公众环境风险感知对行为选择的影响路径
|
摘要
心理测量范式、风险社会放大框架、社会表征理论等已成为社会风险感知研究的主流理论,但风险感知对行为选择的影响路径成为不解"谜团"。基于以上理论,通过对"2017年城市化与新移民调查"数据分析,构建了环境风险感知到行为选择的多维度路径模型,研究发现:风险感知分别对新媒体使用、社区环境效能感、社会参与和政治参与有着不同程度影响,同时这四个变量也影响了公众的环境行为选择。环境风险感知对行为选择的影响路径中,新媒体使用、环境效能感和政治参与分别起到了"放大"或"缩小"不同的中介效应。因此,政府通过与新媒体有效融合,增进公众的政治参与,提升公众对环境的满意度,进而引导公众的理性判断和环境负责任行为。
Theories on risk society amplification framework,social representation have become the mainstream in the study of social risk perception.However,the influence path of risk perception on behavior choice is still a mystery.This study,based on the above theory and through the data analysis of "2017 Urbanization and New Immigrants Survey",builds a multidimensional model of the path of environmental risk perception on the behavior choice,finding that risk perception has different effects on the use of new media,community environmentalefficacy,social participation and political participation.At the same time,these four variables also affect the public choice of environmental behavior.In the path of the influence of environmental risk perception on behavior choice,the use of new media,the sense of environmental efficacy and political participation have played different mediating effects,enlarging or narrowing the effects respectively.Therefore,through effective integration with new media,the government can enhance the public's political participation,and improve their satisfaction with the environment which can guide the public to judge rationally and act responsibly in the evironment.
Theories on risk society amplification framework,social representation have become the mainstream in the study of social risk perception.However,the influence path of risk perception on behavior choice is still a mystery.This study,based on the above theory and through the data analysis of "2017 Urbanization and New Immigrants Survey",builds a multidimensional model of the path of environmental risk perception on the behavior choice,finding that risk perception has different effects on the use of new media,community environmentalefficacy,social participation and political participation.At the same time,these four variables also affect the public choice of environmental behavior.In the path of the influence of environmental risk perception on behavior choice,the use of new media,the sense of environmental efficacy and political participation have played different mediating effects,enlarging or narrowing the effects respectively.Therefore,through effective integration with new media,the government can enhance the public's political participation,and improve their satisfaction with the environment which can guide the public to judge rationally and act responsibly in the evironment.
引文
[1]SLOVIC P.Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings:Commentary on the Dance of Affect and Reason[J].Birth Defects Research Part A Clinical&Molecular Teratology,2006,76(5).
[2]张海燕,葛怡,李凤英,杨洁,毕军.环境风险感知的心理测量范式研究述评[J].自然灾害学报,2010(1):79.
[3]WEINSTEIN G,DOUGLAS M,WILDAVSKY A,et al.Risk and Culture:An Essay on the Selection of TechnologicalandEnvironmentalDangers;Acceptable Risk[J].The American Political Science Review,1983,77(1).
[4]KASPERSON R E,RENN O,SLOVIC P,et al.The Social Amplification of Risk:A Conceptual Framework[J].Risk Analysis,1988,8(2):177-187.
[5]WAGNER W,DUVEEN G,FARR R,et al.Theory and Method of Social Representations[J].Asian Journal of Social Psychology,1999,2(1):95-125.
[6]耿言虎.隔离型自保:个体环境健康风险的市场化应对[J].河北学刊,2018(2):196.
[7]SITKIN S B,WEINGART L R.DETERMINANTS of Risky Decision-Making Behavior:A Test of the Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions and Propensity[J].The Academy of Management Journal,1995,38(6):1574.
[8]WACHINGER G,RENN O,BEGG C,et al.The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards[J].Risk Analysis,2013,33(6):1049-1065.
[9]谭爽,胡象明.邻避型社会稳定风险中风险认知的预测作用及其调控——以核电站为例[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2013(5):75-81.
[10]LINDELL M K,HWANG S N.Households'Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment[J].Risk Analysis An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis,2010,28(2):539-556.
[11]洪大用,范叶超.公众环境风险认知与环保倾向的国际比较及其理论启示[J].社会科学研究,2013(6):85-93.
[12]王晓楠.“公”与“私”:中国城市居民环境行为逻辑[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2018(6):143-152.
[13]SJOBERG L.Factors in Risk Perception[J].Risk Analysis,2010,20(1):1-12.
[14]胡向南,郭雪松,陶方易.集体行为视阈下“风险感知-行为选择”影响路径研究——以西安市幸福路综合拆迁改造项目为例[J].风险灾害危机研究,2017(2):122-126.
[15]王晓楠,刘琳.中国居民环境行为意愿的多层分析——基于2013年CSS数据的实证分析[J].吉首大学学报(社会科学版),2017(1):80-90.
[16]KASPERSON,R.E.The Social Amplification of Risk and Low-Level Radiation[J].Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,2012,68(3):59-66.
[17] MILETI D S,FITZPATRICK C.The Causal Sequence of Risk Communication in the Parkfield EarthquakePredictionExperiment[J].Risk Analysis,2010,12(3):394.
[18]曾繁旭,戴佳,王宇琦.技术风险VS感知风险:传播过程与风险社会放大[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2015(3):40-46.
[19]SLOVIC P,FINUCANE M L,Peters E,et al.Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings:Some Thoughts about Affect,Reason,Risk,and Rationality[J].Risk Analysis,2004,24(2):313-318.
[20]CAMPBELL A,GURIN G,MILLER W E.The Voter Decides[J].American Sociological Review,1954,19(6):429-433.
[21]徐延辉,兰林火.社区能力、社区效能感与城市居民的幸福感——社区社会工作介入的可能路径研究[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2014(6):133-135.
[22]BOURQUE L B,REGAN R,KELLEY M M,et al.An Examination of the Effect of Perceived Risk on PreparednessBehavior[J].Environment&Behaviour,2013,45(5):615-649.
[23]王磊.环境风险的社会放大的心理机制研究[D].吉林大学,2014:80-86.
[24]BERGER B.Political Theory,Political Science and the End of Civic Engagement[J].Perspectives on Politics,2009,7(2):335-350.
[25]DIJKERS M P M,YAVUZER G,ERGIN S,et al.A Tale of Two Countries:Environmental Impacts on Social Participation After Spinal Cord Injury[J].Spinal Cord,2002,40(7):351-362.
[26]斯科特·拉什.风险社会与风险文化[J].王武龙,编译.马克思主义与现实,2002(4):52-63.
[27]温忠麟,叶宝娟.中介效应分析:方法和模型发展[J].心理科学进展,2014(5):731-745.
[28]方杰,张敏强,邱皓政.中介效应的检验方法和效果量测量:回顾与展望[J].心理发展与教育,2012(1):105-111.
[29]MACKINNON D P,LOCKWOOD C M,HOFFMAN J M,et al.A Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other Intervening Variable Effects[J].Psychological Methods,2002,7(1):83-104.
[30]BARON R M,KENNY D A.The ModeratorMediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:Conceptual,Strategic,and Statistical Considerations[J].Personality and Social Psychology Review,1986,51(6):1178.
[31] MACKINNON D P,FAIRCHILD A J.Current Directions in Mediation Analysis[J].Current Directions in Psychological Science,2009,18(1):16-20.
[32]王刚,宋锴业.环境风险感知的影响因素和作用机理:基于核风险感知的混合方法分析[J].社会,2018(4):220.
[33]BECK.World Risk Society[M].Cambridge:Polity Press,1999:101-102.
[34]贝克.再造政治:自反性现代化理论初探[M]//贝克,吉登斯,拉什.自反性现代化.赵文书,译.北京:商务印书馆,2001:10-12.
[2]张海燕,葛怡,李凤英,杨洁,毕军.环境风险感知的心理测量范式研究述评[J].自然灾害学报,2010(1):79.
[3]WEINSTEIN G,DOUGLAS M,WILDAVSKY A,et al.Risk and Culture:An Essay on the Selection of TechnologicalandEnvironmentalDangers;Acceptable Risk[J].The American Political Science Review,1983,77(1).
[4]KASPERSON R E,RENN O,SLOVIC P,et al.The Social Amplification of Risk:A Conceptual Framework[J].Risk Analysis,1988,8(2):177-187.
[5]WAGNER W,DUVEEN G,FARR R,et al.Theory and Method of Social Representations[J].Asian Journal of Social Psychology,1999,2(1):95-125.
[6]耿言虎.隔离型自保:个体环境健康风险的市场化应对[J].河北学刊,2018(2):196.
[7]SITKIN S B,WEINGART L R.DETERMINANTS of Risky Decision-Making Behavior:A Test of the Mediating Role of Risk Perceptions and Propensity[J].The Academy of Management Journal,1995,38(6):1574.
[8]WACHINGER G,RENN O,BEGG C,et al.The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards[J].Risk Analysis,2013,33(6):1049-1065.
[9]谭爽,胡象明.邻避型社会稳定风险中风险认知的预测作用及其调控——以核电站为例[J].武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2013(5):75-81.
[10]LINDELL M K,HWANG S N.Households'Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment[J].Risk Analysis An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis,2010,28(2):539-556.
[11]洪大用,范叶超.公众环境风险认知与环保倾向的国际比较及其理论启示[J].社会科学研究,2013(6):85-93.
[12]王晓楠.“公”与“私”:中国城市居民环境行为逻辑[J].福建论坛(人文社会科学版),2018(6):143-152.
[13]SJOBERG L.Factors in Risk Perception[J].Risk Analysis,2010,20(1):1-12.
[14]胡向南,郭雪松,陶方易.集体行为视阈下“风险感知-行为选择”影响路径研究——以西安市幸福路综合拆迁改造项目为例[J].风险灾害危机研究,2017(2):122-126.
[15]王晓楠,刘琳.中国居民环境行为意愿的多层分析——基于2013年CSS数据的实证分析[J].吉首大学学报(社会科学版),2017(1):80-90.
[16]KASPERSON,R.E.The Social Amplification of Risk and Low-Level Radiation[J].Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,2012,68(3):59-66.
[17] MILETI D S,FITZPATRICK C.The Causal Sequence of Risk Communication in the Parkfield EarthquakePredictionExperiment[J].Risk Analysis,2010,12(3):394.
[18]曾繁旭,戴佳,王宇琦.技术风险VS感知风险:传播过程与风险社会放大[J].现代传播(中国传媒大学学报),2015(3):40-46.
[19]SLOVIC P,FINUCANE M L,Peters E,et al.Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings:Some Thoughts about Affect,Reason,Risk,and Rationality[J].Risk Analysis,2004,24(2):313-318.
[20]CAMPBELL A,GURIN G,MILLER W E.The Voter Decides[J].American Sociological Review,1954,19(6):429-433.
[21]徐延辉,兰林火.社区能力、社区效能感与城市居民的幸福感——社区社会工作介入的可能路径研究[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2014(6):133-135.
[22]BOURQUE L B,REGAN R,KELLEY M M,et al.An Examination of the Effect of Perceived Risk on PreparednessBehavior[J].Environment&Behaviour,2013,45(5):615-649.
[23]王磊.环境风险的社会放大的心理机制研究[D].吉林大学,2014:80-86.
[24]BERGER B.Political Theory,Political Science and the End of Civic Engagement[J].Perspectives on Politics,2009,7(2):335-350.
[25]DIJKERS M P M,YAVUZER G,ERGIN S,et al.A Tale of Two Countries:Environmental Impacts on Social Participation After Spinal Cord Injury[J].Spinal Cord,2002,40(7):351-362.
[26]斯科特·拉什.风险社会与风险文化[J].王武龙,编译.马克思主义与现实,2002(4):52-63.
[27]温忠麟,叶宝娟.中介效应分析:方法和模型发展[J].心理科学进展,2014(5):731-745.
[28]方杰,张敏强,邱皓政.中介效应的检验方法和效果量测量:回顾与展望[J].心理发展与教育,2012(1):105-111.
[29]MACKINNON D P,LOCKWOOD C M,HOFFMAN J M,et al.A Comparison of Methods to Test Mediation and Other Intervening Variable Effects[J].Psychological Methods,2002,7(1):83-104.
[30]BARON R M,KENNY D A.The ModeratorMediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research:Conceptual,Strategic,and Statistical Considerations[J].Personality and Social Psychology Review,1986,51(6):1178.
[31] MACKINNON D P,FAIRCHILD A J.Current Directions in Mediation Analysis[J].Current Directions in Psychological Science,2009,18(1):16-20.
[32]王刚,宋锴业.环境风险感知的影响因素和作用机理:基于核风险感知的混合方法分析[J].社会,2018(4):220.
[33]BECK.World Risk Society[M].Cambridge:Polity Press,1999:101-102.
[34]贝克.再造政治:自反性现代化理论初探[M]//贝克,吉登斯,拉什.自反性现代化.赵文书,译.北京:商务印书馆,2001:10-12.