地震保险购买意愿研究
|
摘要
2013年,全球共发生308次灾难事故,包括150次自然巨灾和158次人为灾难,共造成26000人死亡或失踪,直接经济损失达1400亿美元。而保险业承担了大约450亿美元的巨灾损失,其中82.2%的保险损失为自然巨灾所造成的、18.8%的是人为灾难造成的。1社会经济的发展、生活水平的提高、传媒资讯的丰富,科学技术的进步,在给我们的现代化生活带来便利的同时也使其变得越发脆弱。核能的发展利用在带来清洁能源的同时亦使得泄露危机的阴影挥之不去,基因技术在改善优化遗传密码的同时带来的未知影响遭到公众的抵制,地震灾害等自然巨灾带来人身财产伤亡的同时产生的群体性恐慌造成了灾后管理的困难。当前科学技术的发展已经使得哪怕是再微量的致害因子都可以被检测出来,于是影响人们的风险评估与决策的因素越来越归因于信息等沟通因素上。公众对于风险的主观评估和感知与专家又有着显著地区别,基于工具理性或概率预测的风险判断并不能促使公众采取灾害预防手段。对于信息来源的信任与否、信息包含内容的不同对于缺乏灾害知识的公众的影响亦不可小觑。
传统经济学研究资源稀缺约束下人们的“选择”问题,对于“选择”背后的“偏好”问题亦是关注的焦点。随着理性经济人假设遭遇现实挑战,越来越多的研究开始聚焦于“偏好”背后的决策黑箱问题,认知神经学、神经经济学或者脑科学等新兴交叉学科的研究方兴未艾。气象灾害频发、地质灾害严重、恐怖事件盛行、核泄露威胁等巨灾冲击着脆弱的“理性经济人”,个体在突发事件中的反应、应对行为等成为风险社会中的关键议题。危险是客观存在的,而风险是社会建构的。风险感知则是个体对存在于外界各种客观风险的主观感受与认识。在遭受巨灾冲击后,个体的应对行为特别是风险决策将会因风险感知的变化而产生变化,这在心理学、社会学领域通过实验或问卷调查得到证实,而对个体经济行为特别是保险需求的研究较少。
随着经典期望效用理论下对于不确定性条件下个体经济行为决策的预测能力的示弱,本文以心理学、社会学等跨学科视角切入,在有限理性学说的基础上探究个体在极小概率极大损失事件的经济决策过程及其影响因素。
本文首先通过对风险定义的归纳与梳理,分析了风险的客观属性和社会属性,在风险社会放大机制的基础上研究了以风险传播的介质、载体与渠道为内涵的风险传播机理。从风险信息的单向传输到不同组织间的互动,风险沟通在重塑风险感知和地震灾害管理中的作用不容忽视。信任作为有效风险沟通的基础、信息作为风险传播的载体,两者是如何重塑和影响个体的地震风险水平以及感知因子亦是本文分析的重点之一。本文同时也研究了公众对信息提供主体的信任、信息内容的偏好等因素对地震风险感知的影响。个体对风险的评价不仅与突发事件和巨灾风险的客观属性有关,如概率的大小、损失程度的高低等,个体的情绪状态、先前经验、风险知识以及沟通程度同样会影响对风险的感知。本文通过问卷调查等实证研究的方法分析影响风险感知的维度、因素等。作为应对行为认知的一部分,本文紧接着研究了个体对保险的认知、保险接触渠道以及可靠性的主观判断等对保险购买意愿水平的影响。地震风险感知是个体对地震灾害的主观评估和判断,是链接客观威胁和应对行为的枢纽,本文在前述研究结论的基础上借鉴灾害应对行为模型,分析构建地震风险感知与保险购买意愿的传导机制,并通过理论模型、微观调查和宏观数据等实证方式对此路径进行证实。具体研究内容如下：
本文的第0章针对论文的选题背景、研究意义、研究技术路线图以及研究方法进行了简要介绍和阐述,并总结了本文的创新点和不足。第1章主要针对地震风险感知和地震保险购买意愿的现有文献进行了梳理和综述,主要从风险感知及其维度、风险沟通与地震风险感知、地震风险感知与灾害应对行为、地震保险需求以及灾害应对行为模型进行了综述。第2章基本概念与理论基础。本章列出了不同学科领域对风险的定义、分类及其内涵,在此基础上分析讨论了风险客观属性和社会属性,并从风险的二重属性方面定义了本文所关注的风险的概念范围,并探讨了风险传播的介质、载体和渠道等风险传播机理。阐释了地震风险感知的内涵并比较了其与一般风险感知的相同点与不同点,界定了凤霞沟通和保险购买意愿的概念。接下来的一部分列出了本文研究的理论基础与学说,包括有限理性学说、行为经济学、风险沟通和风险感知理论以及风险管理论等。
第3章地震风险感知分析。本章利用均值检验、单因素方差分析、均值差异性检验、判别分析等统计方法分析了被试距离地震中心的距离、地震经历、地震财产损失以及人口统计变量等对地震风险感知水平的影响。通过因子分析法提取了被试地震风险感知的四个维度,即概率因子、恐惧因子、控制因子和影响因子,并构建了地震风险感知的结构方程模型,发现恐惧因子对于地震风险感知具有显著正向影响,概率因子和影响因子具有相同的影响结果但程度稍弱,控制因子对地震风险感知具有负向的影响关系。
第4章风险沟通与地震风险感知。本章通过不同地震信息供给主体、信息的客观程度、信息来源渠道以及关注地震信息内容的偏好等的调查结果发现被试对地震专家和政府部门的信任偏低、对电视广播以及网络媒体的信任较高,同时也认为地震专家和政府部门提供的信息倾向于保守、亲戚朋友和网络媒体的信息倾向于夸大。将因子分析法抽取的三个信任维度加入到上一章的地震风险感知结构方程模型中,模型拟合结果发现权威信任和传媒信任对风险感知水平有负向影响关系、而关系信任有正的影响关系。关于信息关注度与地震风险感知的研究与本章的其他部分一致,对地震信息需求强烈的被试具有较高的感知水平,关注正面信息将会降低感知水平而负面信息则会提高感知水平。
第5章地震风险感知与地震保险购买意愿传导机制。本章在总结应对行为模型的基础上,构建了地震灾害冲击、地震风险感知与保险购买意愿的传导路径。在此路径中,巨灾冲击发生后在个体经历、群体交流以及风险社会放大机制下,在信任与信息等因素的影响下,通过对风险感知的四个维度引导与重塑个体地震风险感知水平,经由风险感知的链接与解读使个体做出购买保险应对地震灾害的行为意愿水平。在提出地震风险感知影响保险购买意愿的传导路径后,借助数学工具理论证明了地震风险感知的变化同向影响保险需求的假设。
第6章地震风险感知与地震保险购买意愿—基于微观数据的实证。通过第5章构建的地震风险感知与保险购买意愿传导机制,本章在分析不同灾害应对行为模型的特点和共性的基础上建立了具体的影响路径,利用问卷调查的微观数据进行实证研究。结合问卷调查结果,分析了保险认知因素、地震经历、财产损失以及保险购买情况等因素对地震保险购买意愿的影响。构建的PTC保险购买意愿模型中,结构方程模型实证研究发现地震风险感知对保险购买意愿具有正的影响路径系数,权威信任和保险认知对保险购买意愿同样具有正向的影响路径系数,而关系信任对保险购买意愿具有负的影响关系。在控制了保险认知因素后的PT模型实证结果同样发现地震风险感知和权威信任对保险购买意愿具有正的影响路径系数,关系信任对保险购买意愿具有负的影响路径系数。最后通过仅包含地震风险感知与购买意愿的PW结构方程模型同样得到了与前两个模型相同的结论。结合三个逐步限制条件的模型可以得出地震风险感知对保险购买意愿正向影响的稳健结论。
第7章地震风险感知与地震保险购买意愿—基于宏观数据的实证。本章以汶川地震灾害发生后的省级样本数据进一步证实基于问卷调查数据的实证结论。在没有地震保险保费收入数据的限制下,本文以财产保险保费作为公众保险需求变化的替代变量,用距离、地震经历等客观数据描述公众风险感知的变化,以寻求巨灾发生后给社会及人群带来的实体和心理冲击产生的风险感知变化引起的风险行为决策的变化。本章利用多元线性回归模型得出了与前一章一致的结论：巨灾冲击引起的地震风险感知水平高的样本内公众增加了对财产保险的需求。
第8章研究结论与政策建议。本章总结了前几章的研究结论,并在研究结论和实证结果的基础,针对风险沟通、风险感知以及地震保险购买意愿提出了针对性的建议,如对于权威主体的信任缺失问题加强双向沟通、针对保险购买渠道信任危机和保险认知缺失方面提出的针对性建议等。
本文基于有限理性学说、借鉴心理学研究范式、利用问卷调查方法、分析个体地震风险感知维度、研究风险沟通对风险感知的重塑与影响、构建感知到决策的传导机制、发现风险感知与保险购买意愿的影响路径。首先本文创新性的将行为经济学分析方法应用到地震保险购买意愿的研究中,可以更加深刻地分析影响保险需求的内在因素。在风险社会的环境中,风险沟通对风险感知的重塑和影响是必然的和不可避免的。有效的风险沟通不仅仅有助于个体形成客观理性的风险感知水平更有助于个体、组织、社会的风险管理。而信任是有效的风险沟通的前提和基础,尤其是在个体对风险缺少知识和认识时,本文的研究创新性的发现了权威信任、媒体信任和关系信任三个信任维度对感知的影响。再者本文从心理学、社会学等的视角以行为经济学的分析范式探讨个体在非完全理性的前提下的决策机制。创新性的构建了风险感知与购买意愿的传导机制,并通过理论证明、微观调查和宏观数据等多种方法证明和证实了本文构建的影响路径。
In2013, there were308disaster events, of which150were natural catastrophes and158man-made. Almost26000people lost their lives or went missing in the disasters. The total economic losses from natural catastrophes and man-made disasters were around USD140billion last year. Insured losses were roughly USD45billion last year. Of the total, natural catastrophes generated USD37billion of losses, and man-made disasters the other USD8billion in claims.1
Making our modern life more convenience and more vulnerable because of the development of social economy, growth in the living standard, the abundant of media information, the advanced science and technology. The use of nuclear energy is not only bringing clean energy but also the shadow of nuclear leak. Genetic technology is not only optimizing of the genetic code but also rejected by the public due to the unknown influence. The earthquake is not only making giant losses of human and property but also difficult to management of post-disaster. The advanced science and technology could detect the trace hazardous substance, so the first and foremost factor, which impacts the pubic appraisal risk and decide how to do, is the information. The public and the experts have a huge difference in risk appraisal and perception. It is cannot make the public to take measures based on the instrument rationality or probabilistic forecasting in risk judgment. And it does not neglect that the trust of information resources and the content, that will impact the public who are lacked of knowledge of disasters.
Traditional economics research human's choice under the constraints of limit resource, and also pay a lot of attentions on the preference behind the choice. As the assumption of rational agent with reality challenge, a growing number of studies began to focus on the black box of preference behind the problem, cognitive neuroscience, Neuroeconomics or brain nerve in emerging interdisciplinary studies. The catastrophes such as meteorological disasters, geological disasters, terrorist attacks and nuclear leaking shock the vulnerable rational-economic man. The public's reaction and preparation to the urgent events become the key issues in the risk society. Crisis is real and the risk is construal. Risk perception is individual's subjective feeling and understanding to the external various kinds of real crisis. After the shock of catastrophes, the individual's coping behavior especially the decision of risk will be changed with the risk perception. And which is proved in Psychology and Sociology, but little studies on the prospect of economic and insurance demand.
The ability of predict the Individual's decision-making of economic behavior become weaken under the classical expected utility theory, with the prospect of Psychology and Sociology, this thesis studies Individual's process of decision-making of Minimum probability of great loss risk based on the Bounded rationality.
At first this article inducts and cards the definition of risk, analyze the risk's objective attribute and social attribute, and then study the risk communication's transmitter, carrier and channels based on social amplification of risk framework. It does not be ignored that the role of risk communication in reshaping the risk perception and earthquake disaster management, and risk communication had developed form risk information one-way transmission to the interactions between different interest groups. It is the key points of this article concern that how the trust and information impact and reshape the earthquake risk perception and the dimensions of risk perception, and trust is the basis and information is the carrier of effective risk communication. The individual's risk appraisal is not only related to the urgent events and catastrophes risks' objective attribute, such as the probability and severity, the emotion state, the experience, risk knowledge and risk communication also influence the risk perception. So this article studies the variables, which impact the risk perception dimensions by questioners and empirical research methods. As part of the cognition of coping behavior, the following of this article analyze the cognitive of insurance, the Insurance contacting channels and channels'reliability impact on the willingness to purchase the earthquake. Earthquake risk perception is the pivot linked the real threat and the coping behavior, which is the individual's subjective appraisal of earthquake. And based on the research conclusions and coping behavior models, the author establish the transmission path from earthquake and willingness to purchase, after that the author prove the path by theoretical model, microscopic investigation and macroeconomic data. The specific details of this article as follows:
The chaper0introduces the background of this selected topic, the research significance and the the technology roadmap of this reseach, and at last of this chapter summeriazed the advantages and disadvantages. Chapter1mainly review the studies of eqthquake risk perception and willingness to purchase eqrthquake insurance in such parts, risk perception and its' dimensions, risk communication and perception, eqthquake risk perception and coping behaviors and the demand of earthquake insurance.
Chapter2The basic definition and theriotical basis.In this chapter the authour firstly listing the definition of risk, classification and it's connotation in different areas, secondly analyzing the objective and social attributes on the basis above and defining the conception of risk in this thesis, discussing the media, carrier and channels of risk communication. The following the explanation of earthquake risk perception and comparing the difference between that and everydaylife risk perception. The last of this chapter is the defintion of willingness to purchase earthquake isnurance. The following parts of this chaper is the theriotical basis such as bounded rational, risk communicaiton and risk management.
Chapter3The analysis of earthquake risk perception. This chapter studies the distance between original earthquake, the earthquake experience, losses in the earthquake and demographic variables influence on the earthquake risk perception by statistics methods such as mean test, one-way analysis of variance, The mean difference test and discriminant analysis. Then the author extracts four factors of earthquake risk perception dimensions by Factor analysis, which are subjective probability, dread, control and impact. The founding of this chapter in last part is that the factors subjective probability, dread, and impact have the positive influence path coefficient and control has the opposite relationship by Structural equation model.
Chapter4Risk communication and Earthquake Risk Perception。The beginning of this chapter show the result of the subject who supply earthquake information and the information's degree of objective and preference contents of the information, and form the questionnaire the author find that the public have a relative low trust of government department and earthquake experts but have a high trust of TV and broadcast and Internet. From the questionnaire we also find that the public think the information supplied by government department and earthquake experts is tend to exaggerate, and other parties have the opposite result. Then we add the three trust dimensions be extracted by factors analysis into the SEM which established and proved in last chapter, the result of model fitting show that Trust of Authority and Trust of Media can lower the level of Earthquake Risk Perception, but the Trust of Relationship can enhance the level of Earthquake Risk Perception. The last part of this Chapter study the contents of earthquake information and the degree of awareness' impact on the Earthquake Risk Perception, which have the same conclusion like the above analysis.
Chapter5The transmission mechanism of Earthquake Risk Perception and Willingness to Purchase Earthquake Insurance. After review the coping behavior models and find the generality of these models, the author establish the transmission path between earthquake shock, Earthquake Risk Perception and willingness to purchase. In this path, the individual be shocked by the earthquake, the trust and information influence the risk perception by the directive experience, the communication with others and SARF, which reshaped in the four dimensions. At the third step individual make subjective appraisal linked by risk perception and make decision of willingness to purchase. Then the transmission path is proved by theoretically。
Chapter6Earthquake Risk Perception and Willingness to Purchase Earthquake Insurance-Based on the questionnaire data. Based on the transmission path established in the last chapter, at beginning this chapter constructs the reality model of Earthquake Risk Perception and Willingness to Purchase Earthquake Insurance, which proved by the questionnaire data. By the PTC model, SEM's result shows that Earthquake Risk Perception has positive influence path coefficient on WTP, Trust of Authority and Cognitive of insurance have the same conclusion, but the Trust of Relationship have negative influence on WTP. The PT Model which constraints of cognitive of insurance have the same result with PTC Model, and the similarity with PW model which is only consist of Earthquake Risk Perception and WTP.
Chapter7Earthquake Risk Perception and Willingness to Purchase Earthquake Insurance-Based on the macroeconomics data. In this chapter the author uses the macroeconomics data after Wenchuan Earthquake to verify the result we had in the last chapter. Because of the lack of insurance product in the mainland of our country, this chapter uses the increase of property insurance reflecting the earthquake insurance demand. And also have the same conclusion with the SEMs by using the multiple linear regression model.
Chapter8Research conclusions and policy recommendations. This chapter summarize the research conclusions and give some policy recommendations form risk communication, risk perception and demand of earthquake insurance based on the research conclusions.
This research based on the bounded rational, borrowing psychology research paradigm, using the method of questionnaire survey, analyzing the factors of earthquake, studying risk communication influences and reshapes the risk perception, establishing and finding the transmission path of Earthquake risk perception and willingness to purchase insurance. This thesis studied the demand of insurance in the behavior economics prospective innovatively, which could us know more deeply. It is Inevitable and unavoidable that risk communication influence and reshape the risk perception in risk society, so effective communication is important for risk management for individual, organization and society. And we also know that trust is the precondition and the foundation of the effective risk communication, especially when the public is lack of knowledge of disasters, from this point the thesis found the three dimensions of trust innovatively will be helpful. At last and the most important is that this thesis establishes and proves the transmission path between earthquake shock, Earthquake Risk Perception and willingness to purchase innovatively, that gives us a new prospective and more deeply for studying of demand of insurance.
传统经济学研究资源稀缺约束下人们的“选择”问题,对于“选择”背后的“偏好”问题亦是关注的焦点。随着理性经济人假设遭遇现实挑战,越来越多的研究开始聚焦于“偏好”背后的决策黑箱问题,认知神经学、神经经济学或者脑科学等新兴交叉学科的研究方兴未艾。气象灾害频发、地质灾害严重、恐怖事件盛行、核泄露威胁等巨灾冲击着脆弱的“理性经济人”,个体在突发事件中的反应、应对行为等成为风险社会中的关键议题。危险是客观存在的,而风险是社会建构的。风险感知则是个体对存在于外界各种客观风险的主观感受与认识。在遭受巨灾冲击后,个体的应对行为特别是风险决策将会因风险感知的变化而产生变化,这在心理学、社会学领域通过实验或问卷调查得到证实,而对个体经济行为特别是保险需求的研究较少。
随着经典期望效用理论下对于不确定性条件下个体经济行为决策的预测能力的示弱,本文以心理学、社会学等跨学科视角切入,在有限理性学说的基础上探究个体在极小概率极大损失事件的经济决策过程及其影响因素。
本文首先通过对风险定义的归纳与梳理,分析了风险的客观属性和社会属性,在风险社会放大机制的基础上研究了以风险传播的介质、载体与渠道为内涵的风险传播机理。从风险信息的单向传输到不同组织间的互动,风险沟通在重塑风险感知和地震灾害管理中的作用不容忽视。信任作为有效风险沟通的基础、信息作为风险传播的载体,两者是如何重塑和影响个体的地震风险水平以及感知因子亦是本文分析的重点之一。本文同时也研究了公众对信息提供主体的信任、信息内容的偏好等因素对地震风险感知的影响。个体对风险的评价不仅与突发事件和巨灾风险的客观属性有关,如概率的大小、损失程度的高低等,个体的情绪状态、先前经验、风险知识以及沟通程度同样会影响对风险的感知。本文通过问卷调查等实证研究的方法分析影响风险感知的维度、因素等。作为应对行为认知的一部分,本文紧接着研究了个体对保险的认知、保险接触渠道以及可靠性的主观判断等对保险购买意愿水平的影响。地震风险感知是个体对地震灾害的主观评估和判断,是链接客观威胁和应对行为的枢纽,本文在前述研究结论的基础上借鉴灾害应对行为模型,分析构建地震风险感知与保险购买意愿的传导机制,并通过理论模型、微观调查和宏观数据等实证方式对此路径进行证实。具体研究内容如下：
本文的第0章针对论文的选题背景、研究意义、研究技术路线图以及研究方法进行了简要介绍和阐述,并总结了本文的创新点和不足。第1章主要针对地震风险感知和地震保险购买意愿的现有文献进行了梳理和综述,主要从风险感知及其维度、风险沟通与地震风险感知、地震风险感知与灾害应对行为、地震保险需求以及灾害应对行为模型进行了综述。第2章基本概念与理论基础。本章列出了不同学科领域对风险的定义、分类及其内涵,在此基础上分析讨论了风险客观属性和社会属性,并从风险的二重属性方面定义了本文所关注的风险的概念范围,并探讨了风险传播的介质、载体和渠道等风险传播机理。阐释了地震风险感知的内涵并比较了其与一般风险感知的相同点与不同点,界定了凤霞沟通和保险购买意愿的概念。接下来的一部分列出了本文研究的理论基础与学说,包括有限理性学说、行为经济学、风险沟通和风险感知理论以及风险管理论等。
第3章地震风险感知分析。本章利用均值检验、单因素方差分析、均值差异性检验、判别分析等统计方法分析了被试距离地震中心的距离、地震经历、地震财产损失以及人口统计变量等对地震风险感知水平的影响。通过因子分析法提取了被试地震风险感知的四个维度,即概率因子、恐惧因子、控制因子和影响因子,并构建了地震风险感知的结构方程模型,发现恐惧因子对于地震风险感知具有显著正向影响,概率因子和影响因子具有相同的影响结果但程度稍弱,控制因子对地震风险感知具有负向的影响关系。
第4章风险沟通与地震风险感知。本章通过不同地震信息供给主体、信息的客观程度、信息来源渠道以及关注地震信息内容的偏好等的调查结果发现被试对地震专家和政府部门的信任偏低、对电视广播以及网络媒体的信任较高,同时也认为地震专家和政府部门提供的信息倾向于保守、亲戚朋友和网络媒体的信息倾向于夸大。将因子分析法抽取的三个信任维度加入到上一章的地震风险感知结构方程模型中,模型拟合结果发现权威信任和传媒信任对风险感知水平有负向影响关系、而关系信任有正的影响关系。关于信息关注度与地震风险感知的研究与本章的其他部分一致,对地震信息需求强烈的被试具有较高的感知水平,关注正面信息将会降低感知水平而负面信息则会提高感知水平。
第5章地震风险感知与地震保险购买意愿传导机制。本章在总结应对行为模型的基础上,构建了地震灾害冲击、地震风险感知与保险购买意愿的传导路径。在此路径中,巨灾冲击发生后在个体经历、群体交流以及风险社会放大机制下,在信任与信息等因素的影响下,通过对风险感知的四个维度引导与重塑个体地震风险感知水平,经由风险感知的链接与解读使个体做出购买保险应对地震灾害的行为意愿水平。在提出地震风险感知影响保险购买意愿的传导路径后,借助数学工具理论证明了地震风险感知的变化同向影响保险需求的假设。
第6章地震风险感知与地震保险购买意愿—基于微观数据的实证。通过第5章构建的地震风险感知与保险购买意愿传导机制,本章在分析不同灾害应对行为模型的特点和共性的基础上建立了具体的影响路径,利用问卷调查的微观数据进行实证研究。结合问卷调查结果,分析了保险认知因素、地震经历、财产损失以及保险购买情况等因素对地震保险购买意愿的影响。构建的PTC保险购买意愿模型中,结构方程模型实证研究发现地震风险感知对保险购买意愿具有正的影响路径系数,权威信任和保险认知对保险购买意愿同样具有正向的影响路径系数,而关系信任对保险购买意愿具有负的影响关系。在控制了保险认知因素后的PT模型实证结果同样发现地震风险感知和权威信任对保险购买意愿具有正的影响路径系数,关系信任对保险购买意愿具有负的影响路径系数。最后通过仅包含地震风险感知与购买意愿的PW结构方程模型同样得到了与前两个模型相同的结论。结合三个逐步限制条件的模型可以得出地震风险感知对保险购买意愿正向影响的稳健结论。
第7章地震风险感知与地震保险购买意愿—基于宏观数据的实证。本章以汶川地震灾害发生后的省级样本数据进一步证实基于问卷调查数据的实证结论。在没有地震保险保费收入数据的限制下,本文以财产保险保费作为公众保险需求变化的替代变量,用距离、地震经历等客观数据描述公众风险感知的变化,以寻求巨灾发生后给社会及人群带来的实体和心理冲击产生的风险感知变化引起的风险行为决策的变化。本章利用多元线性回归模型得出了与前一章一致的结论：巨灾冲击引起的地震风险感知水平高的样本内公众增加了对财产保险的需求。
第8章研究结论与政策建议。本章总结了前几章的研究结论,并在研究结论和实证结果的基础,针对风险沟通、风险感知以及地震保险购买意愿提出了针对性的建议,如对于权威主体的信任缺失问题加强双向沟通、针对保险购买渠道信任危机和保险认知缺失方面提出的针对性建议等。
本文基于有限理性学说、借鉴心理学研究范式、利用问卷调查方法、分析个体地震风险感知维度、研究风险沟通对风险感知的重塑与影响、构建感知到决策的传导机制、发现风险感知与保险购买意愿的影响路径。首先本文创新性的将行为经济学分析方法应用到地震保险购买意愿的研究中,可以更加深刻地分析影响保险需求的内在因素。在风险社会的环境中,风险沟通对风险感知的重塑和影响是必然的和不可避免的。有效的风险沟通不仅仅有助于个体形成客观理性的风险感知水平更有助于个体、组织、社会的风险管理。而信任是有效的风险沟通的前提和基础,尤其是在个体对风险缺少知识和认识时,本文的研究创新性的发现了权威信任、媒体信任和关系信任三个信任维度对感知的影响。再者本文从心理学、社会学等的视角以行为经济学的分析范式探讨个体在非完全理性的前提下的决策机制。创新性的构建了风险感知与购买意愿的传导机制,并通过理论证明、微观调查和宏观数据等多种方法证明和证实了本文构建的影响路径。
In2013, there were308disaster events, of which150were natural catastrophes and158man-made. Almost26000people lost their lives or went missing in the disasters. The total economic losses from natural catastrophes and man-made disasters were around USD140billion last year. Insured losses were roughly USD45billion last year. Of the total, natural catastrophes generated USD37billion of losses, and man-made disasters the other USD8billion in claims.1
Making our modern life more convenience and more vulnerable because of the development of social economy, growth in the living standard, the abundant of media information, the advanced science and technology. The use of nuclear energy is not only bringing clean energy but also the shadow of nuclear leak. Genetic technology is not only optimizing of the genetic code but also rejected by the public due to the unknown influence. The earthquake is not only making giant losses of human and property but also difficult to management of post-disaster. The advanced science and technology could detect the trace hazardous substance, so the first and foremost factor, which impacts the pubic appraisal risk and decide how to do, is the information. The public and the experts have a huge difference in risk appraisal and perception. It is cannot make the public to take measures based on the instrument rationality or probabilistic forecasting in risk judgment. And it does not neglect that the trust of information resources and the content, that will impact the public who are lacked of knowledge of disasters.
Traditional economics research human's choice under the constraints of limit resource, and also pay a lot of attentions on the preference behind the choice. As the assumption of rational agent with reality challenge, a growing number of studies began to focus on the black box of preference behind the problem, cognitive neuroscience, Neuroeconomics or brain nerve in emerging interdisciplinary studies. The catastrophes such as meteorological disasters, geological disasters, terrorist attacks and nuclear leaking shock the vulnerable rational-economic man. The public's reaction and preparation to the urgent events become the key issues in the risk society. Crisis is real and the risk is construal. Risk perception is individual's subjective feeling and understanding to the external various kinds of real crisis. After the shock of catastrophes, the individual's coping behavior especially the decision of risk will be changed with the risk perception. And which is proved in Psychology and Sociology, but little studies on the prospect of economic and insurance demand.
The ability of predict the Individual's decision-making of economic behavior become weaken under the classical expected utility theory, with the prospect of Psychology and Sociology, this thesis studies Individual's process of decision-making of Minimum probability of great loss risk based on the Bounded rationality.
At first this article inducts and cards the definition of risk, analyze the risk's objective attribute and social attribute, and then study the risk communication's transmitter, carrier and channels based on social amplification of risk framework. It does not be ignored that the role of risk communication in reshaping the risk perception and earthquake disaster management, and risk communication had developed form risk information one-way transmission to the interactions between different interest groups. It is the key points of this article concern that how the trust and information impact and reshape the earthquake risk perception and the dimensions of risk perception, and trust is the basis and information is the carrier of effective risk communication. The individual's risk appraisal is not only related to the urgent events and catastrophes risks' objective attribute, such as the probability and severity, the emotion state, the experience, risk knowledge and risk communication also influence the risk perception. So this article studies the variables, which impact the risk perception dimensions by questioners and empirical research methods. As part of the cognition of coping behavior, the following of this article analyze the cognitive of insurance, the Insurance contacting channels and channels'reliability impact on the willingness to purchase the earthquake. Earthquake risk perception is the pivot linked the real threat and the coping behavior, which is the individual's subjective appraisal of earthquake. And based on the research conclusions and coping behavior models, the author establish the transmission path from earthquake and willingness to purchase, after that the author prove the path by theoretical model, microscopic investigation and macroeconomic data. The specific details of this article as follows:
The chaper0introduces the background of this selected topic, the research significance and the the technology roadmap of this reseach, and at last of this chapter summeriazed the advantages and disadvantages. Chapter1mainly review the studies of eqthquake risk perception and willingness to purchase eqrthquake insurance in such parts, risk perception and its' dimensions, risk communication and perception, eqthquake risk perception and coping behaviors and the demand of earthquake insurance.
Chapter2The basic definition and theriotical basis.In this chapter the authour firstly listing the definition of risk, classification and it's connotation in different areas, secondly analyzing the objective and social attributes on the basis above and defining the conception of risk in this thesis, discussing the media, carrier and channels of risk communication. The following the explanation of earthquake risk perception and comparing the difference between that and everydaylife risk perception. The last of this chapter is the defintion of willingness to purchase earthquake isnurance. The following parts of this chaper is the theriotical basis such as bounded rational, risk communicaiton and risk management.
Chapter3The analysis of earthquake risk perception. This chapter studies the distance between original earthquake, the earthquake experience, losses in the earthquake and demographic variables influence on the earthquake risk perception by statistics methods such as mean test, one-way analysis of variance, The mean difference test and discriminant analysis. Then the author extracts four factors of earthquake risk perception dimensions by Factor analysis, which are subjective probability, dread, control and impact. The founding of this chapter in last part is that the factors subjective probability, dread, and impact have the positive influence path coefficient and control has the opposite relationship by Structural equation model.
Chapter4Risk communication and Earthquake Risk Perception。The beginning of this chapter show the result of the subject who supply earthquake information and the information's degree of objective and preference contents of the information, and form the questionnaire the author find that the public have a relative low trust of government department and earthquake experts but have a high trust of TV and broadcast and Internet. From the questionnaire we also find that the public think the information supplied by government department and earthquake experts is tend to exaggerate, and other parties have the opposite result. Then we add the three trust dimensions be extracted by factors analysis into the SEM which established and proved in last chapter, the result of model fitting show that Trust of Authority and Trust of Media can lower the level of Earthquake Risk Perception, but the Trust of Relationship can enhance the level of Earthquake Risk Perception. The last part of this Chapter study the contents of earthquake information and the degree of awareness' impact on the Earthquake Risk Perception, which have the same conclusion like the above analysis.
Chapter5The transmission mechanism of Earthquake Risk Perception and Willingness to Purchase Earthquake Insurance. After review the coping behavior models and find the generality of these models, the author establish the transmission path between earthquake shock, Earthquake Risk Perception and willingness to purchase. In this path, the individual be shocked by the earthquake, the trust and information influence the risk perception by the directive experience, the communication with others and SARF, which reshaped in the four dimensions. At the third step individual make subjective appraisal linked by risk perception and make decision of willingness to purchase. Then the transmission path is proved by theoretically。
Chapter6Earthquake Risk Perception and Willingness to Purchase Earthquake Insurance-Based on the questionnaire data. Based on the transmission path established in the last chapter, at beginning this chapter constructs the reality model of Earthquake Risk Perception and Willingness to Purchase Earthquake Insurance, which proved by the questionnaire data. By the PTC model, SEM's result shows that Earthquake Risk Perception has positive influence path coefficient on WTP, Trust of Authority and Cognitive of insurance have the same conclusion, but the Trust of Relationship have negative influence on WTP. The PT Model which constraints of cognitive of insurance have the same result with PTC Model, and the similarity with PW model which is only consist of Earthquake Risk Perception and WTP.
Chapter7Earthquake Risk Perception and Willingness to Purchase Earthquake Insurance-Based on the macroeconomics data. In this chapter the author uses the macroeconomics data after Wenchuan Earthquake to verify the result we had in the last chapter. Because of the lack of insurance product in the mainland of our country, this chapter uses the increase of property insurance reflecting the earthquake insurance demand. And also have the same conclusion with the SEMs by using the multiple linear regression model.
Chapter8Research conclusions and policy recommendations. This chapter summarize the research conclusions and give some policy recommendations form risk communication, risk perception and demand of earthquake insurance based on the research conclusions.
This research based on the bounded rational, borrowing psychology research paradigm, using the method of questionnaire survey, analyzing the factors of earthquake, studying risk communication influences and reshapes the risk perception, establishing and finding the transmission path of Earthquake risk perception and willingness to purchase insurance. This thesis studied the demand of insurance in the behavior economics prospective innovatively, which could us know more deeply. It is Inevitable and unavoidable that risk communication influence and reshape the risk perception in risk society, so effective communication is important for risk management for individual, organization and society. And we also know that trust is the precondition and the foundation of the effective risk communication, especially when the public is lack of knowledge of disasters, from this point the thesis found the three dimensions of trust innovatively will be helpful. At last and the most important is that this thesis establishes and proves the transmission path between earthquake shock, Earthquake Risk Perception and willingness to purchase innovatively, that gives us a new prospective and more deeply for studying of demand of insurance.
引文
1 Sigma. Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2013.01/2014. http://www.swissre.com/sigma/
1 芭芭拉·亚当,乌尔里希·贝克,约斯特·房·龙.风险社会及其超越[M].赵延东,马婴,等译.北京：北京出版社,2005年
1 奥尔特温·雷恩、伯纳德·罗尔曼编著,赵延东、张虎彪译.跨文化的风险感知—经验研究的总结.北京出版社.2007年
1 Robert A. Olsen. Behavioral Finance as Science-Implications From the Research of Paul Slovic. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets. Vol.2, No.3,2001
1 冯建英,穆维松,傅泽田.消费者的购买意愿研究综述[J].现代管理科学,2006(11)：7-9.
1 Robert A. Olsen. Behavioral Finance as Science-Implications From the Research of Paul Slovic. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets. Vol.2, No.3,2001
1 Libeman N, Trope Y. The psychology of transcending the here and now[J]. Science,2008,322(5905):1201-1205.
2 Wakslak C J, Trope Y, Liberman N, et al. Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely:probability and the mental representation of events[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2006,135(4):641.
3 佘升翔,马超群,陆强,等.环境风险沟通的心理距离模型[J].系统工程,2012,9：69-74
1 Zhu D, Xie X, Gan Y. Information source and valence:How information credibility influences earthquake risk perception[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,2011,31(2):129-136.
2 Hirose Y, Sonehara N. Management of information-credibility risk in an ICT society:a social implementation[J]. Internet Research,2008,18(2):142-154.
1 Feldman J M, Lynch J G. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior[J]. Journal of applied Psychology,1988,73(3):421.
2 Herr P M, Kardes F R, Kim J. Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasi An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective[J]. Journal of consumer research,1991,17(4):454.
1 奥尔特温·雷恩、伯纳德·罗尔曼编著,赵延东、张虎彪译.跨文化的风险感知—经验研究的总结.北京出版社.2007年
2 Roger E. Kasperson, Ortwin Renn, Paul Slovic et al. The social amplification of risk:A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis. Vol.8, No.2,1988
1 Tversky & Kahneman. Advances in Prospect Theory:Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty [J]. Journal
1 冯建英,穆维松,傅泽田.消费者的购买意愿研究综述[J].现代管理科学,2006(11)：7-9.
1 丁元昊.巨灾保险需求研究—基于需求行为的实证[D].西南财经大学,2012.
2 谢佳秋,谢晓非,甘怡群.汶川地震中的心理台风眼效应[J].北京大学学报：自然科学版,2011,47(5)：944-952
3 陈妍,凌远云,陈泽育等.农业保险购买意愿影响因素的实证研究[J].农业技术经济,2007(2)：26-30
1 贾建民,李华强,范春梅,等.汶川地震重灾区与非重灾区民众风险感知对比分析[J].管理评论,2009,20(12)：4-8.
1 Langford I H, Marris C, McDonald A L, et al. Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modeling[J]. Risk Analysis,1999,19(4):675-683.
2 Kunreuther H. Earthquake insurance as a hazard reduction strategy:The case of the homeowner[C] National Earthquake Conference:Earthquake Hazard Reduction in the Central and Eastern United States:A Time for Examination and Action. US Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC),1993:191-210.
3 Palm R, Hodgson M, Blanchard R D, Lyons D. Earthquake insurance in California:Environmental policy and individual decision-making[M]. Boulder, CO:Westview press,1990.
1 Palm R, Hodgson M. Earthquake insurance:mandated disclosure and homeowner response in California[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,1992,82(2):207-222.
2 Bastami, Morteza, Ghadir Mahdavi, and Safoora Zarei. "Factors Affecting Demand for Earthquake Insurance." JSEE-Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 14.3 (2013):197-205.
3 田玲,张岳.我国巨灾保险需求影响因素实证研究—基于五省部分保费收入的面板分析[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版),2013,26(2)
4 Asgary A, Willis K G. Household behaviour in response to earthquake risk:An assessment of alternative theories [J]. Disasters,1997,21(4):354-365.
1 通常认为方VIF>10或者1/VIF<0.1时,变量存在多重共线性。
2 White's test for Ho:homoskedasticity; Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance
1 贾建民,李华强,范春梅,等.汶川地震重灾区与非重灾区民众风险感知对比分析[J].管理评论,2009,20(12)
1 张乐,童星.风险沟通：风险治理的关键环节-日本核危机一周年祭[J].探索与争鸣,2012(4)：52-55.
1 Covello V, Sandman P M. Risk communication:evolution and revolution[J]. Solutions to an Environment in Peril,2001:164-178.
1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior [J]. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1991,50(2):179-211.
2. Armas I. Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania [J]. Risk Analysis,2006,26(5]:1223-1234.
3. Asgary A, Willis K G. Household behaviour in response to earthquake risk: An assessment of alternative theories [J]. Disasters,1997,21(4): 354-365.
4. At risk:natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters[M]. Psychology Press,2004.
5. Athavale M, Avila S M. An analysis of the demand for earthquake insurance [J]. Risk Management and Insurance Review,2011,14(2):233-246.
6. Baan P J A, Klijn F. Fbod risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands [J]. International Journal of River Basin Management,2004,2(2):113-122.
7. Bastami, Morteza, Ghadir Mahdavi, and Safoora Zarei. "Factors Affecting Demand for Earthquake Insurance." JSEE-Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 14.3 (2013):197-205.
8. Baucells M, Heukamp F H. Probability and time trade-off[J]. Management Science,2012,58(4):831-842.
9. Baumeister R F, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, et al. Bad is stronger than good[J]. Review of general psychology,2001,5(4):323.
10. Botzen W J W, Aerts J, Van Den Bergh J. Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors[J]. Water Resources Research,2009,45(10).
11. Bradbury J A. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk[J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,1989,14(4):380-399.
12. Brewer N T, Weinstein N D, Cuite C L, et al. Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior[J]. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,2004,27(2): 125-130.
13. Brun W. Cognitive components in risk perception:Natural versus manmade risks[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,1992,5(2): 117-132.
14. Bubeck P, Botzen W J W, Aerts J. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior [J]. Risk Analysis,2012, 32(9):1481-1495.
15. Chandon P, Morwitz V G, Reinartz W J. Do intentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2005,69(2):1-14.
16. Communicating risks to the public:International perspectives[M]. Springer,1991.
17. Cooper T, Faseruk A. Strategeic Risk, Risk Perception and Risk Behaviour: Meta-Analysis[J]. Journal of Financial Management and Analysis,2011, 24(2):20-29.
18. De Marchi B, Ravetz J R. Risk management and governance::a post-normal science approach[J]. Futures,1999,31(7):743-757.
19. DiMaggio C, Galea S, Emch M. Spatial proximity and the risk of psychopathobgy after a terrorist attack[J]. Psychiatry research,2010, 176(1):55-61.
20. Dowling G R, Staelin R. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity[J]. Journal of consumer research,1994:119-134.
21. Eby L T, Butts M M, Durley J, et aL Are bad experiences stronger than good ones in mentoring relationships? Evidence from the protege and mentor perspective [J]. Journal of Vocational Behavior,2010,77(1):81-92.
22. Engelberg E, Sjoberg L. Money obsession, social adjustment, and economic risk perception[J]. The Journal of Socio-Economics,2007,36(5):686-697.
23. Eraybar K, Okazaki K, Ilki A. An exploratory study on perceptions of seismic risk and mitigation in two districts of Istanbul [J]. Disasters,2010, 34(1):71-92.
24. Fischhoff B, Gonzalez R M, Small D A, et al. Judged terror risk and proximity to the World Trade Center[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2003,26(2):137-151.
25. Floyd D L, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers R W. A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory [J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2000,30(2):407-429.
26. Frewer L. The public and effective risk communication[J]. Toxicology letters,2004,149(1):391-397.
27. Fujita K, Henderson M D, Eng J, et al. Spatial distance and mental construal of social events[J]. Psychological Science,2006,17(4):278-282.
28. Grothmann T, Reusswig F. People at risk of flooding:why some residents take precautionary action while others do not[J]. Natural hazards,2006, 38(1-2):101-120.
29. Heller K, Alexander D B, Gatz M, et al. Social and Personal Factors as Predictors of Earthquake Preparation:The Role of Support Provision, Network Discussion, Negative Affect, Age, and Educational [J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1992,82(2):207-222.
30. Helms A C. Understanding gentrification:an empirical analysis of the determinants of urban housing renovation [J]. Journal of urban economics, 2003,54(3):474-498.
31. Hill R V, Hoddinott J, Kumar N. Adoption of weather-index insurance: learning from willingness to pay among a panel of households in rural Ethiopia[J]. Agricultural Economics,2013,44(4-5):385-398.
32. Ho M C, Shaw D, Lin S, et al. How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception?[J]. Risk Analysis,2008,28(3):635-643.
33. Hockey G R J, John Maule A, Clough P J, et al. Effects of negative mood states on risk in everyday decision making[J]. Cognition & Emotion,2000,14(6): 823-855.
34. Hogarth R M, Portell M, Cuxart A, et al. Emotion and reason in everyday risk perception[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2011,24(2): 202-222.
35. Joffe H, Rossetto T, Adams J. Cities at Risk:Living with Perils in the 21st Century[M]. Springer, http://www.springer.com/series/6362
36. Johnson E J, Tversky A. Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology,1983,45(1):20.
37. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory:An analysis of decision under risk[J]. Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society,1979:263-291.
38. Karanci N. Facilitating Community Participation in Disaster Risk Management Risk Perception and Preparedness Behaviors in Turkey [M]. Cities at Risk. Springer Netherlands,2013:93-108.
39. Kasperson J X, Kasperson R E, Pidgeon N, et al. The social amplification of risk:Assessing fifteen years of research and theory[J]. The social amplification of risk,2003,1.
40. Kasperson R E, Renn 0, Slovic P, et al. The social amplification of risk:A conceptual framework[J]. Risk analysis,1988,8(2):177-187.
41. Kunreuther H. Earthquake insurance as a hazard reduction strategy:The case of the homeowner[C] National Earthquake Conference:Earthquake Hazard Reduction in the Central and Eastern United States:A Time for Examination and Action. US Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC),1993:191-210.
42. Lai L H, Hsieh H Y. Assessing the demand factors for residential earthquake insurance in Taiwan:Empirical evidence on spatial econometrics [J]. Contemporary Management Research,2007,3(4).
43. Langford I H, Marris C, McDonald A L, et al. Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modeling[J]. Risk Analysis,1999,19(4):675-683.
44. Lemer J S, Keltner D. Fear, anger, and risk[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology,2001,81(1):145-159.
45. Leppin A, Aro A R. Risk perceptions related to SARS and avian influenza: theoretical foundations of current empirical research [J]. International journal of behavioral medicine,2009,16(1):7-29.
46. Lerner J S, Gonzalez R M, Small D A, et al. Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism A National Field Experiment[J]. Psychological science,2003,14(2):144-150.
47. Lerner J S, Keltner D. Fear, anger, and risk[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology,2001,81(1):146.
48. Liberman N, Sagristano M D, Trope Y. The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal[J]. Journal of experimental social psychology, 2002,38(6):523-534.
49. Liberman N, Trope Y. The psychology of transcending the here and now[J]. Science,2008,322(5905):1201-1205.
50. Lindell M K, Hwang S N. Households' perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment[J]. Risk Analysis,2008,28(2): 539-556.
51. Lindell M K, Perry R W. Household adjustment to earthquake hazard a review of research [J]. Environment and behavior,2000,32(4):461-501.
52. Lindell M K, Perry R W. The protective action decision model:theoretical modifications and additional evidence[J]. Risk Analysis,2012,32(4): 615-632.
53. Lindell M K, Whitney D J. Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption[J]. Risk Analysis,2000,20(1):13-26.
54. Liu S, Huang J C, Brown G L. Information and risk perception:A dynamic adjustment process[J]. Risk analysis,1998,18(6):689-699.
55. Lundgren R E, McMakin A H. Risk communication:A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks[M]. John Wiley & Sons,2013.
56. Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M. Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk:A study in an alpine valley in Italy [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2008,28(2):164-173.
57. Milne S, Sheeran P, Orbell S. Prediction and Intervention in Health-Related Behavior:A Meta-analytic Review of Protection Motivation Theory[J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,2000,30(1):106-143.
58. Mitchell J K. Coping with natural hazards and disasters in megacities: Perspectives on the twenty-first century[J]. Geojournal,1995,37(3): 303-311.
59. Mowen J C, Park S, Zablah A. Toward a theory of motivation and personality with application to word-of-mouth communications!}]. Journal of Business Research,2007,60(6):590-596.
60. Olsen R A. Behavioral Finance as science:Implications from the research of Paul Slovic[J]. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets,2001, 2(3):157-159.
61. Palm R, Hodgson M. Earthquake insurance:mandated disclosure and homeowner response in California[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,1992,82(2):207-222.
62. Paul B K, Bhuiyan R H. Urban earthquake hazard:perceived seismic risk and preparedness in Dhaka City, Bangladesh[J]. Disasters,2010,34(2): 337-359.
63. Paul Slovic. Perception of risk [J]. Science. New Series VOL236. Issue 4799, 1987
64. Pavlou P A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce:integrating trust and risk with the technoology acceptance model [J]. International journal of electronic commerce,2003,7(3):101-134.
65. Peacock W G, Brody S D, Highfield W. Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's single family homeowners[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2005,73(2):120-135.
66. Perry R W, Lindell M K. Volcanic risk perception and adjustment in a multi-hazard environment[J]. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research,2008,172(3):170-178.
67. Roger E. Kasperson, Ortwin Renn, Paul Sbvic et al. The social amplification of risk:A conceptual framework[J]. Risk Analysis. Vol. 8, No.2,1988
68. Rosoff H, John R S, Prager F. Flu, risks, and videotape:Escalating fear and avoidance [J]. Risk Analysis,2012.
69. Rudisill C, Costa-Font J, Mossiabs E. Behavioral adjustment to avian flu in Europe during spring 2006:The roles of knowledge and proximity to risk[J], Social Science & Medicine,2012.
70. Scheer D, Benighaus C, Benighaus L, et al. The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard:Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication[J]. Risk Analysis,2014.
71. Shaw R, Kobayashi K S H, Kobayashi M. Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness [J]. Disaster Prevention and Management,2004,13(1):39-49.
72. She S, Ma C, Wu D D. General Probability-Time Tradeoff and Intertemporal Risk-Value Model[J]. Risk analysis,2010,30(3):421-431.
73. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G T, Gutscher H. Shared values, social trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters[J]. Risk Analysis,2001,21(6): 1047-1054.
74. Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle T C. Perception of risk:the influence of general trust, and general confidence[J]. Journal of Risk Research,2005, 8(2):145-156.
75. Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation behavior:People cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood[J]. Risk Analysis,2008,28(3):771-778.
76. Sigbjornsson R, Ragnarsdottir S. Gender Dependent Perception of Earthquake Effects[C] 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (14WCEE).2008:12-17.
77. Sitkin S B, Weingart L R. Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity [J]. Academy of management Journal, 1995,38(6):1573-1592.
78. Sjoberg L, Engelberg E. Risk perception and movies:A study of availability as a factor in risk perception [J]. Risk Analysis,2009,30(1):95-106.
79. Sjoberg L. Consequences of perceived risk:Demand for mitigation [J]. Journal of Risk Research,1999,2(2):129-149.
80. Sjoberg L. Factors in risk perception [J]. Risk analysis,2000,20(1):1-12.
81. Sjoberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust[J]. Risk analysis,2001,21(1):189-198.
82. Slovic P E. The perception of risk[M]. Earthscan Publications,2000.
83. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Why study risk perception?[J]. Risk analysis,1982,2(2):83-93.
84. Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane M L, et al. Affect, risk, and decision making[J]. Health Psychology,2005,24(4S):S35.
85. Solberg C, Rossetto T, Joffe H. The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment re-evaluating the international literature [J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science,2010,10(8):1663-1677.
86. Sonmez S F, Graefe A R. Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety[J]. Journal of Travel Research,1998,37(2):171-177.
87. Tanaka K. The impact of disaster education on public preparation and mitigation for earthquakes:a cross-country comparison between Fukui, Japan and the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA [J]. Applied Geography,2005,25(3):201-225.
88. Terpstra T, Lindell M K, Gutteling J M. Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions? Results of a Quasi-Experimental Study[J]. Risk analysis,2009,29(8):1141-1155.
89. Thieken A H, Kreibich H, MuLLER M, et al. Coping with floods: preparedness, response and recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany in 2002[J]. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2007,52(5): 1016-1037.
90. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory:Cumulative representation of uncertainty [J]. Journal of Risk and uncertainty,1992, 5(4):297-323.
91. Wachinger G, Renn 0, Begg C, et al. The risk perception paradox—Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards[J]. Risk Analysis,2013,33(6):1049-1065.
92. Wakslak C J, Trope Y, Liberman N, et al. Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely:probability and the mental representation of events [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2006,135(4):641.
93. Wang M, Liao C, Yang S, et al. Are people willing to buy natural disaster insurance in China? Risk awareness, insurance acceptance, and willingness to pay[J]. Risk Analysis,2012,32(10):1717-1740.
94. Woods J, Eyck T, Kapbwitz S A, et al. Terrorism Risk Perceptions and Proximity to Primary Terrorist Targets:How Close is Too Close?[J]. Human Ecology Review,2008,15(1):63.
95. Wouter Botzen W J, Van Den Bergh J C J M. Monetary valuation of insurance against flood risk under climate change [J]. International Economic Review,2012,53(3):1005-1026.
96. Palm R, Hodgson M, Blanchard R D, Lyons D. Earthquake insurance in California:Environmental policy and individual decision-making[M]. Boulder, CO:Westview press,1990.
97.陈妍,凌远云,陈泽育等.农业保险购买意愿影响因素的实证研究[J].农业技术经济,2007(2)：26-30.
98.程实.在风险的刀剑上起舞——美国次级债风波深度解析[J].国际经济评论.2009(7-8)
99.邓国营,甘犁,吴耀国.房地产市场是否存在“反应过度”?[J].管理世界,2010,6：41-49.
100.丁元昊.巨灾保险需求研究—基于需求行为的实证[D].西南财经大学,2012.
101.杜晓蓉、蔡云.美国金融危机对东亚新兴经济体的贸易传播渠道分析[J].南洋问题研究.2011(3)
102.范恒森、李连三.金融传染的渠道与政策含义[J].国际金融研究.2001(8)
103.范俏燕.当前国际性金融危机的生成和传导[J].财经科学.2008(7)
104.冯建英,穆维松,傅泽田.消费者的购买意愿研究综述[J].现代管理科学,2006(11)：7-9.
105.何帆、张明.美国次贷危机是怎样酿成的[J].求是.2007(20)
106.贾建民,李华强,范春梅,等.汶川地震重灾区与非重灾区民众风险感知对比分析[J].管理评论,2009,20(12)：4-8.
107.蒋序怀、吴富佳、金桩.当前资本市场的风险传染传导机制—基于传染效应的实证分析[J].财经科学.2006(2)
108.金洪飞.关于货币危机传染文献综述[J].经济学动态.2001(7)
109.李华强,范春梅,贾建民,等.突发性灾害中的公众风险感知与应急管理——以5·12汶川地震为例[J].管理世界,2009,6：52-60.
110.李文娟.巨灾保险需求及其影响因素研究[D].武汉大学,2009.
111.刘学宁.收入水平对保险需求影响的实证研究[J].保险研究,2012(11)：54-61.
112.刘妍,卢亚娟.农村小额保险购买意愿影响因素的实证研究[J].经济理论与经济管理,2011(5).
113.陆静、郑晗.次贷危机期间国际资本市场传染效应研究[J].国际金融研究.2012(5)
114.逯野,杨春江,秦皇岛.突发公共事件对个体,群体及公众心理影响的作用和传播机制研究[J].电子科技大学学报(社科版),2012,14(6)
115.孟博,刘茂,李清水,等.风险感知理论模型及影响因子分析[J].中国安全科学学报,2010,20(10)：59-66.
116.强月新,余建清.风险沟通：研究谱系与模型重构[J].武汉大学学报：人文科学版,2008,61(4)：501-505.
117.山立威.心理还是实质：汶川地震对中国资本市场的影响[J].经济研究,2011(4)：121-134.
118.佘升翔,马超群,陆强,等.环境风险沟通的心理距离模型[J].系统工程,2012,9：009.
119.佘升翔,马超群.面向动态风险评价及投资决策的IRRV模型[J].中国管理科学,2008,16(6)：1-8.
120.时勘,范红霞,贾建民,等.我国民众对SARS信息的风险认知及心理行为[J].心理学报,2003,35(4)：546-554.
121.时勘,陆佳芳,范红霞,等.SARS危机中17城市民众的理性特征及心理行为预测模型[J].科学通报,2003,48(13)：1378-1383.
122.宋涛、陈婧.社会互动、信任与农民购买商业养老保险的意愿,华中科技大学学报(社会科学版)2012,26(1)：99-106
123.孙多勇.突发事件下民众风险感知与行为决策研究述评[C].湖南省第六届公共管理论坛会议资料.2007.
124.孙香玉.保险认知,政府公信度与农业保险的需求[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2008,8(1)：48-54.
125.唐钧.风险沟通的管理视角[J].中国人民大学学报,2009,5(5)：33-39.
126.田玲,张岳.我国巨灾保险需求影响因素实证研究—基于五省部分保费 收入的面板分析[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版),2013,26(2).
127.王向楠,张立明.样本构成、研究设计与寿险需求的影响因素-基于Meta回归的再分析[J].山西财经大学学报,2012(5)：43-51.
128.谢佳秋,谢晓非,甘怡群.汶川地震中的心理台风眼效应[J].北京大学学报：自然科学版,2011,47(5)：944-952.
129.谢晓非,徐联仓.风险认知研究概况及理论框架[J].心理学动态,1995,3(2)：17-22.
130.谢晓非,徐联仓.一般社会情境中风险认知的实验研究[J].心理科学,1998,21(4)：315-318.
131.谢晓非,郑蕊.风险沟通与公众理性[J].心理科学进展,2003,11(4)：375-381.
132.杨伟文,刘新.品牌认知对消费者购买行为的影响[J].商业研究,2010(3)：158-162.
133.杨中芳,彭泗清.中国人人际信任的概念化：一个人际关系的观点[J].社会学研究,1999,2(2)：1-21.
134.郁耀闯,周旗,徐春迪.不同地貌类型区农村居民的灾害感知差异分析——以陕西省宝鸡地区为例[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(32)：14255-14257.
135.张乐,童星.污名化：对突发事件后果的一种深度解析[J].社会科学研究,2010,6：101-105.
136.张明.次贷危机的传导机制[J].国际经济评论.2008(7—8)
137.张文霞,赵延东.风险社会：概念的提出及研究进展[J].科学与社会,2011,2：53-63.
138.张毅强.风险感知,社会学习和范式转移[D].复旦大学,2010.
139.张跃华,史清华,顾海英.农业保险需求问题的一个理论研究及实证分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2007,24(4)：65-75.
140.赵华.国际股市区域风险传染研究[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2009(5)
141.赵晋.巨灾保险需求不足：理论分析与政策建议[J].保险职业学院学报,2011,25(5)：41-46.
142.周应恒,霍丽月,彭晓佳.食品安全：消费者态度,购买意愿及信息的影 响[J].中国农村经济,2004,11：53-59.
143.周志刚,陈晗.风险感知与保险需求波动—基于最优保险模型的理论证明[J].保险研究,2013(5)：14-21.
144.朱丽叶,潘明霞,卢泰宏.感知风险如何影响消费者购买行为?——国内消费者知觉风险结构实证研究[J].现代管理科学,2007,8：13-15.
145.卓志,周志刚.巨灾冲击、风险感知与保险需求——基于汶川地震的研究[J].保险研究,2013(12)：34-45.
146.卓志.我国人寿保险需求的实证分析[J].保险研究,2001,5(10).
147.奥尔特温·雷恩,伯纳德·罗尔曼编著.赵延东,张虎彪译.跨文化的风险感知—经验研究的总结[M].北京：北京出版社,2007年
148.景怀斌.公共危机心理：SARS个案[M].社会科学文献出版社,2006.
149.亚当,贝克,范隆,等.风险社会及其超越：社会理论的关键议题[M].北京出版社,2005.
150.张毅强.风险感知,社会学习与范式转移：突发性公共卫生事件引发的政策变迁[M].复旦大学出版社,2011.
1 芭芭拉·亚当,乌尔里希·贝克,约斯特·房·龙.风险社会及其超越[M].赵延东,马婴,等译.北京：北京出版社,2005年
1 奥尔特温·雷恩、伯纳德·罗尔曼编著,赵延东、张虎彪译.跨文化的风险感知—经验研究的总结.北京出版社.2007年
1 Robert A. Olsen. Behavioral Finance as Science-Implications From the Research of Paul Slovic. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets. Vol.2, No.3,2001
1 冯建英,穆维松,傅泽田.消费者的购买意愿研究综述[J].现代管理科学,2006(11)：7-9.
1 Robert A. Olsen. Behavioral Finance as Science-Implications From the Research of Paul Slovic. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets. Vol.2, No.3,2001
1 Libeman N, Trope Y. The psychology of transcending the here and now[J]. Science,2008,322(5905):1201-1205.
2 Wakslak C J, Trope Y, Liberman N, et al. Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely:probability and the mental representation of events[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2006,135(4):641.
3 佘升翔,马超群,陆强,等.环境风险沟通的心理距离模型[J].系统工程,2012,9：69-74
1 Zhu D, Xie X, Gan Y. Information source and valence:How information credibility influences earthquake risk perception[J]. Journal of environmental psychology,2011,31(2):129-136.
2 Hirose Y, Sonehara N. Management of information-credibility risk in an ICT society:a social implementation[J]. Internet Research,2008,18(2):142-154.
1 Feldman J M, Lynch J G. Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior[J]. Journal of applied Psychology,1988,73(3):421.
2 Herr P M, Kardes F R, Kim J. Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasi An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective[J]. Journal of consumer research,1991,17(4):454.
1 奥尔特温·雷恩、伯纳德·罗尔曼编著,赵延东、张虎彪译.跨文化的风险感知—经验研究的总结.北京出版社.2007年
2 Roger E. Kasperson, Ortwin Renn, Paul Slovic et al. The social amplification of risk:A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis. Vol.8, No.2,1988
1 Tversky & Kahneman. Advances in Prospect Theory:Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty [J]. Journal
1 冯建英,穆维松,傅泽田.消费者的购买意愿研究综述[J].现代管理科学,2006(11)：7-9.
1 丁元昊.巨灾保险需求研究—基于需求行为的实证[D].西南财经大学,2012.
2 谢佳秋,谢晓非,甘怡群.汶川地震中的心理台风眼效应[J].北京大学学报：自然科学版,2011,47(5)：944-952
3 陈妍,凌远云,陈泽育等.农业保险购买意愿影响因素的实证研究[J].农业技术经济,2007(2)：26-30
1 贾建民,李华强,范春梅,等.汶川地震重灾区与非重灾区民众风险感知对比分析[J].管理评论,2009,20(12)：4-8.
1 Langford I H, Marris C, McDonald A L, et al. Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modeling[J]. Risk Analysis,1999,19(4):675-683.
2 Kunreuther H. Earthquake insurance as a hazard reduction strategy:The case of the homeowner[C] National Earthquake Conference:Earthquake Hazard Reduction in the Central and Eastern United States:A Time for Examination and Action. US Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC),1993:191-210.
3 Palm R, Hodgson M, Blanchard R D, Lyons D. Earthquake insurance in California:Environmental policy and individual decision-making[M]. Boulder, CO:Westview press,1990.
1 Palm R, Hodgson M. Earthquake insurance:mandated disclosure and homeowner response in California[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,1992,82(2):207-222.
2 Bastami, Morteza, Ghadir Mahdavi, and Safoora Zarei. "Factors Affecting Demand for Earthquake Insurance." JSEE-Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 14.3 (2013):197-205.
3 田玲,张岳.我国巨灾保险需求影响因素实证研究—基于五省部分保费收入的面板分析[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版),2013,26(2)
4 Asgary A, Willis K G. Household behaviour in response to earthquake risk:An assessment of alternative theories [J]. Disasters,1997,21(4):354-365.
1 通常认为方VIF>10或者1/VIF<0.1时,变量存在多重共线性。
2 White's test for Ho:homoskedasticity; Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity Ho: Constant variance
1 贾建民,李华强,范春梅,等.汶川地震重灾区与非重灾区民众风险感知对比分析[J].管理评论,2009,20(12)
1 张乐,童星.风险沟通：风险治理的关键环节-日本核危机一周年祭[J].探索与争鸣,2012(4)：52-55.
1 Covello V, Sandman P M. Risk communication:evolution and revolution[J]. Solutions to an Environment in Peril,2001:164-178.
1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior [J]. Organizational behavior and human decision processes,1991,50(2):179-211.
2. Armas I. Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania [J]. Risk Analysis,2006,26(5]:1223-1234.
3. Asgary A, Willis K G. Household behaviour in response to earthquake risk: An assessment of alternative theories [J]. Disasters,1997,21(4): 354-365.
4. At risk:natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters[M]. Psychology Press,2004.
5. Athavale M, Avila S M. An analysis of the demand for earthquake insurance [J]. Risk Management and Insurance Review,2011,14(2):233-246.
6. Baan P J A, Klijn F. Fbod risk perception and implications for flood risk management in the Netherlands [J]. International Journal of River Basin Management,2004,2(2):113-122.
7. Bastami, Morteza, Ghadir Mahdavi, and Safoora Zarei. "Factors Affecting Demand for Earthquake Insurance." JSEE-Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering 14.3 (2013):197-205.
8. Baucells M, Heukamp F H. Probability and time trade-off[J]. Management Science,2012,58(4):831-842.
9. Baumeister R F, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, et al. Bad is stronger than good[J]. Review of general psychology,2001,5(4):323.
10. Botzen W J W, Aerts J, Van Den Bergh J. Dependence of flood risk perceptions on socioeconomic and objective risk factors[J]. Water Resources Research,2009,45(10).
11. Bradbury J A. The policy implications of differing concepts of risk[J]. Science, Technology & Human Values,1989,14(4):380-399.
12. Brewer N T, Weinstein N D, Cuite C L, et al. Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior[J]. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,2004,27(2): 125-130.
13. Brun W. Cognitive components in risk perception:Natural versus manmade risks[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,1992,5(2): 117-132.
14. Bubeck P, Botzen W J W, Aerts J. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior [J]. Risk Analysis,2012, 32(9):1481-1495.
15. Chandon P, Morwitz V G, Reinartz W J. Do intentions really predict behavior? Self-generated validity effects in survey research [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2005,69(2):1-14.
16. Communicating risks to the public:International perspectives[M]. Springer,1991.
17. Cooper T, Faseruk A. Strategeic Risk, Risk Perception and Risk Behaviour: Meta-Analysis[J]. Journal of Financial Management and Analysis,2011, 24(2):20-29.
18. De Marchi B, Ravetz J R. Risk management and governance::a post-normal science approach[J]. Futures,1999,31(7):743-757.
19. DiMaggio C, Galea S, Emch M. Spatial proximity and the risk of psychopathobgy after a terrorist attack[J]. Psychiatry research,2010, 176(1):55-61.
20. Dowling G R, Staelin R. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity[J]. Journal of consumer research,1994:119-134.
21. Eby L T, Butts M M, Durley J, et aL Are bad experiences stronger than good ones in mentoring relationships? Evidence from the protege and mentor perspective [J]. Journal of Vocational Behavior,2010,77(1):81-92.
22. Engelberg E, Sjoberg L. Money obsession, social adjustment, and economic risk perception[J]. The Journal of Socio-Economics,2007,36(5):686-697.
23. Eraybar K, Okazaki K, Ilki A. An exploratory study on perceptions of seismic risk and mitigation in two districts of Istanbul [J]. Disasters,2010, 34(1):71-92.
24. Fischhoff B, Gonzalez R M, Small D A, et al. Judged terror risk and proximity to the World Trade Center[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 2003,26(2):137-151.
25. Floyd D L, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers R W. A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory [J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2000,30(2):407-429.
26. Frewer L. The public and effective risk communication[J]. Toxicology letters,2004,149(1):391-397.
27. Fujita K, Henderson M D, Eng J, et al. Spatial distance and mental construal of social events[J]. Psychological Science,2006,17(4):278-282.
28. Grothmann T, Reusswig F. People at risk of flooding:why some residents take precautionary action while others do not[J]. Natural hazards,2006, 38(1-2):101-120.
29. Heller K, Alexander D B, Gatz M, et al. Social and Personal Factors as Predictors of Earthquake Preparation:The Role of Support Provision, Network Discussion, Negative Affect, Age, and Educational [J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,1992,82(2):207-222.
30. Helms A C. Understanding gentrification:an empirical analysis of the determinants of urban housing renovation [J]. Journal of urban economics, 2003,54(3):474-498.
31. Hill R V, Hoddinott J, Kumar N. Adoption of weather-index insurance: learning from willingness to pay among a panel of households in rural Ethiopia[J]. Agricultural Economics,2013,44(4-5):385-398.
32. Ho M C, Shaw D, Lin S, et al. How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception?[J]. Risk Analysis,2008,28(3):635-643.
33. Hockey G R J, John Maule A, Clough P J, et al. Effects of negative mood states on risk in everyday decision making[J]. Cognition & Emotion,2000,14(6): 823-855.
34. Hogarth R M, Portell M, Cuxart A, et al. Emotion and reason in everyday risk perception[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,2011,24(2): 202-222.
35. Joffe H, Rossetto T, Adams J. Cities at Risk:Living with Perils in the 21st Century[M]. Springer, http://www.springer.com/series/6362
36. Johnson E J, Tversky A. Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology,1983,45(1):20.
37. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory:An analysis of decision under risk[J]. Econometrica:Journal of the Econometric Society,1979:263-291.
38. Karanci N. Facilitating Community Participation in Disaster Risk Management Risk Perception and Preparedness Behaviors in Turkey [M]. Cities at Risk. Springer Netherlands,2013:93-108.
39. Kasperson J X, Kasperson R E, Pidgeon N, et al. The social amplification of risk:Assessing fifteen years of research and theory[J]. The social amplification of risk,2003,1.
40. Kasperson R E, Renn 0, Slovic P, et al. The social amplification of risk:A conceptual framework[J]. Risk analysis,1988,8(2):177-187.
41. Kunreuther H. Earthquake insurance as a hazard reduction strategy:The case of the homeowner[C] National Earthquake Conference:Earthquake Hazard Reduction in the Central and Eastern United States:A Time for Examination and Action. US Central United States Earthquake Consortium (CUSEC),1993:191-210.
42. Lai L H, Hsieh H Y. Assessing the demand factors for residential earthquake insurance in Taiwan:Empirical evidence on spatial econometrics [J]. Contemporary Management Research,2007,3(4).
43. Langford I H, Marris C, McDonald A L, et al. Simultaneous analysis of individual and aggregate responses in psychometric data using multilevel modeling[J]. Risk Analysis,1999,19(4):675-683.
44. Lemer J S, Keltner D. Fear, anger, and risk[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology,2001,81(1):145-159.
45. Leppin A, Aro A R. Risk perceptions related to SARS and avian influenza: theoretical foundations of current empirical research [J]. International journal of behavioral medicine,2009,16(1):7-29.
46. Lerner J S, Gonzalez R M, Small D A, et al. Effects of Fear and Anger on Perceived Risks of Terrorism A National Field Experiment[J]. Psychological science,2003,14(2):144-150.
47. Lerner J S, Keltner D. Fear, anger, and risk[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology,2001,81(1):146.
48. Liberman N, Sagristano M D, Trope Y. The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal[J]. Journal of experimental social psychology, 2002,38(6):523-534.
49. Liberman N, Trope Y. The psychology of transcending the here and now[J]. Science,2008,322(5905):1201-1205.
50. Lindell M K, Hwang S N. Households' perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment[J]. Risk Analysis,2008,28(2): 539-556.
51. Lindell M K, Perry R W. Household adjustment to earthquake hazard a review of research [J]. Environment and behavior,2000,32(4):461-501.
52. Lindell M K, Perry R W. The protective action decision model:theoretical modifications and additional evidence[J]. Risk Analysis,2012,32(4): 615-632.
53. Lindell M K, Whitney D J. Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption[J]. Risk Analysis,2000,20(1):13-26.
54. Liu S, Huang J C, Brown G L. Information and risk perception:A dynamic adjustment process[J]. Risk analysis,1998,18(6):689-699.
55. Lundgren R E, McMakin A H. Risk communication:A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks[M]. John Wiley & Sons,2013.
56. Miceli R, Sotgiu I, Settanni M. Disaster preparedness and perception of flood risk:A study in an alpine valley in Italy [J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology,2008,28(2):164-173.
57. Milne S, Sheeran P, Orbell S. Prediction and Intervention in Health-Related Behavior:A Meta-analytic Review of Protection Motivation Theory[J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,2000,30(1):106-143.
58. Mitchell J K. Coping with natural hazards and disasters in megacities: Perspectives on the twenty-first century[J]. Geojournal,1995,37(3): 303-311.
59. Mowen J C, Park S, Zablah A. Toward a theory of motivation and personality with application to word-of-mouth communications!}]. Journal of Business Research,2007,60(6):590-596.
60. Olsen R A. Behavioral Finance as science:Implications from the research of Paul Slovic[J]. The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets,2001, 2(3):157-159.
61. Palm R, Hodgson M. Earthquake insurance:mandated disclosure and homeowner response in California[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,1992,82(2):207-222.
62. Paul B K, Bhuiyan R H. Urban earthquake hazard:perceived seismic risk and preparedness in Dhaka City, Bangladesh[J]. Disasters,2010,34(2): 337-359.
63. Paul Slovic. Perception of risk [J]. Science. New Series VOL236. Issue 4799, 1987
64. Pavlou P A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce:integrating trust and risk with the technoology acceptance model [J]. International journal of electronic commerce,2003,7(3):101-134.
65. Peacock W G, Brody S D, Highfield W. Hurricane risk perceptions among Florida's single family homeowners[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2005,73(2):120-135.
66. Perry R W, Lindell M K. Volcanic risk perception and adjustment in a multi-hazard environment[J]. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research,2008,172(3):170-178.
67. Roger E. Kasperson, Ortwin Renn, Paul Sbvic et al. The social amplification of risk:A conceptual framework[J]. Risk Analysis. Vol. 8, No.2,1988
68. Rosoff H, John R S, Prager F. Flu, risks, and videotape:Escalating fear and avoidance [J]. Risk Analysis,2012.
69. Rudisill C, Costa-Font J, Mossiabs E. Behavioral adjustment to avian flu in Europe during spring 2006:The roles of knowledge and proximity to risk[J], Social Science & Medicine,2012.
70. Scheer D, Benighaus C, Benighaus L, et al. The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard:Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication[J]. Risk Analysis,2014.
71. Shaw R, Kobayashi K S H, Kobayashi M. Linking experience, education, perception and earthquake preparedness [J]. Disaster Prevention and Management,2004,13(1):39-49.
72. She S, Ma C, Wu D D. General Probability-Time Tradeoff and Intertemporal Risk-Value Model[J]. Risk analysis,2010,30(3):421-431.
73. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G T, Gutscher H. Shared values, social trust, and the perception of geographic cancer clusters[J]. Risk Analysis,2001,21(6): 1047-1054.
74. Siegrist M, Gutscher H, Earle T C. Perception of risk:the influence of general trust, and general confidence[J]. Journal of Risk Research,2005, 8(2):145-156.
75. Siegrist M, Gutscher H. Natural hazards and motivation for mitigation behavior:People cannot predict the affect evoked by a severe flood[J]. Risk Analysis,2008,28(3):771-778.
76. Sigbjornsson R, Ragnarsdottir S. Gender Dependent Perception of Earthquake Effects[C] 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (14WCEE).2008:12-17.
77. Sitkin S B, Weingart L R. Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity [J]. Academy of management Journal, 1995,38(6):1573-1592.
78. Sjoberg L, Engelberg E. Risk perception and movies:A study of availability as a factor in risk perception [J]. Risk Analysis,2009,30(1):95-106.
79. Sjoberg L. Consequences of perceived risk:Demand for mitigation [J]. Journal of Risk Research,1999,2(2):129-149.
80. Sjoberg L. Factors in risk perception [J]. Risk analysis,2000,20(1):1-12.
81. Sjoberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust[J]. Risk analysis,2001,21(1):189-198.
82. Slovic P E. The perception of risk[M]. Earthscan Publications,2000.
83. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Why study risk perception?[J]. Risk analysis,1982,2(2):83-93.
84. Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane M L, et al. Affect, risk, and decision making[J]. Health Psychology,2005,24(4S):S35.
85. Solberg C, Rossetto T, Joffe H. The social psychology of seismic hazard adjustment re-evaluating the international literature [J]. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science,2010,10(8):1663-1677.
86. Sonmez S F, Graefe A R. Determining future travel behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of risk and safety[J]. Journal of Travel Research,1998,37(2):171-177.
87. Tanaka K. The impact of disaster education on public preparation and mitigation for earthquakes:a cross-country comparison between Fukui, Japan and the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA [J]. Applied Geography,2005,25(3):201-225.
88. Terpstra T, Lindell M K, Gutteling J M. Does Communicating (Flood) Risk Affect (Flood) Risk Perceptions? Results of a Quasi-Experimental Study[J]. Risk analysis,2009,29(8):1141-1155.
89. Thieken A H, Kreibich H, MuLLER M, et al. Coping with floods: preparedness, response and recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany in 2002[J]. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2007,52(5): 1016-1037.
90. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory:Cumulative representation of uncertainty [J]. Journal of Risk and uncertainty,1992, 5(4):297-323.
91. Wachinger G, Renn 0, Begg C, et al. The risk perception paradox—Implications for governance and communication of natural hazards[J]. Risk Analysis,2013,33(6):1049-1065.
92. Wakslak C J, Trope Y, Liberman N, et al. Seeing the forest when entry is unlikely:probability and the mental representation of events [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,2006,135(4):641.
93. Wang M, Liao C, Yang S, et al. Are people willing to buy natural disaster insurance in China? Risk awareness, insurance acceptance, and willingness to pay[J]. Risk Analysis,2012,32(10):1717-1740.
94. Woods J, Eyck T, Kapbwitz S A, et al. Terrorism Risk Perceptions and Proximity to Primary Terrorist Targets:How Close is Too Close?[J]. Human Ecology Review,2008,15(1):63.
95. Wouter Botzen W J, Van Den Bergh J C J M. Monetary valuation of insurance against flood risk under climate change [J]. International Economic Review,2012,53(3):1005-1026.
96. Palm R, Hodgson M, Blanchard R D, Lyons D. Earthquake insurance in California:Environmental policy and individual decision-making[M]. Boulder, CO:Westview press,1990.
97.陈妍,凌远云,陈泽育等.农业保险购买意愿影响因素的实证研究[J].农业技术经济,2007(2)：26-30.
98.程实.在风险的刀剑上起舞——美国次级债风波深度解析[J].国际经济评论.2009(7-8)
99.邓国营,甘犁,吴耀国.房地产市场是否存在“反应过度”?[J].管理世界,2010,6：41-49.
100.丁元昊.巨灾保险需求研究—基于需求行为的实证[D].西南财经大学,2012.
101.杜晓蓉、蔡云.美国金融危机对东亚新兴经济体的贸易传播渠道分析[J].南洋问题研究.2011(3)
102.范恒森、李连三.金融传染的渠道与政策含义[J].国际金融研究.2001(8)
103.范俏燕.当前国际性金融危机的生成和传导[J].财经科学.2008(7)
104.冯建英,穆维松,傅泽田.消费者的购买意愿研究综述[J].现代管理科学,2006(11)：7-9.
105.何帆、张明.美国次贷危机是怎样酿成的[J].求是.2007(20)
106.贾建民,李华强,范春梅,等.汶川地震重灾区与非重灾区民众风险感知对比分析[J].管理评论,2009,20(12)：4-8.
107.蒋序怀、吴富佳、金桩.当前资本市场的风险传染传导机制—基于传染效应的实证分析[J].财经科学.2006(2)
108.金洪飞.关于货币危机传染文献综述[J].经济学动态.2001(7)
109.李华强,范春梅,贾建民,等.突发性灾害中的公众风险感知与应急管理——以5·12汶川地震为例[J].管理世界,2009,6：52-60.
110.李文娟.巨灾保险需求及其影响因素研究[D].武汉大学,2009.
111.刘学宁.收入水平对保险需求影响的实证研究[J].保险研究,2012(11)：54-61.
112.刘妍,卢亚娟.农村小额保险购买意愿影响因素的实证研究[J].经济理论与经济管理,2011(5).
113.陆静、郑晗.次贷危机期间国际资本市场传染效应研究[J].国际金融研究.2012(5)
114.逯野,杨春江,秦皇岛.突发公共事件对个体,群体及公众心理影响的作用和传播机制研究[J].电子科技大学学报(社科版),2012,14(6)
115.孟博,刘茂,李清水,等.风险感知理论模型及影响因子分析[J].中国安全科学学报,2010,20(10)：59-66.
116.强月新,余建清.风险沟通：研究谱系与模型重构[J].武汉大学学报：人文科学版,2008,61(4)：501-505.
117.山立威.心理还是实质：汶川地震对中国资本市场的影响[J].经济研究,2011(4)：121-134.
118.佘升翔,马超群,陆强,等.环境风险沟通的心理距离模型[J].系统工程,2012,9：009.
119.佘升翔,马超群.面向动态风险评价及投资决策的IRRV模型[J].中国管理科学,2008,16(6)：1-8.
120.时勘,范红霞,贾建民,等.我国民众对SARS信息的风险认知及心理行为[J].心理学报,2003,35(4)：546-554.
121.时勘,陆佳芳,范红霞,等.SARS危机中17城市民众的理性特征及心理行为预测模型[J].科学通报,2003,48(13)：1378-1383.
122.宋涛、陈婧.社会互动、信任与农民购买商业养老保险的意愿,华中科技大学学报(社会科学版)2012,26(1)：99-106
123.孙多勇.突发事件下民众风险感知与行为决策研究述评[C].湖南省第六届公共管理论坛会议资料.2007.
124.孙香玉.保险认知,政府公信度与农业保险的需求[J].南京农业大学学报(社会科学版),2008,8(1)：48-54.
125.唐钧.风险沟通的管理视角[J].中国人民大学学报,2009,5(5)：33-39.
126.田玲,张岳.我国巨灾保险需求影响因素实证研究—基于五省部分保费 收入的面板分析[J].武汉理工大学学报(社会科学版),2013,26(2).
127.王向楠,张立明.样本构成、研究设计与寿险需求的影响因素-基于Meta回归的再分析[J].山西财经大学学报,2012(5)：43-51.
128.谢佳秋,谢晓非,甘怡群.汶川地震中的心理台风眼效应[J].北京大学学报：自然科学版,2011,47(5)：944-952.
129.谢晓非,徐联仓.风险认知研究概况及理论框架[J].心理学动态,1995,3(2)：17-22.
130.谢晓非,徐联仓.一般社会情境中风险认知的实验研究[J].心理科学,1998,21(4)：315-318.
131.谢晓非,郑蕊.风险沟通与公众理性[J].心理科学进展,2003,11(4)：375-381.
132.杨伟文,刘新.品牌认知对消费者购买行为的影响[J].商业研究,2010(3)：158-162.
133.杨中芳,彭泗清.中国人人际信任的概念化：一个人际关系的观点[J].社会学研究,1999,2(2)：1-21.
134.郁耀闯,周旗,徐春迪.不同地貌类型区农村居民的灾害感知差异分析——以陕西省宝鸡地区为例[J].安徽农业科学,2008,36(32)：14255-14257.
135.张乐,童星.污名化：对突发事件后果的一种深度解析[J].社会科学研究,2010,6：101-105.
136.张明.次贷危机的传导机制[J].国际经济评论.2008(7—8)
137.张文霞,赵延东.风险社会：概念的提出及研究进展[J].科学与社会,2011,2：53-63.
138.张毅强.风险感知,社会学习和范式转移[D].复旦大学,2010.
139.张跃华,史清华,顾海英.农业保险需求问题的一个理论研究及实证分析[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2007,24(4)：65-75.
140.赵华.国际股市区域风险传染研究[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2009(5)
141.赵晋.巨灾保险需求不足：理论分析与政策建议[J].保险职业学院学报,2011,25(5)：41-46.
142.周应恒,霍丽月,彭晓佳.食品安全：消费者态度,购买意愿及信息的影 响[J].中国农村经济,2004,11：53-59.
143.周志刚,陈晗.风险感知与保险需求波动—基于最优保险模型的理论证明[J].保险研究,2013(5)：14-21.
144.朱丽叶,潘明霞,卢泰宏.感知风险如何影响消费者购买行为?——国内消费者知觉风险结构实证研究[J].现代管理科学,2007,8：13-15.
145.卓志,周志刚.巨灾冲击、风险感知与保险需求——基于汶川地震的研究[J].保险研究,2013(12)：34-45.
146.卓志.我国人寿保险需求的实证分析[J].保险研究,2001,5(10).
147.奥尔特温·雷恩,伯纳德·罗尔曼编著.赵延东,张虎彪译.跨文化的风险感知—经验研究的总结[M].北京：北京出版社,2007年
148.景怀斌.公共危机心理：SARS个案[M].社会科学文献出版社,2006.
149.亚当,贝克,范隆,等.风险社会及其超越：社会理论的关键议题[M].北京出版社,2005.
150.张毅强.风险感知,社会学习与范式转移：突发性公共卫生事件引发的政策变迁[M].复旦大学出版社,2011.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |