바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1229-0653

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.21 No.2
Citation Share

집단원 구성 및 개인 기여의 도구성이 집단에서 고정관념 표적의 수행에 미치는 영향

Effect of Group Composition and Instrumentality of Individual Contribution on the Performance of Stereotype Targets in Groups

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격 / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2007, v.21 no.2, pp.107-121
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2007.21.2.008
정극주 (성균관대학교)
최훈석 (성균관대학교)
정극주, & 최훈석. (2007). 집단원 구성 및 개인 기여의 도구성이 집단에서 고정관념 표적의 수행에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격, 21(2), 107-121, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2007.21.2.008
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

집단에서 과제수행과 관련하여 부적으로 고정관념화된 표적 구성원의 수행은 집단원 구성과 개인 기여의 도구성에 따라서 달리 나타나리라고 가정하고 이를 실험 연구를 통해서 검증했다. 여성에게 부적 고정관념이 연합된 근력 과제를 이용하여 실험한 결과, 가설과 일관되게 혼성 집단보다 동성 집단에서 고정관념 표적인 여성 구성원의 수행이 우수했다. 또한 가설과 일관되게 개인 기여의 도구성이 낮은 조건보다 높은 조건에서 여성 구성원의 수행이 우수했다. 그러나 두 변인 간의 상호작용은 가설과 달리 개인 기여의 도구성이 높은 조건에서만 집단원 구성에 따른 차이가 발견되었다. 2차 과제로 실시한 인지과제에서도 근력 과제와 유사한 결과가 나타났다. 본 연구의 시사점을 집단원 구성, 고정관념 위협 및 집단에서의 동기 이득과 관련지어 논의하고 장래 연구의 방향을 제시했다.

keywords
Group composition, Instrumentality, Stereotype threat, Motivation gain, 집단원 구성, 개인 기여의 도구성, 고정관념 위협, 동기 이득, Group composition, Instrumentality, Stereotype threat, Motivation gain

Abstract

The present study examined how group composition and instrumentality of individual contribution to a group task affect the performance of stereotype targets in groups. The composition of groups was manipulated by assigning female participants to either a same-sex group (with one female confederate) or a mixed-sex group (with one male confederate). Instrumentality of individual contribution was manipulated by leading the female participants to believe that their own performance would determine either 70% or 30% of group performance. Drawing on previous research on stereotype threat, the present study hypothesized that female participants would perform better in the same-sex condition than in the mixed-sex condition. In addition, it was hypothesized that female participants would perform better in the high instrumentality condition than in the low instrumentality condition. Using a handgrip task, the present study found supportive evidence for the two predicted main effect hypotheses. However, unlike the predicted interaction effect, female participants performed better in the same-sex condition than in the mixed-sex condition when the perceived instrumentality of individual contribution was high. In contrast, group composition did not have a significant effect when the perceived instrumentality was low. These findings were interpreted in terms of motivation gain and social loafing among females in a stereotype threat situation. Implications of the study and future directions are discussed.

keywords
Group composition, Instrumentality, Stereotype threat, Motivation gain, 집단원 구성, 개인 기여의 도구성, 고정관념 위협, 동기 이득, Group composition, Instrumentality, Stereotype threat, Motivation gain

참고문헌

1.

최훈석, 정극주 (2005). 고정관념 위협과 집단에서의 동기 이득. 미발표논문. 성균관대학교.

2.

Ambady, N., Paik, S. K., Steele, J., Owen-Smith, A., & Mitchell J. P. (2004). Deflecting negative self- relevant stereotype activation: The effects of individ- ualization. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 40, 401-408.

3.

Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stere- otype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 35, 29-46.

4.

Aronson, J., Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (1998). Ster- eotype threat and the academic underperformance of minorities and women. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 83- 103). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

5.

Ben-Zeev, T., Fein, S., & Inzlicht, M. (2005). Arousal and stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 41, 174-181.

6.

Choi, H-S., & Thompson, L. L. (2006). Membership change in groups: Implications for group creativity. In L. Thompson & H-S. Choi (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizational teams (pp. 87-108). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

7.

Clement, D., & Schiereck, H. (1973). Sex composition and group performance in a signal detection task. Memory and Cognition, 1, 251-255.

8.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception- behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 1-40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

9.

Green, R. G. (1991). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 377-399.

10.

Hart, J. W., Bridgett, D. J., & Karau, S. J. (2001). Coworker ability and effort as determinants of indi- vidual effort on a collective task. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 181-190.

11.

Herschel, R. (1994). The impact of varying gender com- position on group brainstorming performance in a GDSS environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 209-222.

12.

Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messė, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 580-601.

13.

Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intel- lectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365- 371.

14.

Karau, S. J., & Hart, J. W. (1998). Group cohesiveness and social loafing: Effect of a social interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 185-191.

15.

Karau S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 681-706.

16.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 1, 156-168.

17.

Kent, R., & McGrath, J. (1969). Task and group charac- teristics as factors affecting group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 429-440.

18.

Kerr, N. L. (2001). Social loafing and social striving: Motivational processes in task performing groups. In J. Forgas, K. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), The social mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Kerr, N. L., & MacCoun, R. J. (1984). Group sex composition and member task motivation Ⅱ: Effect of relative task ability. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 255-271.

20.

Kerr, N. L., & Sullaway, M. E. (1983). Group sex com- position and member task motivation. Sex Roles, 9, 403-417.

21.

Larwood, K., & O'Carroll, & M., Logan, J. (1977). Sex role as a mediator of achievement in task perfor- mance. Sex Roles, 3, 111-116.

22.

Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Standford Univer- sity Press.

23.

Marx, D., Brown, J., & Steele, C. M. (1999). Allport’s legacy and the situational press of stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 491-502.

24.

Marx, D. M., & Stapel, D. A. (2006)a. It depends on your perspective: The role of self-relevancein stereotype-based underperformance. Journal of Exper- imental Social Psychology, 42, 768-775.

25.

Marx, D. M., & Stapel, D. A. (2006)b. Distinguishing stereotype threat from priming effects: On the role of the social self and threat-based concerns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 243-254.

26.

Messé L. A., Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., Lount, R. B., & Park, E. S. (2002). Knowledge of partner's ability as a moderator of group motivation gains: An exploration of the Köhler discrepancy effect. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 82, 935-946.

27.

Miliken, J. Bartel, C. A., & Kurzberg, T. (2003) Diversity and creativity in work groups, A dynamic perspec- tive on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 32-62). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

28.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. In E. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 9, pp. 237-280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

29.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2003). Group com- position: Explaining similarities and differences among group members. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psy- chology (pp. 367-380). London: Sage.

30.

Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & Wingert, M. L. (1996). Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 11- 35) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

31.

Myaskovsky L., Unikel E., & Dew M. A. (2005). Effects of gender diversity on performance and interpersonal behavior in small work groups. Sex roles, 52, 645-657.

32.

Neale, M. A., Mannix, E. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (Eds). (1998). Research on managing groups and teams: Composition. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

33.

Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stere- otype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80-83.

34.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4- 28.

35.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Ameri- can Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

36.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Contending with a stereotype: African-American intellectual test performance and stereotype threat. Journal of Per- sonality and social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

37.

Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with bias: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 277-341) San Diego: Academic Press.

38.

Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213-1227.

39.

Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Köhler effect: Toward

40.

Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Köhler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In E. Witte & J. Davis (Eds), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 2, pp. 37-64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

41.

Wheeler, S. C., Jarvis, W. B., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Think unto others: The self-destructive impact of negative stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 173-180.

42.

Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Group contact and self focused attention. In P. Paulus (Eds.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 198-208). HIllsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

43.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Test anxiety in ele- mentary and secondary school students. Educational Psychologist, 24, 159-183.

44.

Williams, K. D., Harkins, S. G., & Karau, S. J. (2003). Social performance. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.). The Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 328-346). London: Sage Publications.

45.

Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effect of expectations of coworker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570-581.

46.

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

47.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Compresence. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 35-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

한국심리학회지: 사회 및 성격

논문 투고 OA 정책