바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

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

logo

범주 응집성과 기저율의 상호작용이 속성 일반화에 미치는 효과

Effect of Interaction between the Base-rate and Category Coherence on Property Generalization

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.1, pp.1-19
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.1.001
이국희 (경기대학교)
이형철 (광운대학교)
김신우 (광운대학교)
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수

초록

본 연구는 직업과 같은 사회적 범주에서 지각된 범주 응집성이 기저율과 어떻게 상호작용하여 속성 일반화에 영향을 미치는지 확인하기 위해 이루어졌다. 이를 위한 실험 1은 참가자들에게 속성 기저율(30% vs. 70%) 정보를 경험적으로 습득(한 사례씩 관찰)하게 하였다. 이를 확인한 참가자들은 응집성이 높은 범주(직업 군인, 비행기 승무원 등)와 낮은 범주(과외교사, 도서관 사서 등)의 구성원 세 명에게서 기저율 30% 혹은 70%의 속성이 반복 관찰될 경우 네 번째 구성원에게서도 동일한 속성이 관찰될 가능성이 어느 정도인지 0-100%로 추론하는 과제를 수행하였다. 실험 2는 속성 기저율 정보를 언어적으로 습득(기저율을 %로 명시함)한 후에 실험 1과 동일한 추론과제를 수행하였다. 결과적으로 실험 1과 2 모두 기저율 30%의 속성에 대한 일반화가 기저율 70%의 속성보다 강해지는 기저율의 주효과가 나타났고, 범주 응집성이 높은 범주에 대한 일반화가 응집성이 낮은 범주에 대한 일반화보다 강해지는 응집성의 주효과가 나타났으며, 속성 기저율 30%일 때의 범주 응집성 효과가 기저율 70%일 때보다 더 뚜렷해지는 기저율과 범주 응집성의 상호작용이 나타났다. 본 연구는 범주 응집성과 기저율 차이가 속성 일반화에 미치는 효과를 통합적으로 다루었다는 측면에서 선행연구에서 한 걸음 더 나아갔다. 본 연구는 한국사회에서 증가하고 있는 다문화 가정 후세대와 외국인에 대한 고정관념 형성에도 시사점을 가진다.

keywords
범주 응집성, 속성 기저율, 속성 일반화, 귀납추론, 고정관념 형성, category coherence, property base-rate, property generalization, inductive reasoning, stereotyping

Abstract

This study seeks to examine how property generalization is influenced by the interaction between base-rate and perceived category coherence in social categories like occupation. To this end, in Experiment 1, we empirically acquired (observing each case) base-rate property information (30% vs. 70%). When a base-rate property of 30% or 70% was repeatedly observed from three members of high-cohesive (professional soldiers, flight attendants, and comedians) and low-cohesive (private tutors, librarians, and community service center employees) categories, we estimated 0–100% likelihood that the same property will be observed in the fourth member. In Experiment 2, we carried out the same inductive reasoning task as Experiment 1, after verbally acquiring base-rate property information (specifying the base rate as a percentage). In both Experiments 1 and 2, results revealed the following: the main effect of the base rate was that property generalization became stronger at the 30% than 70% base rate; the main effect of category coherence was that property generalization became stronger for the high-cohesive category than for the low-cohesive category; and the interaction between base rate and category coherence showed that the effect of category coherence was more pronounced at the 30% than 70% base rate. This study went a step further than prior studies in that it examined comprehensively the effect of the difference in base rate and category coherence on property generalization. It has implications for stereotyping second-generation, multiracial families, and foreigners whose numbers are increasing in Korean society.

keywords
범주 응집성, 속성 기저율, 속성 일반화, 귀납추론, 고정관념 형성, category coherence, property base-rate, property generalization, inductive reasoning, stereotyping

참고문헌

1.

Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211-233.

2.

Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.

3.

Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228-235.

4.

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.

5.

Choi, I. Y., Choi, H. J., Lim, J. H., Jung, S. H., Kim, J. K., & Kim, J. H. (2019). Predictors of life satisfaction among multicultural African families in South Korea. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 29, 7-12.

6.

Christensen-Szalanski, J. J., & Beach, L. R. (1982). Experience and the base-rate fallacy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 270-278.

7.

Diesendruck, G., & HaLevi, H. (2006). The role of language, appearance, and culture in children's social category‐based induction. Child Development, 77, 539-553.

8.

Dixon, T. L., & Maddox, K. B. (2005). Skin tone, crime news, and social reality judgments: Priming the stereotype of the dark and dangerous black criminal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1555-1570.

9.

Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404-409.

10.

Gelman, S. A. (2000). The role of essentialism in children's concepts. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, Vol. 27(pp. 55-98). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.

11.

Gerges, F. A. (2003). Islam and Muslims in the mind of America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 588, 73-89.

12.

Gigerenzer, G., Hell, W., & Blank, H. (1988). Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 513-525.

13.

Goodie, A. S., & Fantino, E. (1995). An experientially derived base-rate error in humans. Psychological Science, 6, 101-106.

14.

Haslam, N. O. (1998). Natural kinds, human kinds, and essentialism. Social Research, 65, 291-314.

15.

Haslam, N., Bastian, B., & Bissett, M. (2004). Essentialist beliefs about personality and their implications. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1661-1673.

16.

Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113-127.

17.

Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 723-735.

18.

Heinström, J. (2006). Psychological factors behind incidental information acquisition. Library & Information Science Research, 28, 579-594.

19.

Johansen, M. K., & Kruschke, J. K. (2005). Category representation for classification and feature inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1433-1458.

20.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 11, 123-141.

21.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582-591.

22.

Kim, K., Kim, M. J., Kim, M., Ju, S., & Song, E. J. (2018). The effects of multicultural adolescents' trauma and hopelessness on problem behaviors in South Korea. International Journal of E-Health and Medical Communications, 9(4), 29-39.

23.

Kim, S., & Lee, G. H. (2017). Influence of category coherence and type of base-rate acquisition on property generalization. Acta Psychologica, 172, 64-70.

24.

Lee, G., Kim, S., & Li, H. O. (2014). The effect of perceived within-category variability through its examples on category-based inductive generalization. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 25, 233-257.

25.

Lee, G., Li, H. O., & Kim, S. (2015). The verification of fundamental mechanism where the perception of productfamily influences brand extension evaluation: Mediating effect of the products’ feature generalization. Journal of Marketing Studies, 23(3), 97-116.

26.

López, A., Gelman, S. A., Gutheil, G., & Smith, E. E. (1992). The development of category based induction. Child Development, 63, 1070-1090.

27.

Malt, B. C. (1995). Category coherence in cross-cultural perspective. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 85-148.

28.

Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H. (2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 592-613.

29.

Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469-1481.

30.

Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W., & Murphy, T. D. (1984). Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 333-352.

31.

Medin, D. L., Wattenmaker, W. D., & Hampson, S. E. (1987). Family resemblance, conceptual cohesiveness, and category construction. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 242-279.

32.

Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Press.

33.

Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychological Review, 92, 289-316.

34.

Nelson, L. J., & Klutas, K. (2000). The distinctiveness effect in social interaction: Creation of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 126-135.

35.

Nelson, L. J., & Miller, D. T. (1995). The distinctiveness effect in social categorization: You are what makes you unusual. Psychological Science, 6, 246-249.

36.

Osherson, D. N., Smith, E. E., Wilkie, O., López, A., & Shafir, E. (1990). Category-based induction. Psychological Review, 97, 185-200.

37.

Patalano, A. L., Chin-Parker, S., & Ross, B. H. (2006). The importance of being coherent: Category coherence, cross-classification, and reasoning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 407-424.

38.

Patalano, A. L., & Ross, B. H. (2007). The role of category coherence in experience-based prediction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 629-634.

39.

Patalano, A. L., Wengrovitz, S. M., & Sharpes, K. M. (2009). The influence of category coherence on inference about cross-classified entities. Memory & Cognition, 37, 21-28.

40.

Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.

41.

Peker, M., Crisp, R. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2010). Predictors of ingroup projection: The roles of superordinate category coherence and complexity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 525-542.

42.

Rezaei, S., Kobari, K., & Salami, A. (2019). The portrayal of Islam and Muslims in western media: A critical discourse analysis. Cultura International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, 16(1), 55-73.

43.

Rhodes, M., & Brickman, D. (2010). The role of within category variability in category‐based induction: A developmental study. Cognitive Science, 34, 1561-1573.

44.

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances:Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.

45.

Sloman, S. A. (1993). Feature-based induction. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 231-280.

46.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293-315.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물