IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i5p1071-1087.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview

Author

Listed:
  • Hye Kyung Kim
  • Yungwook Kim

Abstract

This study integrates cultural theory of risk into the risk information seeking and processing model in the context of particulate air pollution in South Korea. Specifically, it examines how cultural worldviews (hierarchy, individualism, egalitarianism, and fatalism) influence the way people interpret risk about an environmental risk, which may in turn promote or deter their information seeking and processing about the risk. An online survey (N = 645) showed that egalitarianism was positively associated with perceptions of societal and personal risks, affective responses toward the risk, and informational subjective norms. Perceived societal risk, in particular, mediated the effect of egalitarianism on information insufficiency. Moreover, cultural worldview was a significant moderator of the relationships between information insufficiency and risk information seeking and processing. The positive relationship between information insufficiency and information seeking grew stronger with increasing egalitarianism. In contrast, the negative relationship between information insufficiency and heuristic processing was strengthened with increasing hierarchy. This study extends prior theories and models in risk communication by addressing the roles of cultural worldview, an important individual difference factor in interpreting environmental risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Hye Kyung Kim & Yungwook Kim, 2019. "Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1071-1087, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:5:p:1071-1087
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13231
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13231?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    2. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Yong-Jin Cha, 2000. "Risk perception in Korea: a comparison with Japan and the United States," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 321-332, October.
    6. Xiaofei Xie & Mei Wang & Liancang Xu, 2003. "What Risks Are Chinese People Concerned About?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 685-695, August.
    7. Jungeun Yang, 2015. "The influence of culture on Koreans' risk perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 69-92, January.
    8. Z. Janet Yang, 2012. "Too Scared or Too Capable? Why Do College Students Stay Away from the H1N1 Vaccine?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1703-1716, October.
    9. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    10. Jean Brenot & Sylviane Bonnefous & Claire Marris, 1998. "Testing the Cultural Theory of Risk in France," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 729-739, December.
    11. Jay D. Hmielowski & Meredith Y. Wang & Rebecca R. Donaway, 2018. "Expanding the Political Philosophy Dimension of the RISP Model: Examining the Conditional Indirect Effects of Cultural Cognition," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1891-1903, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shu-Chu Sarrina Li & Shih-Yu Lo & Tai-Yee Wu & Te-Lin Chen, 2022. "Information Seeking and Processing during the Outbreak of COVID-19 in Taiwan: Examining the Effects of Emotions and Informational Subjective Norms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, August.
    2. Qi Guo & Palizhati Muhetaer & Ping Hu, 2023. "Cultural worldviews and support for governmental management of COVID-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    4. Jagadish Thaker & Nicholas Smith & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2020. "Global Warming Risk Perceptions in India," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(12), pages 2481-2497, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    2. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    3. Jay D. Hmielowski & Meredith Y. Wang & Rebecca R. Donaway, 2018. "Expanding the Political Philosophy Dimension of the RISP Model: Examining the Conditional Indirect Effects of Cultural Cognition," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1891-1903, September.
    4. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    5. Hang Lu & APPC 2018–2019 ASK Group & Kenneth Winneg & Kathleen Hall Jamieson & Dolores Albarracín, 2020. "Intentions to Seek Information About the Influenza Vaccine: The Role of Informational Subjective Norms, Anticipated and Experienced Affect, and Information Insufficiency Among Vaccinated and Unvaccina," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2040-2056, October.
    6. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    7. Tommaso Luzzati & Ilaria Tucci & Pietro Guarnieri, 2022. "Information overload and environmental degradation: learning from H.A. Simon and W. Wenders," Papers 2209.01039, arXiv.org.
    8. Yixin Chen & Xinchuan Liu, 2021. "How Do Environmental News and the Under the Dome Documentary Influence Air-Pollution Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Beijing Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    9. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    10. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    11. Luzzati, Tommaso & Tucci, Ilaria & Guarnieri, Pietro, 2022. "Information overload and environmental degradation: Learning from H.A. Simon and W. Wenders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    12. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    13. Meredith T. Niles & Margaret Brown & Robyn Dynes, 2016. "Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 277-295, March.
    14. Qi Guo & Palizhati Muhetaer & Ping Hu, 2023. "Cultural worldviews and support for governmental management of COVID-19," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Shu-Chu Sarrina Li & Shih-Yu Lo & Tai-Yee Wu & Te-Lin Chen, 2022. "Information Seeking and Processing during the Outbreak of COVID-19 in Taiwan: Examining the Effects of Emotions and Informational Subjective Norms," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, August.
    16. Agathe Backer‐Grøndahl & Aslak Fyhri & Pål Ulleberg & Astrid Helene Amundsen, 2009. "Accidents and Unpleasant Incidents: Worry in Transport and Prediction of Travel Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1217-1226, September.
    17. Anna Olofsson & Saman Rashid, 2011. "The White (Male) Effect and Risk Perception: Can Equality Make a Difference?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(6), pages 1016-1032, June.
    18. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    19. Hobman, Elizabeth V. & Ashworth, Peta, 2013. "Public support for energy sources and related technologies: The impact of simple information provision," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 862-869.
    20. Natalia Korcz & Jacek Koba & Agata Kobyłka & Emilia Janeczko & Joanna Gmitrowicz-Iwan, 2021. "Climate Change and Informal Education in the Opinion of Forest Users in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:5:p:1071-1087. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.