Journal of the Korean Society of Safety (한국안전학회지)

The Korean Society of Safety (한국안전학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Risk Perception and Policy Implication : A Psychometric Analysis of Korean Perception for Technological Risks

위험인식의 특성과 의미: 한국인의 기술위험 인지도에 대한 Psychometric 분석

  • Chung, Ik Jae (Department of Public Administration, Seoul National University of Science and Technology)
  • 정익재 (서울과학기술대학교 행정학과)
  • Received : 2013.03.25
  • Accepted : 2014.02.24
  • Published : 2014.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A survey of risk perception in South Korea was conducted in 2007 to evaluate relative riskiness of typical industrial and technological risks. This article summarizes the characteristics of risk perception using psychometric analyses. The survey with a sample size of 1,194 reviews the perceived level of 25 risk items in the areas of transportation, chemicals, environment, industry, nuclear power generation, and newly-introduced risks. Six categories of risk identified by a factor analysis show that the level of perceived risk does not correspond to the statistical level. Psychometric analyses including voluntariness, severity, effect manifestation, exposure pattern, controllability, familiarity, benefit and necessity demonstrate that voluntary, familiar and immediate risks are perceived as less risky than involuntary, unfamiliar and delayed ones. Risk communication is critical in reducing the discrepance between objective and subjective level of risk. However, the amount of risk information does not always justify a successful risk communication. A safety policy, risk communication strategy in particular, should take into account diverse dimensions of risk reviewed by psychometric analyses in the study. Social policy toward safety can be improved by integrating policy, human, and social factors as well as technological advances.

Keywords

References

  1. P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff and S. Liechtenstein, "The Psychometric Study of Risk Perceptions." In V. Covello, J. Menkes and J. Mumpower (Eds.) Risk evaluation and Management. New York, London: Plenum Press, pp. 3-24, 1986.
  2. I. J. Chung and Y. P. Kim, "A Study for Korean Risk Perception and Safety Policy in Nuclear and Other Technologies", Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2007.
  3. Y. P. Kim, B. S. Choi, Y. J. Soh and I. J. Chung, "Korean Risk Perception and Policy Implication", Korean Public Administration Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 935-954, 1995.
  4. I. J. Chung, "An Empirical Review of Korean Perception for Technological Risks", Journal of the Korean Society of Safety, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 91-97, 2007.
  5. D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky, "Judgment under Uncertainty", Cambridge University Press, 1982.
  6. M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, "Risk and Culture", University of California Press, 1985.
  7. G. Kaptan, S. Shiloh and D. Onkal, "Values and Risk Perceptions", Risk Analysis, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 318-332, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01875.x
  8. P. Slovic (Ed.), "Perception of risk", London, Earthscan, 2000.
  9. P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff and S. Lichtenstein, "Why study Risk Perception?", Risk Analysis, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 83-93, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x
  10. Y. J. Cha, "Risk Perception and Policy Implications for Risk Analysis: With Focus on the Lay People in the Capital Region", Korean Journal of Policy Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 97-117, 2007.
  11. J. S. Choi, "Risk Perception and Social Amplification", Korean Jouranl of Policy Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 165-188, 2009.
  12. I. J. Chung, "Social Amplification of Risk in the Internet Environment", Risk Analysis, Vol. 31, No. 12, pp. 1883-1896, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01623.x
  13. S. Breyer, "Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation", Harvard University Press, 1992.

Cited by

  1. A Study of Effect on Media Exposure and Cybercrime Perception vol.14, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2016.14.5.67