RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    Do Consumers Feel More Secure When They Consume Risky Products Under Stronger Regulation

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A104354520

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
      • URL 복사
    • 오류접수
    인용문이 복사되었습니다.

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    This paper investigates the effects of safety regulation on consumer behavior, using individual- level data in the U.S. When consumers use potentially risky products, such as vehicles, they may face injuries or damage. In order to protect consumers from unexpected injuries, regulatory agents often enforce safety regulations, such as seatbelt laws. Some previous papers have argued that safety regulation is ineffective in protecting consumers. For instance, according to the offsetting behavior theory, when consumers wear seatbelt because of the seatbelt law, they may feel more secure. This increased sense of security makes them consume (drive) their cars less carefully, causing more pedestrian-involved accidents. If this increased number of pedestrian-involved accidents were equal or greater than the decreased number of driver- and passenger-involved accidents, seatbelt regulation would be ineffective. Using an example of seatbelt regulation, I find that consumers consume their potentially risky products more carefully when more stringent safety regulation is in effect. I also find that careful consumption (driving) is not associated with accidents involving pedestrians. Thus, the results prove that consumers do not show offsetting behavior in consuming their cars when stronger safety regulation is applied on the roads. This is different from what the offsetting effects imply. This paper suggests that road safety measures in Korea, such as airbags, should be mandatory, not optional, like the Korean seatbelt law.
    번역하기

    This paper investigates the effects of safety regulation on consumer behavior, using individual- level data in the U.S. When consumers use potentially risky products, such as vehicles, they may face injuries or damage. In order to protect consumers fr...

    This paper investigates the effects of safety regulation on consumer behavior, using individual- level data in the U.S. When consumers use potentially risky products, such as vehicles, they may face injuries or damage. In order to protect consumers from unexpected injuries, regulatory agents often enforce safety regulations, such as seatbelt laws. Some previous papers have argued that safety regulation is ineffective in protecting consumers. For instance, according to the offsetting behavior theory, when consumers wear seatbelt because of the seatbelt law, they may feel more secure. This increased sense of security makes them consume (drive) their cars less carefully, causing more pedestrian-involved accidents. If this increased number of pedestrian-involved accidents were equal or greater than the decreased number of driver- and passenger-involved accidents, seatbelt regulation would be ineffective. Using an example of seatbelt regulation, I find that consumers consume their potentially risky products more carefully when more stringent safety regulation is in effect. I also find that careful consumption (driving) is not associated with accidents involving pedestrians. Thus, the results prove that consumers do not show offsetting behavior in consuming their cars when stronger safety regulation is applied on the roads. This is different from what the offsetting effects imply. This paper suggests that road safety measures in Korea, such as airbags, should be mandatory, not optional, like the Korean seatbelt law.

    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 대한민국정부포털, "전좌석 안전벨트 착용, 이젠 의무입니다!"

    2 한국소비자원, "자동차 안전벨트의 안전성 보완 방안, 소비자위해정보와 안전실태조사" 479-489, 1997

    3 한국소비자원, "자동차 안전벨트 착용실태 및 안정성조사, 소비자 위해정보와 안전실태조사" 353-399, 1998

    4 한국소비자원, "자동차 안전벨트 착용실태 및 안전성조사 결과" 1-70, 1998

    5 유장석, "에어백과 안전벨트가 운전자 안전에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구" 대한교통학회 21 (21): 7-16, 2003

    6 홍승권, "안전벨트 착용과정에서 무의식적 행위와 착용비율" 대한인간공학회 29 (29): 959-964, 2010

    7 심관보, "교통사고 위험그룹 및 사고유형별 심각도 결정 연구 - 서울시 중심 -" 한국도로학회 11 (11): 195-203, 2009

    8 "US Department of Transportation, Statistics andFacts About Distracted Driving"

    9 NHTSA, "Traffic Safety Facts - Reseach Note" 2008

    10 Cohen, A., "The Effects of Mandatory Seat Belt Laws on Driving Behavior and Traffic Fatalities" 85 (85): 828-843, 2003

    1 대한민국정부포털, "전좌석 안전벨트 착용, 이젠 의무입니다!"

    2 한국소비자원, "자동차 안전벨트의 안전성 보완 방안, 소비자위해정보와 안전실태조사" 479-489, 1997

    3 한국소비자원, "자동차 안전벨트 착용실태 및 안정성조사, 소비자 위해정보와 안전실태조사" 353-399, 1998

    4 한국소비자원, "자동차 안전벨트 착용실태 및 안전성조사 결과" 1-70, 1998

    5 유장석, "에어백과 안전벨트가 운전자 안전에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구" 대한교통학회 21 (21): 7-16, 2003

    6 홍승권, "안전벨트 착용과정에서 무의식적 행위와 착용비율" 대한인간공학회 29 (29): 959-964, 2010

    7 심관보, "교통사고 위험그룹 및 사고유형별 심각도 결정 연구 - 서울시 중심 -" 한국도로학회 11 (11): 195-203, 2009

    8 "US Department of Transportation, Statistics andFacts About Distracted Driving"

    9 NHTSA, "Traffic Safety Facts - Reseach Note" 2008

    10 Cohen, A., "The Effects of Mandatory Seat Belt Laws on Driving Behavior and Traffic Fatalities" 85 (85): 828-843, 2003

    11 Peltzman, S., "The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation" 83 : 677-725, 1975

    12 Bae, Y. K., "The Effects of Automobile Recalls on the Severity of Accidents" 51 (51): 1232-1250, 2013

    13 Loeb, P. D., "The Effectiveness of Seat-belt Legislation in Reducing Injury Rates in Texas" 85 (85): 81-84, 1995

    14 Derrig, R. A., "The Effect of Population Safety Belt Usage Rate on Motor Vehicle Related Fatalities" 34 : 101-110, 2002

    15 NHTSA, "Seat Belt Use in 2012 — Use Rates in the States and Territories" 2013

    16 Levitt, S. D., "Sample Selection In the Estimation of Air Bag and Seat Belt Effectiveness" 83 (83): 603-615, 2001

    17 Asch, P., "Risk compensation and the effectiveness of safety belt use laws : a case study of New Jersey" 24 : 181-197, 1991

    18 Evans, W. N., "Risk Reduction or Risk Compensation? The Case of Mandatory Safety-belt Use Laws" 4 (4): 61-73, 1991

    19 McCarthy, P. S., "Public Policy and Highway Safety : A City-Wide Perspective" 29 : 231-244, 1999

    20 Cappellari, L., "Multivariate Probit Regression Using Simulated Maximum Likelihood" 3 (3): 278-294, 2003

    21 Singh, H, "Impact of Seat Belt Use on Driving Behavior" 30 (30): 649-658, 1992

    22 Sen, A., "Impact of Seat Belt Use on Driving Behavior" 30 : 649-658, 1992

    23 이순재, "Impact of Automobile Seat-Belt Law on Insurance Cost*" 한국보험학회 (82) : 213-234, 2009

    24 Keeler, T. E., "Highway Safety, Economic Behavior, and Driving Environment" 84 : 684-693, 1994

    25 Sen, A, "Estimating the Impact of Seat Belt Use on Traffic Fatalities : Empirical Evidence from Canada" 33 (33): 315-335, 2007

    26 Wooldridge, J. M., "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data" MIT Press 2002

    27 Green, W. H., "Econometric Analysis" Prentice Hall 2003

    28 Bae, Y. K., "Do Vehicle Recalls Reduce the Number of Accidents? The Case of the U.S. Car Market," 30 (30): 821-862, 2011

    29 배용균, "Can Primary Seat-Belt Laws in the U.S. Alter Drivers' Behavior? : Synthetic Panel Data Analysis" 한국산업경제학회 27 (27): 675-705, 2014

    30 Crandall, R. W., "Automobile Safety Regulation and Offsetting Behavior:Some New Empirical Estimates" 74 (74): 328-331, 1984

    31 Risa, A. E., "Adverse Incentives fromImproved Technology : Traffic Safety Regulation in Norway" 60 (60): 844-857, 1994

    32 Peltzman, S., "A reply to Robertson" 11 : 6728-, 1977

    33 Robertson, L. S., "A critical analysis of Peltzman's The effects of automobile safety regulation" 11 (11): 587-600, 1977

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2026 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2020-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2017-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
    2013-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2010-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2008-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2006-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2001-07-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    1999-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    학술지 인용정보
    기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
    2016 1.48 1.48 1.67
    KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
    1.7 1.88 2.351 0.15
    더보기
    해외이동버튼