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.30 No.3

Citation Share

원자력 발전소와 방폐장 낙인의 심리적 모형: 신뢰와 감정, 지식을 중심으로

Psychological model of stigma on nuclear power plants and radioactive waste repositories: Focusing on trust, affect, and knowledge

한국심리학회지: 일반 / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2011, v.30 no.3, pp.831-851
이현주 (이화여자대학교)
이영애 (이화여자대학교)
이현주, & 이영애. (2011). 원자력 발전소와 방폐장 낙인의 심리적 모형: 신뢰와 감정, 지식을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 30(3), 831-851.

초록

일반인은 원자력 발전소와 방사성 폐기물 처리장을 위험한 시설로 낙인을 찍는다. 본 연구는 부정적 정서를 강조하는 낙인모형(Peters, Burraston, & Mertz, 2004)과 달리, 방사능 관리기관에 대한 신뢰변수를 중심으로 낙인반응에 영향을 주는 여러 심리적 요인들의 관계를 구조모형을 통해 검증하였다. 밝혀진 결과는 다음과 같다. 방사능 관련 과학기술 낙인에서 신뢰는 핵심적 역할을 한다. 원자력 발전소와 방사성 폐기물 처리장 모두에서 관리기관 신뢰는 낙인에 직접 영향을 줄 뿐 아니라 위험지각과 이익지각을 통해 간접적으로 영향을 주었다. 신뢰는 방사능 과학기술에 대한 감정을 매개로 하여 위험지각과 이익지각에 간접적인 영향을 주었으나 지식을 매개로 하지는 않았다. 개인변수인 세계관은 신뢰를 통해 위험지각과 이익지각에 영향을 주었다. 부정적 감정반응성은 방사능 과학기술에 대한 감정을 매개로 하지 않고 위험지각에 직접 영향을 주었다. 이 결과는 방사능 과학기술에 관한 일반인의 인식에서 신뢰의 중요성을 일깨워준다.

keywords
원자력발전소, 방사성 폐기물 처리장, 위험지각, 낙인, 신뢰, 지식, 감정, nuclear power plants, radioactive waste repositories, risk perception, stigma, trust, knowledge, affect

Abstract

Nuclear power plants and radioactive waste repositories are stigmatized as risky facilities by lay people. This study examined a new model that social trust, rather than negative emotion in the stigma susceptibility model(Peters, Burraston & Mertz, 2004), would have a pivotal role in stigma response of radioactive source technologies. Results of structural equation modeling indicate that trust in governmental agencies was important in stigma responses of radioactive source technologies. In both cases of nuclear power plants and radioactive waste repositories, trust had the direct influence on the stigma responses. Stigma responses were influenced by the perceptions of risk and benefit directly, and by trust indirectly. Risk and benefit perceptions were linked with trust directly and indirectly via affect of the technologies, but not via knowledge. The perceptions of risk and benefit were influenced indirectly via trust by the worldview of people. Negative reactivity had influence on the risk perception without the mediation of the affect on the technologies. Findings of this study imply the importance of trust in laypeople's perception on the radioactive source technologies.

keywords
원자력발전소, 방사성 폐기물 처리장, 위험지각, 낙인, 신뢰, 지식, 감정, nuclear power plants, radioactive waste repositories, risk perception, stigma, trust, knowledge, affect

참고문헌

1.

김교헌, 김원식 (2001). 한국판 행동활성화 및 행동억제 체계(BAS/BIS) 척도. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 6, 19-37.

2.

김서용 (2006). 정책과정에서 전문가의 중립성에 대한 실증분석: 문화이론과 Q방법론의 적용을 통해. 한국행정학보, 40, 127-153.

3.

배병렬 (2009). Amos 17.0 구조방정식모델링: 원리와 실제. 서울: 청람.

4.

이나경, 이영애 (2005). 방폐장 입지에 관한 의사결정에 영향을 미치는 변수. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 17, 461-475.

5.

이나경, 임혜숙, 이영애 (2008). 세계관과 위험지각에서 전문가와 일반인의 차이: 문화이론 다시보기. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 27, 635-651.

6.

이현주, 이영애 (2007). 과학기술의 위험 및 이득 지각에서 감정추단. 인지과학, 18, 305-324.

7.

한국경제 (2005, 11, 3). 주민투표로 ‘19년 숙제’ 풀었다...경주 방폐장 유치 확정. 한국경제. http://www.hankyung.com에서 2011, 6, 12 인출.

8.

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

9.

Alhakami, A., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085-1096.

10.

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

11.

Carver, C. S., & White, T, L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333.

12.

Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Factors Influencing People’s Acceptance of Gene Technology: The Role of Knowledge, Health Expectations, Naturalness, and Social Trust. Science Communication, 32, 514-538.

13.

Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61-82.

14.

Dake, K. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 21-27.

15.

Dake, K., Wildavsky, A. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus, 199, 41-60.

16.

Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. University of California Press, Berkeley.

17.

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

18.

Earle, T., Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2010). Trust, risk perception and the TCC model of cooperation. In M. Siegrist, T. Earle, & H. Gutscher (Eds.). Trust in Risk Management(pp. 1-50). London: Earthscan Publications.

19.

Eiser, J. R., Miles, S., & Frewer, L. (2002). Trust, perceived risk and attitudes toward food technologies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2423-2433.

20.

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risk and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.

21.

Fischhoff, B. (2001). Defining stigma. In J. Flynn, P. Slovic, & H. Kunreuther (Eds.), Risk Media & Stigma (pp.361-368). London: Earthscan Publications.

22.

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.

23.

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.

24.

Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57, 212-228.

25.

Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.). A Model of Personality (pp.246-276). Berlin: Springer.

26.

Gregory, R., Flynn, J., & Slovic, P. (1995). Technological stigma. American Scientist, 83, 224-223.

27.

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.

28.

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.

29.

Katsuya, T. (2002). 'Difference in th formation of attitude toward nuclear power', Political Psychology, 23, 191-203.

30.

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

31.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and Susceptibility to Positive and Negative Emotional States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140.

32.

Lazarus, R. S. (2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, et al. (Eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research (pp.37-67). New York: Oxford University Press.

33.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.

34.

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.

35.

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.

36.

Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(16), 1427-1453.

37.

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

38.

Scherer, K. R. (1984). Emotion as a multicomponent process: A model and some cross-cultural data. Review of Personality & Social Psychology, 5, 37-63.

39.

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

40.

Siegrist, M. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20, 713-720.

41.

Siegrist, M. Cousin, M. E., Kastenholz, H., Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49, 459-466.

42.

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

43.

Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353-362.

44.

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

45.

Slovic, P. (2008). 위험판단 심리학(이영애 역). 서울: 시그마프레스.(원전은 2000에 출판)

46.

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.

47.

Slovic, P., Layman, M., Kraus, N., Flynn, J., Chalmers, J., & Gesell, G. (1991). Perceived risk, stigma and potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis, 11, 683-696.

48.

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

49.

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

한국심리학회지: 일반

논문 투고 OA 정책