- -

(A Study on Dynamic Transition of Risk Perception

- Focusing on Pension Consumer -)

- -

(A Study on Dynamic Transition of Risk Perception

- Focusing on Pension Consumer -)

- -

(A Study on Dynamic Transition of Risk Perception

- Focusing on Pension Consumer-)

.

2014

.

2014

- i -

1

1

2

1.

2.

2

1

1.

1)

2)

3)

2.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

3.

1)

2)

3)

1

1

6

6

6

8

8

8

8

9

15

16

16

16

17

18

1921

21

23

25

- ii -

2

1.

2.

3

1.

2.

3

1

2

1.

2.

3.

4.

4

1

1.

2.

2 1 : , ,

3 2 : , ,

43

43

43

28

30

32

33

36

38

33

38

28

32

38

39

41

45

48

- iii -

4 3 : , ,

5 4 : , ,

6 5 : ,

5

1

2

ABSTRACT

54

59

64

82

85

93

95

108

119

85

- iv -

2-1 11

2-2 13

2-3 20

2-4 24

2-5 27

2-6 31

3-1 37

3-2 39

3-3 40

3-4 42

4-1 43

4-2 44

4-3 45

4-4 46

4-5 , , 48

4-6 51

4-7 () 52

4-8 , , 54

4-9 56

4-10 () 57

4-11 , , 59

4-12 61

- v -

4-13 () 62

4-14 65

4-15 1 66

4-16 2 66

4-17 68

4-18 1 69

4-19 2 69

4-20 72

4-21 1 73

4-22 2 73

4-23 75

4-24 1 76

4-25 2 77

4-26 79

4-27 1 80

4-28 2 80

4-29 83

4-30 84

5-1 ( ) 91

5-2 ( ) 92

5-3 (/) 92

- vi -

1 46

2 53

3 58

4 50

5 67

6 70

7 74

8 77

9 81

10 83

- vii -

- -

,

,

.

, ,

.

, ,

() ( , ,

) .

.

()

.

.

() .

. ()

.

, , ,

- viii -

.

.

.

.

.

. ,

.

.

.

.

.

, , ,

, .

.

- ix -

.

: , , , ,

- 1 -

1

1

(tour.go.kr)

2010 7 . 2012

1,000 .

.

. 2002 (SARS.

), 2014

, 2011

13 .

, .

.

.

Slovic(1982) Why study risk perception?'

. ,

? ,

? , ?

- 2 -

Slovic

, ,

.

, ,

, .

, ,

.

.

(risk perception)

(Slovic et al., 1982)

.(Fishhoff et al, 1994) 1970

. (Domain, ) Slovic

. 1960

.

Starr(1969)

.

1980 Fischhoff(1984) ,

. 1980

,

Kasperson(1988) . 1990

Slovic

.

- 3 -

.

.

,

.

23

.

1

UNTWO(2012) 10 .

.

.

.

(Slovic 2000). SARS, ,

, ,

.

.

(financial risk), (performance risk), (physical risk),

(psychological risk), (social risk), (time risk) 6

- 4 -

.(Slevitch et al. ,2008; Boksberger et al., 2007; Hsu & Lin,

2006; Reisinger et al., 2005) ,

, ,

4

. .

, .

, .

, , /

.

,

.

, ,

, () ()

.

,

, ,

,

.

, ( 2008)

.

.

,

- 5 -

.

- 6 -

2

1.

.

1

.

2 , , , ,

.

3

, , .

4 3 .

5

.

2.

,

.

, , , ,

.

,

- 7 -

.

Cronbach's

.

ANOVA, Repeated

measured ANOVA, Mixed design ,

.

- 8 -

2

1

1.

1)

.

(, 2006).

, , .(Baudrillard, 1968)

.

, , (experience) ,

.(, 2010)

.

. (decision making)

(, 1989).

, ,

(Sproles, 1985).

(---

- 9 -

) (, 2004).

,

( 2005).

Lancaster(1991)

(characteristics) .

(transaction cost)

(rationality) .

, (2003)

.

(Williamson 1985,Higgins, 1997).

.

2)

(risk) (to dare)'

'risicare' ( 2003) risk 17

risque .

.

,

.

- 10 -

, ,

.

Mowbray

.

.

.

.( 2006)1)

.

.

, ,

,

.

1) , , , 2007

- 11 -

.

Risicare

(2003)

DangerRisk

Danger

(2005)

HazardRisk

Moore

(1983)

,

, , Mowbray

,

,

(2006)

: (2003), ( 2006) 5~14p

, , ,

. 1960 ,

.2)

1960 A. H. Willet(1901)

F. H. Knight(1921), C. O. Hardy(1923), L. Pfeffer(1956)

1960

.

1960

, 1960

2) , , , 2006

- 12 -

. 1960

.

1960

.

.( 2004)

1960 ,

.

.( 2005)

. (1999)

.

(2002) .

.( 2004)

, , ,

.

.

.

- 13 -

Renn(2008)

Rosa(2003)

Slovic et al.(1982)

(2005)

Leiss(2004)

Dake(1992)

(1999)

C. Arthur Williams et

al.

Mark R. Greene et

al.(1981)

(2002)

: , ( 2006)

.

, , .

(Larsen, Wibecke & Torvald, 2009).

(Walkenhorst & Crowe, 2009;

, 2008),

(Barlow, 2002).

.

,

,

- 14 -

. ,

, ,

(

, 2004).

, , ,

,

(Schmiege et al., 2009; Larsen et al., 2009; Rochelle & Kevind, 2004).

(worry) (risk perception),

(fear), (hesitation), (anxiety), (concerned)

.

.

Brunt et al.(2000)

(fear) , Wong

& Ching(2009)

(hesitation) .

, ,

. ~

? .

- 15 -

3)

(risk perception)

. Dake(1992)

(cultural lenses) . Weinstein(1989)

, , ,

. Taylor(1974)

. Mearns & Flin(1995) ,

, , , ,

Assael(1995)

. J Anity, Sridhar(2007)

.

.

( 2009).

(Reisinger & Felix, 2005)

(Fishhoff et al 1994)

(perception) ( 2002)

.

- 16 -

2.

1)

.(Viscusi, 1991; Savage, 1993; Liu and

Hsieh, 1995; Davidson and Freudenberg, 1996; Antonanzas et al., 2000; Dosman

et al., 2001; Brown and Cotton, 2003; Lundborg and Lindgren, 2004; Lundborg

and Andersson, 2006)

.( 2013)

.

Biaggio, Nielsen(1976) , , ,

, ,

.

.

2)

.(Hartog et al.,2002) , ,

,

(Nyland, 1993)

.(Sjoberg et al.,

- 17 -

1996)

.( 1997 ; 1995 ; 1994)

.

3)

.(Dosman et al.

2001; Guofang Zhai and Takeshi Suzuki, 2009)

(Julian Chunk-ling Lai & Julia Tao,2003)

( 2004),

.( 2000)

.( 2013)

.

.

- 18 -

4)

. (Slovic 1984, 2013, 1996, 2012, 2010,

2005)

.

, ,

, (Slovic, 1993). , , ,

( , 2009;

Savadori et al., 2004; Siegrist et al., 2007),

(Lazo et al., 2000).

.

(Iyengar, 1991).

(, 2001).

(Leiss & Chociolko,

1994).

.

. ,

(Lidskog, 2008; , 2001).

- 19 -

()

()

.

5)

.

.( 1994)

.

. (

) (,

2007).

(, 2000;

2005; , 2006).

.

.

.

- 20 -

, /,

,

Elke U. Weber et

al.(2002)

Guofang Zhai and

Takeshi Suzuki(2009)

Julian Chunk-ling Lai &

Julia Tao(2003)

paired t-test,

,

,

30 Bastide et al.

(1989)

ANOVA

,

,

Nyland(1993)

,

,

Sjoberg et al.

(1996)

,

Goszczynska et al.(1991)

ANOVA

Guofang Zhai and

.

.( 2009)

, ,

.

, ,

.

.

- 21 -

Takeshi Suzuki(2009)

Julian Chunk-ling Lai &

Julia Tao(2003)

paired t-test,

,

,

ANOVA

/

30

Slovic(1987)

ANOVA

: Elke U. Weber et al.(2002)

3.

1)

, ,

.( 1984)

. Cottle(1976)

Bergadaa(1990)

.

.(Trope & Liberman 2003).

(Time discounting theory),

(CLT; construal level theory), (Optimistic biases) .

- 22 -

.(Loewenstein and Prele 1992 ; Loewenstein, Redd and

Baumeister 2003)

(Ainsle 1975) (Mischel 1974)

.

.

.

(Miller 1994).

.

.

.

.

(Lowwenstein 1996).

.

.

.

.

- 23 -

.

.

2)

,

(Trope & Liberman 2003).

.

.

.

.

Medin(1989)

.

.

. .

- 24 -

, ,

, ,

; Trope and Liberman, "Temporal construal", Psychological Review, 110 403-421, 2003

.

.

.

.(Trope & Liberman 2003)

.

, .

.

.

- 25 -

Liberman and Trope(2000)

.

.

.

.

.

3)

(Williamson 1985,Higgins, 1997)

.

.

.( 2007)

.

- 26 -

.

.

.

.

.

.

Weinstein(1980) .

.

.(Calderon 1993, Lim

2001)

.

, , , ,

.(Perloff 1987, Robertson 1997, Palmer

1992)

- 27 -

.

.

.

.

.

.

: ( 2007), (2007), (2012), (2010)

- 28 -

2

1.

. ,

.

(2010) .

, , , , , , , ,

.

.

3)(WTO ; World Travel Organization)

, , , , , , , , , , ,

24 1 1

. W.Hunziker K. Kraph

. 4)

.

1961

. , , ,

, ,

. .

3) , 1975

4) ,

- 29 -

3 1 2

.

.

.

.

, , ,

.

2

.

2000 5)

6)(2003 7 1) .

2003 8 6

.

5) (2000. 1. 28, 6249)

6) 7849

- 30 -

2.

1)

5~10

. ,

,

.( 2003) (Pension), (Inn),

(Gesthaus) B&B(Bed and

Breakfast), (Lodge) ( 2002).

, , (2003)

.

2)

(

2003, 2003, 2003, 2003, 2002)

( 2009, 2009, 2008,

2007, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2003, ),

( 2010, 2010, 2008)

.

.

- 31 -

()

, (2010) , ,

,

, (2010)

, (2009)

,

, (2009)

(2008)

(2008)

(2008)

, (2004)

t-test

(2003)

,

, ,

r e p e a t e d

m e a s u r e d

ANOVA

ANOVA

M i x e d

design

. .

: , (2010)

- 32 -

3

1.

(financial risk), (performance risk), (physical risk),

(psychological risk), (social risk), (time risk) 6

.(Slevitch et al. ,2008; Boksberger et al., 2007; Hsu & Lin,

2006; Reisinger et al., 2005) Moutinho(1987)

, , 3 .

Roehl & Fesenmaier(1992)

(physical-equipment risk),

(vacation risk), (destination risk) 3 ,

(risk neutral), (functional

risk), (place risk) 3 . Sonmez & Graefe(1998)

(financial), (physical), (psychological), (satisfaction),

(social), (time), (political instability) (terrorism risks)

.

Reichel et al.(2007) (site-relaated physical),

(sociopsychological), (physical harm), (expectations),

(sociopolitical difficulties), (financial), (mass),

(self-behavior) 8 .

Jacoby & Kaplan(1972)

, (financial risk),

- 33 -

(performance risk), (physical risk), (psychological risk),

(social risk), (time risk) 6 .

.

Slevitch et al(2008)

Boksberger et al(2007)

Reichel et al.(2007)

Hsu & Lin(2006)

Reisinger et al.(2005)

Lepp et al.(2003)

Sonmez et al.(1998)

Roehl et al.(1992)

Moutinho(1987)

Jacoby et al.(1972)

(2010)

(2003)

(2001)

: , , (2010)

2.

Jacoby & Kaplan(1972)

. Jacoby & Kaplan(1972) , , , 4

.

, (Performance Risk)

- 34 -

.

(Zikmund &Scott, 1977).

, ,

,

. , (, ), (,

) .

, (Physical Risk) ,

.

, , ,

(Sonmez &Graefe, 1998). (

, ), ,

.

, (Social Risk)

, , ,

.

.

.(Slevitch & Amit, 2008).

,

.

, (Financial Risk)

- 35 -

. ,

.(Roehl & Fesenmier, 1992) ,

.

, , , 4 .

- 36 -

3

1

, ,

.

, ,

. ,

.

3 .

1 , ,

2 , ,

3

, , 4

, ,

5 ,

.

- 37 -

1 , ,

.

2 , ,

.

3 , ,

.

4 , ,

.

5 , .

- 38 -

2

1.

.

, , ,

300

246 .

.

,

, , 300

248 .

2.

, , ,

. 1960

.

Jacoby & Kaplan(1972) , , , 4

.

- 39 -

.

.

, , .

3.

1)

9 , , ,

, , , , ,

48( 16, 16, 16)

. , ,

Likert 7 ( ~ ) . , , .

, ,

, , , ,

7

16 16 16 , , , , , , , , 9

- 40 -

2)

. ,

(2008)

. , ,

, , ,

.

10 , ,

,

, , , , ,

,

, ,

,

16

.

Likert 7 ( ~ ) . ~ ? .

.

, ,

,

, ,

,

7 16

, , , , , ,

10

- 41 -

4.

IBM SPSS version 22 .

,

. , , ,

.

,

, .

Cronbachs alpha

. ,

, , , ,

, ,

ANOVA, Repeated measured ANOVA, Mixed design

.

, , ,

ANOVA . ,

, 3 , , ,

(repeated measured ANOVA)7) .

7) . (within-subject design) (between-subject design), 2 . .

, 2000.1.10,

- 42 -

, , ,

mixed design8) .

,

,

.

. ,

,

. .

.

, ,

ANOVA , ,

, ,

, , repeatedmeasuredANOVA

, ANOVA

8) (between-subject design) (within-subject design) . [, split-plot design] .

, . , . (mixed design) . , 2000.1.10,

- 43 -

4

1

1.

1)

47.2% 52.8 . 10 60

. .

.

%

116 47.2

130 52.8

10 24 9.8

20 66 26.8

30 47 19.1

40 59 24.0

50 35 14.2

60 15 6.1

23 9.3

60 24.4

/ 33 13.4

61 24.8

25 10.2

44 17.9

Total 246 100.0

- 44 -

2)

. 20 80

62.1% 37.9% .

.

.

%

154 62.1

94 37.9

20 5 2.0

30 18 7.3

40 50 20.2

50 68 27.4

60 73 29.4

70 28 11.3

80 6 2.4

131 52.8

62 25.0

28 11.3

27 10.9

Total 248 100.0

- 45 -

2.

1)

, , ,

, , 3 4

, 4 .

, 0.8

Cronbach .

.

4 .857 .821 .804 .924

4 .820 .836 .809 .834

4 .818 .850 .817 .849

4 .820 .861 .832 .828

16 .957 .961 .954 .880

: Cronbachs alpha

,

.

- 46 -

(n=246)

(n=248)

3.30 1.59 3.19 1.45 2.80 1.24 3.11 1.64

2.95 1.63 2.97 1.51 2.50 1.27 3.18 1.38

2.91 1.59 2.77 1.40 2.37 1.23 3.17 1.38

3.57 1.64 3.34 1.51 2.96 1.45 3.32 1.36

3.18 1.42 3.07 1.25 2.66 1.10 3.20 1.02

, , ,

, , 3 ,

, , ,

.

- 47 -

, ,

.

.

- 48 -

3.53 2.00 3.44 1.78 3.50 1.88

3.29 1.69 3.37 1.32 3.31 1.57

/ 3.08 1.71 3.42 1.59 3.27 1.62

2.48 1.47 4.08 1.65 3.16 1.73

3.10 1.20 3.35 1.13 3.25 1.14

- - 3.42 1.52 3.42 1.52

Total 3.03 1.65 3.54 1.50 3.30 1.59

3.28 1.77 2.91 1.59 3.15 1.68

2.84 1.49 3.04 1.48 2.90 1.48

/ 2.82 1.80 3.29 1.76 3.08 1.77

1.88 1.26 2.89 1.58 2.31 1.48

3.75 1.22 2.85 1.27 3.21 1.30

- - 3.55 1.83 3.55 1.83

Total 2.68 1.58 3.19 1.65 2.95 1.63

3.55 1.76 2.84 1.90 3.30 1.80

2.94 1.56 2.63 1.38 2.84 1.50

/ 2.70 1.57 3.04 1.73 2.89 1.65

1.97 1.23 3.17 1.61 2.48 1.52

3.20 1.35 2.75 1.24 2.93 1.27

- - 3.41 1.72 3.41 1.72

Total 2.72 1.55 3.09 1.61 2.91 1.59

3.35 1.75 3.69 1.91 3.47 1.77

3.62 1.44 3.50 0.99 3.58 1.31

/ 3.77 1.49 3.76 2.13 3.77 1.84

2 1 : , ,

, ,

, ,

, ,

, , ,

,

, .

, ,

- 49 -

3.19 1.87 3.96 1.82 3.52 1.87

3.13 1.29 3.48 1.04 3.34 1.13

- - 3.65 1.80 3.65 1.80

Total 3.43 1.61 3.69 1.67 3.57 1.64

3.43 1.74 3.22 1.66 3.36 1.68

3.17 1.39 3.13 1.02 3.16 1.28

/ 3.09 1.50 3.38 1.53 3.25 1.50

2.38 1.21 3.53 1.42 2.87 1.41

3.29 1.15 3.11 0.89 3.18 0.98

- - 3.51 1.58 3.51 1.58

Total 2.97 1.42 3.38 1.39 3.18 1.42

, (F=92.7349), p

- 50 -

10.4% .

,

.

, , ,

.

,

(F=39.121, p

- 51 -

SourceType IIISum ofSquares

dfMeanSquare

F Sig.

223.805 1 223.805 92.734 .000

127.888 1 127.888 55.751 .000

90.021 1 90.021 39.121 .000

193.501 1 193.501 73.397 .000

154.177 1 154.177 84.529 .000

17.331 1 17.331 7.181 .008

2.583 1 2.583 1.126 .290

.001 1 .001 .000 .987

5.215 1 5.215 1.978 .161

4.030 1 4.030 2.209 .139

6.658 1 6.658 2.759 .098

.217 1 .217 .095 .759

.010 1 .010 .004 .947

2.604 1 2.604 .988 .322

1.417 1 1.417 .777 .379

*

10.943 4 2.736 1.134 .342

19.528 4 4.882 2.128 .079

4.460 4 1.115 .485 .747

4.513 4 1.128 .428 .788

7.118 4 1.780 .976 .422

a 460.963 191 2.413

b 438.134 191 2.294

c 439.509 191 2.301

d 503.545 191 2.636

e 348.375 191 1.824

a. R Squared = .093 (Adjusted R Squared = .050)b. R Squared = .104 (Adjusted R Squared = .062)c. R Squared = .087 (Adjusted R Squared = .044)d. R Squared = .023 (Adjusted R Squared = -.022)e. R Squared = .070 (Adjusted R Squared = .026)

- 52 -

SourceType IIISum ofSquares

dfMeanSquare

F Sig.

13.422 1 13.422 6.180 .014

2.021 1 2.021 .736 .393

.009 1 .009 .003 .953

1.500 1 1.500 .518 .473

2.414 1 2.414 1.217 .272

4.287 5 .857 .395 .852

12.243 5 2.449 .892 .489

10.581 5 2.116 .804 .549

1.534 5 .307 .106 .991

4.695 5 .939 .474 .795

a 1916.063 130

b 1670.438 130

c 1572.938 130

d 2131.938 130

e 1730.820 130

a. R Squared = .079 (Adjusted R Squared = .034)

b. R Squared = .037 (Adjusted R Squared = -.010)

c. R Squared = .033 (Adjusted R Squared = -.015)

d. R Squared = .014 (Adjusted R Squared = -.035)

e. R Squared = .025 (Adjusted R Squared = -.023)

( )

- 53 -

- 54 -

3.50 1.42 2.75 1.01 3.24 1.32

3.09 1.54 2.93 1.21 3.04 1.44

/ 2.92 1.36 3.35 1.35 3.15 1.35

2.85 1.59 3.63 1.68 3.18 1.66

3.65 1.38 2.95 0.92 3.23 1.15

- - 3.39 1.46 3.39 1.46

Total 3.09 1.51 3.27 1.39 3.19 1.45

3.30 1.69 2.53 1.28 3.03 1.57

3.04 1.65 3.07 1.47 3.05 1.58

/ 2.95 1.32 3.38 1.52 3.18 1.43

2.19 1.34 2.88 1.72 2.48 1.54

3.55 1.19 2.50 0.91 2.92 1.14

- - 3.38 1.47 3.38 1.47

Total 2.85 1.54 3.08 1.48 2.97 1.51

3.30 1.45 1.84 0.83 2.79 1.43

2.88 1.72 2.70 1.44 2.82 1.62

/ 2.52 1.03 2.97 1.33 2.77 1.21

1.98 1.13 2.77 1.37 2.32 1.29

3.53 1.15 2.75 1.03 3.06 1.12

- - 3.18 1.38 3.18 1.38

Total 2.67 1.47 2.87 1.33 2.77 1.40

3.48 1.42 3.16 1.95 3.37 1.59

3.54 1.63 3.45 1.08 3.51 1.47

3 2 : , ,

, ,

, ,

, ,

,

. .

, ,

- 55 -

/ 3.23 0.86 3.61 1.33 3.44 1.14 2.74 1.66 3.84 1.58 3.20 1.70 3.53 1.08 2.80 1.16 3.09 1.17 - - 3.34 1.69 3.34 1.69Total 3.25 1.51 3.42 1.51 3.34 1.51

3.43 1.74 3.22 1.66 3.36 1.68 3.17 1.39 3.13 1.02 3.16 1.28/ 3.09 1.50 3.38 1.53 3.25 1.50 2.38 1.21 3.53 1.42 2.87 1.41 3.29 1.15 3.11 0.89 3.18 0.98 - - 3.51 1.58 3.51 1.58Total 2.97 1.42 3.38 1.39 3.18 1.42

, , , ,

, , , , *

, 4.3~8.1%

. , , ,

,

.

4 (F=4.000, p

- 56 -

SourceType IIISum ofSquares

dfMeanSquare

F Sig.

.042 1 .042 .020 .888

2.973 1 2.973 1.357 .246

7.199 1 7.199 4.000 .047

2.489 1 2.489 1.171 .281

4.030 1 4.030 2.209 .139

.242 1 .242 .116 .734

.601 1 .601 .274 .601

1.878 1 1.878 1.043 .308

.134 1 .134 .063 .802

1.417 1 1.417 .777 .379

1.976 4 .494 .236 .918

3.355 4 .839 .383 .821

3.925 4 .981 .545 .703

4.129 4 1.032 .486 .746

7.118 4 1.780 .976 .422

*

16.158 4 4.039 1.930 .107

19.019 4 4.755 2.170 .074

28.110 4 7.028 3.904 .005

19.534 4 4.883 2.298 .060

14.740 4 3.685 2.020 .093

a 2417.000 202

b 2131.625 202

c 1847.500 202

d 2686.688 202

e 2334.082 202

a. R Squared = .043 (Adjusted R Squared = -.007)b. R Squared = .080 (Adjusted R Squared = .032)c. R Squared = .120 (Adjusted R Squared = .074)d. R Squared = .069 (Adjusted R Squared = .021)e. R Squared = .081 (Adjusted R Squared = .033)

. , ,

.

- 57 -

SourceType IIISum ofSquares

dfMeanSquare

F Sig.

1.753 1 1.753 .907 .343

5.398 1 5.398 2.530 .114

3.099 1 3.099 1.796 .183

4.603 1 4.603 2.041 .156

.024 1 .024 .017 .898

7.971 5 1.594 .825 .534

13.586 5 2.717 1.274 .280

13.332 5 2.666 1.545 .181

5.721 5 1.144 .507 .770

7.602 5 1.520 1.068 .381

a 1641.875 130

b 1515.625 130

c 1298.063 130

d 1813.625 130

e 1480.887 130

a. R Squared = .046 (Adjusted R Squared = .000)

b. R Squared = .069 (Adjusted R Squared = .023)

c. R Squared = .074 (Adjusted R Squared = .029)

d. R Squared = .056 (Adjusted R Squared = .010)

e. R Squared = .042 (Adjusted R Squared = -.005)

( )

- 58 -

- 59 -

2.63 1.23 2.69 1.23 2.65 1.20

2.16 1.16 2.64 1.13 2.31 1.17

/ 2.78 0.97 3.08 1.22 2.95 1.11

2.60 1.07 2.75 1.10 2.66 1.08

3.03 1.80 2.83 1.10 2.91 1.39

- - 3.55 1.27 3.55 1.27

Total 2.51 1.20 3.06 1.23 2.80 1.24

2.42 1.29 2.13 1.12 2.32 1.22

2.21 1.26 2.41 0.97 2.28 1.17

/ 2.57 1.25 2.54 1.20 2.55 1.21

2.29 1.27 2.26 1.15 2.28 1.21

2.75 1.04 2.53 1.38 2.62 1.24

- - 3.09 1.41 3.09 1.41

Total 2.36 1.24 2.62 1.28 2.50 1.27

2.42 1.43 2.34 1.24 2.39 1.34

2.07 1.30 2.18 0.97 2.10 1.20

/ 2.22 0.88 2.56 1.30 2.40 1.12

1.97 1.17 2.54 1.15 2.21 1.19

2.15 1.07 2.27 1.01 2.22 1.01

- - 3.00 1.28 3.00 1.28

Total 2.11 1.20 2.60 1.20 2.37 1.23

2.87 1.21 3.00 0.90 2.91 1.09

2.51 1.52 2.87 1.31 2.62 1.45

/ 2.72 1.03 3.32 1.70 3.05 1.45

4 3 : , ,

, ,

, ,

, ,

,

. .

, ,

- 60 -

2.71 1.42 3.19 1.30 2.91 1.38

2.95 1.73 2.63 0.97 2.76 1.30

- - 3.57 1.65 3.57 1.65

Total 2.68 1.40 3.22 1.45 2.96 1.45

2.58 1.14 2.54 0.94 2.57 1.05

2.24 1.13 2.53 0.90 2.33 1.06

/ 2.57 0.89 2.88 1.20 2.74 1.07

2.39 0.96 2.69 1.02 2.52 0.99

2.72 1.19 2.57 0.97 2.63 1.04

- - 3.30 1.18 3.30 1.18

Total 2.41 1.05 2.87 1.11 2.66 1.10

, , , ,

, , , , , *

,

1.8~5.7% .

, .

, ,

, .

, .

,

, .

,

. ,

.

- 61 -

Source

Type III

Sum of

Squares

dfMean

SquareF Sig.

.089 1 .089 .065 .799

.111 1 .111 .075 .785

2.291 1 2.291 1.648 .201

.264 1 .264 .139 .710

.248 1 .248 .227 .634

.997 1 .997 .724 .396

.209 1 .209 .141 .708

1.665 1 1.665 1.198 .275

2.503 1 2.503 1.313 .253

.728 1 .728 .667 .415

7.659 4 1.915 1.391 .239

3.156 4 .789 .531 .713

2.853 4 .713 .513 .726

2.447 4 .612 .321 .864

2.786 4 .696 .638 .636

*

2.173 4 .543 .395 .812

1.235 4 .309 .208 .934

2.261 4 .565 .407 .804

3.526 4 .881 .463 .763

1.305 4 .326 .299 .878

a 1681.188 202

b 1422.500 202

c 1283.250 202

d 1994.875 202

e 1495.285 202

a. R Squared = .057 (Adjusted R Squared = .008)b. R Squared = .018 (Adjusted R Squared = -.034)c. R Squared = .039 (Adjusted R Squared = -.011)d. R Squared = .037 (Adjusted R Squared = -.013)e. R Squared = .035 (Adjusted R Squared = -.015)

- 62 -

SourceType IIISum ofSquares

dfMeanSquare

F Sig.

.017 1 .017 .012 .914

2.276 1 2.276 1.451 .231

.242 1 .242 .171 .680

3.611 1 3.611 1.749 .188

.580 1 .580 .497 .482

13.192 5 2.638 1.845 .109

7.345 5 1.469 .936 .460

12.105 5 2.421 1.716 .136

13.202 5 2.640 1.279 .277

9.742 5 1.948 1.670 .147

a 1409.625 130

b 1105.625 130

c 1066.563 130

d 1615.125 130

e 1231.887 130

a. R Squared = .094 (Adjusted R Squared = .050)b. R Squared = .086 (Adjusted R Squared = .042)c. R Squared = .069 (Adjusted R Squared = .024)d. R Squared = .063 (Adjusted R Squared = .018)e. R Squared = .090 (Adjusted R Squared = .046)

()

- 63 -

- 64 -

5 4 : , ,

1.

, , , 3

, , , mixed design . , ,

,

, , , , , ,

.

, , .

,

, , ,

.

3 (F=9.830, p

- 65 -

3.53 2.00 3.44 1.78 3.50 1.88

3.29 1.69 3.37 1.32 3.31 1.57

/ 3.08 1.71 3.42 1.59 3.27 1.62

2.48 1.47 4.08 1.65 3.16 1.73

3.10 1.20 3.35 1.13 3.25 1.14

- - 3.42 1.52 3.42 1.52

Total 3.03 1.65 3.54 1.50 3.30 1.59

3.50 1.42 2.75 1.01 3.24 1.32

3.09 1.54 2.93 1.21 3.04 1.44

/ 2.92 1.36 3.35 1.35 3.15 1.35

2.85 1.59 3.63 1.68 3.18 1.66

3.65 1.38 2.95 0.92 3.23 1.15

- - 3.39 1.46 3.39 1.46

Total 3.09 1.51 3.27 1.39 3.19 1.45

2.63 1.23 2.69 1.23 2.65 1.20

2.16 1.16 2.64 1.13 2.31 1.17

/ 2.78 0.97 3.08 1.22 2.95 1.11

2.60 1.07 2.75 1.10 2.66 1.08

3.03 1.80 2.83 1.10 2.91 1.39

- - 3.55 1.27 3.55 1.27

Total 2.51 1.20 3.06 1.23 2.80 1.24

* (F=4.644, p

- 66 -

F p

6.040 1 6.040 1.796 .182

3.175 1 3.175 .944 .332

6.552 4 1.638 .487 .745

* 23.339 4 5.835 1.735 .144

16.186 1.000 16.186 9.830 .002

* 7.467 1.000 7.467 4.535 .034

* 1.251 1.000 1.251 .760 .384

* 9.993 4.000 2.498 1.517 .199

** 14.321 4.000 3.580 2.174 .073

F p

7.865 1 7.865 2.482 .118

19.799 5 3.960 1.250 .290

13.148 1.000 13.148 8.485 .004

* 7.195 1.000 7.195 4.644 .033

* 4.101 5.000 .820 .529 .754

1

* p < .05 ** p < .01

2

* p < .05 ** p < .01

- 67 -

2.

, , , 3

, , , mixed design . , ,

,

, , , , , ,

.

, , .

,

, , ,

.

- 68 -

3.28 1.77 2.91 1.59 3.15 1.68

2.84 1.49 3.04 1.48 2.90 1.48

/ 2.82 1.80 3.29 1.76 3.08 1.77

1.88 1.26 2.89 1.58 2.31 1.48

3.75 1.22 2.85 1.27 3.21 1.30

- - 3.55 1.83 3.55 1.83

Total 2.68 1.58 3.19 1.65 2.95 1.63

3.30 1.69 2.53 1.28 3.03 1.57

3.04 1.65 3.07 1.47 3.05 1.58

/ 2.95 1.32 3.38 1.52 3.18 1.43

2.19 1.34 2.88 1.72 2.48 1.54

3.55 1.19 2.50 0.91 2.92 1.14

- - 3.38 1.47 3.38 1.47

Total 2.85 1.54 3.08 1.48 2.97 1.51

3 (F=4.523, p

- 69 -

2.42 1.29 2.13 1.12 2.32 1.22

2.21 1.26 2.41 0.97 2.28 1.17

/ 2.57 1.25 2.54 1.20 2.55 1.21

2.29 1.27 2.26 1.15 2.28 1.21

2.75 1.04 2.53 1.38 2.62 1.24

- - 3.09 1.41 3.09 1.41

Total 2.36 1.24 2.62 1.28 2.50 1.27

F p

.068 1 .068 .018 .893

.196 1 .196 .052 .819

15.414 4 3.853 1.032 .392

* 27.879 4 6.970 1.866 .118

6.733 1.000 6.733 4.523 .035

* 1.884 1.000 1.884 1.265 .262

* .427 1.000 .427 .287 .593

* 7.548 4.000 1.887 1.268 .284

** 7.961 4.000 1.990 1.337 .258

F p

1.937 1 1.937 .464 .497

23.923 5 4.785 1.145 .340

9.306 1.000 9.306 6.364 .013

* 4.293 1.000 4.293 2.936 .089

* 2.424 5.000 .485 .332 .893

1

* p < .05 ** p < .01

2

* p < .05 ** p < .01

- 70 -

- 71 -

3.

, , , 3

, , , mixed design . , ,

,

, , , , , ,

.

, , .

,

, , ,

* (F=3.116, p

- 72 -

3.55 1.76 2.84 1.90 3.30 1.80

2.94 1.56 2.63 1.38 2.84 1.50

/ 2.70 1.57 3.04 1.73 2.89 1.65

1.97 1.23 3.17 1.61 2.48 1.52

3.20 1.35 2.75 1.24 2.93 1.27

3.41 1.72 3.41 1.72

Total 2.72 1.55 3.09 1.61 2.91 1.59

3.30 1.45 1.84 0.83 2.79 1.43

2.88 1.72 2.70 1.44 2.82 1.62

/ 2.52 1.03 2.97 1.33 2.77 1.21

1.98 1.13 2.77 1.37 2.32 1.29

3.53 1.15 2.75 1.03 3.06 1.12

3.18 1.38 3.18 1.38

Total 2.67 1.47 2.87 1.33 2.77 1.40

2.42 1.43 2.34 1.24 2.39 1.34

2.07 1.30 2.18 0.97 2.10 1.20

/ 2.22 0.88 2.56 1.30 2.40 1.12

1.97 1.17 2.54 1.15 2.21 1.19

2.15 1.07 2.27 1.01 2.22 1.01

3.00 1.28 3.00 1.28

Total 2.11 1.20 2.60 1.20 2.37 1.23

,

.

- 73 -

F p

.621 1 .621 .167 .684

28.739 5 5.748 1.544 .181

.213 1.000 .213 .145 .704

* .172 1.000 .172 .117 .733

* .558 5.000 .112 .076 .996

F p

.475 1 .475 .134 .714

.000 1 .000 .000 .995

4.354 4 1.089 .308 .872

* 44.024 4 11.006 3.116 .016

.139 1.000 .139 .103 .749

* 1.182 1.000 1.182 .875 .351

* .707 1.000 .707 .523 .470

* .568 4.000 .142 .105 .981

** 6.279 4.000 1.570 1.161 .329

1

* p < .05 ** p < .01

2

* p < .05 ** p < .01

- 74 -

4.

, , , 3

, , , mixed design . , ,

,

, , , , , ,

.

, , .

,

, , , *

.

- 75 -

3.35 1.75 3.69 1.91 3.47 1.77

3.62 1.44 3.50 0.99 3.58 1.31

/ 3.77 1.49 3.76 2.13 3.77 1.84

3.19 1.87 3.96 1.82 3.52 1.87

3.13 1.29 3.48 1.04 3.34 1.13

3.65 1.80 3.65 1.80

Total 3.43 1.61 3.69 1.67 3.57 1.64

3.48 1.42 3.16 1.95 3.37 1.59

3.54 1.63 3.45 1.08 3.51 1.47

/ 3.23 0.86 3.61 1.33 3.44 1.14

2.74 1.66 3.84 1.58 3.20 1.70

3.53 1.08 2.80 1.16 3.09 1.17

3.34 1.69 3.34 1.69

Total 3.25 1.51 3.42 1.51 3.34 1.51

2.87 1.21 3.00 0.90 2.91 1.09

2.51 1.52 2.87 1.31 2.62 1.45

/ 2.72 1.03 3.32 1.70 3.05 1.45

3 , *

, *, , , 3

** .

,

.

3 (F=4.491, p

- 76 -

2.71 1.42 3.19 1.30 2.91 1.38

2.95 1.73 2.63 0.97 2.76 1.30

3.57 1.65 3.57 1.65

Total 2.68 1.40 3.22 1.45 2.96 1.45

F p

6.380 1 6.380 1.628 .204

4.228 1 4.228 1.079 .300

6.057 4 1.514 .386 .818

* 18.717 4 4.679 1.194 .315

7.670 1.000 7.670 3.738 .055

* 1.566 1.000 1.566 .763 .383

* .000 1.000 .000 .000 .988

* 2.586 4.000 .646 .315 .868

** 5.530 4.000 1.382 .674 .611

1

* p < .05 ** p < .01

- 77 -

F p

.720 1 .720 .166 .685

15.223 5 3.045 .700 .624

9.931 1.000 9.931 4.491 .036

* 4.883 1.000 4.883 2.208 .140

* 3.561 5.000 .712 .322 .899

2

* p < .05 ** p < .01

- 78 -

4.

, , , 3

, , , mixed design . , ,

,

, , , , , ,

.

, , .

, ,

, , *

.

3 (F=5.051, p

- 79 -

3.43 1.74 3.22 1.66 3.36 1.68

3.17 1.39 3.13 1.02 3.16 1.28

/ 3.09 1.50 3.38 1.53 3.25 1.50

2.38 1.21 3.53 1.42 2.87 1.41

3.29 1.15 3.11 0.89 3.18 0.98

3.51 1.58 3.51 1.58

Total 2.97 1.42 3.38 1.39 3.18 1.42

3.40 1.39 2.57 0.89 3.11 1.28

3.13 1.47 3.04 1.12 3.10 1.36

/ 2.90 1.00 3.33 1.22 3.13 1.13

2.44 1.12 3.28 1.27 2.80 1.25

3.56 1.16 2.75 0.81 3.08 1.02

3.32 1.30 3.32 1.30

Total 2.96 1.32 3.16 1.19 3.07 1.25

2.58 1.14 2.54 0.94 2.57 1.05

2.24 1.13 2.53 0.90 2.33 1.06

/ 2.57 0.89 2.88 1.20 2.74 1.07

2.39 0.96 2.69 1.02 2.52 0.99

2.72 1.19 2.57 0.97 2.63 1.04

3.30 1.18 3.30 1.18

Total 2.41 1.05 2.87 1.11 2.66 1.10

.

- 80 -

F p

1.017 1 1.017 .356 .551

.726 1 .726 .254 .615

5.715 4 1.429 .500 .736

* 25.871 4 6.468 2.263 .064

5.954 1.000 5.954 5.051 .026

* 1.139 1.000 1.139 .966 .327

* .057 1.000 .057 .048 .826

* 3.323 4.000 .831 .705 .590

** 5.722 4.000 1.431 1.214 .306

F p

.136 1 .136 .044 .835

19.036 5 3.807 1.228 .300

6.618 1.000 6.618 5.592 .020

* 2.680 1.000 2.680 2.265 .135

* .887 5.000 .177 .150 .980

1

* p < .05 ** p < .01

2

* p < .05 ** p < .01

- 81 -

- 82 -

6 5 :

, , mixed design

. ,

, , ,

.

, , .

, , /

, */ ,

(F=7.842, p

- 83 -

3.01 1.52 3.27 1.81 3.11 1.64

2.79 1.04 3.23 0.99 3.02 1.04

Total 2.91 1.34 3.25 1.39 3.06 1.37

3.24 1.32 3.09 1.47 3.18 1.38

2.56 1.12 2.88 1.15 2.73 1.14

Total 2.95 1.28 2.97 1.29 2.95 1.29

3.26 1.38 3.03 1.39 3.17 1.38

2.40 1.07 2.79 1.08 2.61 1.09

Total 2.89 1.32 2.89 1.22 2.89 1.28

3.44 1.45 3.13 1.17 3.32 1.36

3.01 1.11 3.39 1.15 3.21 1.14

Total 3.26 1.33 3.28 1.17 3.27 1.26

3.24 1.00 3.13 0.95 3.20 1.02

2.69 0.98 3.07 0.98 2.89 0.98

Total 3.00 1.01 3.10 1.01 3.04 1.01

- 84 -

SourceType IIISum ofSquares

dfMeanSquare

F Sig.

.563 1 .563 .303 .582

4.361 1 4.361 2.744 .098

2.016 1 2.016 1.315 .252

4.376 1 4.376 2.823 .094

.028 1 .028 .028 .867

14.577 1 14.577 7.842 .005

1.029 1 1.029 .647 .421

.876 1 .876 .571 .450

.083 1 .083 .053 .817

6.511 1 6.511 6.595 .011

/

2.534 1 2.534 1.363 .244

6.851 1 6.851 4.311 .038

15.628 1 15.628 10.197 .001

4.178 1 4.178 2.695 .101

2.292 1 2.292 2.322 .128

*

/

1.332 1 1.332 .717 .398

4.200 1 4.200 2.643 .105

8.876 1 8.876 5.791 .016

16.818 1 16.818 10.848 .001

6.610 1 6.610 6.695 .010

a 5566.563 494

b 5126.867 494

c 4931.047 494

d 6049.227 494

e 5081.723 494

a. R Squared = .019 (Adjusted R Squared = .011)b. R Squared = .045 (Adjusted R Squared = .038)c. R Squared = .067 (Adjusted R Squared = .059)d. R Squared = .026 (Adjusted R Squared = .018)e. R Squared = .042 (Adjusted R Squared = .034)

- 85 -

5

1

,

,

.

, ,

.

.

, , ,

1 ,

(F=92.734, p

- 86 -

,

(F=73.397, p

- 87 -

,

3 .(F=4.523, p

- 88 -

, */

(F=10.848, p

- 89 -

4 ,

, * ,

, *, , *,

.

4 .

.

.

.

. ,

.

.

.

. Trope & Liberman

(2003) .

.

- 90 -

.

.

, , ,

, .(Perloff 1987, Robertson

1997, Palmer 1992)

.

, ,

5 ,

, / ,

/, */ .

*/ .

. (Slovic 1984, 2013, 1996, 2012,

2010, 2005)

.

- 91 -

(+++

)

1,2,3

()

*

4

()

*

*

*

*

*

*

( )

: (p < .05)

- 92 -

(+++

)

1,2,3

()

*

4

()

*

*

*

*

*

*

(+++

)

5

(/

)

/

/

*

( )

: (p < .05)

(/)

: (p < .05)

- 93 -

2

.

, 1, 2, 3 .

.

, ,

.

.

.

.(Davidson

& Freudenburg, 1996)

.

,

.

, , , ,

4 , ,

- 94 -

, .

, ,

.

,

,

.

- 95 -

21C, , , 2010

, ,

, 2010

, :

, 2009

, , , 21

2, 2010

, , , 11(2),

171-183, 2002

, , , ,

10(3), 45-65, 1999

, - -,

, 2008

, J ; ,

, 18 1, 2005

, ,

29 3, 1995, pp.936-940

, , , ,

vol 9, no 1, 2003

, , , , , 2003

, " ", 23, 2010.12,

pp.72-75

, , , , 6, 47-67,

2000

, , , 2005

- 96 -

, , :

Vol 15, No 2, 181-202, 2003

, , , 15, 171-184, 2003

, , , ,

, 19, 6, 2010

, , ,

2012

, ,

, 2013

, , ,

27(2), 49-69, 2003

( ), , , 2007

, : ,

, 2010

, , ,

, -

-, , 2010

, , ,

11(1), 27-41, 1999

, , , 2007

, , , 3, 1993

, ,

, 2004

,

, 16 3, 2010, p.3

, , , 2006

, , ,

- 97 -

23(2): 45-63, 2004

, -

, Vol.10 No.5, 2010, pp.437-438

, , , 2002, pp.4-5

, , , ,

. 18(4):93-122, 2009

, , 2004, :

, ,

7(3): 95-117, 2001

,

, , 18(0): 1-20, 2004

, - -

, 2013

, -

-, , 2010

, , , :

, , vol 27, no 3, 2008

, , , ,

, vol 27, no 2, 2008

, , , ,

9 1

, , , 2004

, , , 9, 2006

, , , , , , ,

22 1, 2011

, , 17 3, 2005,

pp.266-273

- 98 -

, , , 2004

, , , , ,

, , 8, 259-276, 1999

, , , 2008

, - -,

, 2013

, , , , 1(2), 77-99, 1999

, , ,

, 23(3), 2009

, , , ,

, 38 5, 2003

, , , ,

, 16 2, 2003

,

,, 38 7, 2003

, , ,

, 2009

, , , 2006

, , , 2011

, , , ,

2004

, , , , ,

, 17 3(2005)

, -

-, , 2007

, , 7

1, 2004, pp.213-218

- 99 -

, - 20~40 -,

, 2008

, , , 2005

, ,

, , 48 2, 2009

, , , - -,

, 2008

, " ", ,

35(1)127-142, 2001

, , 16 1,

pp.99-100, 2007

, , ,

27(2): 411-427, 2008

, -

-, 16 4, 2007

, , -

-, 45 5, 2007

, ,

, 9 2, 2008

, , , , ,

, , 2010

, ,

23 2, 2008

, ,

- vs -, , 2010

, -

,

- 100 -

, 2006.2, pp.38-40

,,, ,

,2001 ,1-7,2001

, -

, , 2010,

pp.12-18

, 19 6, 171-193, 2010

, : ,

, , 1999

Adair, Alastair, and Moran Hutchison, "The reporting of risk in real estate

appraisal property risk scoring ", Journal of property investment and

finance vol, 23, no 3, 2005

Akiko Fukumoto and Mary M. Meares, Y2K and the Construction of Risk

Perception in Newspapers in Japan and the United States,

Keio Communication Review No.27, 2005, pp.99-110

Asa Boholm, Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty

years of research, Journal of Risk Research 1, 1998, pp.135-160

Assael, H. Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action. Cincinnati: South Western

College Publishing, 1995

Baudrillard, Jean(1968), (1992), : ,

Barlow, D. H., Anxiety and its disorders, New York: Guilford Press, 1998

Bauer, Raymond A. Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking, in Robert S. Hancock,

ed., Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World (Chicago: American Marketing

Association), pp. 389-398, 1960

Bernd Rohrmann, Perception and Evaluation of Risks: Findings for New

- 101 -

Zealand and Cross-Cultural Comparisons, Lincoln

Environmental/Centre for Resource Management Lincoln University

Information Paper No.54, 1996, pp.1-22

, Risk Perception on Different Societal Groups: Australian Findings

and Crossnational Comparisons, Australian Journal of Psychology

Vol.46, 1994, 99.150-161

Bernd Rohrmann and Huichang Chen, Risk perception in China and

Australia : an exploratory crosscultural study, Journal of Risk

Research 2, 1999, pp.219-237

Boksberger, P. E., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C., Multidimensional analysis of

perceived risk in commercial air travel Journal of Air Transport

Management, 13(2), 90-96, 2007

Boshoff C. "Intentions to buy a service : the influence of service guarantees,

general informations and information in advertising, South Africa

Journal of Business Manage, 39-44, 2003

Brunt, P., Rob, M., & Zoe, H., Tourist victimisation and the fear of crime on

holiday, Tourism Management, 21(4): 417-424, 2000

Cox, and S. V. Rich, "Perceived Risk and Consumer Decision Making",

Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1, Nomber, pp. 32-39, 1964

Cox, D. F. (Ed.), Risk taking and information handling in consumer behavior,

Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University,

1967

Christopher K. Hsee and Elke U. Weber, Cross-National Differences in

Risk preference and Lay Predictions, Journal of Behavioral Decision

Making 12, 1999, pp.165-176

Dake, Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk, Journal of

Social Issues, Volume 48, Issue 4, pages 2137, Winter 1992

- 102 -

Davidson, D. J. and W. R. Freudenberg, Gender and environmental risk concerns:

A review and analysis of available research, Environ. Behav. 28(3):302

.339, 1996

Dickie, M. and S. Gerking, 'Formation of Risk Beliefs, Joint Production and

Willingness to Pay to Avoid Skin Cancer'. Review of Economics and

Statistics 78(3), 451-463, 1996

Dosman D, Adamowicz W, and Hrudey S. Socioeconomic determinants of health-

and food safety-related risk perception, Risk Anal 21:307-17, 2001

Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A., "Risk and Culture". Berkeley; Los Angeles; London:

University of California Press, 1982

Elke U. Weber, Ann-Renee Blais and Nancy E. Betz, A Domain-specific

Risk-attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perception and Risk Behavior,

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15, 2002, pp.263-282

Elke U. Weber and Christopher K. Hsee, Cross-cultural Differences in

Risk Perception, but Cross-cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards

Perceived Risk, Management Science Vol.44, 1998, pp.1205-1216

Engel, J.F. & R.D. Blackwell, Consumer Behavior, New York: CBS

College Publishing, 1982

Fontana, G. Gerrard, Bill.,A Post Keynesian theory of decision making

under uncertainty, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol25,619-637,2004

Frank K, "Risk, uncertainty and profit", The riverside press, 1921

Gillian Hawkes, Julie Houghton and Gene Rowe, Risk and worry in

everyday life: Comparing diaries and interviews as tools in risk

perception research, Health, Risk & Society Vol.11, 2009,

pp.209-225

Gibson, E. J., & Spelke, "The development of perception", Cognitive Development.

Vol. 3 of P. H. Mussen, 1983(Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology.

- 103 -

New York: Wiley.

Guofang Zhai, Takeshi Suzuki, Risk perception in Northeast Asia, Environ

Monit Assess 157, 2009, pp.151-165

Hart C W L, "The power of unconditional service guarantees", Harvard Business

Review, July-August, 54-62, 1988

Head, G. and S. Horn, "Esssentials of Risk management, Insurance institute of

America, p.136, 1991

Henrik AnderssonPetter Lundborg, Perception of Own Death Risk-An

Analysis of Road-Traffic and Overall Mortality Risks, Journal of Risk

and Uncertainty 34, 2007, p.69

Higgins, E. Tory, "Beyond Pleasure and Pain", American Psychologist, 55,

1217-1233, 1997

Jacoby, J., & Kaplan, V, The components of perceived risk in product

purchase: A cross-validation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(3):

287-291, 1972

Jamie Brown Kruse, Mark A. Thompson, Valuing low probability risk:

survey and experimental evidence, Journal of Economic Behavior &

Organization Vol.50, 2003, pp.495-503

Jarvenpaa, N. Tractinsky and M. Vitale, "Consumer Trust in an Internet Store,"

Information Technology and Management, Vol. 1, No. 1-2:45-71, 2000

Julian Chuk-ling Lai and Julia Tao, Perception of Environmental Hazards in

Hong Kong Chinese, Risk Analysis Vol.23, 2003, pp.669-683

Kalat, J. W., & Shiota, M. N., Emotion, Wadsworth Publish 1 edition, A

division of Thomson Learning INC, 2006

Lancaster, K., Modern Consumer Theory, Vermont: Edward Elgar publishing

limited, 1991

Larsen, S., Wibecke, B., & Torvald, O., What tourists worry about: Construction

- 104 -

of a scale measuring tourist worries, Tourism Management, 30(2):

260-265, 2009

LaTanya F. Martin, "Cultural Differences in Risk Perception: An

Examination of USA and Ghanaian Perception of Risk

Communication", 2003.12, p.27

Laurence Jacobs and Reginald Worthley, A Comparative Study of Risk

Appraisal: A New Look at Risk Assessment in Different Countries,

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 59, 1999, pp.225-236

Lazarus, R. S., Emotion and Adaptation, New York: Oxford University Press,

1991

Leiss, W., Effective risk communication practice, Toxicology Letters, 149, 399

404, 2004

Lennart Sjberg, "Risk Perception by the Public and by Experts:

A Dilemma in Risk Management", Center for Risk Research

Lepp, A., & Gibson, H, Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism,

Annals of Tourism Research, 30(3): 606-624, 2003

Mcdougall G H G, Levesque T, Platt P V, "Designing the service guarantee :

unconditional or specific?, The Journal of Marketing, 12(4), 278-293, 1998

MacFadyen, A. J., , Handbook of contemporary behavioral economics

:foundations and developments M. E. Sharpe, Inc. 2006,183-201

Markus R. Schmidt and Wei Wei, Loss of Agro-Biodiversity, Uncertainty,

and Perceived Control: A comparative Risk perception Study in

Austria and China, Risk Analysis Vol.26, 2006, pp.455-469

Matthews, M. L., & Moran, A. R., Age differences in male drivers' perception of

accident risk: The role of perceived driving ability, Accident Analysis &

Prevention, 18, 299-313, 1986

Melanie Powell and David Ansic, Gender differences in risk behaviour in

- 105 -

financial decision-making: An experiemntal analysis, Journal of

Economic Psychology 18, 1997, pp.606-624

Moutinho, L, Consumer behavior in tourism, European Journal of Marketing,

21(10): 5-44, 1987

Nicolas Bronfman and Luis A. Cifuentes, Risk Perception in a Developing

Country: The Case of Chile, Risk Analysis Vol.23, 2003,

pp.1309-1322

Oh, H M, "Diners perceptions of quality, value and satisfaction", Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 58-66, 2000

Paul Slovic, Ellen Peters, John Grana, Susan Berger and Gretchen S. Dieck,

Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs: Results of a National Survey,

Drug Information Journal Vol.41, 2007, pp.81-98

Peter, J. P. & Tarpey, S. L. X., 'Behavioral Decision Making:

A Comparison of Three Models', Advances in Consumer Research 2(1),

119 -132, 1975

Peter, J. P.;Ryan, M. J. An investigation of perceived risk at the brand

level, Journal of Marketing Research, v.13, p.184-188, 1976

Peter, J.P. & Olson, J.C., Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, New

York: McGraw-Hil, 2008

Reichel, A. Fuchs, G., & Uriely, N, Perceived risk and the non-institutionalized

tourist role : The case of Israeli student ex-backpackers, Journal of

Travel Research, 46(2): 217-226, 2007

Reisinger, Y., & Felix, M., Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally:

Implications of travel risk perception, Journal of Travel Research, 43(3):

212-225, 2005

Renn O,, "Risk governance : coping with uncertainty in a complex world"' London

earthscan, 2008

- 106 -

Rochelle, B., & Kevind, M., Perceived Risk and Worry: The Effects of 9/11 on

Willingness to Fly, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(9):

1846-1856, 2004

Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R., Risk Perception and Pleasure Travel:

An exploratory Analysis, Journal of Travel Research, 30(4): 17-26, 1992

Roselius, T, "Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing",

35(1), 56-61, 1971

Rushmore S, "Lodging today", Lodging Hospitality", 12 Apr, 1998

Savage, I.,Demographic Influences on Risk Perceptions. Risk Analysis, 13(4):

413-420, 1993

Schiffman L., "Perceived risk in new product trial by elderly consumers", Journal

of marketing research, 1972

Schmiege S. J., Angela B., & Klein, M. P., Distinctions Between Worry and

Perceived Risk in the Context of the Theory of Planned Behavior, Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 39(1): 95-119, 2009

Short, JR, "The social fabric at risk : toward the social transformation of risk

analysis, American sociological association, 1984

Slevitch , L. and Sharma, A., Management of Perceived Risk in the context of

destination choice, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Administration, Vol.9 Issue 1, pp.85-103 , 2008

Slovic, P., Fishhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. "Facts and Fears: Understanding

Perceived Risk", In Albers, W.A.(Ed.), Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe

Is Safe Enough? New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1980

Slovic, P., Fishhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. "Why study risk perception?"

Risk analysis, vol 2, no 2, 1982

Sonmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R., Influence of Terrorism Risk on Foreign Tourism

Decisions, Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1): 112-144,1998

- 107 -

Spence, H.E., Engel, J.F., and Blackwell, R.D., Perceived Risk in Mail-Order

and Retail Store Buying Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7 (3),

364-369, 1970

Sproles, G. B, From perfectionism to fadism: Measuring consumers'

decision-making styles, Proceedings, Amer-icon Consumer interets,

79-85, 1985

Steger MA, Witt SL. Gender differences in environmental orientations: a

comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the U.S., West Polit Q,

42:627- 49, 1989

Taylor JW. "The role of risk in consumer behavior", 1974

Trope and Liberman, "Temporal construal", Psychological Review, 110 403-421, 2003

Tversky, A. Kahneman, D. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,

Science, Vol.211,453-8,1981

Walkenhorst, E., & Crowe, F. S, The effect of state worry and trait anxiety on

working memory processes in a normal sample, Anxiety, Stress &

Coping, 22(2): 167-187, 2009

Williamson O. E., "The economic institutions of capitalism, New York, The free

press, 1985

Wong, J. Y., & Ching, Y., Tourist hesitation in destination decision making

Annals of Tourism Research, 36(1): 6-23, 2009

Writz J, "Development of a service guarantee model", Asia Pacific Journal of

Management, 15, 51-75, 1998

Yong-Jin Cha, Risk perception in Korea: a comparison with Japan and the

United States, Journal of Risk Research 3, 2000, pp.321-331

Zhang Jianguang, Environmental Hazards in the Chinese Public's Eyes, Risk

Analysis Vol.13, 1993, pp.509-513

- 108 -

?

() .

1000 .

.

SARS, ,

.

.

: 010-2550-9361, snusfa@naver.com

, .

() 2

7

.

- 109 -

.

1. ? ( )

2. ? ( )

3. ? ( )

4. ? ( )

5. ? ( )

200 200 300 400 500 600 700

6. ? ( )

7. ? ( )

8. ? ( )

12 23 34 9. , ,

? ( )

( )

- 110 -

1

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

2

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

3

, (, ),

(, )

()

?

4

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

5

(, ),

,

() ?

6

(, ),

,

() ?

7

(, ),

,

()

?8 (, ),

. ,

.

- 111 -

,

() ?

9

,

(

) ?

10

,

(

) ?

11

,

() ?

12

,

()

?

13

,

()

?

14

,

(

) ?

15

,

() ?

16 ,

() ?

- 112 -

1

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

2

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

3

, (, ),

(, )

()

?

4

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

5

(, ),

,

() ?

6

(, ),

,

() ?

7

(, ),

,

()

?

8

(, ),

,

() ?

9

,

(

) ?

10 ,

(

- 113 -

) ?

11

,

() ?

12

,

()

?

13

,

()

?

14

,

(

) ?

15

,

() ?

16 ,

() ?

- 114 -

1

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

2

, (, ),

(, )

()

?

3

, (, ),

(, )

()

?

4

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

5

(, ),

,

() ?

6

(, ),

,

() ?

7

(, ),

,

()

?

8

(, ),

,

() ?

.

- 115 -

9

,

()

?

10

,

() ?

11

,

()

?

12

,

()

?

13

,

()

?

14

,

() ?

15

,

() ?

16

,

()

?

- 116 -

.

1. ? ( )

2. ? ( )

3. ? ( )

4. ? ( )

5. ? ( )

3000 3000 5000 7000 1 1 5 2

6. ? ( )

7. ? ( )

8. ? ( )

3 3 5 10 9. ? ( )

3 3 5 1 10. , ,

? ( )

- 117 -

1

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

2

, (, ),

(, )

() ?

3

, (, ),

(, )

()

?

4

, (,

), (, )

()

?

5

(, ),

,

() ?

6

(, ),

,

() ?

7

(, ),

,

()

?8 (, ),

. .

- 118 -

,

()

?

9

,

()

?

10

,

() ?

11

,

()

?

12

,

() ?

13 ()

?

14 ()

?

15

() ?

16 ()

?

- 119 -

ABSTRACT

A Study on Dynamic Transition of Risk Perception

- Focusing on Pension Consumer -

Son, Jeong Hyoun

Department of Foreign Trade

Sungkyunkwan University

The first objective of this study is to verify the existing studies that show

the variances based on the time frame or point of time, on the audience of

whether the general public or the experts and on the demographic statistics of

the pension customers and pension operators, from the new angle or from the

dynamic perspective of the risk perception. The second objective is to verify

those existing theories of time discounting, construal level and optimistic biases,

from the risk perception that is varying according to the time flow or point of

time.

The study result shows that there was no remarkable variance detected from

the multi-points of time (based on the different times of pension consumers

before using, after using and at the point of choosing the pension service) on

the basis of the demographic statistics of gender, age and occupation, which is

different from the previous studies based on the single point of time. There was

no indication of risk perception variation based on the gender, which is different

- 120 -

result from the previous studies based on the single point of time. The previous

study shows that female owns greater risk perception than males without

exception at the single point of time frame, however, there noticed no gender

variance of risk perception at the multi-points of time frame.

Also the study result showed the contrary to what had been found in the

previous study that the risk size perception at the single point of time varies

according to the variance of the occupation or professions. In other words, it

was verified that there is no variance in risk size perception by the professions

and occupations at the multiple points of time.

This study result also supports the previous study that argues that there is

no consistency in different age groups at the single point of time. This is

because the risk perception size by different age groups at the multiple points of

time indicates inconsistency. While the result based on all demographic groups

except the housewife group at the particular point of time selected showed the

variance of risk perception in terms of physical, social and economic aspects, the

female group including housewife at the particular point of time selected showed

no variance of risk perception except the physical one.

This study result supports the theory of time discounting and the theory of

conflict. In the event where both negative value of risk from using pension

service and positive value of pleasure from using pension service co-exist, the

negative value of risk from using pension service became rapidly reduced. In

other words, the study demonstrates that the risk size perception is more

reduced before using rather than at the point of using and after using rather

than before using the service.

The emotional reliance theory based on the time discounting theory was also

- 121 -

supported. In the event where there co-exist the emotional value of pleasure of

using the pension service and the cognitive value of risk perception on using

pension service, unlike the emotional value, the cognitive value or the risk

perception increases even greater in the portion of the furtherance of the point

of time of the event. In other words, since the point of time of selecting the

pension is further away from the point of time prior to using and post using

the service, the cognitive value or the risk perception at the point of time of

selecting the pension is greater than other points of time. This result supports

those theories of time reduction and emotion reliance.

The theory of construal level was also supported by this study. The theory

of construal level was supported because the pension consumers interpret at

high level or abstractly at the point of selecting the pension that the further

future event of using pension service is dangerous vaguely but at the point of

prior to using the pension the consumers interpret at the low level or concretely

perceiving the risk that the nearer future of using pension service is less

dangerous than expected.

Nevertheless, optimistic biases theory was not supported by this study. The

majority of previous study results that pursued to identify the optimistic

tendency and its causes have forecasted less likelihood of the negative and

dramatic events and experiences like traffic accident, earthquake, crime,

depression, unwanted pregnancy and diseases. However, at the point of time of

forecasting the future or the point of time selecting the pension, the pension

consumers made the negative assessment that the pension service would be

dangerous , unlike the optimistic biases theory.

The argument from the previous study that there exists the variance

- 122 -

between general public and the experts in terms of the risk size perception was

verified and support once again by this study.

Key word : Risk, Risk perception, Dynamic transition, Time flow, Pension