박사

소셜빅데이터 위험에 대한 SNS이용자의 위험인식 특성 연구 : 소셜빅데이터 위험변인 간 관계를 중심으로

이윤경 2017년
논문상세정보
    • 저자 이윤경
    • 기타서명 focus on the relationship between risk variables for social big data
    • 형태사항 삽화, 표: viii, 177 p.: 30 cm
    • 일반주기 지도교수: 송해룡, 참고문헌: p. 141-169
    • 학위논문사항 학위논문(박사)-, 신문방송학과, 성균관대학교 일반대학원, 2017. 8
    • 발행지 서울
    • 언어 kor
    • 출판년 2017
    • 발행사항 성균관대학교
    유사주제 논문( 0)

' 소셜빅데이터 위험에 대한 SNS이용자의 위험인식 특성 연구 : 소셜빅데이터 위험변인 간 관계를 중심으로' 의 참고문헌

  • 환경뉴스에서의 위험커뮤니케이션
    노진철 한국 사회학, 38(1), 77-105 [2004]
  • 한국사회의 위험구조 변화. 21세기 한국메가트렌드 시리즈Ⅲ
    김홍중 이재열 서울: 정보통신정책연구원 [2005]
  • 프라이버시 염려에 대한 메타분석: 국내문헌을 대상으로
    김상희 김종기 경 영학연구, 46(2), 595-622 [2016]
  • 커넥티드 사회의 구조변동. 정보통신정책연구원
    이호영 서울: 진한엠앤비 [2016]
  • 총괄보고서 : 초연결사회의 지속가능성을 위한 사회문화적 조건과 한국사회의 대응. 정보통신정책연구원
    이호영 서울: 진한엠앤비 [2016]
  • 총괄보고서 : e-플랫폼에서 소셜 플랫폼으로의 변화. 정보통신정책연구원
    강장묵 김희연 이호영 서울: 휴먼아리랑컬쳐 [2016]
  • 초연결 사회의 도래: 배경과 요인. 유영성, 김현중, 이상대, 정진명, 지우석, 천영석, 최민석 (편), 초연결사회의 도래와 우리의 미래 (pp. 49-75)
    김현중 유영성 파주: 한울아카데미 [2014]
  • 초연결 사회의 개념과 진단. 유영성, 김현중, 이상대, 정진명, 지우석, 천영석, 최민석 (편), 초연결사회의 도래와 우리의 미래 (pp. 23-48)
    유영성 최민석 파주: 한울아카데미 [2014]
  • 지각된 사이버 보안 위험이 개인정보보호증진을 위한 기술채택 및 지속이용의도에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구: 관여도, 보호동기, 비용지불의사를 중심으로
    우형진 언론과학연구, 14(2), 220-257 [2014]
  • 좋은루머, 나쁜루머, 양가적 루머? 인터넷 루머전파기대 척도의 타당화
    나은영 차유리 언론정보연구, 52(2), 103-166 [2015]
  • 정부와 기업의 위기관리 커뮤니케이션
    이 연 서울: 박영사 [2010]
  • 정보화시대의 사회적 불안의 특성과 변화. 21세기 한국메가트렌드 시리즈Ⅲ
    김범준 최인철 서울: 정보통신정책연구원 [2005]
  • 인간과 빅데이터의 상호작용
    신동희 서울: 성균관대학교출판부 [2014]
  • 위험커뮤니케이션과 위험수용
    송해룡 이윤경 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스 [2005]
  • 위험커뮤니케이션: 미디어와 공론장
    송해룡 서울: 성균관대학교 출판부 [2012]
  • 위험커뮤니케이션
    김영욱 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스 [2014]
  • 위험인식의 다면성과 위험갈등: 위험인식에 대한 사회과학적 이해가 위험정보소통체계에 주는 함의
    박희제 환경사회학연구 ECO, 6, 8-38 [2004]
  • 위험사회와 정보화의 명암
    이재열 Information Security Review, 1(3), 39-58 [2004]
  • 위험사회: 새로운 근대(성)을 향하여(홍성태, 역). 서울: 새물결
    Beck, U. (Original work published in 1984) [1997]
  • 위험사회, 위험정치
    이재열 정진성 조병희 서울: 서울대학교 출판문화원 [2010]
  • 위험보도론(송해룡, 역). 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스
    Endreny, P. Singer, E. (Original work published in 1993) [2003]
  • 위험보도. 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스
    Okunade, A. O. Willis, J. (Original work published in 1997) [2006]
  • 위험, 위기 그리고 커뮤니케이션
    김영욱 서울: 이화여자대학교 출판부 [2008]
  • 위기상황에 대한 뉴스 노출과 위험인식, 건강 염려 인식이 위험에 대한 정보 추구 및 구전 의도에 미치는 영향: 후쿠시마 원자력 발전사고를 중심으로
    박진우 이형민 한동섭 스피치와 커뮤니케이션, 27, 165-201 [2015]
  • 원자력발전소에 대한 공중의 신뢰, 낙인과 낙관적 편향성이 위험인식에 미치는 영향
    송해룡 이윤경 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 13(3), 162-173 [2013]
  • 온라인상의 개인정보침해 우려 정도와 미디어 활용. KISDI STAT Report, 16(19), 1-6
    김윤화 Retrived from. https://www.kisdi.re.kr/kisdi/common/premium?file=1%7C13991 [2016]
  • 스마트폰 이용의 부작용 유형분석 및 대응방안
    강문설 김태희 한국정보통신학회논문지, 17(12), 2984-2994 [2013]
  • 스마트사회와 정부신뢰. 김동욱, 권현영, 김기환, 김법연, 이주실 , 이광석 … 조현석(편), 스마트시대의 위험과 대응방안 (pp. 23-65)
    윤상오 파주: 나남 [2016]
  • 스마트-모바일의 전면화 경향과 초연결사회로의 길. 정보통신정책연구원
    이호영 서울: 진한엠앤비 [2016]
  • 쉽게 따라하는 AMOS 구조방정식 모형
    허 준 서울: 한나래 [2013]
  • 소셜미디어, 그 소통의 특성. 김상배, 황주성 (엮). 소셜미디어 시대를 읽다 (pp. 51-75)
    최항섭 파주: 한울아카데미 [2014]
  • 소셜 빅데이터, 프라이버시 계산 이론 관점에서 본 SNS 이용자의 정보공유 행태 분석. DMC미디어
    김병수 Retrived from https://www.trendmonitor.co.kr/tmweb/file/downloadFile.do?bIdx=260&trendT ype=dmc&fileType=O [2014]
  • 소셜 빅데이터 분석 서비스: 비정형 텍스트 빅데이터 분석과 응용 서비스
    최광선 한국지능정보시스템학회 2012년 춘계학술대회. 59-76 [2012]
  • 소셜 미디어, 정치사회 변환, 글로벌 거버넌스. 김상배, 황주성 (편), 소셜미디어 시대를 읽다 (pp. 13-48)
    김상배 파주: 한울아카데미 [2014]
  • 생태위험과 정보기술. 21세기 한국 메가트렌드 시리즈 Ⅲ
    노진철 서울: 정보통신정책연구원 [2005]
  • 빅데이터, 경영을 바꾸다
    채승병 함유근 서울: 삼성경제연구소 [2012]
  • 빅데이터의 위험유형 분류에 관한 연구
    윤상오 한국지역정보화학회지, 16(2), 93-122 [2013]
  • 빅데이터시대
    김병수 SNS 사용자의 정보공유행태분석. e-비즈니스 연구, 15(1), 297-315 [2014]
  • 미래창조과학부 미래준비위원회, KISTEP, KAIST 10년 후 대한민국: 미래이슈보고서
    고양: 지식공감 [2015]
  • 루머
    이혜규 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스 [2015]
  • 디지털야만
    이광석 파주: 한울아카데미 [2011]
  • 디지털 위험사회 대응 정책방안
    김현준 최홍석 서울: 한국정보문화진흥원 [2009]
  • 데이터베이스 암호화 솔루션 구현 및 도입을 위한 기술적 아키텍처
    유재수 이병엽 임종태 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 14(6), 1-10 [2013]
  • 년 7월 4일). 진화하는 랜섬웨어...보안은 국가의 강력한 산업. 이뉴스투데이
    강민수 2017년 7월 5일 검색. http://www.enewstoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=1082209 [2017]
  • 년 6월 27일). 랜섬웨어 공격, 당할 수밖에 없나. 주간경향
    이효상 2017년 6월 27일 검색. http://weekly.khan.co.kr/khnm.html?mode=view&code=114&artid=201706201102051&pt=nv [2017]
  • 년 6월 24일). 일본 혼다 공장 워너크라이에 당했다...대 랜섬웨어 시대의 시작? OSEN
    이인환 2017년 6월 24일 검색. http://osen.mt.co.kr/article/G1110673524 [2017]
  • 년 6월 21일). 미 외신 “한국 웹 호스팅 업체, 랜섬웨어 사기꾼에게 10억 원 기부” 디지털타임스
    임성엽 2017년 6월 22일 검색. http://www.dt.co.kr/contents.html?article_no=2017062102109960053001 [2017]
  • 년 6월 18일). 웹호스팅 NHN고도 서버 장애 발생…“랜섬웨어 공격 아냐” IDC에서 물리적 장애 발생, 서버 2대 복구 지연…“복구 최선, 데이터 유실 없어” 머니투데이
    서진욱 2017년 6월 18일 검색. http://news.mt.co.kr/mtview.php?no=2017061810403589880&outlink=1&ref=http %3A%2F%2Fnews.naver.com [2017]
  • 년 6월 16일). 랜섬웨어 최악의 선례는 누가 만들었나. 아이뉴스
    김국배 2017년 6월 16일 검색. http://www.inews24.com/php/news_view.php?g_serial=1029699&g_menu=020200&rrf=nv [2017]
  • 년 6월 15일). NSA “워너크라이 랜섬웨어 공격에 北정보당국 관여” 연합뉴스. 2017년 6월 15일 검색. http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/bulletin/2017/06/15/0200000000AKR20170615115 700009
    이광빈 HTML?input=1195m [2017]
  • 년 3월 18일). CIA, 삼성 등 TV 원격 조종해 도청. KBS 뉴스
    박석호 2017년 5월 30일 검색. http://news.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=3441431&ref=A [2017]
  • 년 3월 13일). 스마트TV․왓츠앱까지 도․감청 의혹…해킹 안전지대가 없다. 한국경제
    추가영 2017년 6월 15일 검색. http://news.hankyung.com/view/2017/03/13/2017031337141?nv=o [2017]
  • 국내 중앙일간지와 지역일간지의 위험보도에 관한 비교연구: “구미 불산가스 누출사고” 보도 분석을 중심으로
    송해룡 이윤경 정치커뮤니케이션 연구, 28, 97-144 [2013]
  • 국내 사이버 검열이 SNS이용자의 사용행동에 미치는 영향 연구
    김용문 신동희 사이버커뮤니케이션학보, 32(3), 171-215 [2015]
  • 국내 SNS의 이용 현황과 주요 이슈 분석. Internet & Security Focus
    이윤희 Retrived from http://www.kisa.or.kr/uploadfile/201409/201409161536184246.pdf [2014]
  • 과학기술, 첨단의 10대 리스크
    김찬원 조항민 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스 [2016]
  • 공공부문 빅데이터의 활용과 과제. 조현석(엮). 빅데이터와 위험정 보사회 (pp. 93-129)
    김기환 서울: 커뮤니케이션북스 [2013]
  • 新가치창출엔진, 빅데이터의 새로운 가능성과 대응전략
    정지선 서울: 한국정보화진흥원. IT & Future Strategy(18) [2011]
  • “소셜미디어시대, 우리는 행복한가? - 소셜미디어 이용이 사회 자본과 정서적 웰빙에 미치는 영향,”
    금희조 한국방송학보, 25(5), 7-48 [2011]
  • “내 그럴 줄 알았지!”
    차유리 - 인터넷루머 장르, 매체, 대상 선호도에 따른 수용자 믿음 및 전파의도. 한국방송학보, 29(6), 330-373 [2016]
  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175.
  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer research, 12(3), 341-352.
  • Youn, S. (2005). Teenagers’ perceptions of online privacy and coping behaviors: a risk–benefit appraisal approach. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(1), 86-110.
  • Yang, Z., Saini, R., & Freling, T. (2015). How anxiety leads to suboptimal decision under risky choice situation. Risk Analysis, 35(10), 1789-1800.
  • Xie, X., Wang, M., Zhang, R., Li, J., & Yu, Q. (2011). The role of emotions in risk communication., Risk Analysis, 31(3), 450-465.
  • Widenmann, P. M. (1993). Perspectives on Risk Perception. In B. Ruck(Eds), Risk is a Construct (pp. 9-19). Munich: Knesebeck.
  • White, M. P., & Johnson, B. B. (2010). The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers. Risk Analysis, 30(8), 1196-1209.
  • Watson, S. J., Zizzo, D. J., & Fleming, P. (2016). Risk, benefit, and moderators of the affect heuristic in a widespread unlawful activity: evidence from a survey of unlawful file-sharing behavior. Risk Analysis.
  • WEF(2017). The Global Risks Report 2017 12edition. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrived from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GRR17_Report_web.pdf
  • Viklund, M. J. (2003). Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross-National Study. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 727-738.
  • Vastfjall, D., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2014). The affect heuristic, mortality salience, and risk: Domain-spectific effects of a natural disaster on risk-benefit perception. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55, 527-532.
  • Van Slyke, C., Shim, J. T., Johnson, R., & Jiang, J. (2006) Concern for information privacy and online consumer purchasing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(6), 415-444.
  • Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgements of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and social level judgements, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 693-708.
  • Tyler, T. R. (1984). Assessing the risk of crime victimization: The integration of personal victimization experience and socially transmitted information. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 27-38.
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 1124-1132.
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Science, 4, 207-232.
  • Trumbo, C. W.,& McComas, K. A. (2003) The function of credibility in information processing. Risk Analysis, 23(2), 343-353.
  • Trumbo, C. W. (1999). Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 391-400.
  • Traczyk, J., Sobkow, A., & Zaleskiewicz, T. (2015). Affect-laden imagery and risk taking : the mediating role of stress and risk perception. PLoSone, 10(3), 1-22.
  • Tormala, Z. L., Bri ol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2006). When credibility attacks: The reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684-691.
  • Tenenbaum, G., Furst, D., & Weingarten, G. (1985). A statistical reevaluation of the STAI anxiety questionnaire. Clinical Psychology, 41(2), 239-244.
  • Stone, E. R., Bruin, W. B., Wilkins, A. M., Boker, E. M., & Gibson, J. M. (2017). Designing graphs to communicate risks: understanding how the choice of graphical format influences decision making. Risk Analysis, 37(4), 612-628.
  • Starr, C. (1985). Risk management, assessment, and acceptability. Risk Analysis, 5, 97-102.
  • Starr, C. (1969). Social Benefit versus Technical Risk, Science, 165, 1232-1238.
  • Stark, D., Kiely, A., Smith, G., Velikova, A., House, P., & Selby (2002). Anxiety Disorders in Cancer Patients: Their Nature, Associations, and Relation to Quality of Life. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 20(14), 3137-3148.
  • Spielberger, C. D.&Rehiser. (2009). Assessment of emotions: anxiety, anger, depression, and curiosity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-being, 1(3), 271-302.
  • Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: STAI(From Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  • Sokolowaka, J., & Sleboda, P. (2015). The inverse relation between risks and benefits: the role of affect and expertise. Risk Analysis, 35(7), 1252-1267.
  • Snyder, L. B., & Rouse, R. A. (1995). The media can have more than an impersonal impact: The case of AIDS risk perceptions and behavior, Health Communication, 7(2), 25-145.
  • Slovic, P., Flynn, J., & Layman, M. (1991). Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science, 254, 1603-1607.
  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1985). Characterizing perceived risk, In R. W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, & J. X. Kasperson (Eds.), Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology (91-125). Boulder, CO: Westview.
  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1984). Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety," Acta Psychologica, 56, 183-203.
  • Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Rating the risks. Environment, 21, 14-20, 36-39.
  • Slovic, P., Finucane, Peters, & MacGreger (2004). Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311-322.
  • Slovic, P.(1987). Perception of risk, Science, 236, 280-285.
  • Slovic, P. (2001). The risk game. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 86(1), 17-24.
  • Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of risk. London: Earthscan.
  • Slovic, P. (2000). Rating the risk. Environment, 21(3), 14-20.
  • Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13, 675-682.
  • Slovic, P. (1992). Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm, In S. Krimsky, & D. Goldings(Eds.), Social theories of risk. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Slovic, P. (1986). Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis, 6(4), 403-415.
  • Sj berg, L. (1998). Worry and risk perception, Risk Analysis, 18(1), 85-93.
  • Sj berg, L (1999). Risk Perception by the Public and by Experts: A Dilemma in Risk Management. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 1-9.
  • Siegrist, M.. Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362.
  • Siegrist, M., Stampfli, N., Kastenholz, H., & Keller, C. (2008). Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology for foods and nanotechnology food packaging, Appetite, 51, 283-290.
  • Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging : the influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 29, 459-466.
  • Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(20), 195-203.
  • Siegrist, M. (1999). A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(10), 2093-2106.
  • Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Severtson, D. J. & Meyers, J. D. (2013). The Influence of Uncertain Map Features on Risk Beliefs and Perceived Ambiguity for Maps of Modeled Cancer Risk from Air Pollution. Risk Analysis, 33(5). 818-837.
  • Scherer, L.D., et al. (2017). The role of the affect heuristic and cancer anxiety in responding to negative information about medical test. Psychology & Health, 1-21.
  • SPSS 20.0 매뉴얼
    이학식 서울: 도서출판 집현재 [2013]
  • Ryu, C. (1995). Who trust the media: Personal bias and media credibility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City: IA.
  • Rutherford, P. (2000). Endless propaganda: The advertising of public goods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  • Rutherford, P, Reganb, A., Pieniaka, Z., McConnonb, A., Mossc, A., Wallb, P., & Verbeke, W. (2013) The use of social media in food risk and benefit communication. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30, 84-91.
  • Rundmo, T. (2002). Associations between affect and risk perception. Journal of Risk Research 5, 119-135.
  • Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
  • Roth, C., & Siegrist, M. (2001). Cyber Threat in the Field CIP: Trust and Perception. CRN: Zurich Univ. of Zurich.
  • Roper, B. W. (1986). Public attitudes toward television and other media in a time of change. New York: The Television Information Office.
  • Rohrmann, B. (1997). Risk Orientation Questionnair: Attitudes Towards Risk Decisions, Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
  • Rogers, R. W. (1975). A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114.
  • Robinson, K. G., Robinson, C. H., Raup, L. A., & Markum, T. R. (2012). Public attitudes and risk perception toward land application of biosolids within the south-eastern United States. Journal of Environmental Management, 98, 29-36.
  • Rimal, R. N., & Juon, H. (2010). Use of the Risk Perception Attitude Framework for Promoting Breast Cancer Prevention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(2), 287-310.
  • Rimal, R. N. & Real, K. (2003). Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change. Human Communication Research, 29, 370-400.
  • Renn, O., & Benighaus, C. (2013). Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management. Journal of Risk Research, 16(3-4), 293-313.
  • Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of Risk: A classification. In S. Krimsky & D. Goldings(Eds.), Social Theories of Risk(pp. 53-79). Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M., Goncalves, B., & Flammini, F. (2011). Detection and tracking political abuse in social media. Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 297-304. Available at www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM11/paper/download/.../3274.
  • Rains, S. A., & Karmikel, C. D. (2009). Health Information-Seeking and Perceptions of Website Credibility: Examining Web-use Orientation, Message Characteristics, and Structural Features of Websites. Computerin Human Behavior, 25, 544-553.
  • Quan-Haase, A. & Wellman, B. (2006). Hyperconnected Net Work : Computer-Mediated Community in a High-Tech Organization. In Paul, S. A. & Heckscher,C. (Eds.), The Firm as a Collaborative Community: Reconstructing Trust in theKnowledge Economy (pp. 281-333). Oxford University Press.
  • Prati, G., Pietrantoni, L., & Zani, B. (2011). A Social-Cognitive Model of Pandemic Influenza H1N1 Risk Perception and Recommended Behaviors in Italy. Risk Analysis, 31(4), 645-656.
  • Prati, G. & Zani, B. (2012). The effect of the Fukushima Nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environmental and Behavior, 45(6), 782-798.
  • Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281.
  • Pijawka, D., Guhathakurta, S., Leibiednik, S., Blair, J., & Ashur, S. (2001). Environmental Stigma and Equity in Central Cites: The case of South Phoenix. In J. Flynn, P. Slovic & H. Kunreuther (Eds.), Risk, Media and Stigma (pp. 187-201). London: Earthscan Publications.
  • Pidgeon, N., Kasperson, R. E., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer.
  • Petty, R. E. (1994). Two routes to persuasion: State of the art. In G. d'Ydewalle, P. Eelen, & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science (pp. 229-247). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Petty, R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., & McCallum, D. B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17, 43-54.
  • Peters, H. P. (1992). The credibility of information sources in West Germany after the Chernobyl disaster. Public Understand Science, 1, 325-343.
  • Peters, E. M., Burraston, B, & Mertz, C. K. (2004). An Emotion-Based Model of Risk Perception and Stigma Susceptibility: Cognitive Appraisals of Emotion, Affective Reactivity, Worldviews, and Risk Perceptions in the Generation of Technological Stigma. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1349-1367.
  • Pechmann, C., Zhao, G., Goldberg, M. E., & Reibling, E. E. (2003). What to Convey in Antismoking Advertisements for Adolescents: The Use of Protection Motivation Theory to Identify Effective Message Themes. Journal of Marketing, 37, 1-18.
  • Otway, H., Maurer, D., & Thomas, K. (1978). Nuclear Power: the Question of Public Acceptance, Futures, 10, 109-118.
  • Nisbet, M. C., Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservation, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29, 584~608.
  • Nelkin, D. (1989). Communicating Technological Risk: The Social Construction of Risk Perception. Annual Review of Public Health, 10, 95-113.
  • Nathan, K., Robert, L., Heath, & Douglas, W. (1992). Tolerance for Potential Environmental Health Risks: The Influence of Knowledge, Benefits, Control, Involvement, and Uncertainty. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(4), 235-258.
  • Mutz, D. (1989). The influence of perceptions of media influence: Third person effects and the public expression of opinions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1, 1-21.
  • Mumpower, J. L. (1994). LLRW Disposal facility siting: Success and failures in six countries. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Morton, T. A., & Duck, J. M. (2001). Communication and Health Beliefs: Mass and Interpersonal Influences on Perceptions of Risk to Self and Others. Communication Research, 28(5), 602-626.
  • Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust. R. M. Kramer, R. M. and Tyler, T. R. eds. Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Meyer-Abich, K. M. (1989). Von der Wohlstandsgesellschaft zur Risikogesellschaft: Die gesellschaftliche Bewertung industriewirtschaftlicher Risken. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 36, 31-42.
  • Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65(3), 567-574.
  • McCombs, M. E. (2005). A Look at Agenda-setting: past, present and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543-557.
  • Mazur, A. (1985). Bias in risk-benefit analysis. Technology in Society, 7, 25-30.
  • Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995), An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
  • Markowitz, J. (1991). Kommunikation ber Risiken: Eine Problemskizze. Unpublished manuscript, University of Bielefeld.
  • Luo, X., Han, L., Zhang, J., & Shim, J. P. (2010). Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: An empirical study of mobile banking services. Decision Support System, 49(2), 222-234.
  • Luhmann, N. (1996). Die Realit t der Massenmedien. Opladen: Westdeutscher. Maner, J. K., & Schmidt, N. B. (2006). The role of risk avoidance in anxiety. Behavior therapy, 37, 181-189.
  • Lucock, M. P., & Salkovskis, P. M. (1988). Cognitive factors in social anxiety and its treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26(4), 297-302.
  • Lo, J. (2010). Privacy concern, locus of control, and sailence in a trust-risk model of information disclosure on social networking sites, Paper Presented at the AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 110. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2010/110
  • Leiss, W., & Chociolko, C. (1994). Risk and Responsibility. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Univ. Press.
  • Leiss, W. (1996). Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 545, 85-94.
  • Lee, Y. (2011). Understanding anti-plagiarism software adoption: An extended protection motivation theory perspective. Decision Support Systems, 50, 361-369.
  • Lee, M. C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic commerce research and applications, 8, 130-141.
  • Lasorsa, D. L. (1997). Media agenda setting and press performance: A social system approach for building theory. In M. McCombs, D., Shaw, L., & Weaver, D.(Eds.), Communication and democracy (pp. 155-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • LaFollette, M. C. (1997). Why “More” is not necessarily better: Strategies for communication of science to the public. Accountability in Research, 5, 1-15.
  • Krimsky, S., & Golding, D. (1992). Reflections. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding(Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 355-363). Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Kraus, T., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks. Risk Analysis, 12, 215-232.
  • Kleef, E., Fisher, A., Khan, M., & Frewer, L. (2010). Risk and benefit perceptions of mobile phone and base situation technology in Bangladesh. Risk Analysis, 30(6), 1002-1015.
  • Keng, C. J., & Ting, H. Y. (2009). The acceptance of blogs: using a customer experiential value perspective. Internet Research, 19, 479-495.
  • KT경제경영연구소 2016 한국을 바꾸는 ICT 트렌드
    서울: 한스미디어 [2015]
  • KT경영경제연구소 (한국을 바꾸는 10가지) ICT 트렌드
    서울: 한스미디어 [2016]
  • Julian, J. L.(2011). Measures of Anxiety. Arthritis Care & Research, 63(11), 467-472.
  • Joormann, J., & St ber, J, (1997). Measuring facets of worry: A lisrel analysis of the worry domains questionnaire. Psychology, 23(5), 827-837.
  • Jones, D. K. D. (1993). Environmental hazards in the 1960s, Geography, 78-339, 161-165.
  • John, A. (1995). Risk. UCL Press.
  • Hoos, I. (1980). Risk assessment in social perspective. In Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement(Eds.), Perception of risk. Washington, DC: National Council on Radiation Protection, 57-85.
  • Hass, J. W., Bagley, G. S., & Rogers, R. W. (1975). Coping with the energy crisis: Effects of fear appeals upon attitudes toward energy consumption. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 754-756
  • Gross, R., & Acauisiti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Pseudonyms and data privacy (pp. 71-80). WPES '05 Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society: Alexandria, VA, USA, November 07, 2005. New York: ACM.
  • Groot, J., Steg, L., & Poortinga, W. (2013). Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 307-317.
  • Griffin, R., Newirth, K., Dunwoody, S., & Giese, J. (2004). Information sufficiency and risk communication. Media Psychology, 6, 23-61.
  • Gilboa-Schechtman, E., Franklin, M., & Foa, E. (2000). Anticipated Reactions to Social Events: Differences Among Individuals with Generalized Social Phobia, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and Nonanxious Controls. Cognitive Theraphy and Research, 24(6), 731-746.
  • Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication department. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 104-120.
  • Gartner. (2013). Gartner’s Hype Cycle Special Report for 2013. Gartner Inc. Greenberg, M. & Williams, B. (1999). Geographical Dimensions and Correlates of Trust. Risk Analysis, 19(2), 159-169.
  • Gambetta, D. G.(Ed.). (1988). Can we trust trust? In D. G. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust, 213-237. New York: Basil Blackwell.
  • Gadner, G. T., Tiemann, A. T., Gould, L. C., Deluca, D. R., Doob, L. W., & Stolwijk, A. J. (1982). Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability, judgements, and self reported actions toward nuclear power. Journal of Social Psychology, 116, 179-197.
  • Frewer, L., J., Howard, C., Hedderly, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis, 16, 473-486.
  • Freudenburg, W. R. (1993). Risk and Recreancy: Weber, the Division of Labor, and the Rationality of Risk Perceptions, Social Forces 71, 909-932.
  • Freudenburg, W. R. (1988). Perceived risk, real risk: Social science and the art of probabilistic risk assessment. Science, 242, 44-49.
  • Fredette, J., Marom, R., Steiner, K., & Witters, L. (2012). The Promise and Peril of Hyperconnectivity for Organizations and Societies. World Economic Forum.
  • Foa, E. B, Franklin, M. E., Perry, K. J., & Herbert, J. D. (1996). Cognitive biases in generalized social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 433-439.
  • Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high‐level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk analysis. 12(3): 417-429.
  • Fischhoff, B., Watson, S. R., & Hope, C. (1984). Defining Risk. Policy Sciences, 17, 123-139.
  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1979). Weighing the risks. Environment, 21(5), 17-20, 32-38. Reprinted in Slovic, P. (Ed.), The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.
  • Fischhoff, B., S., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, & Combs, B. (1978). How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric study of Attitude Towards Technological Risks and Benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127-152.
  • Fischhoff, B., Lichenstein, S., Slovic, P., Derby, S. Sl., & Keenery, R. L. (1981). Acceptable risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., Peters, E. & Slovic, P. (2003). Judgement and decision making: The dance of affect and reason. In S. L. Schneider, & J. Shanteau(Eds.). Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., Holup, J. L. (2006). Risk as value: Combining affect and analysis in risk judgments. Journal of Risk Research, 9, 141-164.
  • Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P. & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgement of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17.
  • Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets perspective. Human-Computer Studies, 59, 451-474.
  • Evers, A. & Nowotny, H. (1987). ber den Umgang mit Unsicherheit. Die Entdeckung der Gestaltbarkeit von Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
  • Engel, J. F., & Blackwell, R. D. (1982). Consumer Behavior. Hinsdale: Dryden Press.
  • Edwards, A. (1961). Behavioral Decision Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 473-498.
  • Earle, T. C. (2010). Trust in Risk Management: A Model-Based Review of Empirical Research. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 541-574.
  • Dunwoody, S., & Giese, J. (2004). Information sufficiency and risk communication. Media Psychology, 6, 23-61.
  • Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Douglas, M & Wildasky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Dohle, S., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Mobile Communication in the Public Mind: Insights from Free Associations Related to Mobile Phone Base Stations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 18(3), 649-668.
  • Dobbie, M. F. & Brown, R. R. (2013). A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner. Risk Analysis, 34(2), 294-308.
  • Dinev, T., Bellotto, M., Hart, P., Russo, V., Serra, I., & Colautti, C. (2006). Privacy calculus model in e-commerce: a study of Italy and the United States. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 389-402.
  • Dinev, T. & Hart, P. (2006) An extended privacy calculus model of e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61-80
  • Dinev, T. & Hart, P. (2004) Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents: measurement validity and a regression model. Behaviour & Information Technology 23, 413-422.
  • Cvetkovich, G, Siegrist, M., Murray, R., & Tragesser, S. (2002). New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers, Risk Analysis, 22(2), 359-367.
  • Covello, V., & Sandman, P. M. (2001). Risk communication: evolution and revolution. In A. Wolbarst (Ed.), Solutions to an environment in peril (pp. 164-178). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
  • Covello, V. T., & Johnson, B. B. (1987). The social and cultural construction of risk: Issues, methods and case studies. In B. B. Johnson, & V. T. Covello (Eds.), The social and cultural construction of risk. Dordrecht: Reidel.
  • Costa-Font, J. & Mossialos, E. (2007). Are perceptions of 'risk' and 'benefits' of genetically modified food (in)dependent? Food Quality and Preference, 18, 173-182,
  • Corbett, J. B., & Durfee, J. L. (2004). Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representation of global warming. Science Communication, 26, 129-151.
  • Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational Commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.
  • Conroy, D. (2003). Re-examining the public sphere: Democracy and the role of the media. Dissertation paper. Canada: McGill University Press.
  • Coles, R., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2008). A Psychometric study of information technology risks in the work place. Risk Analysis, 28(1), 81-93.
  • Coleman, C. L. (1993). The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20(4), 611-628.
  • Cohen, J. B.(1983). Involvement and you: 1000 great ideas. Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 325-328.
  • Clothier, R. A., Dominique, A. G., Duncan, G. G., & Amisha, M. M. (2015). Risk perception and the public acceptance of drones. Risk Analysis, 35(6), 1167-1183.
  • Clarke, L. (1989). Acceptable risk? : Making choices in a Toxic Environment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Chen, N. (2015). Predicting Vaccination Intention and Benefit and Risk Perceptions: The Incorporation of Affect, Trust, and Television Influence in a Dual-Mode Model. Risk Analysis, 35(7), 1268-1280.
  • Cha, Y. (1997). Environmental risk analysis: Factors influencing nuclear risk perception and policy implications. A doctoral dissertation of State University of New York, Albany.
  • Butler, G., & Mathews, A. (1987). Anticipatory anxiety and risk perception. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11(5), 551-565.
  • Burton, I., Kates, R. W. & White, G. F. (1978). The environment as hazard. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bogardi, J. & Birkmann, J. (2004). Vulnerebility Assessment: The first Step Towards Sustainable Risk Reduction, In Malzahn, D., & Plapp, T.(Eds), Disaster and Society-from Hazard Assessment to Risk Reduction (pp. 75-82). Berlin: Logos Verlag.
  • Boer, H., & Seydel, E. (1996). Protection Motivation Theory, In Conner, M. & Norman, P.(Eds.), Prediction Health Behavior (pp. 95-120). UK: Open University Press.
  • Birkmann, J. (2007). Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environmental Hazards 7, 20-31.
  • Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1970). Dimensions for Evaluating the Acceptability of Message Sources. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563-576.
  • Baruh, L., Seciniti, E., & Cemalicilar, Z. (2017). Online Privacy Concerns and Privacy Management: A Meta-Analytical Review. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 26-53.
  • Baron, M. B. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 51(6). 1173-1182.
  • Barnes, L. B., Harp, D., Jung, W. S. (2002). Reliability Generalization of Scores on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(4), 603-618.
  • Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1985). The origins of individual media-system dependency : A Sociological Framework. Communication Research, 12(4), 485-510.
  • Baird, B. N. (1986). Tolerance for environmental health risks: The influence of knowledge, benefits, voluntariness, and environmental attitudes. Risk Analysis, 6(4), 425-435.
  • B hm, G., & Pfister, H. (2005). Consequences, morality, and time in environmental risk evaluation. Journal of Risk Research, 8(6), 461-479.
  • B hm, G., & Pfister, H. (2000). Action tendencies and characteristics of environmental risks. Acta Psychologica, 104, 317–37.
  • Amos를 이용한 구조방정식 모형
    임동훈 파주: 자유아카데미 [2014]
  • Alhakm, & Slovic, P. (1994). A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096.
  • Alexi, S. T. (1985). Mass Communication Theories and Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons.