Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology
- Apply for Authority
- P-ISSN1229-0653
- KCI
ISSN : 1229-0653
Browse Articles
- 2024 (Vol.38)
- 2023 (Vol.37)
- 2022 (Vol.36)
- 2021 (Vol.35)
- 2020 (Vol.34)
- 2019 (Vol.33)
- 2018 (Vol.32)
- 2017 (Vol.31)
- 2016 (Vol.30)
- 2015 (Vol.29)
- 2014 (Vol.28)
- 2013 (Vol.27)
- 2012 (Vol.26)
- 2011 (Vol.25)
- 2010 (Vol.24)
- 2009 (Vol.23)
- 2008 (Vol.22)
- 2007 (Vol.21)
- 2006 (Vol.20)
- 2005 (Vol.19)
- 2004 (Vol.18)
- 2003 (Vol.17)
- 2002 (Vol.16)
- 2001 (Vol.15)
- 2000 (Vol.14)
- 1999 (Vol.13)
- 1998 (Vol.12)
- 1997 (Vol.11)
- 1996 (Vol.10)
- 1995 (Vol.9)
- 1994 (Vol.8)
- 1993 (Vol.7)
- 1992 (Vol.6)
- 1991 (Vol.6)
- 1990 (Vol.5)
- 1989 (Vol.4)
- 1988 (Vol.4)
- 1987 (Vol.3)
- 1986 (Vol.3)
- 1985 (Vol.2)
- 1984 (Vol.2)
- 1983 (Vol.1)
- 1982 (Vol.1)
Vol.1 No.1
Abstract
The theoretical background on personal space behavior is reviewed from the viewpoints of ethology, anthropology, and personality/ social psychology. The body-boundary system, territoriality, concentric circle, nonconcentric fluctuating globes, and situationally-evoked oscillating ring are considered as the concept of personal space. In the second part, the current methodology of personal space measurement is discussed. The specific methods are classified as follows : field/ real life/ natural observation, laboratory/ experimental manipulation, simulation, and paper-and-pencil techniques. In addition, the necessity of new methods for mare objective and scientific measurement is proposed.
Abstract
This paper attempts to indicate the problems in the Heider's and Newcomb's theories of interpersonal balance, propose the alternative interpretations of those problems, and propose a new theortical model of interpersonal balance. It was proposed that the responses to the interpersonal situations had to be classified as cognitive, affective and conative or behaviroal responses. Secondly, it was indicated that positive and negative relations have different dynamic characteristics and weights in the interpersonal balance. Thirdly, it was proposed that perceiver have different perspectives on the P/O, PIX and O/X relations and, therefore, the balance effect must be different on these relations. Lastly, it was indicated that balance effect had a weak power on the response to the interpersonal situations. A new theoretical model was proposed to correct the problems of balance theory and to provide a inclusive framework.
Abstract
In the studies of implicit personality theory, it was found that people evaluated others in terms of their social and their intellectual qualities. In a later study, Hamilton and Fallot (1974) found that presenting subjects with social attributes tended to affect judgements of a stimulus person's likability, whereas presenting them with intellectual attributes affected respect for the stimulus person. The respect judgement of the Hamilton and Fallot study was achieved through objective evaluation for the stimulus person, whereas the likability judgement was achieved through subjective evaluation for the stimulus person. In this respect, the respect judgement and the likability judgement of their study were identical with the author's (1974, 1976, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c) favorableness and likableness impression of the person respectively. From this inference, this study was designed to that the hypothesis that the intellectual evaluation attributes would affect subject's favorableness impression for the stimulus person, while the social evaluation attributes would affect their likableness impression for him. To test this hypothesis, 12 sets of personality trait adjectives (all sets were consisted of 4 adjectives) were constructed as the stimulus person in the 4 categories: 3 positive-intellectual attributes sets, 3 positive-social attributes sets, 3 negative-intellectual attributes sets, and 3 negative-social attributes sets. Subjects were 40 sophormores of CNU and they were divided into 2 groups consisted of 20 persons each (favorableness impression group and likableness impression group). The subjects of the faborableness impression group were asked to rate each of the stimulus person in terms of objective goodness or badness, and the subjects of the likableness impression group evaluated how much they would like or dislike each of the stimulus person subjectively, In both cases, the 41 point scale with 0 midpoint was used. The results were as follows: 1) In the positive words sets, the stimulus person characterized by intellectual qualities was rated higher than the stimulus person characterized by social qualities in the favorableness impression, but in the likableness impression, the latter was rated higher than the former: 2) In the negative words sets, the stimulus person characterized by intellectual qualities was evaluated lower than the stimulus person characterized by social qualities in the favorableness impression, whereas in the likableness impression, the latter was evaluated lower than the former. These results were discussed as supporting the hypothesis of this study. Therefore, in this study, it was concluded that the intellectual qualities of the stimulus person acted as the cue information of the objective favorableness impression (god-bad dimension) for him, while the soical qualities of the stimulus person acted as the cue information of the subjective likableness impression (like-dislike dimension) for him.
Abstract
The individual difference approach to the issue of attitude-behavior consistency was examined in light of the intra-individual variability of the attitude. It was predicted that individuals whose attitudes have been relatively invariant (low intra-attitude variability) would be predicted well from their attitudes. In the first session, subjects completed the controled association of the attitude objects. Here, subjects' attitude(summation of the beliefs aroused from controled association) and intra-attitudinal variability (standard deviation of the beliefs aroused from controled association) were computed by Fishbein's attitude formulation. In the second session approximately 2 weeks later, several measures of subjects' reports of behaviors were obtained. Attitude-behavior correlations were then computed within each of both groups of subjects produced by a low-high intra-attitude variability. As predicted, only subject with low intra-attitude variability manifested high attitude-behavior correlation across all behavioral measures. The implications of the results for the individual difference variables and for the attitude-behavior consistency controversy were discussed.
Abstract
In this study it was assumed that the effect of attitude upon behavior is determined by interaction between the pressure of nonattitudinal variables which is discrepant with attitude and the attitude strength which resists against the pressure of nonattitudinal variables so that the behavior is consistant with the attitude. Attitude strength was considered as the individual's convingsness about his attitude resulted from intra-attitude variability of the attitude structure. The smaller the intra-attitude variability the more the individual's convingsness about his own attitude, and in turn the more is the behavior consistant with the attitude. And it was also assumed that attitude strength is different attribute of attitude from affective extremness which has been defined as attitude operationally, because even same attitude values can lave different intra-attitude variability. Three hypotheses were tested: First, the more the intra-attitude variability the more the error of predicted behavior from the attitude. Second, even though attitudes have same values, the more the intra-attitude variability, the more the error of predicted behavior from the attitude. Third, attitude extremness which is independant from intra-attitude variability will not correlate with the error of predicted behavior from attitude. This hypothesis implies that attitude extremness by itself is not an determinant of the error of the behavior prediction, whereas attitude strength determine the prediction error. This study performed a serial repeated measure of attitude, intra-attitude variability and behavior intention. To test above hypotheses, it was calculated correlation of intra-attitude variability with error of predicted behavior intention from attitude, partial correlation intra-attitude variability with the error of predicted behavior intention from attitude controlling for attitude extremness, and correlation of attitude extremness with error of the predicted behavior. Supporting all hypotheses, the results showed that all the correlations but last one were positive and statistically significant. The results illustrate that attitude strength which can be inferred from intra-attitude variability of attitude structure is a different attribute of attitude from attitude extremness and that behavior-predictability of attitude can be differentiated and predicted by the intra-attitude variability.