공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성, 위험심각성, 위험인식 및 위험수용의 관계 Relationship among Public's Risk Characteristics, Risk Severity, Risk Perception and Risk Acceptability of Human Stem Cell Technology원문보기
본 연구는 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성, 위험심각성, 위험인식 및 위험수용의 관계를 살펴보기 위하여 서울에 거주하는 한국인 300명을 대상으로 IBM SPSS 21 프로그램과 IBMAMOS 21 프로그램을 활용하여 탐색적 요인분석과 확인적 요인분석, 상관관계 분석, 구조모형분석을 수행하였다. 주요결과를 요약 제시하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성은 위험심각성에 통계적으로 유의한 정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성은 위험인식에 통계적으로 유의한 정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험심각성은 위험인식에 통계적으로 유의한 정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 넷째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성은 위험수용에 통계적으로 유의한 부적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 다섯째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험심각성은 위험수용에 통계적으로 유의한 영향을 미치지 못하였다. 여섯째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험인식은 위험수용에 통계적으로 유의한 영향을 미치지 못하였다.
본 연구는 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성, 위험심각성, 위험인식 및 위험수용의 관계를 살펴보기 위하여 서울에 거주하는 한국인 300명을 대상으로 IBM SPSS 21 프로그램과 IBM AMOS 21 프로그램을 활용하여 탐색적 요인분석과 확인적 요인분석, 상관관계 분석, 구조모형분석을 수행하였다. 주요결과를 요약 제시하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성은 위험심각성에 통계적으로 유의한 정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 둘째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성은 위험인식에 통계적으로 유의한 정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 셋째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험심각성은 위험인식에 통계적으로 유의한 정적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 넷째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험특성은 위험수용에 통계적으로 유의한 부적 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 다섯째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험심각성은 위험수용에 통계적으로 유의한 영향을 미치지 못하였다. 여섯째, 공중의 체세포복제기술에 대한 위험인식은 위험수용에 통계적으로 유의한 영향을 미치지 못하였다.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among public's risk characteristics, risk severity, risk perception and risk acceptability of human stem cell technology. The subjects were 300 Koreans selected. The data were analyzed by the exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor a...
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among public's risk characteristics, risk severity, risk perception and risk acceptability of human stem cell technology. The subjects were 300 Koreans selected. The data were analyzed by the exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis and structural equation modeing analysis. The results were as followed. First, public's risk characteristics on human stem cell technology influenced positively on risk severity. Second, public's risk characteristics on human stem cell technology influenced positively on risk perception. Third, public's risk severity on human stem cell technology influenced positively on risk perception. Fourth, public's risk characteristics on human stem cell technology influenced negatively on risk acceptability. Fifth, public's risk severity on human stem cell technology influenced not significantly on risk acceptability. Sixth, public's risk perception on human stem cell technology influenced not significantly on risk acceptability. These results will contribute to develop the risk communication strategy on the acceptability of human stem cell technology.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among public's risk characteristics, risk severity, risk perception and risk acceptability of human stem cell technology. The subjects were 300 Koreans selected. The data were analyzed by the exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis and structural equation modeing analysis. The results were as followed. First, public's risk characteristics on human stem cell technology influenced positively on risk severity. Second, public's risk characteristics on human stem cell technology influenced positively on risk perception. Third, public's risk severity on human stem cell technology influenced positively on risk perception. Fourth, public's risk characteristics on human stem cell technology influenced negatively on risk acceptability. Fifth, public's risk severity on human stem cell technology influenced not significantly on risk acceptability. Sixth, public's risk perception on human stem cell technology influenced not significantly on risk acceptability. These results will contribute to develop the risk communication strategy on the acceptability of human stem cell technology.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
문제 정의
However, few studies have been directed to human stem cell technology towards these goals that would elucidate the public perception of risk characteristics and identify relations resident among risk severity, risk perception, and risk acceptability. This study thus aims to provide insights into the landscape of risk acceptability of the public for human stem cell technology.
가설 설정
Hypothesis 2. Risk characteristics of human stem cell perceived by the public will be positively associated with risk perception.
Hypothesis 3. Risk severity of human stem cell perceived by the public will be positively associatedwith risk perception.
Hypothesis 4. Risk characteristics of human stem cell perceived by the public will be negatively associated with risk acceptability.
Hypothesis 5. Risk severity of human stemcell perceived by the public will be negatively associated with risk acceptability.
Hypothesis 6. Risk perception of human stem cell perceived by the public will be negatively associated with risk acceptability.
제안 방법
This study has investigated risk characteristics of the public, and explored the role of the risk characteristics towards risk severity, perception, and acceptability. The findings of the study can be summarized as follows:
This study used a survey targeted for 300 Korean adults residing in Seoul, Korea in May, 2015, to examine the relations among risk characteristics, risk severity, risk perception, and risk acceptability of the public regarding human stem cell technology based on the psychometric paradigm. Data from a sample of 300 home-dwellers were gathered to test our hypotheses.
이론/모형
For the exploratory factor analysis, this study used principal component analysis and varimax rotation; and for the confirmatory factor analysis Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO), Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2, and significance(p) were used.
To determine how well the proposed model fits the data collected, χ2 and, root mean square residual(RMR), a goodness of fit index(GFI), incremental fit index(IFI), and comparative fit index(CFI) were used.
성능/효과
First, risk characteristics are classified into two factors: unknown risk(individual knowledge and scientific knowledge), and dread risk (controllability, voluntariness, and dread), all of which have a significantly positive impact on risk severity. The public more keenly perceives risk about human stem cell technology when it is individually and scientifically unknown, uncontrollable, involuntary, and dreadful.
Fourth, the risk characteristics have a significantly negative impact on risk acceptability: the more unknown and dreadful the risk is, the less acceptable it becomes to the public. The public will less likely accept a risk when it is scientifically uncertain and is presented with insufficient amounts of data, which will eventually lead to dread or fear.
Third, risk severity influences positively on risk perception of the public: the more severely the public feel of the risk, the more increased perception of it. This result implies that in the public’s risk perception, the possibility of risk occurrence or the risk severity attached to potentially negative results when the risk is accepted may play a role in risk perception [16,25], and also shows that risk severity is also an important determining precursor in risk perception.
To establish a satisfactory model fit, several modified indices were subsequently applied, and with ‘familiarity’ excluded, the subsequent confirmatory factor analysis showed χ2=17.89 (df=4, p<0.01), RMR=0.04, GFI=0.97, NFI=0.94, IFI=0,95, CFI=0.95, suggesting a satisfactory model fit.
참고문헌 (33)
Turner, J. C. and Oakes, P. J. "The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence". British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 237-252, 1986.
Lanphier, E., Urnov, F. and Haecker, S. E. "Don't edit the human germ line". Nature, Vol. 519, pp. 410-411, 2015. [online available] http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111
Leiss, W. and Chociolko, C. "Risk and responsibility". Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1994.
Nathan, K. R., Heath, L and Douglas, W. "Tolerance for potential environmental health risks: The influence of knowledge, benefits, control, involvement, and uncertainty". Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 4, pp. 235-258, 1992.
Slovic, P. "Perceptions of risk". Science, Vol. 230, pp. 280-285, 1987.
Johnson, R. J., McCaul, K. D and Klein, W. M. P. "Risk involvement and risk perception among adolescents and young adults". Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 25, pp. 67-82, 2001.
Graham, J. D. and Rhomberg, L. "How risks are identified and assessed". Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 545, pp. 15-24, 1996.
Mumpower, J. L. "LLRW disposal facility siting: Success and failures in six countries". Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. and Lichtenstein, S. "Lay foibles and expert fables in judgements about risk". American Statistician, Vol. 3, pp. 240-255, 1982.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. "Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety". Acta Psychologica, Vo. 56, pp. 183-203, 1984.
Hae Ryong Song and Won Je Kim. "Relationship among nature perception, science technology perception, risk perception, and risk severity". Korean Review of Crisis & Emergency Management, Vol. 10, pp. 29-43, 2014.
Keller, C., Siegrist, M. and Gutscher, H. "The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication". Risk Analysis, Vol. 26, pp. 631-639, 2006.
Slovic, P. "Affect, reason, and mere hunches". Journal of Law, Economics and Policy, Vol. 4, pp. 191-211, 2007.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. and Lichtenstein, S. "Characterizing perceived risk". In Kates, R. W., Hohenemster, C and Kasperson, J. (ed.), Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985.
Jacobs, L. and Worthley, R. A. "A comparative study of risk appraisal: A new look at risk assessment in different countries". Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 59, pp. 225-247, 1999.
Kellens, W., Zaalberg, R. and Neutens, T. "An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the belgian coast". Risk Analysis, Vol. 31, pp. 1055-1068, 2010.
Robinson, K. G., Robinson, C. H. and Raup, L. "Public attitudes and risk perception toward land application of biosolids within the south-eastern United States". Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 98, pp. 29-36, 2012.
Dobbie, M. F. and Brown, R. R. "A framework for understanding risk perception, explored from the perspective of the water practitioner". Risk Analysis, Vol. 34, pp. 294-308, 2014.
Song, G. "Understanding public perception of benefits and risk of childhood vaccinations in the United States". Risk Analysis, Vol. 34, pp. 541-555, 2014.
Meijnders, A. L., Midden, C. J. H. and Wilke, H. A. M. "Role of negative emotion in communication about CO2 risks". Risk Analysis, Vol. 21, pp. 955-966, 2001.
Camerer, C. and Weber, M. "Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity". Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 325, pp, 325-370, 1992.
Han, P. K. J., Moser, R. P. and Klein, W. M. P. "Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: Relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry". Journal of Health Communication, Vol. 11, pp. 51-69, 2006.
Sjoberg, L., Moen, B. E. and Rundmo, T. "Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception". Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2004.
Mumpower, J. L., Shi, S. and Stoutenborough, J. W. "Psychometric and demographic predictors of the perceived risk of terrorist threats and the willingness to pay for terrorism risk management programs". Risk Analysis, Vol. 33, pp. 1802-1811, 2013.
Chen, N. T. N. "Predicting vaccination intention and benefit and risk perceptions: The incorporation of affect, trust, and television influence in a dual-mode model". Risk Analysis, Vol. 35, pp. 1268-1280, 2015.
Rundmo, T. and Moen, B. E. "Risk perception and demand for risk mitigation among experts, politicians and lay people in Norwa". Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 9, pp. 623-640, 2006.
Poortinga, W. and Pidgeon, N. F. "Trust in risk regulation: Cause or consequence of the acceptability of GM food?". Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, pp. 199-209, 2005.
Og Son Kim, Jin Hwan Oh and Kyung Hye Lee. "The convergence study on anxiety, knowledge, infection possibility, preventive possibility and preventive behavior level of MERS in nursing students". Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, Vol. 7, pp. 59-69, 2016.
Seung Hwan Kimand Keun Ho Lee. "User authentication risk and countermeasure in intelligent vehicles". Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, Vol. 3, pp. 7-11, 2012.
Dong Moon Kim. "Analysis of risk factors of sinkholes with geospatial information". Journal of IT Convergence Society for SMB, Vol. 6, pp. 37-43, 2016.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.