Korean Journal of Psychology: General
- Apply for Authority
- P-ISSN1229-067X
- E-ISSN2734-1127
- KCI
ISSN : 1229-067X
Browse Articles
- 2024 (Vol.43)
- 2023 (Vol.42)
- 2022 (Vol.41)
- 2021 (Vol.40)
- 2020 (Vol.39)
- 2019 (Vol.38)
- 2018 (Vol.37)
- 2017 (Vol.36)
- 2016 (Vol.35)
- 2015 (Vol.34)
- 2014 (Vol.33)
- 2013 (Vol.32)
- 2012 (Vol.31)
- 2011 (Vol.30)
- 2010 (Vol.29)
- 2009 (Vol.28)
- 2008 (Vol.27)
- 2007 (Vol.26)
- 2006 (Vol.25)
- 2005 (Vol.24)
- 2004 (Vol.23)
- 2003 (Vol.22)
- 2002 (Vol.21)
- 2001 (Vol.20)
- 2000 (Vol.19)
- 1999 (Vol.18)
- 1998 (Vol.17)
- 1997 (Vol.16)
- 1996 (Vol.15)
- 1995 (Vol.14)
- 1994 (Vol.13)
- 1993 (Vol.12)
- 1992 (Vol.11)
- 1991 (Vol.10)
- 1990 (Vol.9)
- 1989 (Vol.8)
- 1988 (Vol.7)
- 1987 (Vol.6)
- 1986 (Vol.5)
- 1985 (Vol.5)
- 1984 (Vol.4)
- 1983 (Vol.4)
- 1982 (Vol.3)
- 1981 (Vol.3)
- 1980 (Vol.3)
- 1979 (Vol.2)
- 1976 (Vol.2)
- 1974 (Vol.2)
- 1971 (Vol.1)
- 1970 (Vol.1)
- 1969 (Vol.1)
- 1968 (Vol.1)
Vol.1 No.2
Abstract
A set of alternative hypotheses in a group pressure situation was testified experimentally. The hypotheses were as follows: Hypothesis I. If the group pressure exerts variable effects in relation with the difficulty of task in conformity situation, that is, easy task is less susceptible to the group pressure and difficult one more, then the confidence of the task will be a variable to account for the conforming behavior. Hypothesis II. If the hypothesis I is not proved, that is, the effect of group pressure is constant regardless of the difficulty of the task in conformity situation, confidence of the task could not account for the effect of group pressure, and a variable other than confidence should be assumed. Seventeen stimuli were selected from five types of tasks; verbal analogy, arithmetic reasoning, line, vocabulary, antonym and synonym. Each stimulus had response alternatives of two, and the difficulty level of the stimuli was ranged from 0% to 43.9 %. One hundred and twenty male students were tested in modified Crutchfield's conformity apparatus with a group of five at a time. Followings were the main findings. 1. The effect of group pressure was constant regardless of the difficulty of the task. The rank order correlation of the total conformity level and difficulty of the task was .94. The result seemed to be enough to reject Hypothesis I. 2. There seemed to be a indication of the selective effect of group pressure with the type of stimulus items. 3. The number of group pressure seemd to have interaction with the difficulty of the task, that is, when the difficulty of the task were extremely high, the amount of conformity decreases with more than three times of group pressure.
Abstract
The relative distance, RD, which was defined as a function of the strength of primary associate and the gradient factor of successive association-hierarchy, was proposed to reflect meaningfulness of a word. Immediate free recall of words was measured. In experiment I, in which the primary strength was constant and the RD varied, showed a significantly greater amount of recall in the near RD lists than in the remote ones. Experiment II also revealed the RD effect upon free recall of words in which primary strength was varied and the Noble's m was held constant. In experiment III, free recall order of paired-associate lists was examined, and recall of near items was prior to that of remote items regardless of the presentation order of remote or near RD. An item's availability as a function of RD and its role in the recall process of item pairs were discussed.
Abstract
In the present study the effect of background .on the evaluations of 15 quantitative common words and phrases were investigated with 12 background numbers. One hundred high school boys were asked to estimate the stimulus words and phrases in each background, and followings are the main findings; 1. In general, the meaning of the stimulus words and phrases decreased, as the background increased (nine out of 15). 2. In six words, the meaning was constant over a fairly wide range of background and these words and phrases were not only those, close to the extreme evaluations, but also those situated near the AL in the stimulus series of each background. This is contrary to the expectation of Hselson et al. (1957).