Analysis of Risk Perception and Cognitive Map of Risk: Application of Facilitated Modelling

& (2016). Analysis of Risk Perception and Cognitive Map of Risk: Application of Facilitated Modelling. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 35(3), 481-503, https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2016.09.35.3.481

copy

Abstract

To compensate shortcomings of the prior psychometric studies on risk perception, the current study newly attempted facilitated modelling. In this method, researchers did not provide a pre-made list of risk items. Instead, participants(experts, ordinary people, and college students) had group discussions to come up with risk items, to rate how risky they are, and to evaluate them in terms of knowledge and dread, which are the two psychological dimensions of risk perception. The results showed that there were qualitative differences in the way that the three groups perceived what risk items were. The experts listed risk items based on scientific knowledge and objective data, but ordinary people and college students listed risk items based on what they were exposed in their lives and media, which suggests that risk concepts are partly social construct to them. The three groups showed similarities as well as differences and the results showed similarities to and differences from the prior psychometric studies. Implications of the results and future advances are discussed as well.

keywords: risk perception, risk conceptual map, knowledge, dread, facilitated modelling, 위험지각, 위험인지도, 지식, 두려움, 진행자에 의한 인지모델기법

Reference

강동완 (2008). 원자력 수용성 증진방안: 정부와 언론의 역할을 중심으로. 정치․정보연구, 11, 191-210.

김서용, 임채홍, 정주용, 왕재선, 박천희 (2014).후쿠시마 원전사고 이후 원전사고와 원자력에 대한 위험판단 분석. 한국행정연구,23(4), 113-143.

김영욱, 이현승, 이혜진, 장유진 (2016). 미세먼지 위험에 대한 전문가와 일반인의 인식차이와 커뮤니케이션 단서 탐색. 커뮤니케이션 이론, 12(1), 53-117.

김영평, 최병선, 소영진, 정익재 (1995). 한국인의 위험인지와 정책적 함의. 한국행정학보, 29(3), 935-954.

박경숙, 이관열 (2013). 매체 이용과 매체 신뢰및 공정성 인지에 관한 연구. 사회과학연구, 52(2), 305-336.

박천희, 김서용 (2015). 원자력 수용성 결정에서 지식의 효과와 기능: 객관적 지식과주관적 지식을 중심으로. 행정논총, 53(3),117-150.

심미선, 강혜란 (2013). 지상파 및 인터넷에서만 방영된 19대 총선 관련 뉴스에 대한대학생집단의 뉴스가치 평가에 대한 탐색적 연구-뉴스 공정성 개념을 중심으로. 한국방송학보, 27(4), 85-130.

안서원, 도경수 (2005). 위험에 관한 형용사 어휘와 위험 대상의 분류과제에서 도출한위험의 의미 구조. 한국심리학회지: 실험,17(2), 203-222.

이나경, 임혜숙, 이영애 (2008). 세계관과 위험지각에서 전문가와 일반인의 차이: 문화이론 다시보기. 한국심리학회지: 일반,27(3), 635-651.

10.

이승훈 (2009). 현대사회의 위험과 위험관리: “위험의 사회적 구성”에 대한 이론적 논 의를 중심으로. 현대사회와 문화, 29, 61-88.

11.

이영애 (2005). 위험지각 연구의 최근 동향. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 17(3), 265-277.

12.

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

13.

이윤희 (2014). 국내 SNS의 이용 현황과 주요이슈 분석. Internet & SecurityFocus, August, 56-78.

14.

이형민, 박진우, 한동섭 (2015). PR커뮤니케이션의 담론 경쟁과 편향적 언론 보도: 원자력 이슈에 대한 여론에 미치는 효과를중심으로. 광고학연구, 26, 233-261.

15.

정익재 (1995). 위험의 특성과 예방적 대책. 한국행정연구, 3(4), 50-66.

16.

정익재 (1996). 재난의 유형과 재난관리. 한국행정학보, 30(1), 93-112.

17.

정익재 (2007). An empirical review of Korean perception for technological risks. 한국안전학 회지, 22(6), 91-97.

18.

정익재 (2013). 미디어의 과잉보도, 위험커뮤니케이션 그리고 정책변화. 한국거버넌스학회보, 20(3), 331-349.

19.

정익재 (2014a). 위험인식의 특성과 의미: 한국인의 기술위험 인지도에 대한 Psychometric분석. 한국안전학회지, 29(1), 80-85.

20.

정익재 (2014b). 방사선안전에 대한 국민의식 조사 및 평가척도 개발. 한국원자력의학원.

21.

차용진 (2012). 원자력위험인식 변화추세 및정책적 함의: 수도권 일반주민을 중심으로. 한국정책연구, 12(1), 1-20.

22.

한동섭, 김형일 (2011). 위험과 커뮤니케이션:원자력의 사회적 수용에 미치는 커뮤니케이션의 효과. 한국위기관리논집, 7, 1-22.

23.

Chung, I. J. (2011). Social amplification of risk in the Internet environment. Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1883-1896.

24.

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.

25.

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

26.

Eden, C. & Radford, J. (1990). Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support. London: Sage Publications.

27.

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

28.

Fischhoff, B. (1990). Psychology and public policy: Tool or tool maker? American Psychologist, 45, 57-63.

29.

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, 9(2), 127-152.

30.

Franco, L. A.z& Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 205, 489-500.

31.

Johnson, B. B., & Covello, V. T. (1987). The social and cultural construction of risk. D. Reidel Publishing Company.

32.

Kasperson, R. E. & Kasperson, J. X. (2005). Considerations and principles for risk communication for industrial accidents. The Social Contours of Risk, 1, 68-93.

33.

Kraus, N. N., & Slovic, P. (1988). Taxonomic analysis of perceived risk: Modelling individual and group perceptions. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177-187.

34.

Leiss, W. (1996). Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545(1), 85-94.

35.

Rowe, G. & Wright, G. (2001). Difference in expert and lay judgments of risk: myth or realty? Risk Analysis, 32(2), 341-356.

36.

Marris, C., Langford, I. H., & O’Riordan, T. (1998). A quantitative test of the culture theory of risk perception: Comparison with psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis, 18, 635-647.

37.

Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atmans, C. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Phillips, L. D. (2006). Decision conferencing. The London School of Economics and Political Science.

39.

Phillips, L. D., & Bana e Costa, C. A. (2007). Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Annals of Operations Research, 154, 51-68.

40.

Renn, O., Klinke An., & van Asselt, M. (2011). Coping with complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity in risk governance: A synthesis. Ambio, 40(2), 231-246.

41.

Sjoeberg, L. (1997). Explaining risk perception: An empirical evaluation of culture theory. Risk Decision and Policy, 2(2), 113-130.

42.

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

43.

Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675-682.

44.

Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of risk. London, UK: Earthscan.

45.

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1980). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In R. C. Schwing, & W. A. Alberts (Eds.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? Plenum Press, New York.

46.

Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165, 1232-1238.

47.

Trochim, W. M. K. (1985). Pattern matching, validity, and conceptualization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 9(5), 575-604.

48.

Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing preferences by constructing by institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3-21.

49.

Wood, M. D., Bostrom, A., Bridges, T., & Linkov, I. (2012). Cognitive mapping tools: Review and risk management needs. Risk Analysis, 32(8), 1333-1348.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.35 No.3

Analysis of Risk Perception and Cognitive Map of Risk: Application of Facilitated Modelling

Abstract

Reference

Korean Journal of Psychology: General