바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

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

ISSN : 1229-067X

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.36 No.1

Citation Share

The Difference of Social and Cognitive Representation between ‘I’ and ‘We’

Korean Journal of Psychology: General / Korean Journal of Psychology: General, (P)1229-067X; (E)2734-1127
2017, v.36 no.1, pp.137-160
https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2017.03.36.1.137

(2017). The Difference of Social and Cognitive Representation between ‘I’ and ‘We’. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 36(1), 137-160, https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2017.03.36.1.137

Abstract

Three experiments were conducted to explore the interaction of pronoun’s number (singular and plural), pronoun’s person (first and third), and emotional evaluation (positive and negative) using time-course approach (e.g. SOA 150ms and 1000ms) and primed naming task. In Experiment 1, participants were presented each pronoun as primes at SOA 150ms and were asked to response at emotional words which were differed in emotional attributes. The results showed that the main effects of pronoun’ number, pronoun’s person and emotional words were found and the interaction effects of pronoun’s person and emotional words were also found. The interaction effects was obtained by the primed effect of first person pronoun’s (‘I’ and ‘we’) positive evaluation. In Experiment 2, participants were presented each pronoun as primes at SOA 1000ms and were asked to response at emotional words which were differed in emotional attributes. The effects of any variables were not found. In Experiment 3, participants were presented second-person singular pronouns and all plural pronouns as primes at SOA 150ms and were asked to response at emotional words which were differed in emotional attributes. The results showed that the effects of emotional words were found only at first-person plural pronoun ‘we’. These results showed that the first-person singular pronoun ‘I’ and first-person plural pronoun ‘we’ were more primed at positive words than negative words. These results were discussed from a point of view of multiple level representations of social cognition.

keywords
pronoun, priming effect, social cognition, emotional evaluation, naming task, 대명사, 점화효과, 사회 인지, 정서적 평가, 명명과제

Reference

1.

김정남 (2003). 한국어 대명사 ‘우리’의 의미와용법. 한국어 의미학, 13, 257-274.

2.

김한샘 (2005). 현대 국어 사용 빈도 조사 2. 서울: 국립국어원.

3.

이재호 (2006). 성별 고정관념의 암묵적 표상과 자동적 점화. 한국심리학회지: 여성, 11, 41-61.

4.

이재호 (2012). 대명사 ‘나’와 ‘너’의 사회 인지적 표상 차이. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 31, 261-278.

5.

이재호 (2015). 대명사의 성별단서에 담긴 사회인지적 표상. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 34, 87-107.

6.

이재호, 김성일 (1998). 언어 이해과정의 연구방법. 이정모, 이재호 (공편), 인지심리학의제 문제 Ⅱ: 언어와 인지 (155-182쪽). 서울: 학지사.

7.

이재호, 이정모 (2000). 개념 지식의 유형에 따른 표상 차이: 범주와 각본의 위계성과전형성 비교. 인지과학, 11, 73-81.

8.

최상진, 김기범 (1999). 한국인의 self의 특성:서구의 self 개념과 대비를 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 13, 275-292.

9.

Balota, D. A., & Lorch, R. F. (1986). Depth of automatic spreading activation: Mediated priming effects in pronunciation but not in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 336-345. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.12.3.336

10.

Banaji, M., & Hardin, C. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136-141.

11.

Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C. (1996). The automatic evaluation effect:Unconditionally automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 104-128.

12.

Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1142-1163.

13.

Bless, H., & Burger, A. M. (2016). Assimilation and contrast in social priming. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 26-31.

14.

Brewer, M. B., (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.

15.

Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. American Psychologist, 62, 728-738. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.728

16.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.

17.

Cadinu, M. R., & Rothbart, M. (1996). Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 661-677. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.661

18.

Cadinu, M. R., & De Amicis, L. (1999). The relationship between the self and the ingroup:When having a common conception helps. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 58, 226-232. doi:10.1024//1421-0185.58.4.226

19.

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. E. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-426.

20.

Cvencek, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2012). Balanced identity theory: Evidence for implicit consistency in social cognition. In B. Gawronski, & F. Strack (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A unifying concept in social psychology (pp. 157-177). New York: Guilford Press.

21.

De Houwer, J., Hermans, D., & Spruyt, A. (2001). Affective priming of pronunciation reponses: Effects of target degradation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 85-91.

22.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice:Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

23.

Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.

24.

Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229-238.

25.

Frings, C., & Wentura, D. (2014). Self-priorization processes in action and perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1737-1740. doi:10.1037/a0037376

26.

Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., Vevea, J. L., & Iuzzini, J. (2002). The “I,” the “we,” and the “when”:A meta-analysis of motivational primacy in self-definition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 574-91.

27.

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). ‘I’ value freedom, but ‘we’ value relationships:Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321-326.

28.

Glaser, J., & Banaji, M.. R. (1999). When fair is foul and foul is fair: Reverse priming in automatic evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 669-687.

29.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitude, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.

30.

Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). An unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25.

31.

Hermans, D., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (2001). A time course analysis of the affective priming effect. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 143-166.

32.

Herring, D. R., White, K. R., Jabeen, L. N., Hinojos, M., Terrazas, G., Reyes, S. M., & ... Crites, S. J. (2013). On the automatic activation of attitudes: A quarter century of evaluative priming research. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1062-1089. doi:10.1037/a0031309

33.

Hogg, M. A., & Williams, K. D. (2000). From I to we: Social identity and the collective self. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 81-97.

34.

Holtgraves, T. M., & Kashima, Y. (2008). Language, meaning, and social cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 73-94.

35.

Housley, M. K., Claypool, H. M., Garcia-Marques, T., & Mackie, D. M. (2010). “We” are familiar but “it” is not: Ingroup pronouns trigger feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 114-119.

36.

Klauer, K. C., Rossnagel, C., & Musch, J. (1997). List-context effects in evaluative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 246-255.

37.

Karpinski, A. (2004). Measuring self-esteem using the Implicit Association Test: The role of the other. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 22-34.

38.

Lee, J-M., & Lee, J-H. (2005). Contrast information processing in discourse comprehension. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 16, 69-92.

39.

Leonardelli, G., J., & Toh, S. M. (2015). Social categorization in intergroup contexts: Three kinds of self-categorization. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 69-87, doi:10.1111/spc3.12150

40.

Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93-120.

41.

Musch, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). The psychology of evaluation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

42.

Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226-254.

43.

Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner &G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

44.

Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., & Tyler, R. B. (1990). Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 475-486.

45.

Rudman, L. Greenwald, A., & McGhee, D. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1164-1178.

46.

Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1270-1281.

47.

Sendén, M. G., Lindholm, T., & Sikström, S. (2014). Evaluations of “I” and “We” differ between contexts, but “They” are always worse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 49-67.

48.

Slatcher, R. B., Vazire, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Am “I” more important than “we”? Couples’ word use in instant messages. Personal Relationships, 15, 407-424.

49.

Smolensky, P. (1988). On the proper treatment of connectionism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 1-74.

50.

Spruyt, A., Hermans, D., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (2004). Non-associative semantic priming:Episodic affective priming of naming responses. Acta Psychologica, 116, 39-54.

51.

Sui, J., He, X., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Perceptual effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1105-1117. doi:10.1037/a0029792

52.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Korean Journal of Psychology: General

e-Submission OA Policy