2006∼2011 사회적 위험인식 변화추세 분석 및 정책적 함의 = The 2006∼2011 Trend of Social Risk Perception and Policy Implication

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구의 목적은 심리측정패러다임을 적용하여 사회적 위험들에 대한 일반시민들의 위험인식 변화추세를 비교·분석하여 위험특성, 위험인식구조, 위험인식 변화유형을 도출하고 이에 대한 정책적 함의를 검토하고자 한다. 연구결과에서 분석대상인 2006년과 2011년도의 40개 사회위험에 대한 위험인식구조는 두 개의 요인(위험의 알려지지 않은 정도와 두려운 정도)으로 구성되어 있다. 또한 분석대상인 2006년과 2011년도의 40개 위험은 요인 분석을 통해 4개의 위험유형으로 분류할 수 있으며 위험유형에 따른 2006년과 2011년도 위험유형 변화추세 분석결과, 원자로사고, 원자력발전소, 방사선가공식품은 상대적으로 잘 알려진 위험으로, 자기장, 석면, 유전자변형 식품은 상대적으로 두려운 정도가 높아진 위험으로, 백신접종, 처방약은 상대적으로 잘 알려진 위험으로, 방사성 폐기물처리, 수은은 상대적으로 잘 알려지지 않은 정도가 높은 위험으로 위험인식 변화추세를 나타내고 있다. 이러한 분석결과를 기초로 효과적인 위험분석을 위한 정책적 함의를 제시하고 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Using a psychometric paradigm, this study examines the trend of the lay people’s social risk perception. The purpose of this study is to explore potential implications for risk policy through a comparison of 2006 and 2011 sample. The results show that the samples have a two-factor structure and the higher order factors-“unknown risk” and “dread risk”-structure the risk perceptions of the 40 risks. In a two-factor dimension, the 40 risks can be categorized as four types. The trend analyses indicate the changes of the types on the 2006 and 2011 samples. Nuclear reactor accident, nuclear power plant, radiation processed food have been viewed as
relatively known. Magnetic field, asbestos and genetically modified food have been viewed as relatively dread. Vaccinations and prescription drugs have been evaluated as relatively unknown. Radioactive waste disposal and mercury have been evaluated as relatively well unknown. Based on the results, the potential implications for effective risk analysis are also discussed.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 연구목적
• Ⅱ. 연구설계
• Ⅲ. 분석결과
• Ⅴ. 결론 및 정책적 함의
• 참고문헌
• Abstract

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 차용진, "환경위험인식 비교분석과 정책적 함의: 용인시를 중심으로" 35 (35): 127-142, 2001
• 2 차용진, "위험인식과 위험분석의 정책적 함의: 수도권 일반주민을 중심으로" 한국정책학회 16 (16): 97-116, 2007
• 3 Kahneman, D., "under Uncertainty: Heristics and Biases" Cambridge University Press 1982
• 4 Slovic, P., "What’s Fear Got to Do whith it? It’s Affect We need to Worry about" 69 : 971-990, 2004
• 5 von Neumann, J., "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" Princeton University 1947
• 6 Covello, V., "The Perception of Technological Risks: A Literature Review" 23 : 285-297, 1983
• 7 Slovic, P., "The Perception of Risk" Earthscan 2000
• 8 Tversky, A., "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice" 211 (211): 1453-1458, 1981
• 9 Mullet, E., "The Evaluative Factor of Risk Perception" 23 : 1594-1605, 1993
• 10 Slovic, P., "Terrorism as Hazard: A Specicies of Trouble" 22 (22): 425-426, 2002
• 11 Slovic, P., "Risk as Feeling: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk & Rationality, In The Ethics of Technological Risk" Earthscan 2008
• 12 Cha, Y. J., "Risk Perception in Korea: A Comparison with Japan and the United States" 3 (3): 321-332, 2000
• 13 Slovic, P., "Risk Perception and Affect" 15 (15): 322-325, 2006
• 14 차용진, "Risk Perception and Acceptance: Theoretical Development Policy Implications" 한국정부학회 17 (17): 995-1034, 2005
• 15 Slovic, P., "Rating the Risks" 21 (21): 14-20, 1979
• 16 Gardner, G. T., "Public Perceptions of Risks and Benefits of Technology" 9 : 225-242, 1989
• 17 Boemer, V., "Public Perception After the Nuclear Accident in Fukusima: A Case with University Students" 24-28, 2011
• 18 Slovic, P., "Psychological Study of Human Judgment: Implications for Investment Decision Making" 2 : 160-172, 2001
• 19 Edward, W., "Probability-Preferences in Gambling" 66 : 349-364, 1953
• 20 Edward, W., "Probability Preferences among the Bets with Differing Expected Values" 66 : 56-67, 1954
• 21 Slovic, P., "Perception of Risk: Reflection on the Psychometric Paradigm, In Social Theories of Risk" Praeger 1992
• 22 Slovic, P., "Perception of Risk" 236 : 280-285, 1987
• 23 Lai, J., "Perception of Environmental Hazards in Hong Kong Chinese" 23 (23): 669-684, 2003
• 24 Slovic, P., "Perceived Risk, Trust, & Democracy" 13 (13): 675-682, 1993
• 25 Slovic, P., "Modeling the Societal Impact of Fatal Accidents" 30 (30): 464-474, 1984
• 26 Tversky, A., "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases" 185 : 1124-1132, 1974
• 27 Slovic, P., "Informing and Educating the Public about Risk" 6 : 403-416, 1986
• 28 Fischhoff, B., "How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits" 9 : 127-152, 1978
• 29 Marris, C., "Exploring the Psychometric Paradigm: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses" 17 : 303-312, 1997
• 30 Davidson, D., "Decision Making: An Experimental Approach" Stanford University Press 1957
• 31 Renn, O., "Cross-Cultural Risk Perception: A Survey of Empirical Studies" Kluwer Academic Press 2000
• 32 Coombs, C. H., "Components of Risk in Decision Making: Probability and Variance Preferences" 60 : 256-277, 1960
• 33 Slovic, P., "Characterizing Perceived Risk, In Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology" Westview Press 1985
• 34 Slovic, P., "Characterizing Perceived Risk, In Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology" Westview Press 1985
• 35 Slovic. P., "Can International Law Genocide When Our Moral Intuitions Fail Us?, In Behavior and Policy" Earthscan 2009
• 36 Slovic, P., "Behavioral Decision Theory Perspectives on Risk and Safety" 56 : 183-203, 1984
• 37 Tversky, A., "Availability: A Heuristic for Judging Frequency and Probability" 4 : 207-232, 1973
• 38 Mosteller, F., "An Experimental Measurement of Utility" 59 : 371-404, 1951
• 39 Slovic, P., "Affect, Reason, and Mere Hunches" 4 (4): 191-211, 2007
• 40 Siegrist, M., "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards" 25 : 211-222, 2005
• 41 Gregory, R., "A Hint of Risk: Tradeoffs Between Quantitative and Qualitative Risk Factors" 14 : 199-206, 1994