본 연구는 건강 커뮤니케이션 상황에서 빈도 형태의 위험 기저율 정보를 제시할 때 기저율의 절대적인 확률은 동일하게 유지한 채 인구 표본의 크기를 변화시킬 경우 사람들의 위험 취약성 지각이 달라질 것이며, 이는 위험 기저율을 통해 떠올린 위험에 처하는 대상에 대한 사회적 거리 지각이 달라지기 때문임을 검증하고자 하였다. 연구 1에서는, 건강 관련 위험 기저율의 인구 표본 크기에 따라 사회적 거리 지각이 달라지며, 그로 인해 위험 취약성 지각이 달라질 것이라 가정하였다. 이를 위해, 위험 기저율의 인구 표본 크기(큰 인구 표본 조건/작은 인구 표본 조건)를 처치하고, 이후 위험에 처하는 대상에 대한 사회적 거리 지각과 위험 취약성 지각을 확인하였다. 그 결과, 인구 표본 크기가 큰 조건에 비하여 작은 조건에서 위험 취약성 지각이 더 높게 나타났다. 또한, 이러한 결과는 사회적 거리 지각이 매개하는 것을 확인하였다. 연구 2에서는, 건강 관련 위험 기저율 정보의 인구 표본 크기와 예방 행동을 촉구하기 위한 긍, 부정 메시지 프레이밍 유형에 따라 예방 행동 의도에 미치는 효과가 달라질 것이라 가정하였다. 이를 위해, 2(인구 표본 크기: 큰 인구 표본 조건/작은 인구 표본 조건) X 2(메시지 프레이밍: 긍정/부정)으로 실험을 설계하였으며, 예방 행동 의도를 측정하였다. 그 결과, 인구 표본 크기가 작은 조건의 경우 부정 프레이밍 메시지일 때 예방 행동 의도가 더 높은 것을 확인하였다. 이에 따라 본 연구는 빈도 형태의 위험 기저율 정보의 인구 표본 크기에 따라 수용자의 반응이 달라지는 심리적인 기제를 밝혔으며, 이를 통해 건강 커뮤니케이션 상황에서 더 효과적으로 사람들을 설득할 수 있는 메시지 전략을 제시한다는 점에서 의의가 있다.
This research suggests that when the base rate of health risk is presented in health communication, if the population size is changed while maintaining the same absolute probability of base rate, risk susceptibility perception will change. And, this is due to the fact that the social distance perception of the subject who is at risk of emerging through the risk base rate changes. People who have encountered a base rate of health risk are naturally brought to mind n out of N people. At this time, the smaller the population size, the more concrete and vivid it will be. Thus, they will perceive the social distance of the subject at risk more closer, and as a result, perceive the high risk susceptibility. Furthermore, this research suggests that if a base rate of health risk and a positive or negative message framing to encourage preventive health behavior are presented, the social distance perception, which depends on the population size of the base rate of health risk, would have affected the type of message framing that could increase intention to preventive health behavior more effectively. This is because the type of message framing that is more effective in persuasion depends on the Construal-Level that changes due to the social distance perception. In Study 1, it is assumed that the social distance perception varies depending on the population size of the base rate of health risk, and thus the risk susceptibility perception changes. To verify this, the population size (larger size / smaller size) of the base rate of health risk was treated, and then the social distance perception and risk susceptibility perception for the subjects at risk were identified. As a result, the risk susceptibility perception was higher in the condition with the smaller population size than the large condition. It was also confirmed that this result was mediated by social distance perception. In Study 2, it is assumed that the intention to preventive health behavior will vary according to the type of message framing and the population size of the base rate of health risk. To verify this, the experiment was designed with 2(population size: larger size/smaller size) X 2(message framing: positive/negative), and intention to preventive health behavior was measured. As a result, in the case of a small population size, the intention to preventive health behavior was higher when the negative framing message was used. In conclusion, this study revealed a psychological mechanism in which audience responses vary according to population size of base rate of health risk, and through this, it is significant in that it provides a message strategy that can persuade people more effectively in health communication.
곽호완, 박창호, 이태연, 김문수, 진영선 (2008). 실험심리학용어사전. 시그마프레스
김재휘, 김은지 (2014). 예방 행동 분야에서 비용 수준이 주관적 위험 지각에 미치는 효과: 시행 주체의 공공성 지각과 메시지 유형을 중심으로. 광고학연구, 25(2), 233- 254.
김재휘, 김희연, 부수현 (2012). 소셜미디어를 활용한 공공캠페인 커뮤니케이션 전략: 해석수준이론에 따른 메시지 구성과 미디어에 대한 사회적 거리를 중심으로. 광고학연구, 23(1), 183-205.
김재휘, 부수현 (2011). 건강예방행동 촉진을 위한 커뮤니케이션 전략: 메시지 프레이밍과 시점-간 선택에서의 근시안적 편향을 중심으로. 광고학연구, 22(7), 111-133.
배희경, 김경미, 이도준 (2014). 친숙감이 심리적 거리에 미치는 영향. 인지과학, 25(2), 109-133.
부수현 (2013). 시간적 거리와 미래결과의 유인가가 예방행동의도에 미치는 효과: 시간해석 수준과 메시지 구성 간 적합성의 설득적 영향력을 중심으로(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://dcollection.cau.ac.kr/
조삼섭, 한규훈 (2009). 여성암 조기검진 촉진 캠페인의 설득효과 요인에 관한 연구. 한국광고홍보학보, 11(1), 248-275.
조수영 (2011). 효과적인 자궁경부암 예방행위 캠페인을 위한 수용자 연구: 확장된 hbm 적용. 광고연구, 91, 348-377.
조형오 (2005). 조기 암검진 권장을 위한 건강 캠페인에 있어서 메시지 세분화 전략에 관한 연구. 한국광고홍보학보, 7(2), 183- 219.
김예나 (2015, 12, 22). <한국인의 암> ‘2013년 기대수명 81세’ 3명중 1명은 ‘암’. 연합뉴스, Retrieved from http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2015/12/22/0200000000AKR20151222032800017.HTML?input=1195m
김정주 (2016, 04, 17). 80세 이상 10명 중 2명 ‘치매’…총진료비 1조6천억. 데일리팜, Retrieved from http://www.dailypharm.com/News/210753
김치중 (2016, 06, 06). ‘암 예방수칙’ 아는데 실천 안 하는 이유. 한국일보, Retrieved from http://www.hankookilbo.com/v/ad1b8586825e4c6f8f2078e4dad210e8
박경린 (2016, 02, 03). 남성 5명 중 2명, 여성 3명 중 1명 암 발병. 한국금융신문, Retrieved from http://www.fntimes.com/paper/view.aspx?num=146904
손정은 (2015, 11, 16). 작년 ‘섬유근통’ 진료 환자 7만 3000명…연평균 12.2% ↑. nsp통신, Retrieved from http://www.nspna.com/news/?mode=view&newsid=148595
Alter, A. L., & Balcetis, E. (2011). Fondness makes the distance grow shorter: Desired locations seem closer because they seem more vivid. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 16-21.
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science, 19(2), 161-167.
Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A, J., & Moyer, A. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14(2), 178-184.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Algom, D. (2007). Automatic processing of psychological distance: evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 610-622.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief model and personal health behavior(Vol. 2, No. 4). Slack.
Berry, D. (2004). Risk, communication and health psychology. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Chandran, S., & Menon, G. (2004). When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 375-389.
Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 819-829.
Eyal, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Walther, E. (2004). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 781-795.
Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 307-314.
Forgas, J. P. (1991). Emotion and social judgments (No. 23). Psychology Press.
Gigerenzer, G. (2003). Reckoning with risk: learning to live with uncertainty. Penguin UK.
Helweg-Larsen, M., & Shepperd, J. A. (2001). Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target risk estimates? A review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(1), 74-95.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263-291.
Kalichman, S. C., & Coley, B. (1995). Context framing to enhance HIV-antibody-testing messages targeted to African American women. Health Psychology, 14(3), 247-254.
Latimer, A. E., Salovey, P., & Rothman, A. Jr. (2007). The effectiveness of gain-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behavior: Is all hope lost? Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 645-649.
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205-218.
Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151-165.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367.
McFarland, C., & Miller, D. T. (1994). The framing of relative performance feedback: Seeing the glass as half empty or half full. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1061-1073.
Menon, G., Block, L. G., & Ramanathan, S. (2002). We're at as much risk as we are led to believe: Effects of message cues on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 533-549.
Monga, A., & Bagchi, R. (2012). Years, months, and days versus 1, 12, and 365: the influence of units versus numbers. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 185-198.
Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer, B. K. (1986). Self–other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 502-510.
Raghubir, P. (2008). Is 1/10> 10/100? The effect of denominator salience on perceptions of base rates of health risk. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(4), 327-334.
Raghubir, P., & Menon, G. (1998). AIDS and me, never the twain shall meet: The effects of information accessibility on judgments of risk and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 52-63.
So, J. (2010, November). Influence of media on audiences’ personal risk perceptions: Implications of perceived social distance between self and others depicted in the media. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization- minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67-85.
Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sherman, D. K., Sage, R. M., & McDowell, N. K. (2003). Portrait of the self-enhancer: well adjusted and well liked or maladjusted and friendless?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 165-176.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
Tyler, T. R. (1980). Impact of directly and indirectly experienced events: The origin of crime-related judgments and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 13-28.
Weinstein, N. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5(4), 441-460.
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It's the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472-485.
.png){kind=logo}
