바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전
논문 투고

Vol.27 No.3

Citation Share

암묵연합검사에 반영된 시간관 척도의 범주적 표상

Categorical Representation of Time Perspective in Implicit Association Test

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2015, v.27 no.3, pp.583-591
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.3.012
이재호 (계명대학교)
최윤경 (계명대학교)
이흥표 (대구사이버대학교)
이홍석 (한림대학교)
이재호, 최윤경, 이흥표, & 이홍석. (2015). 암묵연합검사에 반영된 시간관 척도의 범주적 표상. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 27(3), 583-591, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.3.012

초록

Zimbardo와 Boyd(1999)는 심적 표상을 설명하기 위한 시간관 이론을 제안하였다. 이 이론은 개인의 시간적 차원이 심적 범주를 구성하는 기본적인 차원이 된다고 하였다. 이 연구는 시간관 이론의 시간적 범주가 암묵연합검사에 반영되는지를 확인하고자 하였다. 그 결과 시간관 이론에서 주장하듯이 시간적 차원이 심적 범주를 구성하는 요소일 가능성을 확인하였다. 그러나 시간관 이론보다는 현재가 과거보다 긍정적으로 평가되며, 현재의 숙명은 현재보다 미래에 작용될 가능성이 높았다. 암묵적 수준에서의 시간관 범주를 균형 표상 이론으로 논의하였다.

keywords
시간관, 암묵연합검사, 과거, 현재, 미래, 긍정, 부정, 쾌락, 숙명, time perspective, IAT, past, present, future, positive, negative, hedonism, fatalism

Abstract

Zimbardo and Boyd(1999) suggested the time perspective theory for explaining mental representation. This theory assumes that time is the primary dimension of mental representation. This study was conducted to examine the implicit categorical representation of time perspective using implicit association test(the time persepctive-IAT) sensitive to implicit processing. The results suggested that the time perspective of past, present and future could be major components of mental representation. The time perspective-IAT scores showed that the present were evaluated more positive than the past and the fatalism was more strongly associated with the future than the present. But the effect size of the time perspective-IAT scores were small. These results were discussed by using optimal balanced representation perspective.

keywords
시간관, 암묵연합검사, 과거, 현재, 미래, 긍정, 부정, 쾌락, 숙명, time perspective, IAT, past, present, future, positive, negative, hedonism, fatalism

참고문헌

1.

남기심 (2005). 현대 국어 사용 빈도 조사2. 서울: 국립국어원.

2.

오정아 (역) (2008). 타임 패러독스. 서울: 미디어윌.

3.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

4.

Bolotova, A. K., & Hachaturova, M. R. (2013). The role of time perspective in coping behavior. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 6, 120-131.

5.

Boniwell, I. (2009). Perspectives on time. In S. Lopez (Ed.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd Ed.) (pp. 295-302). New York: Oxford University Press.

6.

Cretu, R. Z., & Negovan-Zbăganu, V. (2013). An exploratory approach of the structure of Zimbardo’s time perspective concept. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 753-757.

7.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

8.

Conway, M. A. (2005). Memory and the self. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 594-628.

9.

Fortunato, V. J., & Furey, J. T. (2010). The theory of MindTime: The relationships between thinking perspective and time perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 436- 441.

10.

Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self- esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25.

11.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

12.

Holman, E. A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2009). The social language of time: The time perspective- social network connection. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 136-147.

13.

Kant, I. (1965). Critique of Practical Reason (N. Smith, Trans.). N.Y.: St. Matin’s Press. (Original work published 1890)

14.

Kruger, D. J., Reischl, T. M., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2008). Time perspective as a mechanism for functional developmental adaptation. Journal of Social, Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology, 2, 1-22.

15.

Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the “field at a given time”. Psychological Review, 50, 292-310.

16.

Nosek, B. A. (2007). Implicit-explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 65-69.

17.

Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.) (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

18.

Stolarski, M., Fieulaine, N., & van Beek, W. (2015). Time perspective theory: The Introduction. In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (eds.), Time perspective theory; Review, research and application: Essays in Honor of Philip G. Zimbardo (pp. 1-13). Springer.

19.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1982). Voprosy teorii i istorii psichologii [Problems of psychological theory and history] In Sobranie sochineni [Collected works] (Vol. 1, p. 108). Moscow: Pedagogics.

20.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1271-1288.

21.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (2008). The time paradox. New York: Free Press/ Simon & Schuster.

22.

Zimbardo, P. G., Sword, R., & Sword, R. (2012). The time cure: Overcoming PTSD with the new psychology of time perspective therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Zwaan, R., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책