- 권한신청
- P-ISSN1229-0661
- E-ISSN1229-0661
- KCI
논문 상세
- 2024 (30권)
- 2023 (29권)
- 2022 (28권)
- 2021 (27권)
- 2020 (26권)
- 2019 (25권)
- 2018 (24권)
- 2017 (23권)
- 2016 (22권)
- 2015 (21권)
- 2014 (20권)
- 2013 (19권)
- 2012 (18권)
- 2011 (17권)
- 2010 (16권)
- 2009 (15권)
- 2008 (14권)
- 2007 (13권)
- 2006 (12권)
- 2005 (11권)
- 2004 (10권)
- 2003 (9권)
- 2002 (8권)
- 2001 (7권)
- 2000 (6권)
- 1999 (5권)
- 1998 (4권)
- 1997 (3권)
- 1995 (2권)
- 1994 (1권)
위험 운전상황에서 운전자의 문화성향에 따른 귀인양식의 차이: 운전 시뮬레이션 연구
Individualism/Collectivism and Attribution Style in Dangerous Driving Situations: A Driving Simulation Study
초록
본 연구에서는 운전 시뮬레이션을 통해 구현된 위험 운전상황에서 운전자의 문화성향(개인주의 문화성향과 집단주의 문화성향)에 따른 귀인양식(상대운전자의 운전태도를 포함한 성향귀인 또는 도로여건 등을 포함한 상황귀인)에서의 차이를 비교하였다. 실험참가자들의 문화성향은 Singelis 등(1995)의 문화성향 척도를 사용하여 분류하였고, 위험 운전상황은 상대운전자에 의한 갑작스러운 끼어들기와 급정거 상황으로 나누어 제시하되, 각각의 위험 운전상황은 상대운전자의 의도가 분명히 드러나는 조건과 도로여건 등과 같은 상황변인이 강조되는 방식으로 시나리오 조건을 다시 구분하였다. 본 연구의 결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 전반적으로 살펴보면 ‘급정거: 상황강조’ 시나리오 조건을 제외한 모든 시나리오 조건에서 실험참가자들의 귀인점수는 상황귀인 점수보다는 성향귀인 점수가 더 높았다. 둘째, 실험참가자들의 문화성향을 동시에 고려할 경우 문화성향의 유형에 따라 매우 상이한 결과를 보였다. 즉, ‘끼어들기: 성향강조’ 시나리오 조건을 제외한 모든 시나리오 조건들에서 개인주의 문화성향 집단의 경우에는 시나리오 유형과 상관없이 상대운전자의 성향요인으로 귀인하는 경향이 강했던 반면, 집단주의 문화성향의 집단의 경우 상황요인에 대한 귀인점수가 높아져 성향귀인 점수와 상황귀인 점수 사이에서의 차이가 감소하였다. 본 연구의 시사점과 추후의 연구주제 및 연구방법에 대해 논의하였다.
- keywords
- individualism, collectivism, dispositional and situational attribution, driving simulation, 개인주의 문화성향, 집단주의 문화성향, 성향귀인, 상황귀인, 운전 시뮬레이션
Abstract
This study examined how drivers of different cultural orientations(individualism vs. collectivism) attribute the cause(dispositional vs. situational) of four simulated driving situations which were varied in types(cutting-in and sudden-stop by the other driver) and differential emphasis on other the other driver’s driving attitude or situational factor. The results showed the followings. First, the drivers generally showed higher attribution scores on the dispositional factor than the situational factor, except for the ‘sudden-stop: situation emphasis’ scenario condition. Second, when drivers’ cultural orientation and attribution styles were considered together, it was found that, except for the ‘cutting-in: disposition emphasis’ scenario condition. the drivers of collectivism tended to attribute more to situational factor than the drivers of individualism, In contrast, the drivers of individualism showed higher attribution scores on dispositional factor than situational factor in all driving scenario conditions. Implication and suggestion were discussed.
- keywords
- individualism, collectivism, dispositional and situational attribution, driving simulation, 개인주의 문화성향, 집단주의 문화성향, 성향귀인, 상황귀인, 운전 시뮬레이션
참고문헌
강혜자, 박남숙 (2009). 위험한 운전상황에서 운전자의 정서, 인지 및 행동 반응. 한국심리학 회지: 건강 14(2), 403-418.
성우일, 이재식 (2009). 시간압력 스트레스와 유도된 분노가 운전 수행에 미치는 영향: 운전 시뮬레이션 연구. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 15(4), 547-563.
윤지혜, 현명호, 김인석 (2004). 특성분노와 의도-모호성이 타인비난과 운전분노에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 건강, 9(3), 713-728.
이재식. (2012). 운전분노에 대한 운전확신과 감각추구 성향의 상효작용 효과-운전자의 연령대별 비교. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 18(3), 389-413.
Anderson, C. A. (1999). Attributional style, depression, and loneliness: A cross-cultural comparison of American and Chinese students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 482- 499.
Bond, M. H. (1983). A proposal for cross-cultural studies of attribution. In M. Hewstone(Ed.), Attribution Theory: Social and Functional Extensions(pp. 144-157). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Britt, T. W. & Garrity, M. J. (2006). Attributions and personality as predictors of the road rage response. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 127–147.
Crittenden, K. S., & Bae, H. (1994). Self-effacement and social responsibility attribution as impression management in Asian Cultures. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 653- 671.
Ellison-Potter, P., Bell, P., & Deffenbacher, J. (2001). The effects of trait driving anger, anonymity and aggressive stimuli on aggressive driving behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 431–443.
Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358–374.
Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Heider, F. (1976). A conversation with Fritz Heider. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd(Eds.), New Directions in Attribution Research(Vol 1, pp. 47-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Heine, S. J., Lebman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive sclf-rcgard? Psychological Review. 106, 766- 794.
Hennessy, D. A., Jakubowski, R., & Benedetti, A. J. (2005). The influence of the actor–observer bias on attributions of other drivers. In Hennessey, DA & Wiesenthal, D. Contemporary Issues in Road Safety. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Iversen, H., & Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1251–1263.
Krull, D. S. (1993). Does the grist change the mill? The effect of the perceiver's inferential goal on the process of social inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 340-349.
Lajunen, T., & Parker, D. (2001). Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness, driver anger and aggressive driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 243-255.
Lawton, R., Parker, D., Stradling, S. G., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Predicting road traffic accidents: The role of social deviance and violations. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 249–263.
Lennon, A., Watson, B., Arlidge, C., & Fraine, G. (2011). ‘You’re a bad driver but I just made a mistake’: Attribution differences between the ‘victims’ and ‘perpetrators’ of scenario-based aggressive driving incidents. Transportation Research Part F, 14, 209–221.
Matthews, G., Dorn, L., Hoyes, T. W., Davies, D. R., Glendon, I. A., & Taylor, R. G. (1998). Driver stress and performance on a driving simulator. Human Factors, 40, 136–150.
Mezulis, A. H., Abramson, L. Y., Hyde, J. S., & Hankinis, B. L. (2004). There a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving atributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711-747.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Özkan, T. (2006). The Regional Differences between Countries in Traffic Safety: A Cross-cultural Study and Turkish Case. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland,
Sivak, M., Soler, J., & Trankle, U. (1989). Cross-cultural differences in driver self-assessment. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 4, 371-376.
Vallieres, E. F., Bergeron, J., & Vallerand, R. J. (2005). The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application(pp. 181–190). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Weiner, B. (1996). Searching for order in social motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 199–216.
Weiner, B. (2001). Responsibility for social transgressions: An attributional analysis. In B. F. Malle, L. J. Moses, & D. A. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and Intentionality(pp. 331–344). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weiner, B. (2006). Social Motivation, Justice, and the Moral Emotions: An Attributional Approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wells-Parker, E., Ceminsky, J., Hallberg, V., Snow, R. W., Dunaway, G., Suiling, S., & Anderson, B. (2002). An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34, 271–278.
Wickens, C. M., Wiesenthal, D. L., Flora, D. B., & Flett, G. L (2011). Understanding driver anger and aggression: attributional theory in the driving environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17, 354–370.
- 다운로드 수
- 조회수
- 0KCI 피인용수
- 0WOS 피인용수