Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea
Identifieur interne : 000890 ( Pmc/Corpus ); précédent : 000889; suivant : 000891Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea
Auteurs : Sunhee Kim ; Seoyong KimSource :
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [ 1661-7827 ] ; 2018.
Abstract
The world is turning into a risky society. Although modernization based on the developments in science and technology has increased individuals’ well-being and wealth, the perceived risk toward the complex technological system has increased. In a risky society, social accidents amplify the existing fear among individuals. It is generally assumed that each value, perception, and resource influences the fear of risk. However, very few studies have tested these three factors together within an integrated causal model. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the determinants that influence the perceived risk in cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), a deadly epidemic disease, in Korea. Based on the theoretical model, we analyzed the survey data collected from respondents (
Url:
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15061168
PubMed: 29867054
PubMed Central: 6025578
Links to Exploration step
PMC:6025578Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea</title><author><name sortKey="Kim, Sunhee" sort="Kim, Sunhee" uniqKey="Kim S" first="Sunhee" last="Kim">Sunhee Kim</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1-ijerph-15-01168">Department of Public Administration, Seowon University, Musimseoro, Cheongju 28674, Chungbuk 361-742, Korea;<email>shkim7675@hanmail.net</email></nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, Seoyong" sort="Kim, Seoyong" uniqKey="Kim S" first="Seoyong" last="Kim">Seoyong Kim</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2-ijerph-15-01168">Department of Public Administration, Ajou University, Worldcup-ro, Suwon 16499, Korea</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno><idno type="pmid">29867054</idno><idno type="pmc">6025578</idno><idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6025578</idno><idno type="RBID">PMC:6025578</idno><idno type="doi">10.3390/ijerph15061168</idno><date when="2018">2018</date><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">000890</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PMC">000890</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea</title><author><name sortKey="Kim, Sunhee" sort="Kim, Sunhee" uniqKey="Kim S" first="Sunhee" last="Kim">Sunhee Kim</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="af1-ijerph-15-01168">Department of Public Administration, Seowon University, Musimseoro, Cheongju 28674, Chungbuk 361-742, Korea;<email>shkim7675@hanmail.net</email></nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, Seoyong" sort="Kim, Seoyong" uniqKey="Kim S" first="Seoyong" last="Kim">Seoyong Kim</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="af2-ijerph-15-01168">Department of Public Administration, Ajou University, Worldcup-ro, Suwon 16499, Korea</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health</title><idno type="ISSN">1661-7827</idno><idno type="eISSN">1660-4601</idno><imprint><date when="2018">2018</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><p>The world is turning into a risky society. Although modernization based on the developments in science and technology has increased individuals’ well-being and wealth, the perceived risk toward the complex technological system has increased. In a risky society, social accidents amplify the existing fear among individuals. It is generally assumed that each value, perception, and resource influences the fear of risk. However, very few studies have tested these three factors together within an integrated causal model. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the determinants that influence the perceived risk in cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), a deadly epidemic disease, in Korea. Based on the theoretical model, we analyzed the survey data collected from respondents (<italic>N</italic> = 814) in Korea. After controlling for variables such as sociodemographic characteristics, we examined how three competing factors, i.e., value, perception, and resource, influence the perceived risk of MERS. The analysis showed that trust and vulnerability variables in the perception factor, health state, and perceived knowledge in the resource factor had a significant impact on the perceived risk of MERS.</p></div></front><back><div1 type="bibliography"><listBibl><biblStruct></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Slovic, P" uniqKey="Slovic P">P. Slovic</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Yang, S" uniqKey="Yang S">S. Yang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cho, S" uniqKey="Cho S">S. Cho</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Jacob, B" uniqKey="Jacob B">B. Jacob</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mawson, A R" uniqKey="Mawson A">A.R. Mawson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Payton, M" uniqKey="Payton M">M. Payton</name></author><author><name sortKey="Guignard, J C" uniqKey="Guignard J">J.C. Guignard</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Jhoo, D" uniqKey="Jhoo D">D. Jhoo</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Al Ghobain, M" uniqKey="Al Ghobain M">M. Al Ghobain</name></author><author><name sortKey="Aldrees, T" uniqKey="Aldrees T">T. Aldrees</name></author><author><name sortKey="Alenezi, A" uniqKey="Alenezi A">A. Alenezi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Alqaryan, S" uniqKey="Alqaryan S">S. Alqaryan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Aldabeeb, D" uniqKey="Aldabeeb D">D. Aldabeeb</name></author><author><name sortKey="Alotaibi, N" uniqKey="Alotaibi N">N. Alotaibi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Aldhabib, A" uniqKey="Aldhabib A">A. Aldhabib</name></author><author><name sortKey="Alghalibi, S" uniqKey="Alghalibi S">S. Alghalibi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Alharethy, S" uniqKey="Alharethy S">S. Alharethy</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Lee, S Y" uniqKey="Lee S">S.Y. Lee</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yang, H J" uniqKey="Yang H">H.J. Yang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, G" uniqKey="Kim G">G. Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cheong, H K" uniqKey="Cheong H">H.-K. Cheong</name></author><author><name sortKey="Choi, B Y" uniqKey="Choi B">B.Y. Choi</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Makhlouf, M M" uniqKey="Makhlouf M">M.M. Makhlouf</name></author><author><name sortKey="Omer, S R" uniqKey="Omer S">S.R. Omer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Elyamani, R A A" uniqKey="Elyamani R">R.A.A. Elyamani</name></author><author><name sortKey="Aabdien, M H" uniqKey="Aabdien M">M.H. Aabdien</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sharaf, M Q" uniqKey="Sharaf M">M.Q. Sharaf</name></author><author><name sortKey="El Sayed, A M" uniqKey="El Sayed A">A.M. El-Sayed</name></author><author><name sortKey="Farag, E A" uniqKey="Farag E">E.A. Farag</name></author><author><name sortKey="Alkubaisi, N" uniqKey="Alkubaisi N">N. Alkubaisi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Al Hajri, M M" uniqKey="Al Hajri M">M.M. Al-Hajri</name></author><author><name sortKey="Board, A" uniqKey="Board A">A. Board</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Song, J" uniqKey="Song J">J. Song</name></author><author><name sortKey="Song, T M" uniqKey="Song T">T.M. Song</name></author><author><name sortKey="Seo, D C" uniqKey="Seo D">D.-C. Seo</name></author><author><name sortKey="Jin, D L" uniqKey="Jin D">D.-L. Jin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, J S" uniqKey="Kim J">J.S. Kim</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Choi, D H" uniqKey="Choi D">D.-H. Choi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yoo, W" uniqKey="Yoo W">W. Yoo</name></author><author><name sortKey="Noh, G" uniqKey="Noh G">G. Noh</name></author><author><name sortKey="Park, K" uniqKey="Park K">K. Park</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kim, C W" uniqKey="Kim C">C.W. Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Song, H R" uniqKey="Song H">H.R. Song</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Choi, J S" uniqKey="Choi J">J.S. Choi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ha, J Y" uniqKey="Ha J">J.Y. Ha</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lee, J S" uniqKey="Lee J">J.S. Lee</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lee, Y T" uniqKey="Lee Y">Y.T. Lee</name></author><author><name sortKey="Jeong, S U" uniqKey="Jeong S">S.U. Jeong</name></author><author><name sortKey="Shin, D J" uniqKey="Shin D">D.J. Shin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Han, J H" uniqKey="Han J">J.H. Han</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lee, C" uniqKey="Lee C">C. Lee</name></author><author><name sortKey="Seo, D U" uniqKey="Seo D">D.U. Seo</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kim, S" uniqKey="Kim S">S. Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, S" uniqKey="Kim S">S. Kim</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Rokeach, M" uniqKey="Rokeach M">M. Rokeach</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Douglas, M" uniqKey="Douglas M">M. Douglas</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wildavsky, A B" uniqKey="Wildavsky A">A.B. Wildavsky</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Wildavsky, A" uniqKey="Wildavsky A">A. Wildavsky</name></author><author><name sortKey="Dake, K" uniqKey="Dake K">K. Dake</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Brenot, J" uniqKey="Brenot J">J. Brenot</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bonnefous, S" uniqKey="Bonnefous S">S. Bonnefous</name></author><author><name sortKey="Marris, C" uniqKey="Marris C">C. Marris</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kim, S" uniqKey="Kim S">S. Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, S" uniqKey="Kim S">S. Kim</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Xue, W" uniqKey="Xue W">W. Xue</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hine, D" uniqKey="Hine D">D. Hine</name></author><author><name sortKey="Loi, N" uniqKey="Loi N">N. Loi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Thorsteinsson, E" uniqKey="Thorsteinsson E">E. Thorsteinsson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Phillips, W" uniqKey="Phillips W">W. Phillips</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Marris, C" uniqKey="Marris C">C. Marris</name></author><author><name sortKey="Langford, I H" uniqKey="Langford I">I.H. Langford</name></author><author><name sortKey="O Iordan, T" uniqKey="O Iordan T">T. O’Riordan</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Cobb, M D" uniqKey="Cobb M">M.D. Cobb</name></author><author><name sortKey="Macoubrie, J" uniqKey="Macoubrie J">J. Macoubrie</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Bredahl, L" uniqKey="Bredahl L">L. Bredahl</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Mohr, P" uniqKey="Mohr P">P. Mohr</name></author><author><name sortKey="Harrison, A" uniqKey="Harrison A">A. Harrison</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wilson, C" uniqKey="Wilson C">C. Wilson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Baghurst, K I" uniqKey="Baghurst K">K.I. Baghurst</name></author><author><name sortKey="Syrette, J" uniqKey="Syrette J">J. Syrette</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Costa Font, J" uniqKey="Costa Font J">J. Costa-Font</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mossialos, E" uniqKey="Mossialos E">E. Mossialos</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rudisill, C" uniqKey="Rudisill C">C. Rudisill</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Fischhoff, B" uniqKey="Fischhoff B">B. Fischhoff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Slovic, P" uniqKey="Slovic P">P. Slovic</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lichtenstein, S" uniqKey="Lichtenstein S">S. Lichtenstein</name></author><author><name sortKey="Read, S" uniqKey="Read S">S. Read</name></author><author><name sortKey="Combs, B" uniqKey="Combs B">B. Combs</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Siegrist, M" uniqKey="Siegrist M">M. Siegrist</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gutscher, H" uniqKey="Gutscher H">H. Gutscher</name></author><author><name sortKey="Earle, T C" uniqKey="Earle T">T.C. Earle</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Hmielowski, J D" uniqKey="Hmielowski J">J.D. Hmielowski</name></author><author><name sortKey="Feldman, L" uniqKey="Feldman L">L. Feldman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Myers, T A" uniqKey="Myers T">T.A. Myers</name></author><author><name sortKey="Leiserowitz, A" uniqKey="Leiserowitz A">A. Leiserowitz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Maibach, E" uniqKey="Maibach E">E. Maibach</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Mayer, A" uniqKey="Mayer A">A. Mayer</name></author><author><name sortKey="O Onnor, S T" uniqKey="O Onnor S">S.T. O’Connor</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ted, C" uniqKey="Ted C">C. Ted</name></author><author><name sortKey="Marc, G" uniqKey="Marc G">G. Marc</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Mccright, A M" uniqKey="Mccright A">A.M. McCright</name></author><author><name sortKey="Dunlap, R E" uniqKey="Dunlap R">R.E. Dunlap</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ock, H" uniqKey="Ock H">H. Ock</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Jin, J" uniqKey="Jin J">J. Jin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Song, G" uniqKey="Song G">G. Song</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Slovic, P" uniqKey="Slovic P">P. Slovic</name></author><author><name sortKey="Fischhoff, B" uniqKey="Fischhoff B">B. Fischhoff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lichtentstein, S" uniqKey="Lichtentstein S">S. Lichtentstein</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Tang, C S K" uniqKey="Tang C">C.S.K. Tang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wong, C" uniqKey="Wong C">C. Wong</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Brug, J" uniqKey="Brug J">J. Brug</name></author><author><name sortKey="Aro, A R" uniqKey="Aro A">A.R. Aro</name></author><author><name sortKey="Oenema, A" uniqKey="Oenema A">A. Oenema</name></author><author><name sortKey="De Zwart, O" uniqKey="De Zwart O">O. de Zwart</name></author><author><name sortKey="Richardus, J H" uniqKey="Richardus J">J.H. Richardus</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bishop, G D" uniqKey="Bishop G">G.D. Bishop</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Siegrist, M" uniqKey="Siegrist M">M. Siegrist</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cvetkovich, G" uniqKey="Cvetkovich G">G. Cvetkovich</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kim, E Y" uniqKey="Kim E">E.Y. Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Liao, Q" uniqKey="Liao Q">Q. Liao</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yu, E S" uniqKey="Yu E">E.S. Yu</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, J H" uniqKey="Kim J">J.H. Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yoon, S W" uniqKey="Yoon S">S.W. Yoon</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lam, W W T" uniqKey="Lam W">W.W.T. Lam</name></author><author><name sortKey="Fielding, R" uniqKey="Fielding R">R. Fielding</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Gerrard, M" uniqKey="Gerrard M">M. Gerrard</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gibbons, F X" uniqKey="Gibbons F">F.X. Gibbons</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bushman, B J" uniqKey="Bushman B">B.J. Bushman</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Holling, C S" uniqKey="Holling C">C.S. Holling</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Glanz, K" uniqKey="Glanz K">K. Glanz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rimer, B K" uniqKey="Rimer B">B.K. Rimer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Viswanath, K" uniqKey="Viswanath K">K. Viswanath</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Benford, R D" uniqKey="Benford R">R.D. Benford</name></author><author><name sortKey="Moore, H A" uniqKey="Moore H">H.A. Moore</name></author><author><name sortKey="Williams, J A" uniqKey="Williams J">J.A. Williams</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Huang, L" uniqKey="Huang L">L. Huang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zhou, Y" uniqKey="Zhou Y">Y. Zhou</name></author><author><name sortKey="Han, Y" uniqKey="Han Y">Y. Han</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hammitt, J K" uniqKey="Hammitt J">J.K. Hammitt</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bi, J" uniqKey="Bi J">J. Bi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Liub, Y" uniqKey="Liub Y">Y. Liub</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Weber, E U" uniqKey="Weber E">E.U. Weber</name></author><author><name sortKey="Blais, A R" uniqKey="Blais A">A.R. Blais</name></author><author><name sortKey="Betz, N E" uniqKey="Betz N">N.E. Betz</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ko, Y" uniqKey="Ko Y">Y. Ko</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Sadique, M Z" uniqKey="Sadique M">M.Z. Sadique</name></author><author><name sortKey="Edmunds, W J" uniqKey="Edmunds W">W.J. Edmunds</name></author><author><name sortKey="Smith, R D" uniqKey="Smith R">R.D. Smith</name></author><author><name sortKey="Meerding, W J" uniqKey="Meerding W">W.J. Meerding</name></author><author><name sortKey="De Zwart, O" uniqKey="De Zwart O">O. de Zwart</name></author><author><name sortKey="Brug, J" uniqKey="Brug J">J. Brug</name></author><author><name sortKey="Beutels, P" uniqKey="Beutels P">P. Beutels</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Dickson, D" uniqKey="Dickson D">D. Dickson</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Coulibaly, D" uniqKey="Coulibaly D">D. Coulibaly</name></author><author><name sortKey="Traore, Y" uniqKey="Traore Y">Y. Traore</name></author><author><name sortKey="N Attia, A K" uniqKey="N Attia A">A.K. N’gattia</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ahoussou, K E M" uniqKey="Ahoussou K">K.E.M. Ahoussou</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kangah, E A" uniqKey="Kangah E">E.A. Kangah</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kadjo, H A" uniqKey="Kadjo H">H.A. Kadjo</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cherif, D" uniqKey="Cherif D">D. Cherif</name></author><author><name sortKey="Dagnan, S N" uniqKey="Dagnan S">S.N. Dagnan</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Rolison, J J" uniqKey="Rolison J">J.J. Rolison</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hanoch, Y" uniqKey="Hanoch Y">Y. Hanoch</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Abbate, R" uniqKey="Abbate R">R. Abbate</name></author><author><name sortKey="Di Giuseppe, G" uniqKey="Di Giuseppe G">G. Di Giuseppe</name></author><author><name sortKey="Marinelli, P" uniqKey="Marinelli P">P. Marinelli</name></author><author><name sortKey="Angelillo, I F" uniqKey="Angelillo I">I.F. Angelillo</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Yang, Q" uniqKey="Yang Q">Q. Yang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tang, W" uniqKey="Tang W">W. Tang</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Rousseau, D M" uniqKey="Rousseau D">D.M. Rousseau</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sitkin, S B" uniqKey="Sitkin S">S.B. Sitkin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Burt, R S" uniqKey="Burt R">R.S. Burt</name></author><author><name sortKey="Camerer, C" uniqKey="Camerer C">C. Camerer</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Moy, P" uniqKey="Moy P">P. Moy</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pfau, M" uniqKey="Pfau M">M. Pfau</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Dake, K" uniqKey="Dake K">K. Dake</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Dake, K" uniqKey="Dake K">K. Dake</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Jew, C L" uniqKey="Jew C">C.L. Jew</name></author><author><name sortKey="Green, K E" uniqKey="Green K">K.E. Green</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kroger, J" uniqKey="Kroger J">J. Kroger</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Lee, I W" uniqKey="Lee I">I.W. Lee</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kahan, D M" uniqKey="Kahan D">D.M. Kahan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Jenkins Smith, H" uniqKey="Jenkins Smith H">H. Jenkins-Smith</name></author><author><name sortKey="Braman, D" uniqKey="Braman D">D. Braman</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Song, G" uniqKey="Song G">G. Song</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Song, G" uniqKey="Song G">G. Song</name></author><author><name sortKey="Silva, C L" uniqKey="Silva C">C.L. Silva</name></author><author><name sortKey="Jenkins Smith, H C" uniqKey="Jenkins Smith H">H.C. Jenkins-Smith</name></author></analytic></biblStruct></listBibl></div1></back></TEI><pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-dir>properties open_access</pmc-dir>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Int J Environ Res Public Health</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">Int J Environ Res Public Health</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">ijerph</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">1661-7827</issn><issn pub-type="epub">1660-4601</issn><publisher><publisher-name>MDPI</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">29867054</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmc">6025578</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/ijerph15061168</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">ijerph-15-01168</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>Sunhee</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="af1-ijerph-15-01168">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>Seoyong</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="af2-ijerph-15-01168">2</xref><xref rid="c1-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="corresp">*</xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="af1-ijerph-15-01168"><label>1</label>Department of Public Administration, Seowon University, Musimseoro, Cheongju 28674, Chungbuk 361-742, Korea;<email>shkim7675@hanmail.net</email></aff><aff id="af2-ijerph-15-01168"><label>2</label>Department of Public Administration, Ajou University, Worldcup-ro, Suwon 16499, Korea</aff><author-notes><corresp id="c1-ijerph-15-01168"><label>*</label>Correspondence: <email>seoyongkim@ajou.ac.kr</email>; Tel.: +82-031-219-2742</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>04</day><month>6</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>6</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>15</volume><issue>6</issue><elocation-id>1168</elocation-id><history><date date-type="received"><day>19</day><month>3</month><year>2018</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>31</day><month>5</month><year>2018</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>© 2018 by the authors.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2018</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access"><license-p>Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link>).</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>The world is turning into a risky society. Although modernization based on the developments in science and technology has increased individuals’ well-being and wealth, the perceived risk toward the complex technological system has increased. In a risky society, social accidents amplify the existing fear among individuals. It is generally assumed that each value, perception, and resource influences the fear of risk. However, very few studies have tested these three factors together within an integrated causal model. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the determinants that influence the perceived risk in cases of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), a deadly epidemic disease, in Korea. Based on the theoretical model, we analyzed the survey data collected from respondents (<italic>N</italic> = 814) in Korea. After controlling for variables such as sociodemographic characteristics, we examined how three competing factors, i.e., value, perception, and resource, influence the perceived risk of MERS. The analysis showed that trust and vulnerability variables in the perception factor, health state, and perceived knowledge in the resource factor had a significant impact on the perceived risk of MERS.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>risk</kwd><kwd>risk perception</kwd><kwd>risk communication</kwd><kwd>value</kwd><kwd>resource</kwd><kwd>Middle East Respiratory Syndrome</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="sec1-ijerph-15-01168"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>In 2015 when the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) epidemic broke out in Korea, 186 individuals contracted the disease, 38 died, and 16,752 were quarantined. This serious epidemic created the biggest social fear in Korea. The first MERS case was identified on 20 May 2015; a 68-year-old man returning from the Middle East was diagnosed with MERS. It passed nine days after he had sought medical care. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="ijerph-15-01168-f001">Figure 1</xref> shows repaid spread of MERS. In <xref ref-type="fig" rid="ijerph-15-01168-f001">Figure 1</xref>, the X axis represents the timeline. The patient with MERS was first confirmed on 20 May 2015. The Y axis presents the number of deaths (black line), the number of confirmed cases with MERS (dark blue dotted line), and the number of quarantined cases (light yellow dotted line). The number of quarantined individuals peaked on 17 June, with 6729 individuals. The number of death caused by MERS peaked on 25 October, with 37 cases. On 7 June, 23 persons were confirmed with MERS.</p><p>MERS influenced not only the society but also the economic state of Korea. Amid the rapid spread of MERS, according to CNN International, (17 June 2015 in South Korea) as of 17 June 2015, the reservation of 100,000 tourist visits to the nation had been cancelled. Furthermore, according to the Minister of Strategy and Finance, South Korea’s department store sales had decreased by 16.5% as compared to the same period before 2015, and sales in retail stores also decreased by 3.4%.</p><p>Risk perception toward a specific object or event may be based not only on objective or physical factors, e.g., large number of deaths, but also on subjective or constructive ones, e.g., the perceived risk from the death of one beloved person. Therefore, risk judgment is considered to be a social phenomenon. In terms of subjective views, the psychometric paradigm in risk studies suggests that lack of control, high catastrophic potential, and severe consequences account for increased risk perception and anxiety associated with dread risks [<xref rid="B2-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">2</xref>]. With reference to MERS, Yang and Cho [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] argued that the MERS outbreak in Korea was exacerbated by inappropriate responses by major institutions. They explained that the Korean government did not deliver timely information about the status of the epidemic, hospitals’ names, and response procedures related to MERS. In particular, not disclosing the information of hospitals that accommodated patients with MERS brought about unnecessary anxiety and fear among the public. Instead of the government, the Pressian, a press media organization, was the first to announce the list of hospitals accommodating MERS patients. Under such circumstances of limited information, individuals tend to depend on rumors or informal information. In particular, the public obtained inaccurate information from social media and the internet. Such unfiltered information increased the level of perceived risk of MERS, all of which amplified the dread related to this disease. Unfiltered information is closely related to rumors. Rumors amplify the perceived risk. For example, according to Jacob et al. [<xref rid="B4-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">4</xref>], rumors related to the Fukushima nuclear accident rapidly spread across the country border, and, once spread, they exacerbated the disaster situation. In the case of MERS, rumors such as “Several cases were confirmed at hospitals in Suwon and Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, and the disease has been already transmitted to a number of individuals there”, “Foreign media reports that Korea is under disaster, saying MERS will become a more serious epidemic than Ebola or SARS”, were spread [<xref rid="B5-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">5</xref>]. However, these rumors were not true. The lack of credible information is often filled by rumors.</p><p>MERS has changed individuals’ attitudes toward the health system. For example, Al Ghobain et al. [<xref rid="B6-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">6</xref>] emphasized that MERS outbreaks have had a negative psychological impact on health care systems in Saudi Arabia. Their study tested the psychological impact of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus (MERS-CoV) outbreaks on emergency room resident physicians (ERRPs). Among the ERRP survey respondents, majority (91%) agreed that their work put them at risk of infection. A total of 54% of ERRPs reported being afraid of contracting the infection from infected patients. Further, a majority of the ERRPs (85%) felt that their job would expose their families to risk of infection [<xref rid="B6-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">6</xref>]. Lee et al. [<xref rid="B7-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">7</xref>] investigated relationships between community residents’ infection sensitivity and their levels of preventive behaviors during the 2015 MERS outbreak in Korea. They demonstrated that the group with overall high sensitivity exhibited higher scores on stress levels, reliability on preventive behaviors, practice of preventive behaviors, and practice of hand washing during the outbreak period, as compared to the non-sensitive group.</p><p>Even though several studies related to MERS have been conducted in Korea, few suggest and verify a more integrated causal model that includes various factors that influence the perceived risk of MERS. Therefore, the present study aims to identify determinants that have a significant impact on the perceived risk of MERS. Although three competing factors, i.e., value, perception, and resources, have frequently been discussed as determinants of risk perception, very few studies have integrated these three factors in a research model. Therefore, we proposed and tested a more comprehensive model comprising these three factors.</p></sec><sec id="sec2-ijerph-15-01168"><title>2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis</title><sec id="sec2dot1-ijerph-15-01168"><title>2.1. Previous Studies about MERS</title><p>Several previous studies have focused on the “media effect” of MERS or “public response” to MERS. For example, after assessing the risk perception and practices of 78 camel owners by using the interview method, Makhlouf et al. [<xref rid="B8-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">8</xref>] showed that most of the owners were aware of the disease (93.6%), mostly as a result of TV (75.6%). Song et al. [<xref rid="B9-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">9</xref>] investigated online diffusion of information, spread of fear, and perceived risk of MERS infection by examining 8,671,695 MERS-related online documents from 20 May to 18 June 2015, retrieved from 171 Korean online channels. They reported that a buzz of negative emotions (i.e., anxiety or fear) was more prevalent in online discussion boards, on Twitter, and in online cafes, rather than on news sites and blogs. Additionally, news buzz, but not rumor buzz, was associated with positive MERS emotions (i.e., being calm or composed). Similarly, after examining the sources of confusion during the MERS outbreak, Yang and Cho [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] reported that media content affected the public’s perception of MERS risk, and that this perception of a high level of risk affected the public’s reactions. Choi et al. [<xref rid="B10-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">10</xref>] focused on the role of the media in shaping the public’s perceived risk of MERS. Based on online panel survey data during the MERS outbreak, they found that social media exposure was positively related to the formation of risk perceptions.</p><p>Some studies have focused on individuals’ responses and behaviors with regard to MERS. For instance, Kim et al. [<xref rid="B11-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">11</xref>] performed a telephone survey involving 200 household members in and around Seoul, during the maturity stage of the outbreak of MERS in June 2015, Korea. They found that respondents who had low perceived risk of contracting MERS had low trust in the government’s ability to control MERS, and they generally held unfavorable attitudes toward quarantine. Moreover, Makhlouf et al. [<xref rid="B8-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">8</xref>] reported that among 78 camel owners, the majority (74%) felt that they were protected from the disease, mostly because their farms were clean (78.1%) or because they had had a long history of working with camels without catching the disease (69.9%). Further, most respondents believed that washing hands with soap and water (84.9%) and keeping away from sick individuals (78.1%) were protective measures against MERS.</p><p>Our study focused on the factors that influence the perceived risk of MERS. A few previous studies have examined the determinants of the perceived risk of MERS. For example, Yang and Cho [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] reported that risk perception was positively associated with overreaction by the public (odds ratio: 2.80; 95% confidence interval: 2.17–3.60; <italic>p</italic> < 0.001). Moreover, Lee et al. [<xref rid="B7-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">7</xref>] reported that the infection sensitivity of community residents during the MERS outbreak in Korea correlated with gender, age, occupation, and health behaviors. Based on a survey of male high-school students, Choi et al. [<xref rid="B12-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">12</xref>] revealed that their risk perception score was 1.8 on a 4-point scale. Moreover, there was a positive correlation between knowledge, risk perception, and health behaviors. Additionally, knowledge and risk perception explained 15.1% of the variance in health behaviors, indicating that higher knowledge and higher risk perception were associated with higher protective behavior. With a more integrated causal model, Kim and Song [<xref rid="B11-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">11</xref>] examined the causal relationships among risk characteristics, trust, risk perception, and preventive behavioral intention during the MERS risk/crisis situation. They found that risk characteristics were positively associated with risk perception. Moreover, trust was negatively associated with risk perception, but positively related to preventive behavioral intention.</p><p>While these previous studies focused on the perception factor, they ignored important factors such as value and resources. Therefore, we adopted a more comprehensive model to reflect all three factors, i.e., perception, value, and resources.</p></sec><sec id="sec2dot2-ijerph-15-01168"><title>2.2. Determinants of Risk Perception</title><p>Among the three competing factors that explain risk perception, value pertains to the fundamental orientation of individuals, perception focuses on the cognitive factor in determining risk, and resources focuses on the objective state of individuals or the assets they possess.</p><sec id="sec2dot2dot1-ijerph-15-01168"><title>2.2.1. Value Factor</title><p>Value provides a basic orientation that directs perception and attitude [<xref rid="B13-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">13</xref>]. Rokeach [<xref rid="B14-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">14</xref>] defined a value as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct” (p. 5). Kim and Kim [<xref rid="B13-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">13</xref>] suggested the value-based model for the judgment of science and technology. According to this model, value, as a fundamental set of factors, critically influences the perception of science and technology, i.e., perceived benefit, perceived risk, trust, negative feeling, and knowledge. Among various values, we focused on cultural value, science and technology optimism (referred to as “S&T optimism” henceforth), and ideology.</p><p>Cultural value: In risk studies, Douglas and Wildavsky [<xref rid="B15-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">15</xref>] introduced the concept of cultural value, i.e., cultural bias, to explain risk perception. Based on the grid-group model, they argued that four cultural values (Egalitarianism, Individualism, Hierarchy, and Fatalism) influence risk perception. Moreover, in empirical testing, Wildavsky and Dake [<xref rid="B16-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">16</xref>] discovered that egalitarians (who fear social deviance less than hierarchists and individualists do) fear technology to a great extent.</p><p>Among cultural biases, the present study focused on the impact of egalitarianism and individualism. According to the empirical studies of Brenot et al. [<xref rid="B17-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">17</xref>], correlations between cultural biases and perceptions of 20 social and environmental risks were very weak, explaining 6% of the variance in risk perception. In particular, egalitarianism was correlated with a higher perception of risk. Moreover, Kim and Kim [<xref rid="B18-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">18</xref>] showed that egalitarian social groups displayed higher perceived risk regarding a newly-developed information system, whereas individualistic groups revealed lower risk perceptions in this regard. Based on a meta-analysis, Xue et al. [<xref rid="B19-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">19</xref>] reported that the overall weighted average effect size (r) for the association between egalitarianism and environmental risk perception was 0.25 (<italic>p</italic> < 0.001), whereas that for individualism was smaller (r = −0.17, <italic>p</italic> < 0.001) and in the opposite direction. Moreover, according to Marris et al. [<xref rid="B20-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">20</xref>], egalitarians are predicted to be more concerned about large-scale environmental risks with potentially catastrophic consequences such as nuclear power and ozone depletion, whereas individualists would consider these risks to have been exaggerated. Based on these previous studies, we propose the following hypothesis:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>1</bold> <bold>(H1).</bold></label><p>Egalitarianism has higher risk perception of MERS than individualism does.</p></statement><p>S&T (Science and technology) optimism: S&T optimism represents a positive orientation toward science and technology and their byproducts. Cobb and Macoubrie [<xref rid="B21-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">21</xref>] reported that respondents’ views of science influenced their risk and benefit perception related to nanotechnology. They showed that if individuals had positive beliefs about science (e.g., science solves the environmental problems), nanotechnology was regarded as more beneficial than risky. Additionally, Kim and Kim [<xref rid="B13-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">13</xref>] reported that the value factor plays a key role in determining the perception factor. In particular, S&T optimism has a negative impact on perceived risk but a positive impact on other variables.</p><p>An optimistic attitude toward technology has an impact on the perceived benefit and risk of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) products [<xref rid="B22-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">22</xref>]. A study by Mohr et al. [<xref rid="B23-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">23</xref>] revealed that pro-science and technology attitudes increase the acceptance of technology innovation in terms of social benefit and indulgence. Moreover, Costa-Font et al. [<xref rid="B24-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">24</xref>] empirically showed that optimism decreased risk perceptions regarding, for example, climate change and GMO food.</p><p>Why are views about S&T related to risk judgment? According to the psychometric paradigm, Fischhoff et al. [<xref rid="B25-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">25</xref>] proposed that nine risk characteristics influence perceived and acceptable risk. Among them, two characteristics, i.e., known to the science, and controllability, are critical factors in risk judgment. Thus, if individuals feel that they do not precisely understand the risk object or if they do not fully believe in its controllability, they exhibit higher risk perception and less acceptance. Considering this logic, science and technology are a means for acquiring precise knowledge and for controlling an unknown risk. This acquisition of precise knowledge and improved controllability of risk usually reduces the uncertainty that increases risk perception. According to Siegrist et al. [<xref rid="B26-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">26</xref>], the general confidence that everything is under control negatively influences risk perception. In this vein, positive belief in science and technology might negatively influence the perceived risk of MERS. Moreover, trust in science and scientists, i.e., an alternative version of optimism, has an impact on risk perception. For example, according to Hmielowski et al. [<xref rid="B27-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">27</xref>], trust in scientists is an important instrument that many individuals use when reporting their opinions on science-related topics; the higher the trust, the lower the perceived risk. Considering these findings, we propose the following hypothesis:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>2</bold> <bold>(H2).</bold></label><p>Strong S&T optimism in individuals decreases the perceived risk of MERS.</p></statement><p>Ideology: Ideology acts as an anchor for risk judgment. According to Mayer et al. [<xref rid="B28-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">28</xref>], progressive individuals show greater sensitivity to risk than conservative individuals do. According to McCright [<xref rid="B29-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">29</xref>], political conservatives and those with higher incomes and more education perceive less threat from global warming than their counterparts do. Additionally, they found that conservative white men exhibit a higher tendency to express skeptic beliefs in climate change. Further, as expected, political conservatism (vs. liberalism) was related to perceiving greater risk of voluntary hazards to the self and perceiving less risk for documented collective risks [<xref rid="B29-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">29</xref>]. This evidence suggested that progressive individuals perceive more risk from specific events than conservative individuals do.</p><p>Moreover, when MERS broke out, the ideological divide between political parties, not the public, provided the critical context for the important role of ideology in risk perception. The MERS outbreak increased the distrust toward the right-oriented President Park Geun-hye. The conflicts between the right and the left peaked when the left-oriented mayor of Seoul, Park Won-soon, criticized the president. Mayor Park publicly blamed the central government’s failure to filter suspected MERS patients and for hiding important information that could have been useful for the public and municipalities. President Park, however, criticized the mayor, saying that the Seoul Mayor’s independent actions could lead to confusion among the public. The conservative ruling party accused the mayor of spreading false rumors [<xref rid="B30-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">30</xref>]. Such political conflicts started just not from the MERS case. The Sewol ferry disaster that occurred 2014 and killed more than 300 individuals revealed similar ideological conflicts, as like MERS case. According to Jin and Song [<xref rid="B31-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">31</xref>], the disaster response in the case of the Sewol ferry disaster was unsuccessful because the Korea Coast Guard (KCG) was more concerned about hierarchical, political, and legal accountability than about professional accountability during the accident.</p><p>In short, South Koreans tend to consider the conflict over the outbreak of MERS as an ideological issue and not a health issue. Therefore, the impact of individuals’ ideological position on their perceived risk needs to be examined. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>3</bold> <bold>(H3).</bold></label><p>Progressive individuals have higher risk perception than conservative individuals do.</p></statement></sec><sec id="sec2dot2dot2-ijerph-15-01168"><title>2.2.2. Perception Factor</title><p>The psychometric paradigm focuses on what kinds of risk characteristics influence individuals’ perceptions regarding different hazards. This paradigm regards risk as having subjective rather than objective attributes. According to Slovic et al. [<xref rid="B32-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">32</xref>], this paradigm uses psychological scaling to produce cognitive maps of risk attitudes and perceptions. Accordingly, it is suggested that individuals make quantitative judgments about the current and desired riskiness about diverse hazards and the desired level of regulation about them. These judgments are then related to the judgments about other properties, including (1) the hazard’s characteristics, such as voluntariness, dread, knowledge, and controllability; (2) the benefit provided by the hazard; and (3) the number and seriousness of the deaths caused by the hazard [<xref rid="B32-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">32</xref>]. Within the psychometric paradigm, we focused on the four variables described in the following sections, because they have frequently been analyzed in risk perception studies pertaining to epidemic diseases [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>,<xref rid="B33-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">33</xref>,<xref rid="B34-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">34</xref>].</p><p>Trust: Risk studies have frequently examined trust as the target variable. For instance, Siegrist et al. [<xref rid="B35-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">35</xref>] empirically showed that social trust has an indirect effect on the emotional aspect that influences perceived benefits and risks related to food involving nanotechnology. Moreover, Kim and Kim [<xref rid="B13-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">13</xref>] showed that trust increases the acceptance of new and emerging technologies. Such findings imply that trust plays a critical role in attenuating the degree of perceived risk. Based on survey data analysis, Yang and Cho [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] reported that trust in the media (broadcasting), local government, and NGOs was positively associated with cumulative risk perception, whereas trust in the medical profession, the central government of South Korea, health policy, and the society was negatively associated with overall risk perception. Kim and Song [<xref rid="B11-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">11</xref>] demonstrated that trust is negatively associated with risk perception but positively related to preventive behavioral intention. Further, Kim et al. [<xref rid="B36-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">36</xref>] reported that when respondents had low trust in the government’s ability to control MERS, they generally held unfavorable attitudes toward quarantine.</p><p>Recently, several studies have reported the contingent effect of trust. According to Siegrist and Cvetkovich [<xref rid="B35-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">35</xref>], there was a strong correlation between social trust and judged risks/benefits with regard to hazards when individuals did not possess much knowledge. Thus, they showed that the impact of trust depends on the amount of knowledge. To measure social trust, Seigrist and Cvetkovich [<xref rid="B35-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">35</xref>] examined whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement that they “trust in authorities regulating each activity or technology”. Results showed strong correlations between social trust and perceived risk/benefit of hazards when individuals did not possess much knowledge. Thus, trust decreased the perceived risk and increased the perceived benefit. In this context, the following hypothesis was proposed:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>4</bold> <bold>(H4).</bold></label><p>The greater the amounts of trust individuals have will decrease the perceived risk of MERS.</p></statement><p>Perceived vulnerability: Perceived vulnerability is a subjective perception about how weak individuals feel when faced with specific threatening factors. It comprises the following four basic elements of the health belief model: (a) vulnerability to a negative event; (b) severity of a negative event; (c) benefits of specific preventive actions; and (d) barriers to performing preventive actions [<xref rid="B37-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">37</xref>] (p. 390). Gerrard et al. [<xref rid="B37-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">37</xref>] explained that perceived personal vulnerability is usually depicted as a necessary (but insufficient) motivator of precautionary behavior. In the case of disease, perceived vulnerability refers to the extent to which individuals feel that they would acquire some disease. According to Brug et al. [<xref rid="B34-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">34</xref>], not only the perceived ability to avoid SARS, but also one’s ability compared to others, influences the perceived risk of acquiring SARS and the worry about contracting the disease. In an empirical study, Tang and Wong [<xref rid="B33-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">33</xref>] found that elderly participants who perceived greater personal vulnerability to SARS were more likely to adopt SARS-preventive behaviors. Based on these findings, the following hypothesis was proposed:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>5</bold> <bold>(H5).</bold></label><p>Individuals holding a higher vulnerability have an increased risk perception of MERS.</p></statement><p>Belief in resilience: Resilience has various meanings. Holling [<xref rid="B38-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">38</xref>] described resilience as “a measure of the persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables” (p. 14). Disaster resilience is the ability of individuals, communities, organizations, and states to adapt to and recover from hazards, shocks, or stresses without compromising long-term prospects for development [<xref rid="B39-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">39</xref>]. In the present study, we focused on the subjective resilience that individuals constructed. According to the Hyogo Framework for Action [<xref rid="B39-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">39</xref>], those who strongly believe in their own resilience tend to exhibit less risk perception because they have a great deal of confidence in being able to recover from a byproduct of a hazard afterward. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>6</bold> <bold>(H6).</bold></label><p>The strong belief in resilience lowers individuals’ risk perception of MERS.</p></statement><p>Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s perception of her or his competence at successfully performing a behavior [<xref rid="B40-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">40</xref>]. Tang and Wong [<xref rid="B33-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">33</xref>] reported that elderly participants who possessed greater self-efficacy were more likely to adopt the suggested preventive behaviors for SARS. Moreover, Choi et al. [<xref rid="B8-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">8</xref>] explained that individuals with higher self-efficacy have lower risk perceptions regarding a health issue, whereas those with lower self-efficacy have higher risk perceptions regarding the same health issue. They also demonstrated that self-efficacy for MERS was negatively associated with risk perceptions regarding MERS. Moreover, Choi et al. [<xref rid="B10-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">10</xref>] reported that self-efficacy was found to moderate the impact of social media on risk perceptions regarding MERS. Makhlouf et al. [<xref rid="B8-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">8</xref>] found that, since 60% of camel owners had a high self-efficacy score, a very low percentage of them were using protective measures (4–12%). These findings informed the following hypothesis:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>7</bold> <bold>(H7).</bold></label><p>Lower self-efficacy increases individuals’ risk perception about MERS.</p></statement></sec><sec id="sec2dot2dot3-ijerph-15-01168"><title>2.2.3. Resource Factor</title><p>Benford et al. [<xref rid="B41-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">41</xref>] suggested the importance of resources in risk judgment. They revealed that minorities exhibited more perceived risk because they lacked resources and alternatives that provided a kind of shelter or buffer from risk. Therefore, our study focused on the following three resources: (1) economic resources, i.e., income and social class; (2) health resources, i.e., perceived health state in our research; and (3) knowledge.</p><p>Economic Resources: Economic resources provide various instruments to avoid a hazard, e.g., more safe places and speedy vehicles, which can be used to escape from disease. Income and social class represent economic resources. Huang et al. [<xref rid="B42-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">42</xref>] reported that public acceptance of nuclear power decreased significantly after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Additionally, they found that those with lower income were the most sensitive group, who exhibited a decrease in the support for nuclear power. Another study revealed that individuals in upper-social-class tended to perceive a lower risk than those in lower-social class did [<xref rid="B43-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">43</xref>]. According to Kim and Kim [<xref rid="B13-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">13</xref>], higher social class reduces the perceived risk about nanotechnology and animal cloning. Based on these findings, we purpose the following hypothesis:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>8</bold> <bold>(H8).</bold></label><p>Higher income or social class decrease the perceived risk of MERS.</p></statement><p>Health Resource: Health is a personal resource and a means for protecting one’s life in terms of both objective physical and subjective states. According to the health belief model, individuals who are susceptible to a health problem tend to exhibit behaviors to reduce their risk from the health problem. According to Ko [<xref rid="B44-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">44</xref>], a subjective health state influences risk perception. He reported that self-perceived poor health is related to risk perception of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Sadique et al. [<xref rid="B45-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">45</xref>] found that the health that individuals maintain negatively influences their precautionary behavior for a hypothetical influenza pandemic. Further, they reported that those who are healthier do not avoid entertainment, limit shopping, take absence from work, keep children from school, limit contact with family and friends, avoid seeing the doctor, or stay indoors. Thus, the following hypothesis was proposed:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>9</bold> <bold>(H9).</bold></label><p>Individuals with more health resources are likely to perceive risk less than those with less health resources are.</p></statement><p>Perceived Knowledge: Social studies of science have stressed on the role of knowledge in making judgments about science and technology. The deficit model is the most well-known model for explaining the role of knowledge in public judgment. According to Dickson [<xref rid="B46-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">46</xref>], the deficit model argues that a lack of adequate knowledge about science mainly influences public skepticism toward modern science and technology. Therefore, if provided sufficient information about science and technology to overcome this lack of knowledge, the public could change its mind and make a good decision.</p><p>With reference to knowledge, based on an online survey performed after the epidemic had peaked, Yang and Cho [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] reported that students had 53.5% of the essential knowledge pertaining to MERS. Similarly, based on a cross-sectional study, Coulibaly et al. [<xref rid="B47-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">47</xref>] reported that 255 (55.4%) respondents had knowledge of MERS-CoV. Choi et al. [<xref rid="B10-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">10</xref>] found a positive correlation between knowledge/risk perception and health behaviors. Furthermore, Makhlouf et al. [<xref rid="B8-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">8</xref>] reported that majority of the camel owners (79.5%) who participated in their study had a low to moderate level of knowledge of MERS-COV. More than half of them had a low perceived risk of susceptibility to contract the disease. Choi et al. [<xref rid="B10-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">10</xref>] reported that the proportion of correct answers to questions testing MERS-related knowledge was 71.6% among male high-school students.</p><p>Cobb and Macoubrie [<xref rid="B21-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">21</xref>] showed that greater knowledge influences the risk judgment about technology. For example, those who are more knowledgeable tend to believe that the benefits from nanotechnology would be more than the risks. Rolison and Hanoch [<xref rid="B48-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">48</xref>] found that respondents who were more knowledgeable about Ebola, perceived less risk of contracting the virus and were less worried about the virus, but they also regarded Ebola as more serious than less knowledgeable respondents did. According to Abbate et al. [<xref rid="B49-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">49</xref>], knowledge of preventive measures has a positive impact on the perception of risk for avian influenza; however, general knowledge of avian influenza does not explain the preventive measure behaviors. Considering these findings, we proposed the following hypothesis:</p><statement><label><bold>Hypothesis</bold> <bold>10</bold> <bold>(H10).</bold></label><p>More knowledge related to MERS decreases individuals’ perceived risk of MERS.</p></statement><p>Based on various variables comprising the three factors examined in the present study (perception, value, and resources), we developed the research model shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="ijerph-15-01168-f002">Figure 2</xref>. We hypothesized that not only the perception factor, but also the value and resource factors, influence the perceived risk of MERS.</p></sec></sec></sec><sec id="sec3-ijerph-15-01168"><title>3. Sample and Measure</title><sec id="sec3dot1-ijerph-15-01168"><title>3.1. Sample </title><p>Our analysis was based on survey data that measured the attitude and behaviors towards risk and communication related to science and technology. The survey was carried out from June to September 2015, using an interviewer-administrated questionnaire. Participants were selected in three stages. First, we categorized the respondents according to gender and age. Second, we classified them again according to social groups, such as students, housemaids, salaried men, and elder organization. Finally, we randomly selected the respondents from those social groups. We collected the data from 1000 respondents. However, we used the data collected from 814 respondents for the analysis because we excluded incomplete or inaccurately answered questionnaires. <xref rid="ijerph-15-01168-t001" ref-type="table">Table 1</xref> shows the characteristics of the respondents and mean, S.D. of perceived risk of MERS.</p><p>In terms of education level, 1.9% of the respondents were below middle school level, 21.7% were high school graduates, 40.4% were college student, 33.3% were university graduate, and 3.1% were a graduate of graduate school. With reference to gender, 47.8% of the participants were males and 52.2% were females. Regarding age, 52.5% of the respondents were aged below 29 years, 14.0% and 20.0% were in 30s and 40s, respectively, and 13.5% were in 50s or above. The unit of income was the Korean won. Further, 19.7% of the participants had an income less than 2.9 million won, while 27.9%, 29.2%, and 23.2% had incomes from 3 million won to 4.99 one, from 5 million won to 5.99 one, and more than 7 million won, respectively. Overall, the present sample comprised more college graduates and young respondents.</p></sec><sec id="sec3dot2-ijerph-15-01168"><title>3.2. Measure</title><p>The main measures used in this study are presented in <xref rid="ijerph-15-01168-t002" ref-type="table">Table 2</xref>. To ensure more validated measures, we adopted the measures used in previous studies. To examine several variables that measure one concept, we used the mean values of them. To measure the reliability of the measures, we calculated the Cronbach’s Alpha values, which were reported in the third column of <xref rid="ijerph-15-01168-t002" ref-type="table">Table 2</xref>. Ideology and social class were assessed using a ten-point scale (1 = left, 10 = right/1 = lowest social class, 10 highest one). Respondents choose one point on the ten-point scale based on their personal ideology and social class.</p><p>Among independent variables, the concept of trust is complicated and multi-dimensional, and it varies across actors, attributes, components, and levels. First, actors are the targets of trust. The government, scientists, and NGOs have frequently been examined as objects of trust. In terms of actor-centered approaches, Yang and Tang [<xref rid="B50-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">50</xref>] identified the following 3 types of trust: trust in administrative institution, trust in legal institution, and trust in societal institution. Second, the concept of trust depends on the level of trust, i.e., individual versus institutional trust. Rousseau et al. [<xref rid="B51-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">51</xref>] defined individual trust as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (p. 395). In the other hand, Moy and Pfau [<xref rid="B52-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">52</xref>] defined institutional trust as the positive orientation toward a political system. Third, characteristics of trust are one of the standards to distinguish various forms of trust. In this regard, Rousseau et al. [<xref rid="B51-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">51</xref>] suggested two types of trust, relational and calculative. While the former refers to the relationship between the trusting person and the other, the latter pertains to the past behavior of the other and/or constraints on future behavior.</p><p>These dimensions of trust informed the concept of trust that was adopted in the present study. The measures of trust used in our study referred to experts and the government as actors, used trustworthiness as an attribute of trust, and examined trust perception at the individual level. Therefore, we assumed that more credible actors could increase the individual perception of trust.</p><p>Also, we measured vulnerability for other diseases, not MERS, because if we had measured the vulnerability of MERS, there would have been problems of its higher correlation with perceived risk. Indeed, there are several common attributes between the vulnerability and risk perception of MERS.</p><p>We adopt the measure of cultural biases from Dake [<xref rid="B53-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">53</xref>], Dake [<xref rid="B54-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">54</xref>], and Marris et al. [<xref rid="B20-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">20</xref>], Resilience from Jew et al. [<xref rid="B55-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">55</xref>], self-efficacy from Choi et al. [<xref rid="B8-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">8</xref>]. All measures used a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) except vulnerability.</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec4-ijerph-15-01168"><title>4. Analysis</title><sec id="sec4dot1-ijerph-15-01168"><title>4.1. Basic Description</title><p>We calculated Pearson’s correlation coefficients to examine the relationships among variables. These results have been presented in <xref rid="ijerph-15-01168-t003" ref-type="table">Table 3</xref>.</p><p>The perceived risk of MERS had significant positive relationships with age, egalitarianism, individualism, S&T optimism, perceived vulnerability, belief in resilience, self-efficacy, knowledge, and social classes, whereas it had negative relationships with trust and education. Among the correlation coefficients, trust had the highest correlation with perceived risk of MERS, followed by knowledge, individualism, vulnerability, and self-efficacy. These results imply that trust is a key factor in reducing perceived risk of an epidemic disease. Moreover, three of five variables that showed high correlations with perceived risk were related to the perception factor. This implied that perception, not value and resource, plays a critical role in explaining perceived risk.</p><p>Three more interesting findings were observed from the correlation analysis. First, knowledge was found to have a significant relationship with perceived risk, whereas educational level was not. This indicates that officially or formally obtained information based on the educational level can be distinguished from unofficially or informally obtained information through personal efforts. Such a plausible argument of distinctive relationship between educational level and knowledge is supported by the lower correlation coefficient (0.005) in <xref rid="ijerph-15-01168-t003" ref-type="table">Table 3</xref>, not being significant. Second, among economic resources, higher social class (measured by respondents’ judgment of their own state of social class on a 10-point scale, i.e., 1 = lower class, 10 = high class) had a significant impact on perceived risk, whereas household income did not. This implies that subjective wealth is more important than objective wealth is. Third, perceived health state did not have a significant relationship with perceived risk. Generally, good health is regarded to lead to a positive belief in the recovery from diseases [<xref rid="B44-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">44</xref>,<xref rid="B45-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">45</xref>]. However, our analysis did not confirm the positive role of good health.</p></sec><sec id="sec4dot2-ijerph-15-01168"><title>4.2. Causal Structure</title><p>To understand the impact of the perception, value, and resource factors on perceived risk, we regressed the perceived risk of MERS on sixteen predictors. <xref rid="ijerph-15-01168-t004" ref-type="table">Table 4</xref> shows the results of the regression analysis. We controlled for three socio-demographic variables; age, gender, and education. Additionally, to understand the effect of ideology on perceived risk, we set the neutral group as a reference.</p><p>We checked the potential multicollinearity issue by examining tolerance and Variation Inflation Factor (VIF). Our data showed that the values of tolerance (0.712 to 0.946) were beyond 0.1 and the VIFs (from 1.057 to 1.404) did not cross 10. Therefore, there was no issue with multicollinearity.</p><p>As is evident from <xref rid="ijerph-15-01168-t004" ref-type="table">Table 4</xref>, demographic variables (gender, age) do not have a significant impact on the perceived risk of MERS. This finding needs to be discussed further, because it is contrary to the general belief and previous findings. For example, it has been generally accepted that older individuals are more sensitive to a disease than younger individuals are, because the former are more vulnerable than the latter. Yang and Cho [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] reported that the elderly obtained lower scores on risk perception (concern over contracting MERS through indirect contact) (β = 0.07; <italic>p</italic> = 0.004).</p><p>Moreover, contrary to the present findings, females are considered to exhibit higher risk perception compared to males, as evidenced by the findings of Yang and Cho [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>], who reported that women had a higher risk perception than men did. Moreover, according to Choi et al.’s [<xref rid="B8-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">8</xref>] study on MERS, gender had a positive relationship with risk perception (β = 0.09, <italic>p</italic> < 0.01). According to Kim and Kim [<xref rid="B13-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">13</xref>], education level was related to lower perceived risk with regard to nanotechnology and animal cloning. Our analysis did not confirm such a negative impact of education.</p><p>Concerning the value factor, the two cultural biases (egalitarianism and individualism) and S&T optimism did not reveal significant coefficients. Such results suggest that value has no relationship with risk perception of infectious diseases, which implies that the vital need for survival overrides the existing value that individuals have. In other words, the perceived risk of a disease might be related to the outer layers of the thinking system, wherein value lies at the core and perception/cognition is at the peripheral.</p><p>With reference to the perception factor, trust had the strongest power in explaining the perceived risk of MERS. Our results confirmed Yang and Cho’s [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] finding that trust in media was positively associated with risk perception (<italic>p</italic> < 0.001). Moreover, Kim and Song [<xref rid="B11-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">11</xref>] reported that trust had a negative impact on risk perception. Moreover, those with higher trust showed more interest in preventative behaviors.</p><p>The vulnerability that individuals felt toward MERS significantly influenced their perceived risk of MERS. According to Gerrard et al. [<xref rid="B37-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">37</xref>], the perception of vulnerability is weakly but significantly related to risk behavior, suggesting that—to a limited extent—individuals do take their behavior into account when estimating their vulnerability to HIV.</p><p>Belief in resilience and self-efficacy did not have a significant impact on the risk perception in the present study. Although the measures of belief resilience (“The problem of MERS can be overcome by human effort”, “The problem of MERS can be solved by scientific and technological efforts”, “I can certainly overcome MERS if I acquire it”, “If I acquire MERS, I can be cured more easily than others can”) and self-efficacy (“I can certainly overcome MERS if I acquire it”, “If I acquire MERS, I can be cured more easily than others can”) connoted individuals’ self-confidence in overcoming MERS, they did not have a significant explanatory power. MERS is one of the most serious epidemic diseases, which, if infected, is difficult to overcome. Therefore, such irresistible attributes of MERS may have influenced the ineffective role of resilience and self-efficacy observed in the present study.</p><p>Finally, among the variables in the resource factor, household income and social class did not demonstrate a significant role in predicting the perceived risk of MERS. This finding is in contrast with Choi et al.’s [<xref rid="B10-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">10</xref>] finding that respondents with higher levels of income tended to perceive more risk than those with lower levels of income did.</p><p>Perceived health state of individuals negatively influenced their perceived risk. Specifically, those with good health revealed less perceived risk than those with poor health did. This finding contrasted with the present results of the correlation analysis, which did not reveal a significant correlation between perceived health and perceived risk.</p><p>Moreover, we found that the higher the knowledge of individuals, the higher their perceived risk of MERS. Similarly, Choi et al. [<xref rid="B12-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">12</xref>] found a positive relationship between knowledge and risk perception. However, these findings contradicted Yang and Cho’s [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] findings in which the level of knowledge about MERS was not associated with risk perception.</p><p>To compare the explanatory power of the three factors, we calculated the F-value and R<sup>2</sup> in each model. The last four lows show the analysis results. The perception factor explained 31.3% of the variance in perceived risk, while the other two factors had little effect, each having 4.9% and 5.7%. These findings imply that perception is more important than value and resource.</p></sec><sec id="sec4dot3-ijerph-15-01168"><title>4.3. Discussion</title><p>Our study showed, first, that the perception factor explained a larger proportion of the variance in perceived risk as compared to the value and resource factors. Further, among the variables of the perception factor, trust was a key component for alleviating the fears related to a pandemic disease such as MERS. Trust is an important variable because it plays a various significant roles. For example, individuals tend to use social trust to complement lack of knowledge. Siegrist and Cvetkovich [<xref rid="B35-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">35</xref>] showed that when there was limited knowledge, trust played an important role in judging emerging technologies. Our analysis showed that not only trust, but also knowledge had an impact on the perceived risk of MERS. This means that though trust may stem from the lack of knowledge, it plays a significant role in risk perception. Kim et al. [<xref rid="B30-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">30</xref>] argued that when MERS broke out, the government did not disclose information about the hospital that reported the first MERS patient. In such a situation, with no information and knowledge, distrust plays a critical role in risk judgment.</p><p>Second, less vulnerability was found to increase perceived risk. This finding suggests that more appropriate approaches are needed to focus on more vulnerable and less healthy groups. Thus, special programs need to provide such groups a feeling of relief and safety by mobilizing precautionary strategies. Vulnerable groups such as the elderly, younger individuals, those with a disability, and females have been found to exhibit higher perceived risk. Therefore, more tailored strategies need to be implemented to make them feel safe.</p><p>Third, among the variables of the resource factor, higher knowledge was found to be related to higher perceived risk. It is generally observed that more knowledge generally reduces perceived risk. However, in MERS, knowledge was found to amplify perceived risk. Thus, it infers that the effect of knowledge seems to vary according to the context. Therefore, better knowledge management strategies need to be implemented. This critical role of knowledge suggests that the government and other actors should mobilize risk communication during an epidemic to provide appropriate and precise information. In this regard, Yang and Cho [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] reported that risk perception was associated with the information delivered by the media. Therefore, providing accurate information and data to the public will be important in managing future crises. Song et al. [<xref rid="B9-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">9</xref>] suggested that, in the case of a breakout of a novel and highly contagious disease such as MERS, the government must deploy a response system that includes the provision and dissemination of reliable information and inhibits the online diffusion of false information. Thus, to ensure appropriate knowledge management, disease control authorities should develop an effective method of retrieving, sharing, and storing information related to the disease.</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec5-ijerph-15-01168"><title>5. Conclusions</title><sec id="sec5dot1-ijerph-15-01168"><title>5.1. Summary</title><p>Our study aimed to analyze the determinants of perceived risk of MERS in Korea. To this end, we examined a more comprehensive model that focused on three factors such as value, perception, and resource.</p><p>Based on the survey data, we identified the significant role of perception and resources; however, the role of value was not confirmed. In the perception factor, trust decreased perceived risk, whereas perceived vulnerability increased it. In the resource factor, maintaining a good health contributed to reducing perceived risk, whereas more knowledge amplified the perceived risk of MERS. The value factor did not explain the risk perception. Additionally, among the variables examined in the present studies, trust explained the largest proportion of the variance in perceived risk, followed by perceived health state, knowledge, and vulnerability. Our findings suggest that, with reference to infectious diseases, perception and resource are key factors that determine risk perception. Moreover, the perception factor is more important than the resource one.</p></sec><sec id="sec5dot2-ijerph-15-01168"><title>5.2. Implications </title><p>It is important to note that, among the independent variables, trust explained the largest proportion of variance in the perceived risk of MERS. This finding suggests that trust management by the government or other agencies is important in decreasing the perceived risk of an infectious disease. To increase the trust of individuals, the government needs to pay attention to effective communication with the public. According to the WHO outbreak communication guidelines, the following five key points need to be focused on during outbreak communication: (1) build, maintain, or restore trust; (2) announce early; (3) be transparent; (4) understand the public; and (5) incorporate risk communication into preparedness planning. When emerging infectious diseases break out, it is important to mobilize the media to make effective risk communication and to ensure public safety [<xref rid="B56-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">56</xref>]. Likewise, on examining the MERS outbreak in Korea, Lee [<xref rid="B57-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">57</xref>] suggested that we need several categories of successful crisis management communication, such as rapidness, consistency, openness, existence of control tower, and use of a manual. These suggestions stress on the role of effective communication strategies by the government.</p><p>Thus, more organized management strategies are required for building the trust. In this regard, as mentioned in the theoretical background <xref ref-type="sec" rid="sec2-ijerph-15-01168">Section 2</xref>, it is necessary to understand the multidimensional structure of trust. Trust varies according to the actors, attributes, and level of units. Therefore, the accountable controller during an epidemic needs to develop more diverse strategies to cover different forms of trust.</p><p>Our study has some limitations. Yang and Cho [<xref rid="B3-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">3</xref>] showed that media content affects the public’s perception of MERS risk and that the higher perceived risk leads to overreaction. However, our analysis did not consider such media effects. Additionally, since there were very few studies on the perceived risk of MERS, it is difficult to compare our findings to previous ones. In the future, more empirical studies are needed to verify our findings. Moreover, four cultural types should be included in the theoretical model. However, we did not include hierarchism and fatalism in our research model because of the low level of reliability of the measures for these two cultural biases. However, considering that these two cultural types might be related with the public’s health-related perceptions (e.g., Kahan et al. [<xref rid="B58-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">58</xref>] 2010; Song [<xref rid="B59-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">59</xref>]; Song et al. [<xref rid="B60-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">60</xref>]), their exclusion is a limitation of the present study.</p></sec></sec></body><back><notes><title>Author Contributions</title><p>The two authors contributed equally to this work.</p></notes><notes notes-type="COI-statement"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p></notes><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="B1-ijerph-15-01168"><label>1.</label><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><collab>Seoul Metropolitan Government</collab></person-group><source>White Paper of MERS</source><publisher-name>Seoul Metropolitan Government</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Seoul, Korea</publisher-loc><year>2016</year></element-citation></ref><ref id="B2-ijerph-15-01168"><label>2.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Slovic</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Perception of Risk</article-title><source>Science</source><year>1987</year><volume>236</volume><fpage>280</fpage><lpage>285</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1126/science.3563507</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">3563507</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B3-ijerph-15-01168"><label>3.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cho</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Middle East respiratory syndrome risk perception among students at a university in South Korea, 2015</article-title><source>Am. J. Infect. Control</source><year>2017</year><volume>45</volume><fpage>e53</fpage><lpage>e60</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ajic.2017.02.013</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28385465</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B4-ijerph-15-01168"><label>4.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jacob</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mawson</surname><given-names>A.R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Payton</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Guignard</surname><given-names>J.C.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Disaster Mythology and Fact: Hurricane Katrina and Social Attachment</article-title><source>Public Health Rep.</source><year>2008</year><volume>123</volume><fpage>555</fpage><lpage>566</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/003335490812300505</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18828410</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B5-ijerph-15-01168"><label>5.</label><element-citation publication-type="web"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jhoo</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>MERS Fear, Rumors Spreading. Korea Times</article-title><year>2017</year><comment>Available online: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/06/116_179800.html">http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/06/116_179800.html</ext-link></comment><date-in-citation content-type="access-date" iso-8601-date="2018-03-02">(accessed on 2 March 2018)</date-in-citation></element-citation></ref><ref id="B6-ijerph-15-01168"><label>6.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Al Ghobain</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Aldrees</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Alenezi</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Alqaryan</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Aldabeeb</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Alotaibi</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Aldhabib</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Alghalibi</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Alharethy</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Perception and attitude of emergency room resident physicians toward middle east respiratory syndrome outbreak</article-title><source>Emerg. Med. Int.</source><year>2017</year><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1155/2017/6978256</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28487774</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B7-ijerph-15-01168"><label>7.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>S.Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>H.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cheong</surname><given-names>H.-K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Choi</surname><given-names>B.Y.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Preventive behaviors by the level of perceived infection sensitivity during the Korea outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in 2015</article-title><source>Epidemiol. Health</source><year>2016</year><volume>38</volume><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4178/epih.e2016051</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B8-ijerph-15-01168"><label>8.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Makhlouf</surname><given-names>M.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Omer</surname><given-names>S.R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Elyamani</surname><given-names>R.A.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Aabdien</surname><given-names>M.H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sharaf</surname><given-names>M.Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>El-Sayed</surname><given-names>A.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Farag</surname><given-names>E.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Alkubaisi</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Al-Hajri</surname><given-names>M.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Board</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><etal></etal></person-group><article-title>Use of health belief model to assess risk perception and practices of camel farm owners in Doha about MERS-COV, 2015</article-title><source>J. Emerg. Med.</source><year>2016</year><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5339/jemtac.2016.icepq.126</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B9-ijerph-15-01168"><label>9.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>T.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Seo</surname><given-names>D.-C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>D.-L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>J.S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Social big data analysis of information spread and perceived infection risk during the 2015 middle east respiratory syndrome outbreak in South Korea</article-title><source>Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw.</source><year>2017</year><volume>20</volume><fpage>22</fpage><lpage>29</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1089/cyber.2016.0126</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">28051336</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B10-ijerph-15-01168"><label>10.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Choi</surname><given-names>D.-H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yoo</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Noh</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Park</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The impact of social media on risk perceptions during the MERS outbreak in South Korea</article-title><source>Comput. Hum. Behav.</source><year>2017</year><volume>72</volume><fpage>422</fpage><lpage>431</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.004</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B11-ijerph-15-01168"><label>11.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>C.W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>H.R.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Structural relationships among public’s risk characteristics, trust, risk perception and preventive behavioral intention: The case of MERS in Korea</article-title><source>Crisisnomy</source><year>2017</year><volume>13</volume><fpage>85</fpage><lpage>95</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.14251/crisisonomy.2017.13.6.85</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B12-ijerph-15-01168"><label>12.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Choi</surname><given-names>J.S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ha</surname><given-names>J.Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>J.S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>Y.T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jeong</surname><given-names>S.U.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shin</surname><given-names>D.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>J.H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Seo</surname><given-names>D.U.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Factors affecting MERS-related health behaviors among male high school students</article-title><source>J. Korean Soc. Sch. Health</source><year>2015</year><volume>28</volume><fpage>150</fpage><lpage>157</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.15434/kssh.2015.28.3.150</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B13-ijerph-15-01168"><label>13.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology</article-title><source>Int. J. Public Adm.</source><year>2015</year><volume>20</volume><fpage>305</fpage><lpage>322</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/12294659.2015.1078081</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B14-ijerph-15-01168"><label>14.</label><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rokeach</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><source>The Nature of Human Values</source><publisher-name>Free Press</publisher-name><publisher-loc>New York, NY, USA</publisher-loc><year>1973</year></element-citation></ref><ref id="B15-ijerph-15-01168"><label>15.</label><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Douglas</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wildavsky</surname><given-names>A.B.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers</source><publisher-name>University of California Press</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Berkeley, CA, USA</publisher-loc><year>1982</year></element-citation></ref><ref id="B16-ijerph-15-01168"><label>16.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wildavsky</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dake</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why?</article-title><source>Daedalus</source><year>1990</year><volume>119</volume><fpage>41</fpage><lpage>60</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B17-ijerph-15-01168"><label>17.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Brenot</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bonnefous</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Marris</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Testing the cultural theory of risk in France</article-title><source>Risk Anal.</source><year>1998</year><volume>18</volume><fpage>729</fpage><lpage>739</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb01116.x</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B18-ijerph-15-01168"><label>18.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Cultural Construction of What? Stakeholders’ cultural bias and its effect on acceptance of a new information system</article-title><source>Int. J. Public Adm.</source><year>2010</year><volume>14</volume><fpage>71</fpage><lpage>93</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/12294659.2010.10805162</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B19-ijerph-15-01168"><label>19.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Xue</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hine</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Loi</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Thorsteinsson</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Phillips</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Cultural worldviews and environmental risk perceptions: A meta-analysis</article-title><source>J. Environ. Psychol.</source><year>2014</year><volume>40</volume><fpage>249</fpage><lpage>258</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.002</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B20-ijerph-15-01168"><label>20.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Marris</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Langford</surname><given-names>I.H.</given-names></name><name><surname>O’Riordan</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm</article-title><source>Risk Anal.</source><year>1998</year><volume>18</volume><fpage>635</fpage><lpage>647</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00376.x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">9853396</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B21-ijerph-15-01168"><label>21.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Cobb</surname><given-names>M.D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Macoubrie</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust</article-title><source>J. Nanopart. Res.</source><year>2004</year><volume>6</volume><fpage>395</fpage><lpage>405</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B22-ijerph-15-01168"><label>22.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bredahl</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods–results of a cross-national survey</article-title><source>J. Consum. Policy</source><year>2000</year><volume>24</volume><fpage>23</fpage><lpage>61</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1023/A:1010950406128</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B23-ijerph-15-01168"><label>23.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mohr</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Harrison</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wilson</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Baghurst</surname><given-names>K.I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Syrette</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Attitude, values and socio-demographic characteristics that predict acceptance of genetic engineering and application of new technology in Australia</article-title><source>Biotechol. J.</source><year>2007</year><volume>2</volume><fpage>1169</fpage><lpage>1178</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/biot.200700105</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17703489</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B24-ijerph-15-01168"><label>24.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Costa-Font</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mossialos</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rudisill</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Optimism and the perceptions of new risks</article-title><source>J. Risk Res.</source><year>2009</year><volume>12</volume><fpage>27</fpage><lpage>41</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/13669870802445800</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B25-ijerph-15-01168"><label>25.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Fischhoff</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Slovic</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lichtenstein</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Read</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Combs</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits</article-title><source>Policy Sci.</source><year>1978</year><volume>9</volume><fpage>127</fpage><lpage>152</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/BF00143739</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B26-ijerph-15-01168"><label>26.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Siegrist</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gutscher</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Earle</surname><given-names>T.C.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence</article-title><source>J. Risk Res.</source><year>2006</year><volume>8</volume><fpage>145</fpage><lpage>156</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/1366987032000105315</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B27-ijerph-15-01168"><label>27.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hmielowski</surname><given-names>J.D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Feldman</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Myers</surname><given-names>T.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Leiserowitz</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Maibach</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming</article-title><source>Public Underst. Sci.</source><year>2013</year><volume>23</volume><fpage>866</fpage><lpage>883</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0963662513480091</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23825287</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B28-ijerph-15-01168"><label>28.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mayer</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>O’Connor</surname><given-names>S.T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ted</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Marc</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>environmental risk exposure, risk perception, political ideology and support for climate policy</article-title><source>Sociol. Focus</source><year>2017</year><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/00380237.2017.1312855</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B29-ijerph-15-01168"><label>29.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>McCright</surname><given-names>A.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dunlap</surname><given-names>R.E.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States</article-title><source>Glob. Environ. Chang.</source><year>2011</year><volume>21</volume><fpage>1163</fpage><lpage>1172</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B30-ijerph-15-01168"><label>30.</label><element-citation publication-type="web"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ock</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Korea’s MERS Concerns More about Politics Than Health. 5 July 2015</article-title><comment>Available online: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150705000271">http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150705000271</ext-link></comment><date-in-citation content-type="access-date" iso-8601-date="2018-04-02">(accessed on 2 April 2018)</date-in-citation></element-citation></ref><ref id="B31-ijerph-15-01168"><label>31.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Bureaucratic accountability and disaster response: Why Did the Korea Coast Guard fail in its rescue mission during the Sewol ferry accident?</article-title><source>RHCPP</source><year>2017</year><volume>8</volume><fpage>220</fpage><lpage>243</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/rhc3.12115</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B32-ijerph-15-01168"><label>32.</label><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Slovic</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fischhoff</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lichtentstein</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The Psychometric study of risk perception</article-title><source>Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis: The Behavioral and Social Sciences</source><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Menkes</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Covello</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mumpower</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><publisher-name>Plenum</publisher-name><publisher-loc>New York, NY, USA</publisher-loc><year>1986</year></element-citation></ref><ref id="B33-ijerph-15-01168"><label>33.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tang</surname><given-names>C.S.K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wong</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Psychosocial factors influencing the practice of preventive behaviors against the severe acute respiratory syndrome among older Chinese in Hong Kong</article-title><source>J. Aging Health</source><year>2005</year><volume>17</volume><fpage>490</fpage><lpage>506</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/0898264305277966</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16020576</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B34-ijerph-15-01168"><label>34.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Brug</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Aro</surname><given-names>A.R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Oenema</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>de Zwart</surname><given-names>O.</given-names></name><name><surname>Richardus</surname><given-names>J.H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bishop</surname><given-names>G.D.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>SARS risk perception, knowledge, precautions, and information sources, The Netherlands</article-title><source>Emerg. Infect. Dis.</source><year>2004</year><volume>10</volume><fpage>1486</fpage><lpage>1489</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3201/eid1008.040283</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15496256</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B35-ijerph-15-01168"><label>35.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Siegrist</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cvetkovich</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge</article-title><source>Risk Anal.</source><year>2000</year><volume>20</volume><fpage>713</fpage><lpage>720</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/0272-4332.205064</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11110217</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B36-ijerph-15-01168"><label>36.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>E.Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Liao</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yu</surname><given-names>E.S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>J.H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yoon</surname><given-names>S.W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lam</surname><given-names>W.W.T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fielding</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Middle East respiratory syndrome in South Korea during 2015: Risk-related perceptions and quarantine attitudes</article-title><source>Am. J. Infect. Control</source><year>2016</year><volume>44</volume><fpage>1414</fpage><lpage>1416</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ajic.2016.03.014</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27130900</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B37-ijerph-15-01168"><label>37.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Gerrard</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gibbons</surname><given-names>F.X.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bushman</surname><given-names>B.J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Relation between perceived vulnerability to HIV and precautionary sexual behavior</article-title><source>Psychol. Bul.</source><year>1996</year><volume>119</volume><fpage>390</fpage><lpage>409</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.390</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B38-ijerph-15-01168"><label>38.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Holling</surname><given-names>C.S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Resilience and stability of ecological systems</article-title><source>Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.</source><year>1973</year><volume>4</volume><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>23</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B39-ijerph-15-01168"><label>39.</label><element-citation publication-type="confproc"><person-group person-group-type="author"><collab>The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR)</collab></person-group><article-title>Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters</article-title><source>Proceedings of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction</source><conf-loc>Kobe, Japan</conf-loc><conf-date>18–22 January 2005</conf-date></element-citation></ref><ref id="B40-ijerph-15-01168"><label>40.</label><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Glanz</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rimer</surname><given-names>B.K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Viswanath</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice</source><edition>4th ed.</edition><publisher-name>Jossey-Bass</publisher-name><publisher-loc>San Francisco, CA, USA</publisher-loc><year>2008</year><fpage>45</fpage><lpage>51</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B41-ijerph-15-01168"><label>41.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Benford</surname><given-names>R.D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Moore</surname><given-names>H.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Williams</surname><given-names>J.A.</given-names><suffix>Jr.</suffix></name></person-group><article-title>In whose backyard? Concern about siting a nuclear waste facility</article-title><source>Sociol. Inq.</source><year>1993</year><volume>63</volume><fpage>30</fpage><lpage>47</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1475-682X.1993.tb00200.x</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B42-ijerph-15-01168"><label>42.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhou</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hammitt</surname><given-names>J.K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bi</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Liub</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China</article-title><source>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA</source><year>2013</year><volume>110</volume><fpage>19742</fpage><lpage>19747</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1313825110</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24248341</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B43-ijerph-15-01168"><label>43.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Weber</surname><given-names>E.U.</given-names></name><name><surname>Blais</surname><given-names>A.R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Betz</surname><given-names>N.E.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A Domain specific risk attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors</article-title><source>J. Behav. Decis. Mak.</source><year>2002</year><volume>15</volume><fpage>263</fpage><lpage>290</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1002/bdm.414</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B44-ijerph-15-01168"><label>44.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ko</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Self-perceived health versus actual cardiovascular disease risks</article-title><source>Jpn. J. Nurs. Sci.</source><year>2016</year><volume>13</volume><fpage>65</fpage><lpage>74</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/jjns.12087</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26103790</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B45-ijerph-15-01168"><label>45.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sadique</surname><given-names>M.Z.</given-names></name><name><surname>Edmunds</surname><given-names>W.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Smith</surname><given-names>R.D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Meerding</surname><given-names>W.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>de Zwart</surname><given-names>O.</given-names></name><name><surname>Brug</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Beutels</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Precautionary behavior in response to perceived threat of pandemic influenza</article-title><source>Emerg. Infect. Dis.</source><year>2007</year><volume>13</volume><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3201/eid1309.070372</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18252100</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B46-ijerph-15-01168"><label>46.</label><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dickson</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The case for a ‘deficit model’ of science communication</article-title><publisher-name>Science and Development Network</publisher-name><publisher-loc>London, UK</publisher-loc><year>2005</year></element-citation></ref><ref id="B47-ijerph-15-01168"><label>47.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Coulibaly</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Traore</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>N’gattia</surname><given-names>A.K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ahoussou</surname><given-names>K.E.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kangah</surname><given-names>E.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kadjo</surname><given-names>H.A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cherif</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dagnan</surname><given-names>S.N.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Knowledge and risk perception of the middle-east respiratory syndrome corona virus [MERS-CoV] among Ivoirian hajj pilgrims in 2013</article-title><source>J. Public Health Epidemiol.</source><year>2016</year><volume>8</volume><fpage>152</fpage><lpage>157</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B48-ijerph-15-01168"><label>48.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rolison</surname><given-names>J.J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hanoch</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Knowledge and risk perceptions of the Ebola virus in the United States</article-title><source>Prev. Med. Rep.</source><year>2015</year><volume>16</volume><fpage>262</fpage><lpage>264</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.04.005</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26844081</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B49-ijerph-15-01168"><label>49.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Abbate</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Di Giuseppe</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Marinelli</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Angelillo</surname><given-names>I.F.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of avian influenza, poultry workers, Italy</article-title><source>Emerg. Infect. Dis.</source><year>2006</year><volume>12</volume><fpage>1762</fpage><lpage>1765</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3201/eid1211.060671</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17283632</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B50-ijerph-15-01168"><label>50.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tang</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Exploring the sources of institutional trust in China: Culture, mobilization, or performance?</article-title><source>Asian Politics Policy</source><year>2010</year><volume>3</volume><fpage>415</fpage><lpage>436</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1943-0787.2010.01201.x</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B51-ijerph-15-01168"><label>51.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rousseau</surname><given-names>D.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sitkin</surname><given-names>S.B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Burt</surname><given-names>R.S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Camerer</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust</article-title><source>Acad. Manag. Rev.</source><year>1998</year><volume>23</volume><fpage>393</fpage><lpage>404</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5465/amr.1998.926617</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B52-ijerph-15-01168"><label>52.</label><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Moy</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Pfau</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><source>With Malice toward All? The Media and Public Confidence in Democratic Institutions</source><publisher-name>Praeger</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Westport, CT, USA</publisher-loc><year>2000</year></element-citation></ref><ref id="B53-ijerph-15-01168"><label>53.</label><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dake</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Technology on Trial: Orientating Dispositions toward Environmental and Health Hazards</article-title><source>Ph.D. Dissertation</source><publisher-name>University of California</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Berkeley, CA, USA</publisher-loc><year>1990</year></element-citation></ref><ref id="B54-ijerph-15-01168"><label>54.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dake</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Myths of Nature: Culture and the Social Construction of Risk</article-title><source>J. Soc. Issues</source><year>1992</year><volume>48</volume><fpage>21</fpage><lpage>37</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01943.x</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B55-ijerph-15-01168"><label>55.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jew</surname><given-names>C.L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Green</surname><given-names>K.E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kroger</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Development and validation of a measure of resilience</article-title><source>Meas. Eval. Couns. Dev.</source><year>1999</year><volume>32</volume><fpage>75</fpage><lpage>89</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B56-ijerph-15-01168"><label>56.</label><element-citation publication-type="web"><person-group person-group-type="author"><collab>WHO</collab></person-group><article-title>WHO Outbreak Communication Guidelines</article-title><source>Geneva, World Health Organization.</source><comment>Available online: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CDS_2005_28en.pdf">http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CDS_2005_28en.pdf</ext-link></comment><date-in-citation content-type="access-date" iso-8601-date="2015-07-13">(accessed on 13 July 2015)</date-in-citation></element-citation></ref><ref id="B57-ijerph-15-01168"><label>57.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>I.W.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Policy PR and crisis management communication: The case of Seoul metropolitan government on MERS. Social Science Studies</article-title><source>J. Soc. Sci.</source><year>2016</year><volume>42</volume><fpage>67</fpage><lpage>104</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B58-ijerph-15-01168"><label>58.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kahan</surname><given-names>D.M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jenkins-Smith</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Braman</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Cultural cognition of scientific consensus</article-title><source>J. Risk Res.</source><year>2011</year><volume>14</volume><fpage>147</fpage><lpage>174</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/13669877.2010.511246</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B59-ijerph-15-01168"><label>59.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Understanding public perceptions of benefits and risks of childhood vaccinations in the United States</article-title><source>Risk Anal.</source><year>2014</year><volume>34</volume><fpage>541</fpage><lpage>555</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/risa.12114</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24033739</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B60-ijerph-15-01168"><label>60.</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Song</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Silva</surname><given-names>C.L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jenkins-Smith</surname><given-names>H.C.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Cultural worldview and preference for childhood vaccination policy</article-title><source>J. Disabil. Policy Stud.</source><year>2014</year><volume>42</volume><fpage>528</fpage><lpage>554</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/psj.12076</pub-id></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back><floats-group><fig id="ijerph-15-01168-f001" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p>Statistics on the incidence of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome. Note: black line, the number of deaths; dark blue dotted line, the number of confirmed cases with MERS; light yellow dotted line, the number of quarantined cases. Data source: Seoul metropolitan government [<xref rid="B1-ijerph-15-01168" ref-type="bibr">1</xref>].</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="ijerph-15-01168-g001"></graphic></fig><fig id="ijerph-15-01168-f002" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p>Research framework.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="ijerph-15-01168-g002"></graphic></fig><table-wrap id="ijerph-15-01168-t001" orientation="portrait" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">ijerph-15-01168-t001_Table 1</object-id><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Distribution of respondents.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1">Category</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean of Perceived Risk of MERS</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">S.D. of Perceived Risk of MERS</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Less than middle school diploma</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">16 (1.9%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.938</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.605</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">High school diploma</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">174 (21.7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.056</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.634</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Undergraduate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">321 (40.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.948</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.606</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">University graduate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">267 (33.3%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.979</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.612</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Graduate school</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">25 (3.1%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.920</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.866</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">803 (100.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.981</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.623</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Gender</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">387 (47.8%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.612</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">423 (52.2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.953</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.633</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">810 (100.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.984</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.624</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Age (years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Less than 29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">425 (52.5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.955</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.586</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">30–39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">113 (14.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.940</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.653</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">40–49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">162 (20.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.978</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.641</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">over 50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">109 (13.5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.155</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.690</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">809 (100.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.984</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.624</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Household Income(Million won)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">≤299</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">125 (19.7%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.950</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.614</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">300–499</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">177 (27.9%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.003</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.629</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">500–699</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">185 (29.2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.999</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.589</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">≥700</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">147 (23.2%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.021</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.661</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">634 (100.0%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.996</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.621</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><p>Note: Mean, S.D. is about perceived risk of MERS.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="ijerph-15-01168-t002" orientation="portrait" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">ijerph-15-01168-t002_Table 2</object-id><label>Table 2</label><caption><p>Measures and reliability of dependent/independent variables.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Concept</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Measure</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Reliability (Cronbach Alpa)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Perceived risk</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Compared to other diseases, MERS is the most dangerous</td><td rowspan="5" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">0.593</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-MERS is a serious threat to me and my family</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-The MERS is serious risk that threatens the survival of humans </td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-I have a high possibility of contracting MERS</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Compared to others, I am highly likely to contract MERS</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Egalitarianism</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-We need an overall reform for the equal distribution of wealth</td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">0.610</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Making the society equal will solve many problems </td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Equity is the best solution to all problems</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Individualism</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Poverty faced by individuals is caused due to their less efforts</td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">0.654</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-A competitive society is better</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-It is natural that only those who are stronger and competent survive</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">S&T (Science and technology) optimism</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Science and technology makes our life healthier and convenient </td><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">0.661</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Due to science and technology, the earth will not face the exhaustion of resources </td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Science and technology will solve all problems</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Science and technology provides the future generation more opportunities</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Trust</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-I do not at all believe the experts’ explanation about MERS (R)</td><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">0.624</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-I think that all of rumors related with MERS are true (R)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-I think that the rumors about MERS that are circulating on the Internet are true (R)</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-I think that the facts that the government argued to be false are actually true (R)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">(Perceived) Vulnerability</td><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-Considering your health condition, to what extent do you think you will acquire the following diseases (each) within the next one or two years? (1) heart disease; (2) Tuberculosis; (3) diabetes (1 = Least likely to acquire, 5 = Most likely to acquire)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.873</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">(Belief in) Resilience</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-The problem of MERS will be overcome by human effort</td><td rowspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">0.752</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-The problem of MERS will be solved by scientific and technological efforts</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Self-Efficacy</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-I can certainly overcome MERS if I acquire it</td><td rowspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">0.398</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-If I acquire MERS, I can be cured more easily than others can </td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-MERS is a disease I can avoid if I am careful</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">(Perceived) Health State</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-My health is good</td><td rowspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">0.867</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-I keep good health</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">Perceived Knowledge</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-For the sake of precaution against MERS, I seek much information related to it </td><td rowspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">0.755</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">-I have much more knowledge about MERS than others do </td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><p>Note: S.D.: Standard Deviation.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="ijerph-15-01168-t003" orientation="portrait" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">ijerph-15-01168-t003_Table 3</object-id><label>Table 3</label><caption><p>Pearson’s correlation coefficients between perceived risk and other variables.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">6</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">7</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">10</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">11</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">12</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">13</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">14</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">15</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1. Perceived Risk of MERS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">2. Gender</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.053</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3. Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.082 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.052</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">4. Ideology (Progressive)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.064</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.004</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.07 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">5. Egalitarianism</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.087 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.032</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.077 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">6. Individualism</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.181 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.098 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.031</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.101 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.177 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">7. S&T Optimism</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.092 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.134 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.102 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.088 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.097 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8. Trust</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.538 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.015</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.049</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.097 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.137 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.167 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.056</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">9. Perceived Vulnerability</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.156 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.033</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.023</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.021</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.073 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.007</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.059 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">10. Belief in Resilience</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.059 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.034</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.111 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.054</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.094 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.091 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.066 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.032</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.156 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">11. Self-efficacy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.154 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.021</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.090 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.051</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.111 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.183 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.076 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.159 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.119 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.441 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">12. Perceived Knowledge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.255 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.028</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.043</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.098 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.027</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.032</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.270 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.122 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.012</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.152 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">13. Education </td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.058 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.048</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.454 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.087 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.057</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.070 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.064 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.042</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.002</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.044</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.054</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.005</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">14. H. Income</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.032</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.100 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.022</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.099 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.074 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.046</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.033</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.027</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.048</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.035</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.006</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.037</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.118 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">15. Social Class</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.071 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.041</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.035</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.184 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.027</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.059</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.127 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.013</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.002</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.102 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.097 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.259 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">16. Perceived Health State</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.066 *</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.018</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.009</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.075 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.052</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.141 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.342 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.326 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.358 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.088 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.065</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.084 **</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><p>* <italic>p</italic> < 0.1; ** <italic>p</italic> < 0.05; *** <italic>p</italic> < 0.01.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="ijerph-15-01168-t004" orientation="portrait" position="float"><object-id pub-id-type="pii">ijerph-15-01168-t004_Table 4</object-id><label>Table 4</label><caption><p>Regression analysis: Perceived risk of MERS as dependent variable.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Factor</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Variables</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">B (Unstandardized Coefficients)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">SE (Standard Error)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" style="border-top:solid thin;border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Beta</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">F1: Socio-demographic Factors</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Constant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.263</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1"></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Gender (1 = female)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.051</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.047</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.041</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Age</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.001</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.002</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.008</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Education level</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.002</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.058</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.002</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">F2: Value Factors</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Egalitarianism</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.033</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.046</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Individualism</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.045</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.032</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.055</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">S&T Optimism</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.043</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.036</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.044</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ideology 1 (Conservative)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.089</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.008</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ideology 2 (Progressive)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.099</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.063</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.059</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">F3: Perception Factors</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Trust</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.526 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.038</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.545</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Perceived Vulnerability</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.064 **</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.085</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Belief in Resilience</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.024</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.033</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.031</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Self-efficacy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.049</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.041</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.051</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" colspan="1">F4: Resource Factors</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Household Income</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.012</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.039</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.012</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Social Class</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.003</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.007</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Perceived Health State</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.113 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.031</td><td align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1" colspan="1">−0.158</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Perceived Knowledge</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.079 ***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.029</td><td align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.109</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">F-Value</td><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">17.721 ***</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">R<sup>2</sup></td><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">0.378</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">Ad. R<sup>2</sup></td><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">0.356</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">F1’s F-value/R<sup>2</sup></td><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">0.009/3.677 **</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">F2’s F-value/R<sup>2</sup></td><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">0.049/6.540 ***</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">F3’s F-value/R<sup>2</sup></td><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" rowspan="1">0.313/91.644 ***</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1">F4’s F-value/R<sup>2</sup></td><td colspan="3" align="center" valign="middle" style="border-bottom:solid thin" rowspan="1">0.057/6.349 ***</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><p>* <italic>p</italic> < 0.1; ** <italic>p</italic> < 0.05; *** <italic>p</italic> < 0.01.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></floats-group></pmc></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Sante/explor/CovidV2/Data/Pmc/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000890 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000890 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Sante
|area= CovidV2
|flux= Pmc
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= PMC:6025578
|texte= Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:29867054" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a CovidV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |