은 제도신뢰가설보다 성역할 이론을 지지한다.

keywords
위험 지각, 유전공학 응용 식품 및 의약품, 성차, 성역할 이론, 제도신뢰가설, Risk perception, genetically engineered food and medicine, sex difference, the gender role theory, the institution trust hypothesis.

Abstract

Two hypotheses of sex difference in risk perception of genetically engineered food and medicine - a gender role and an institution trust hypothesis - were evaluated in the present psychometric study using a student sample(N=519). The gender role hypothesis that emphasizes differences in social roles proposes that the female care takers should feel strong risk perception because they are sensitive to risks. The institution trust hypothesis explains gender differences in risk perception by differences in the trust in risk management systems and/or institutions. The present study replicated the finding that the female participants had stronger risk perception of genetically engineered food and medicines than did the male participants. No sex differences were found in the knowledge and fear dimension regarding the risk perception of genetic engineering. Though the female and male participants did not show any difference in their trust in the risk managements systems, a clear sex difference was observed in the fear response. A regression analysis demonstrated that a fear variable did indeed predict the strength of risk perception whereas a trust variable did not. Furthermore, the finding that the fear variable was the strongest predictor for the female participants also supports the gender role hypothesis while rejecting the institution trust hypothesis.

keywords
위험 지각, 유전공학 응용 식품 및 의약품, 성차, 성역할 이론, 제도신뢰가설, Risk perception, genetically engineered food and medicine, sex difference, the gender role theory, the institution trust hypothesis.

참고문헌

1.

권영근 (2000). 녹색혁명과 유전자조작식품, 권영근 편 위험한 미래, 도서출판 당대, 서울, 89-122.

2.

이영애, 이나경 (2005). 위험지각의 심리적 차원. 인지과학, 16(3). 199-211.

3.

임형백, 이종민 (2000). 환경사회학의 관점에서 본 유전자변형식품의 사회상 연구, 한국농촌지도학회지, 7(2), 2000년 12월호.

4.

환경운동연합 (2005). 통제불능에 빠져드는 유전자조작 생명체들, 함께 사는 길, 143. 64-65.

5.

Barke, R., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Slovic, P. (1997). Risk perception of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, 78(1), 167-176.

6.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

7.

Davidson, D. & Freudenberg, W. (1996). Gender and environmetal risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302-339.

8.

Earle, T. & Cvetkovich, G. (1995). Social Trust: Toward a cosmopolitan Society. In Praege, Westport, CT.

9.

Finucane, M. (2002). Mad cow, mad corn and mad communities: the role of socio-cultural factors in the perceived risk of genetically- modified food. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61, 31-37.

10.

Finucane, M., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K., Flynn, J. & Satterfield, T. (2000). Gender, race and perceived risk: the 'White male' effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2, 159-172.

11.

Flynn, J., Burns, W, Mertz, C. & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 12, 417-430.

12.

Flynn, J., Slovic, P. & Mertz, C. (1994). Gender, race and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.

13.

Frewer, L., Howard, C. & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22, 98-124.

14.

Gaskell, G. Allum, N. & Wagner, W. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24, 185-194.

15.

Gaskell, G., Allum, N. & Bauer, M. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 935-938.

16.

Groothuis, P. & Miller, G. (1997). The role of social distrust in risk-benefit analysis: a study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 15, 241-257.

17.

Gustafson, P. E. (1998). Gender differences in risk perception: Theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18(16). 805-811.

18.

Guttling J. M. & Wiegman, O. (1993). Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands. Sexroles, 28, 433-447.

19.

Harlander, S. (1991). Social, moral and ethical issues in food biotechnology. Food Technology (May), 152-159.

20.

Hoban, T., Woodrum, E. & Czaja, R. (1992). Public opposition to genetic engineering. Rural Sociology, 57, 476-493.

21.

Kamaldeen, S. & Powell, D. (2000). Public perceptions of biotechnology. Food Safety Network Technical Report, No17.

22.

National Science Foundation (2000). Science and engineering indicators. Food Industry Environmental Network, June 29.

23.

Raats, M. & Shepherd, R. (1996). Developing a subject derived terminology to describe perceptions of chemicals in food. Risk Analysis, 16, 133-147.

24.

Savadori, L., Savio, S. & Nicotra, E. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24, 1289-1299.

25.

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

26.

Siegrist, M. (1999). A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29, 2093-2106.

27.

Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 195-204.

28.

Sjoeberg, L. & Droty-Sjoeberg, B.M. (1993). Attitudes toward nuclear waste(Rhizikon Research Report No 12). Sweden: Stockholm School of Economics, Center for Risk Research.

29.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.

30.

Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of risk: Reflections on the psychometric paradigm. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding(eds.), Social theories of risk, 117-152, NewYork:Praeger.

31.

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

32.

Slovic, P., Flynn, J. & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste, Science, 254, 1603-1607.

33.

Sparks, P. & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14, 799-806.

34.

Spiegner, C. Hawkins, W. & Loren, W. (1993). Gender differences in perception of risk associated with alcohol and drug use among college students. Women and Health, 2, 87-97.

35.

Steger, M. A. & Witte, S. L. (1989). Gender differences in environmental orientations: A comparison of publics and activists in Canada and US. Western Political Quarterly, 42, 627-649.

36.

Stern, P. C.. Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348.

37.

Townsend, E., Clarke, D. & Travis, B. (2004). Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 24, 1369-1384.

38.

Zechndorf, B. (1994). What the public thinks about biotechnology. Bio/Technology, 12, 870-875.

한국심리학회지: 일반

논문 투고 OA 정책