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

  • ENGLISH
  • P-ISSN1229-067X
  • E-ISSN2734-1127
  • KCI

ISSN : 1229-067X

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.31 No.3

Citation Share

비현실적 낙관주의에서 지각된 통제성과 사건 빈도의 상호작용효과: 직접 대 간접 측정방법

Interaction Effect of Perceived Controllability and Event Frequency on Unrealistic Optimism: Direct versus Indirect Measures

한국심리학회지: 일반 / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2012, v.31 no.3, pp.809-823
이나경 (이화여자대학교)
이나경. (2012). 비현실적 낙관주의에서 지각된 통제성과 사건 빈도의 상호작용효과: 직접 대 간접 측정방법. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 31(3), 809-823.

초록

위험에 대하여 다른 사람들에 비해 자신의 발생가능성을 낮게 지각하는 현상이 비현실적 낙관주의이다. 본 연구는 설문지를 사용하여 직접과 간접방법으로 측정한 비현실적 낙관주의에서 지각된 통제성과 사건 빈도 간의 상호작용효과를 검증하는 두 개의 실험을 수행하였다. 직접방법에서는 빈도가 높은 사건보다 낮은 사건에서 비현실적 낙관주의가 증가하는 빈도 효과가 발생하고, 지각된 통제성과 사건 빈도 간의 상호작용효과는 유의미하지 않아서 자기중심성 가설이 지지되었다. 간접방법의 경우, 낮은 통제성 사건에서는 자기중심성 가설의 예측대로 빈도 효과가 사라졌지만, 높은 통제성 사건에서는 낮은 빈도 사건보다 높은 빈도 사건에서 비현실적 낙관주의가 증가하는 역빈도 효과가 발견되었다. 이 역빈도 효과는 자신의 발생가능성은 사건 빈도에 상관없이 일정하게 낮게 평가하면서, 다른 사람의 발생가능성은 낮은 빈도에서는 낮게, 높은 빈도에서는 높게 평가하는 것 때문에 발생하고 있었다. 따라서 통제할 수 있다고 지각되는 사건에서 자신의 통제능력에 대한 과확신이 간접방법의 비현실적 낙관주의에서 역빈도 효과를 일으킨다고 할 수 있다. 위험 지각과 비현실적 낙관주의 연구에서 역빈도 효과의 의미에 대해 논의하였다.

keywords
비현실적 낙관주의, 역빈도 효과, 직접과 간접방법, 지각된 통제성, 사건 빈도, 자기중심성, 위험 사건, Unrealistic optimism, opposite event frequency effect, direct and indirect measures, perceived controllability, event frequency, egocentrism, risky events

Abstract

Unrealistic optimism refers to people's tendency to consistently believe that risky events are less likely to happen to themselves than to others. Two experimental studies investigated the interaction between perceived controllability and event frequency of this unrealistic optimism by measuring it directly and indirectly using questionnaires. When using the direct method, unrealistic optimism was greater when an event frequency was low rather than high, and the interaction between perceived controllability and event frequency was not significant, which is consistent with the egocentrism account. On the other hand, when using the indirect method, the event frequency interacted with the perceived controllability. For uncontrollable events, the event frequency effect disappeared as the egocentrism account predicted, but for controllable events an opposite event frequency effect was found, which was that a greater rate of unrealistic optimism occurred when an event absolute frequency was high rather than low. This opposite event frequency effect occurred because the event frequency was considered lower for the subjects’ own likelihood estimates than others. Therefore, a kind of overconfidence of the subjects’ own control over risky events seems to produce the opposite event frequency effect on the unrealistic optimism when measuring with the indirect method. The importance of the opposite event frequency effect in risk perception and research of unrealistic optimism was discussed.

keywords
비현실적 낙관주의, 역빈도 효과, 직접과 간접방법, 지각된 통제성, 사건 빈도, 자기중심성, 위험 사건, Unrealistic optimism, opposite event frequency effect, direct and indirect measures, perceived controllability, event frequency, egocentrism, risky events

참고문헌

1.

이나경 (2011). 위험 사건에 대한 비현실적 낙관주의: 직접 대 간접 측정방법과 사건 빈도 효과. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 30(3), 647-662.

2.

이나경, 임혜숙, 이영애 (2008). 세계관과 위험 지각에서 전문가와 일반인의 차이: 문화이론 다시보기. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 27(3), 635-651.

3.

Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1621-1630.

4.

Aucote, H. M., & Gold, R. S. (2005). Non- equivalence of direct and indirect measures of unrealistic optimism. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 10, 194-201.

5.

Baumeister, R. F., (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 163-176.

6.

Blanton, H., Axsom, D., McClive, K., & Price, S. (2001). Pessimistic bias in comparative evaluations: A case of perceived invulnerability to the effects of negative life events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1627-1636.

7.

Chambers, J., & Suls, J. (2007). The role of egocentrism and focalism in the emotion intensity bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 618-625.

8.

Chambers, J., & Windschitl, P. D. (2004). Biases in social comparative judgments: The role of nonmotivated factors in above-average and comparative-optimism effects. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 813-838.

9.

Chambers, J., Windschitl, P. D., & Suls, J. (2003). Egocentrism, event frequency, and comparative optimism: When what happens frequently is “more likely to happen to me.” Personality and social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1343-1356.

10.

Eiser, J. R., Pahl, S., & Prins, Y. R. A. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and the direction of self-other comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 77-84.

11.

Harris, P., Griffin, D. W., & Murray, S. (2008). Testing the limits of optimistic bias: Event and person moderators in a multilevel framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1225-1237.

12.

Heine, S. J., & Hamamura, T. (2007). In search of Est Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 4-27.

13.

Helweg-Larsen, M., & Shepperd, J. A. (2001). Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target estimates? A review of the literature. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 74-95.

14.

Klar, Y., & Giladi, E. E. (1999). Are most people happier than their peers, or are they just happy? Personality and social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 585-594.

15.

Klar, Y., Medding, A., Sarel, D. (1996). Nonunique invulnerability: Singular versus distributional probabilities and unrealistic optimism in comparative risk judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 67, 229-245.

16.

Klein, C. T. F., & Helweg-Larsen, M. (2002). Perceived control and the optimistic Bias: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Health, 17, 437-446.

17.

Kruger, J. (1999). Lake Wobegon be gone! The “below average effect” and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 221-232.

18.

Kruger, J., & Burrus, J. (2004). Egocentrism and focalism in unrealistic optimism (and pessimism). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 332-340.

19.

Price, P. C., Pentecost, H. C., & Voth, R. M. (2002). Perceived event frequency and the optimistic bias: Evidence for a two-process model of personal risk judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 242-252.

20.

Rose, J. P., & Windschitl, P. D. (2008). How egocentrism and optimism change in response to feedback in repeated competitions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 210-220.

21.

Rose, J. P., Endo, Y., Windschitl, P. D., & Suls, J. (2008). Cultural differences in unrealistic optimism and pessimism: The role of egocentrism and direct versus indirect comparison measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1236-1248.

22.

Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.

23.

Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3, 431-457.

24.

Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 481-500.

25.

Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 1-8.

한국심리학회지: 일반

논문 투고 OA 정책