Individualism and collectivism in ethical decision making

본 연구의 목적은 한 개인이 내린 윤리적 의사결정이 개인중심 성향이나 집단중심 성향과 같은 개인의 문화성향과 상호작용하는지를 분석하는데 있다. 이를 위해 연구 1(N=92)에서는 개인의 문화성향에 따라 다수의 이익이 부각되거나 소수의 희생이 강조되는 상황에서 윤리적 의사결정의 차이가 나타나는지를 비교하였다. 그 결과 다수의 이익이 부각되는 상황에서는 공리주의적 입장에 대한 선호가 더 컸고, 소수의 희생이 강조되는 상황에서는 의무론적 입장에 대한 선호가 더 컸다. 또한 문화성향에 따른 도덕판단 기준의 중요성을 평정하게 했을 때, 개인중심성향에서는 위해와 공정의 기준을, 집단중심성향에서는 위해, 내집단, 공정과 권위를 모두 도덕판단의 중요한 기준으로 인식하였다. 연구 2(N=30)에서는 개인 또는 집단을 어휘판단과제를 통해 점화시킨 후, 윤리적 의사결정의 과정을 마우스추적기법을 사용하여 분석하였다. 도덕판단에서 ‘네’와 ‘아니오’의 최종적 반응으로 이어지는 경로를 마우스궤적으로 분석한 결과, 소수의 희생이 부각되면 개인점화조건에서는 집단점화조건에 비해 마우스편차와 X축 방향전환횟수가 더 컸다. 또한 내집단과 연관된 행동을 판단할 때, 개인점화조건에서는 집단점화조건보다 마우스편차가 더 큰 경향성이 나타났다. 마우스편차의 증가는 자동적인 정서의 과정을 통제하면서, 다른 대안적인 응답을 동시에 고려하는 사고과정임을 생각할 때, 이 결과는 문화성향과 갈등상황에 따라 도덕판단의 과정이 달라질 가능성을 시사한다.

keywords: 문화성향, 개인중심, 집단중심, 윤리적 의사결정, 마우스궤적, culture, individualism, collectivism, moral decision

Abstract

Do cultural differences affect moral decisions? Two studies were conducted to investigate whether attitudes of individualism vs. collectivism have an impact on ethical decision making. Study 1 (N=92) showed that utilitarianism was preferred in a situation, in which an intervention resulted in the best outcome (i.e., saving more people's lives), while deontology was preferred in a situation, in which the focus was on negative consequences of the intervention (i.e. personal sacrifices). Additionally, there were differences between the idiocentrics and the allocentrics groups regarding morality aspects. In the idiocentrics group, harm and fairness were regarded as more important than other moral aspects, while in the allocentrics group, not only harm and fairness, but also ingroup and authority were perceived as critical moral aspects. In Study 2 (N=30), after lexical decision tasks were conducted for culture priming, the mouse tracking method was used to explore response dynamics of moral decision processes, while judging appropriateness of interventions in moral dilemmas. In Study 2, in a condition, in which the small number of victims were focused upon, there were more maximal deviations and higher Xflips in the individualism priming group than in the collectivism priming group, which showed that the participants in the individualism condition had more deliberative processes before choosing their answers between utilitarianism and deontology. In addition, the participants in the individualism priming condition showed more maximal deviations in the mouse trajectories regarding ingroup related interventions in moral dilemmas than those in the collectivism priming condition. These results implicated the possibilities that the automatic emotional process and the controlled deliberative process in moral decision making might interact with cultural dispositions of the individuals and the focus of situations.

keywords: 문화성향, 개인중심, 집단중심, 윤리적 의사결정, 마우스궤적, culture, individualism, collectivism, moral decision

참고문헌

김정식, 김완석 (2007). 이타행동의 유발요인으로서 정서전염: 문화변인의 조절효과. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 13, 55-76.

이재식 (2013). 위험 운전상황에서 운전자의 문화성향에 따른 귀인양식의 차이: 운전 시뮬레이션 연구. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 19, 368-388.

이재호, 조긍호 (2014). 정치성향에 따른 도덕판단기준의 차이. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 28, 1-26.

조긍호, 김은진 (2001). 문화성향과 동조행동. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 15, 139-165.

조긍호, 김지연, 최경순 (2009). 문화성향과 분노통제: 분노 수준과 공감의 매개효과를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 23, 69-90.

Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Tröschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014-1027.

Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclination in moral decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 216-235.

Custers, R., & Aarts, H. (2010). The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science, 329, 47-50.

Custers, R., Maas, M., Wildenbeest, M., & Aarts, H. (2008). Nonconscious goal pursuit and the surmounting of social and physical obstacles. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1013-1022.

10.

Dale, R., Kehoe, C. E., & Spivey, M. J. (2007). Graded motor responses in the time course of categorizing atypical exemplars. Memory & Cognition, 35, 15-28.

11.

Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2009). Motions of the hand expose the partial and the parallel activation of stereotypes. Psychological Science, 20, 1183-1188.

12.

Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse- racking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 226-241.

13.

Greene, D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgement. Science, 293, 2105-2108.

14.

Greene, J. D. (2003). From neural is to moral ought: What are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, 847-850.

15.

Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144-1155.

16.

Greene, J. D. (2009). Dual-Process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 581-584.

17.

Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002.

18.

Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116.

19.

Koenigs, M., Young, L., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Cushman, F., Hauser, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements. Nature, 446, 908-911.

20.

Koop, G. J. (2013). An assessment of the temporal dynamics of moral decisions. Judgement and Decision Making, 8, 527-539.

21.

Lau, Y. L., Cameron, C. A., Chieh, K. M., O’Leary, J., Fu, G., & Lee, K. (2012). Cultural differences in moral justifications enhance understanding of Chinese and Canadian children’s moral decisions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1-17.

22.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224- 253.

23.

Mendez, M. F. (2009). The neurobiology of moral behavior: Review and neuropsychiatric implications. CNS Spectrums, 14, 608-620.

24.

Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311- 342.

25.

Sassenberg, K., & Moscowitz, G. B. (2005). Don't stereotype, think different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 506-514.

26.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.

27.

Shah, J. Y. (2003). Automatic for the people: How representations of significant others implicitly affect goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 661-681.

28.

Shiv, B., & Fedorikhin, A. (1999). Heart and mind in conflict: The interplay of affect and cognition in consumer decision making. Journal of consumer Research, 26, 278-292.

29.

Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.

30.

Suh, E. M., Diener, E., & Updegraff, J. A. (2008). From culture to priming conditions: Self- construal influences life satisfaction judgement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 3-15.

31.

Waldmann, M. R., & Dieterich, J. H. (2007). Throwing a bomb on a person versus throwing a person on a bomb: Intervention Myopia in moral intuitions. Psychological Science, 18, 247-253.

32.

Young, L., & Durwin, A. J. (2013). Moral realism as moral motivation: The impact of meta- ethics on everyday decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 302-306.

33.

Yu, Z., Wang, F., Wang, D., & Bastin, M. (2012). Beyond reaction times: Incorporating mouse-tracking measures into the implicit association test to examine its underlying process. Social Cognition, 30, 289-306.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.21 No.1

문화성향은 윤리적 의사결정의 과정에 영향을 주는가?

Individualism and collectivism in ethical decision making

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지 : 문화 및 사회문제