Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research

Center for Asian Public Opinion Research & Collaboration Initiative (충남대학교 아시아여론조사학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Attribution of Responsibility, Risk Perception, and Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility in Predicting Policy Support for Climate Change Mitigation: Evidence from South Korea

  • Received : 2023.02.28
  • Accepted : 2023.05.18
  • Published : 2023.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A recent nationwide survey reported that South Koreans perceive large corporations as the party that should be the most responsible for tackling climate change. This public opinion result offers insight into the argument that defining who is responsible for the climate change issue can guide campaigners and policymakers in designing effective communication strategies. This study examines how attributing responsibility to large corporations can affect behavioral intention to support government policy and regulation via a moderated mediation model of the perceived risk of climate change and corporate social responsibility (CSR). A nationwide online survey of 295 South Koreans was conducted. The findings reveal an indirect effect of responsibility attribution on behavioral intention through risk perception. Moreover, perceived CSR moderated the causal link between risk perception and behavioral intention, such that South Koreans reported higher levels of behavioral intention when they reported higher CSR. However, perceived CSR failed to moderate the indirect effect. These findings have implications for communication processes and policymaking to address climate change problems in South Korea.

Keywords

References

  1. Chang, J., Kim, S.-H., Shim, J. C., & Ma, D. H. (2016). Who is responsible for climate change? Attribution of responsibility, news media, and South Koreans' perceived risk of climate change. Mass Communication and Society, 19(5), 566-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1180395
  2. Cho., H., (2006). Gi-eob-ui gong-ighwaldong yuhyeong-e ttaleun sobija insig-ui chaiga jepum gwanggo-e daehan injijeog ban-eung-e michineun yeonghyang jaseonjeog : gong-ighwaldonggwa gineungjeog gong-ighwaldong-ui teugseong-eul jungsim-eulo [How consumer perceptions of differential corporate cause activities affect their cognitive responses to brand advertising: Focusing on charity-based versus function-based cause activities]. Journal of Public Relations, 10(1), 5-39. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001155402
  3. Choi, J., Wehde, W., & Maulik, R. (2022). Politics of problem definition: Comparing public support of climate change mitigation policies using machine learning. Review of Policy Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12523
  4. Ferguson, M. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). Collective guilt mediates the effect of beliefs about global warming on willingness to engage in mitigation behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 135e142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.11.010
  5. Hagen, B., Middel, A., & Pijawka, D. (2016). European climate change perceptions: Public support for mitigation and adaptation policies. Environmental Policy and Governance, 26(3), 170-183. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1701
  6. Hayes, A. F. (2018). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (Methodology in the social sciences). Guilford Press.
  7. Jang, S. M. (2013). Framing responsibility in climate change discourse: Ethnocentric attribution bias, perceived causes, and policy attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.003
  8. Jin, B. (2022). Gihubyeonhwadae-eung jeongchaegjiji uido-e daehan wiheomjeongbotamsaeg-ui maegaehyogwa mich chaeg-imjungsim gongdongche-uisig-ui jojeolhyogwa bunseog : 2030sedaeleul jungsim-eulo [Exploring the mediating effect of risk information seeking and the moderating effect of sense of community responsibility on intentions to support policy of responses to climate change: Focusing on the 2030 Generation]. Korean Journal of Communication Studies, 30(2), 75-108. https://doi.org/10.23875/kca.30.2.3
  9. Jungermann, H., & Slovic, P. (1993). Characteristics of individual risk perception. In B. Ru ck (Ed.), Risk is a construct (pp.85-101). Knesebeck.
  10. Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., & Griffin, R. J. (2002). Attributions in explanations of risk estimates. Public Understanding of Science, 11(3), 243-257. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/11/3/303
  11. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238.
  12. Kim, Y., Park, D., & Min, H. (2018). Gihu byeonhwa-e daehan simlijeog geoligam-i wanhwa haengdong uido-e michineun yeonghyang: wiheom insig-ui maegae hyogwa-wa hyoneunggam-ui jojeol hyogwa jungsim bunseog [The impact of psychological distance on risk-mitigative behaviors toward climate change among Koreans: A focus on the mediating effects of risk perception and the moderating effects of efficacy]. Advertising Research, 118, 127-170. https://doi.org/10.16914/ar.2018.118.127
  13. Niederdeppe, J., Shapiro, M. A., & Porticella, N. (2011). Attributions of responsibility for obesity: Narrative communication reduces reactive counterarguing among liberals. Human Communication Research, 37(3), 295-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01409.x
  14. Nightingale, E. O., & Fischhoff, B. (2001). Adolescent risk and vulnerability: An overview. In B. Fischhoff, E. O. Nightingale, & J. G. Iannotta (Eds.), Adolescent risk and vulnerability: Concepts and measurement (pp. 1-14). National Academy Press.
  15. Nisbett, R. E., Borgida, E., Crandall, R., & Reed, H. (1976). Popular induction: Information is not necessarily informative. In J. S. Carroll & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  16. O'Connor, R. E., Bard, R. J. & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x
  17. Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
  18. Rimal, R. N., & Juon, H. S. (2010). Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand attention paid to breast cancer information and prevention behaviors among immigrant Indian women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(2), 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00574.x
  19. Rimal, R. N., & Limaye, R. (2013). Socio-cognitive approaches for AIDS prevention: Explicating the role of risk perception and efficacy beliefs in Malawi. In R. E. Rice and C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns (4th ed., pp. 245-258). Sage. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544308449
  20. Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviors. Human communication research, 29(3), 370-399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00844.x
  21. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
  22. SisaIN & Hankook Research (2022). 2022 Daehanminguk gihuwigi bogoseoreul gonggaehamnida [2022 South Korea Climate Crisis Report]. https://www.sisain.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=46506
  23. Steynor, A., Pasquini, L., Thatcher, A., & Hewitson, B. (2021). Understanding the links between climate change risk perceptions and the action response to inform climate services interventions. Risk Analysis, 41(10), 1873-1889. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13683 
  24. Wang, X., (2017). Understanding climate change risk perceptions in China: Media use, personal experience, and cultural worldviews. Science Communication, 39(3), 291-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017707320
  25. Weiner, B. (1985). Human motivation. Springer-Verlag.
  26. Weiner, B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation. American Psychologist, 48(9), 957-965. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.9.957
  27. Weiner, B. (2006). Social motivation, justice, and the moral emotions: An attributional approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410615749